The list of extinctions compared to the list of 'evolved' organisms

[Kirkwhisper]

Ex-evolutionist, former Cornell University professor, holder of 25 scientific patents and developer of the world renowed biolistic gene gun, Dr. J.C. Sanford made it clear that the rate of extinction in the world far exceeds the rate of the so-called 'evolution' of living organisms.


So lets compare the list of organisms that have become extinct to the list of plants and animals that have evolved:

Here is the list for extinctions recorded: The list 'evolved' organisms:
Contents

• 1 Extinct bird species
  • 1.1 Struthioniformes
  • 1.2 Anseriformes
  • 1.3 Galliformes
  • 1.4 Charadriiformes
  • 1.5 Gruiformes
  • 1.6 Podicipediformes
  • 1.7 Ciconiiformes
  • 1.8 Pelecaniformes
  • 1.9 Procellariiformes
  • 1.10 Sphenisciformes
  • 1.11 Columbiformes
  • 1.12 Psittaciformes
  • 1.13 Cuculiformes
  • 1.14 Falconiformes
  • 1.15 Strigiformes
  • 1.16 Caprimulgiformes
  • 1.17 Apodiformes
  • 1.18 Coraciiformes
  • 1.19 Piciformes
  • 1.20 Passeriformes
• 2 (Probably) Extinct subspecies of birds
  • 2.1 Struthioniformes
  • 2.2 Tinamiformes
  • 2.3 Anseriformes
  • 2.4 Galliformes
  • 2.5 Charadriiformes
  • 2.6 Gruiformes
  • 2.7 Ciconiiformes
  • 2.8 Pteroclidiformes
  • 2.9 Columbiformes
  • 2.10 Psittaciformes
  • 2.11 Cuculiformes
  • 2.12 Falconiformes
  • 2.13 Strigiformes
  • 2.14 Caprimulgiformes
  • 2.15 Apodiformes
  • 2.16 Coraciiformes
  • 2.17 Piciformes
  • 2.18 Passeriformes

Contents

• 1 Marsupials
• 2 Sirenians
• 3 Rodents
• 4 Lagomorphs
• 5 Proboscids
• 6 Soricimorphs
• 7 Bats
• 8 Cetaceans
• 9 Artiodactyls
• 10 Carnivores
• 11 Perissodactyls
• 12 See also
• 13 References

List of extinct mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


One can click this website to find out just how many there are in each category.

This list is made by observation. Would anyone care to fill in the list on the right? We are talking about organisms that MUST have evolved at a rate of growth and survival that is greater than the organisms that became extinct. That means that those organisms had to experience birth, growth, and allelic change on the same level as the ones that became extinct with the rate of evolution from one type of organism into another at a greater rate than that which killed off those nature did not 'select'. Otherwise, life on earth would have become entirely extinct thousands of years ago.

Secondly, if the neo-Darwinians claim a list of organisms that have changed on only the species level(minor changes) then they are cheating. My prediction here is that that is exactly what some of them will do. They will claim that minor changes within the same species were caused by natural selection that gave rise to the survival of the now still existing organisms. Oh? But why is the rate of extinction so much greater than the rate of evolution? Why is there a definite empirical list of extinctions but no such list of newly evolved organsms? Neo-Darwinists tell us that it takes so very long........for an organism to evolve and branch off into other organisms. But that very argument establishes our case for extinction.

We say that this is because the world is degenerating and not evolving. From an original perfection that God made, the world has, since the fall of man in sin been degenerating and extinction is one of the hallmarks of that eternal truth.

But let the critics call Dr. Sanford 'ignorant' or unqualified to speak on this subject as they have suggested that I am. Right.

 

[Assyrian]

You are certainly right about one thing. If extinctions have been going on at that rate for hundreds of million of years, then evolution would need to be running at the same rate to keep up. Do you have any evidence extinctions have been going on at that rate for hundreds of millions of years?

I had a look at the wiki lists of extinct species, it is odd, if this is your evidence for a constant extinction rate, that most of the extinctions listed are 19th and 20th century. It was only in 1796 that Georges Cuvier established that species could become extinct. If species had been dropping like flies for thousands of years at the rate they are now, surely somebody would have noticed?

 

[valkyree]

excellent post kirkwhisper

no assyrian - there is no evidence extinctions have been going on at that rate for hundreds of millions of years

there is however a great abundance of evidence that most of the animals and plants that have been buried and fossilized were buried rapidly by a lot of water

and when these rapid burials contain land animals and plants they often consist of many different types of animals and plants all tangled up and buried together after being tumbled and broken into many pieces

 

[Incariol]

Neither Kirkwhisper nor valkyree have any references backing either of their claims up, so I don't see the point of this thread.

