Creationists, consider . . . .

[Washington]

. . . .

" there are . . . about 250,000 known fossil species."
source

Then consider this, from the same source:

There are about 1.5 million known species of living plants and animals. In all, there may be as many as 4.5 million living species.

(I recognize that the numbers given for possible extant species is subject to debate: some authorities have posited anywhere from 3.5 million to 30 million species, but for my proposes I think the 4.5 million is a reasonable figure. )

Now, consider that you (creationists) claim all species living today (4.5 million) survived the great flood---speciation being an untenable notion--- and that all 250,000 fossilized species arose out of the great flood

"The evidence of Earth life's one time massive destruction in the Great Flood lies beneath your feet right now; we call this the fossil record. Massive tidal waves washed over the continents and buried former life en masse. "
source

Furthermore, consider the fact that there is not, to my knowledge, a single living species today that shows up in the fossil record. All fossils are of species no longer alive.

So the question is, just how did this very peculiar selection take place? How did the flood manage to select and only fossilize examples of those species that would not survive the flood?

Why would 250,000 species be completely wiped off the earth and leave a record of their former existence, while not one specimen of those who made it through the flood be fossilized? 250,000 species and not a single one of a contemporary species.

The Edward's wolf (Canis edwardii) lived in the very same habitat as the gray wolf (Canis lupus), yet only the Edwards wolf was fossilized. Alligator olseni once lived in Florida, the same place Alligator mississippiensis lives, yet only A. olseni was fossilized and not a single fossil of A. mississippiensis has turned up. Bison priscus is well known by its fossilized remains but not a single fossil of Bison bonasus the European bison, which lives in the very same area, was fossilized. The list could go on and on: not one species living today ever had a relative of the same species turn up in the fossil record.


So is this the way god's the plan went? "Any of you guys who want to survive my up-coming flooding don't plan on leaving behind any fossil traces of your species, but those of you who want to be remembered in rock don't count on surviving the Big-Wet-One."

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Goddidit.

Next!

 

[AV1611VET]

Furthermore, consider the fact that there is not, to my knowledge, a single living species today that shows up in the fossil record. All fossils are of species no longer alive.

Keep looking --- I have faith that someday you'll find the answer.

 

[29apples]

IBsomethingaboutdifferentkinds

 

[Athrond]

folowup question:

and how come the fossilised animals are not sorted from light to heavy?*



* you know, in this volatile flood "large and heavy" would settle at the bottom first, and the light and small would settle ontop of this.

 

[AV1611VET]

folowup question:

and how come the fossilised animals are not sorted from light to heavy?*



* you know, in this volatile flood "large and heavy" would settle at the bottom first, and the light and small would settle ontop of this.

How do you know they weren't?

After all, the original fossil record (if there was one generated then) would have been shuffled like a deck of cards when Pangaea split.

 

[MoonLancer]

After all, the original fossil record (if there was one generated then) would have been shuffled like a deck of cards when Pangaea split.

Interesting assumption. Can you show that with facts and evidence? Or is this another case of mutilating science to fill your wavering faith?

 

[Athrond]

If there is any evidence for continental shuffling, please don't hesitate to post a link

BTW: If you can swallow "embedded age", why not "embedded fossil record"? It's not much different. Seems to fit in with your philosophy?*



*which btw I think is the most rational form of creationism.

Sincerely
Athrond

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW: If you can swallow "embedded age", why not "embedded fossil record"? It's not much different. Seems to fit in with your philosophy?*

Not quite --- an embedded fossil record would fall under the umbrella of Omphalism (embedded history), whereas "my philosophy" is embedded age (maturity without history).

QV please.

 

[Athrond]

Catch your answer tomorrow. until then, here's a cool link with fancy animations and all :

Linky linky link

 

[FallingWaters]

...
Furthermore, consider the fact that there is not, to my knowledge, a single living species today that shows up in the fossil record. All fossils are of species no longer alive. ...

I can't respond to the rest of your post since I don't have any information concerning what you say.

Allow me to share with you the fact that very many creatures from the fossil record which were once thought to be extinct are in fact still alive. In Creationist circles, we refer to these creatures as "living fossils". The most famous living fossil is the coelacanth, but there are very many living fossils that have been documented now.

