99.9%

Nick has claimed repeatedly that the vertebrate fossil record comprises only 0.1% of the fossil record, meaning that the remaining 99.9% of the fossil record is for non-vertebrates.

I'm just wondering, Nick, where did you get that number?  Thin air?

Probably he got it from the same place he got 16%.

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

Hello?  Mr 99.9%?

maybe if you include coal and oil ...

__________________
"We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Where did *I* get it? I got it from the numbers of fossils as I recalled them from something I read (No, it wasn't a creationist site, and I even listed the data as I recalled it in my challenge -- 19-20 million fossils, about 300,000 of which are vertebrates). If you feel these numbers are inaccurate, go find some other numbers and disprove them. If I'm wrong, you should be able to find out pretty easily. But I find it difficult to imagine that I would be wrong. 95% of all known species TODAY are invertebrates, and as you go back in time (either from the perspective of evolution OR creation) you simply increase the number of plants and marine organisms leaving fossils behind. So you'll be hard pressed to disprove the number unless you can demonstrate that at some point in the past vertebrates comprised 95% of all species (good luck).

I did a search and found several creationist sites that confirm my rough percentages. Actually, the percentages listed here puts vertebrates at 0.0125%, which is lower than my estimate.

__________________
If you lived here you'd be home by now.

This might be a good place to start, but maybe not. I haven't looked at the data to see if it has numbers of fossils or what.

Fossil Record 2 Database

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/frwhole/FR2.html

__________________
If you lived here you'd be home by now.

You gotta love Nick's painstaking attention to detail.  I think that's what makes his arguments so effective. :rolleyes:

-brett

I think Nick has been brilliant and has shown considerable evidence against evolution. Keep up the good work Nick.

God Created everthing, he never said "I will evolutionize the Earth"

If the bible is correct, 10 or 12,000 years is sufficient to find fossils, missing links and transitional fossils are a good indication that evolution has not occured.

 

 

Sabbath, no offense is meant, but you aren't giving the impression that you've understood the technical issues here. Nick has yet to show a single piece of evidence against anything, except his own reading comprehension.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

Uhm... yes, 10 or 12,000 should be more than enough. But the theory of evolution has only been theorized for less than 200 hundred years. If you want to go farther, modern paleontology has a history of 3, maybe four hundred years.