 

[valkyree]

Neither Kirkwhisper nor valkyree have any references backing either of their claims up, so I don't see the point of this thread.

the sediments of the earth and the billions of plants and animals rapidly buried within them are my reference and I have been studying them for decades



powerful evidence for anyone who wants to take a look - every one on earth can find sediments without having to look very hard or very far - too bad most people don't have such an inclination

 

[TasManOfGod]

the sediments of the earth and the billions of plants and animals rapidly buried within them are my reference and I have been studying them for decades



powerful evidence for anyone who wants to take a look - every one on earth can find sediments without having to look very hard or very far - too bad most people don't have such an inclination

What and find that there was a world-wide flood. No way -think how non scientific that would be.

 

[valkyree]

What and find that there was a world-wide flood. No way -think how non scientific that would be.

wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of ''science'' now would we

geology professors would not get a dime of grant money if they wanted to study ''flood deposits'' - even though the world is covered with them

but Dr Sanford is not afraid to point out a valid inconsistency

 

[Assyrian]

excellent post kirkwhisper

no assyrian - there is no evidence extinctions have been going on at that rate for hundreds of millions of years

How can you call the OP an excellent post and in the very next line agree with the point I made refuting it?

there is however a great abundance of evidence that most of the animals and plants that have been buried and fossilized were buried rapidly by a lot of water

and when these rapid burials contain land animals and plants they often consist of many different types of animals and plants all tangled up and buried together after being tumbled and broken into many pieces

A flash flood will do that, so will natural traps like tar pits, deep mud, or drying up watering hole. What you need to show is that these are part of a global flood, not ordinary local events. The problem is these fossils beds are isolated not global, and they occur in vastly different geological strata, in other areas outside the concentrated fossil bed and in the strata in between, life carries on as normal with evidence of soil formation, burrows, footprints, plant roots, termite nests, dinosaur nests, and in lakes and seas the slow deposition of silt that can only occur in very calm water. There is no evidence for a single layer of erosion and flood sediment spanning the globe.

 

[jpcedotal]

yet most ancient histories from all over the world talk about a Great Flood.

 

[Assyrian]

yet most ancient histories from all over the world talk about a Great Flood.

People throughout history have built their communities on riverbanks and beside the sea. These places are subject to terrible floods. Of course they told stories about them.

 

[TasManOfGod]

A flash flood will do that, so will natural traps like tar pits, deep mud, or drying up watering hole. What you need to show is that these are part of a global flood, not ordinary local events. The problem is these fossils beds are isolated not global, and they occur in vastly different geological strata, in other areas outside the concentrated fossil bed and in the strata in between, life carries on as normal with evidence of soil formation, burrows, footprints, plant roots, termite nests, dinosaur nests, and in lakes and seas the slow deposition of silt that can only occur in very calm water. There is no evidence for a single layer of erosion and flood sediment spanning the globe.

The BIG mistake is made when when the geology is looked at as if created by the flood itself rather than the receeding water 1 year later.

 

[Assyrian]

The BIG mistake is made when when the geology is looked at as if created by the flood itself rather than the receeding water 1 year later.

Blame Whitcomb and Morris then, that was the idea in their book the Genesis Flood that kick started modern creationism. The thing with floods is they leave an awful mess behind, easily identifiable in the geology. There should be a worldwide unconformity consisting of either an erosion surface or flood detrius. Such a tremendous worldwide event should be unmistakable in the geological strata, completely different from normal geological features.

 

[Incariol]

There still hasn't been a single scientific source in this thread yet.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Blame Whitcomb and Morris then, that was the idea in their book the Genesis Flood that kick started modern creationism. The thing with floods is they leave an awful mess behind, easily identifiable in the geology. There should be a worldwide unconformity consisting of either an erosion surface or flood detrius. Such a tremendous worldwide event should be unmistakable in the geological strata, completely different from normal geological features.

Isn't the Grand Canyon evidence enough? And that is only one of many gouged out canyons around the world. Additionally what about the shells and fish fossils found on high mountains - not good enough Flood detrius eh? It seems that a flood that covered mountains is too difficult to contemplate the damage so it gets trivilised to just some local flooding.
Here is some interesting reading: http://www.hope-of-israel.org/flood.html

 

[Keachian]

Isn't the Grand Canyon evidence enough? And that is only one of many gouged out canyons around the world. Additionally what about the shells and fish fossils found on high mountains - not good enough Flood detrius eh? It seems that a flood that covered mountains is too difficult to contemplate the damage so it gets trivilised to just some local flooding.
Here is some interesting reading: Did Noah's Flood Cover the Highest Mountains?