I did a Google search to direct you to a little bit more information.
http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php
"The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith was unable to conceal his amazement at the capture of the first Cœlacanth, saying, "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished.""

Here is youtube video from 2006 - ZQMm5HN1Ums

Here is a list from wiki of some creatures informally known as "living fossils":

Plants

* Amborellaceae
* Araucaria araucana the Monkey Puzzle tree
* Cycads
* Ginkgo tree (Ginkgoaceae)
* Horsetails Equisetum (Equisetaceae)
* Metasequoia Dawn Redwood (Cupressaceae; a borderline example, related to Sequoia and Sequoiadendron)
* Sciadopitys tree (Sciadopityaceae)
* Whisk ferns Psilotum (Psilotaceae)
* Welwitschia (Welwitschiaceae)
* Wollemia tree (Araucariaceae; a borderline example, related to Agathis and Araucaria)
​

Fungi

* Neolecta
​

Animals
* Vertebrates
o Mammals

+ Cypriot mouse (Mus cypriacus)
+ Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens)
+ Okapi (Okapia johnstoni)
+ Laotian Rock Rat (Laonastes aenigmamus)
+ Volcano rabbit (Romerolagus diazi)
+ Amami rabbit (Pentalagus furnessi)
+ Iriomote cat (Prionailurus iriomotensis)
+ Monito del Monte (Dromiciops gliroides)
+ monotremes (the platypus and echidna)
+ Mountain *** (Aplodontia rufa)
+ Opossums
+ Przewalski's Horse (Equus ferus przewalskii, Equus przewalskii or Equus caballus przewalskii, classification is debated)
​

o Birds

+ Acanthisittidae (New Zealand "wrens")
+ Hoatzin (Ophisthocomus hoazin)
+ Broad-billed Sapayoa (Sapayoa aenigma)
+ Bearded Reedling (Panurus biarmicus)
+ Coliiformes (mousebirds, 6 living species in 2 genera)
+ Magpie-goose (Anseranas semipalmata)
​

o Reptiles

+ Pig-nosed turtle
+ Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials and alligators)
+ Tuataras (Sphenodon punctatus and Sphenodon guntheri)
​

o Amphibians

+ Purple frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis)
​

o Bony fish

+ Bowfin (Amia calva)
+ Coelacanth (the lobed-finned Latimeria menadoensis and Latimeria chalumnae)
+ Queensland lungfish (Neoceratodus fosteri)
+ Sturgeons and paddlefish (Acipenseriformes)
​

o Sharks

+ Frilled shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus)
​

* Invertebrates
o Insects

+ Mantophasmatodea (gladiators; a few living species)
+ Mymarommatid wasps (10 living species in genus Palaeomymar)
+ Nevrorthidae (3 species-poor genera)
+ Notiothauma reedi (a scorpionfly relative)
+ Orussidae (parasitic wood wasps; about 70 living species in 16 genera)
+ Peloridiidae (peloridiid bugs; fewer than 30 living species in 13 genera)
+ Sikhotealinia zhiltzovae (a jurodid beetle)
+ Syntexis libocedrii (Anaxyelidae cedar wood wasp)
​

o Crustaceans

+ glypheoid lobsters (3 living species: Neoglyphea inopinata, N. neocaledonica, and Laurentaeglyphea neocaledonica)
+ Triops cancriformis (a notostracid crustacean)
​

o Molluscs

+ Nautilina (e.g. Nautilus pompilius)
+ Neopilina galateae, a monoplacophorid mollusc
+ Ennucula superba (Nut clam)
​

o Other invertebrates

+ crinoids
+ Horseshoe crabs (only 4 living species of the class Xiphosura, family Limulidae: Limulus polyphemus,Tachypleus gigas, Tachypleus tridentatus and Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda)
+ Lingula anatina (an inarticulate brachiopod)
+ onychophorans
+ Valdiviathyris quenstedti (a craniforman brachiopod)​

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Allow me to share with you the fact that very many creatures from the fossil record which were once thought to be extinct are in fact still alive. In Creationist circles, we refer to these creatures as "living fossils". The most famous living fossil is the coelacanth, but there are very many living fossils that have been documented now.