Nope, the Colorado River is a meandering river, far different from the rather straight drainage rivers seen in all recent floods

 

[florida2]

Isn't the Grand Canyon evidence enough? And that is only one of many gouged out canyons around the world. Additionally what about the shells and fish fossils found on high mountains - not good enough Flood detrius eh? It seems that a flood that covered mountains is too difficult to contemplate the damage so it gets trivilised to just some local flooding.

The Grand Canyon was just created by the Colorado River.

Fossils found on mountains are explained by tectonic plate theory.

Of course, the obvious questions is that if there was a single flood covering the whole planet, where did all the water go?

 

[Keachian]

Of course, the obvious questions is that if there was a single flood covering the whole planet, where did all the water go?

Sponges, great big yellow sponges

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't the Grand Canyon evidence enough? And that is only one of many gouged out canyons around the world.

Some canyons are gouged out quickly, but a geologist should easily be able to tell them apart from canyons that eroded slowly. Your rapidly gouged canyon won't be carved out of hard rock like sandstone or even granite. (Ever notice how creationist websites like to quote the Mt.St. Helens canyon carved out of freshly fallen ash?) The rocks in slowly eroded canyons like the Grand canyon don't gouge that easily. As a result the walls of the slowly eroded canyon can be much steeper. The softer material in the rapidly gouged canyon would simply collapse at those sort of angles. A slowly eroded canyon can follow the route of a slow moving meandering river and form horseshoe bends. A gouging torrent doesn't behave that way. See:

I'm just wondering how the flood rapidly carved this out:

Link

A problem dating the Grand Canyon is that while we can date the rocks it is formed from, erosion leaves no dates to tell us how long the process took. Until recently. Check out this post from mallon.

This was posted in the CvE forum, but I thought I would post it here, too, given that the Grand Canyon has been a topic of interest here lately.

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...issection_0307

An exerpt:

Three geologists from the University of New Mexico have explored caves along the Grand Canyon, ranging from the very bottom to the rim. In this week's issue of Science, they report that the highest caves have mammilary coatings dating back about 17 million years, and the lowest ones date to about 800,000 years. And all the caves between the top and bottom have the intermediate ages you’d expect. By measuring the distance from the rim to the caves, the geologists were then able to estimate how fast the Colorado River carved the canyon. The downstream end of the canyon formed first, and only later did the upstream end catch up. These new measurements show that even as the river sank down into the earth, the earth itself rose, lifted by hot rock welling up through the crust.
​

I guess my question for those people who argue for the Grand Canyon being carved by the Flood is this:
I understand you don't agree with the dating method used (although the dates given above are quite consistent), but how can there be evidence for successive, extinct water tables in the Grand Canyon if it was carved out in the blink of an eye?

Back to your post

Additionally what about the shells and fish fossils found on high mountains - not good enough Flood detrius eh? It seems that a flood that covered mountains is too difficult to contemplate the damage so it gets trivilised to just some local flooding.
Here is some interesting reading: Did Noah's Flood Cover the Highest Mountains?

So you do think the geology of these mountains, the fossil bearing rock strata, was formed by the flood? I thought you said it was a mistake?

As florida has pointed out, the fossil bearing strata look just like they were deposited on the floor of a sea, where shell fish live, turned into sedimentary rock, and then raised up to form these mountain regions. We can still measure mountain ranges like the Himalayas being raised up and track the movement of the Indian subcontinent pushing into the Tibetan plateau.

More problematic for creationism is that some of these rock strata are shales formed from very fine particles which can only be deposited in still calm waters. Not a gouging flood.

 

[florida2]

Sponges, great big yellow sponges

Of course!

 

[TasManOfGod]

*OH yes mountain ranges pushed up thousands of feet -yes I forgot about that trick.
Somehow I will stick with the big wet -it makes a lot more sense
*Where did all the water go? Well basically the voids from which it originally come got filled with dirt and trees and bodies (our fossil fuel supply) so it had no other place to go except where the dirt was as well as forming the oceans we have today.
*As for distinct water tables of the GC, the receeding waters could well have proceedied in stages over the year that it took to stabilise.
*The "horse shoe" could easily occurr through water going down two channels -yes that's right with water flowing in the reverse direction in one of them

BTW doesn't our fossill fuel supply give the best scientific evidence of a global flood or are our "esteemed" scientists just too blind to see that?