Doesn't mean they are the same species (extinct vs living). Coelacanth is actually an order of fish making up a number of sub genera and species, and IIRC, modern coelacanths are not the same species as the extinct fossilized ones.

Question is: Can you find a living species that is also represented in the fossil record as the same species?

 

[Washington]

Allow me to share with you the fact that very many creatures from the fossil record which were once thought to be extinct are in fact still alive. In Creationist circles, we refer to these creatures as "living fossils". The most famous living fossil is the coelacanth, but there are very many living fossils that have been documented now.

I'm quite aware of the creationist propensity to label various organisms that have a close resemblance to fossil specimens as "Living ____fill in the blank___. While serving their purposes to mislead, it is hardly an honest endeavor.

In the case of the coelacanth, the two species discovered are NOT identical to the fossil forms. They have been given the taxonomic designations, Latimeria chalumnae. and L. menadoensis. NONE of the roughly 80 fossil forms belong to the genus Latimeria, which means they are not the same. But, of course creationists don't like to pay attention to these finer, and very important, points because it interferes with their snow job.

Concerning your list of "living fossils," I assume you glossed over the highlighted note in your source or simply don't care that it said:

"This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject."​

which it seriously does. Wikipedia, being the animal it is, is completely open to whoever wants to post whatever. And the list you provide is a good example of such flawed work. That said, perhaps there is a bona fide living species there that has also undergone fossilization, but I'm not about to wade through them all to find it. If you honestly believe the list harbors such a species please share your evidence. A mere listing on Wikipedia hardly suffices.

 

[MoonLancer]

Not quite --- an embedded fossil record would fall under the umbrella of Omphalism (embedded history), whereas "my philosophy" is embedded age (maturity without history).

QV please.

age without history when dealing with a creator is dishonest if it is meant to be interpreted differently then it appears.

 

[[serious]]

Not quite --- an embedded fossil record would fall under the umbrella of Omphalism (embedded history), whereas "my philosophy" is embedded age (maturity without history).

QV please.

ah, then I have a different question for you. We see stars that are millions of light years away. We have also seen some of these stars go nova. How could we see light from objects millions of light years away showing events that could not have happened in the "actual age" of the universe

 

[AV1611VET]

How could we see light from objects millions of light years away showing events that could not have happened in the "actual age" of the universe

QV please.

Try this one, too.

 

[[serious]]

QV please.

Try this one, too.

There is a known expansion to space and we can see it's effects. If this were the case, the light from these stars would be much more shifted than it is (with the exception of the most distant objects) We would also see a rather clear distinction between the 6000 year old stretched light and unstretched light.

It's an interesting take on it, but in this case it doesn't match what we see.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a known expansion to space and we can see it's effects. If this were the case, the light from these stars would be much more shifted than it is (with the exception of the most distant objects) We would also see a rather clear distinction between the 6000 year old stretched light and unstretched light.

It's an interesting take on it, but in this case it doesn't match what we see.

I don't understand.

If I took a Slinky and stretched it to the length of your house, and then you moved in and observed the Slinky, what would be the problem?

 

[MoonLancer]

I don't understand.

If I took a Slinky and stretched it to the length of your house, and then you moved in and observed the Slinky, what would be the problem?

is your argument (if it works with a slinky it will work with light)? do you know enough about light to make such a statement

You know analogies don't prove things, They only help us understand what we already know. In this case the slinky is not a good substitute for light. just like a sleazy used car salesmen is not god...

 

[[serious]]

I don't understand.

If I took a Slinky and stretched it to the length of your house, and then you moved in and observed the Slinky, what would be the problem?

Think of the slinky like a beam of light. Each loop is a wave. Now, as you stretch the slinky the loops get wider and wider. The same thing happens to light. If it's stretched, the wavelength gets longer. if light is traveling through 6000 light years of space and that space is stretched out to 13 billion light years, then the wavelength gets stretched 2 million times it's original length. That would redshift all that light to the same degree. Any light outside a specific sphere would be redshifted by that amount. Anything closer than that would be unshifted. Now, depending on when the stretching happened and how big the universe was stretched to, the shift could be much greater.