Tiktaalik ha ha

[Loudmouth]

So you say. Perhaps the problem is that the current scientific view is inconsistent and untenable and that is why there is a whole forum dedicated to discussing it.

How is the order of species groups in the fossil record inconsistent with evolution?

Do you realize just how incompatible that fossil record is with young earth creationism? Just look at how ridiculous your posts have been.

I've been quite consistent with what I accept or don't accept. Anyone should be free to question science conclusions. Some of it is correct and some is incorrect. Most is based on what we know today and prone to change down the road.

You have consistently accepted made up stories, I will give you that.

 

[Black Akuma]

Perhaps the problem is that the current scientific view is inconsistent and untenable and that is why there is a whole forum dedicated to discussing it.

There are whole forums dedicated to discussing whether AIDs is real. The existence of forums on the topic doesn't reflect how the scientific community views the subject.

I've been quite consistent with what I accept or don't accept.

Oh? Okay.

Let me ask you this, then. You've said, before, that flying and flightless birds are two kinds. You've also said that flightless birds came from flying birds after embarking from the Ark. Therefore, by your standards, this is an example of one kind changing into another kind. Do you accept that kinds can give rise to different kinds?

Anyone should be free to question scientific conclusions.

I agree. But if you routinely mess it up, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Most is based on what we know today and prone to change down the road.

Everything in science is subject to change. That doesn't mean it will.

 

[EternalDragon]

How is the order of species groups in the fossil record inconsistent with evolution?

Do you realize just how incompatible that fossil record is with young earth creationism? Just look at how ridiculous your posts have been.

Young earth creationism includes a world wide flood which killed lots of creature and plants and buried them in sediment all over the earth. Probably in specific environments in some cases.

So the fossil record is indeed compatible.

 

[EternalDragon]

Oh? Okay.

Let me ask you this, then. You've said, before, that flying and flightless birds are two kinds. You've also said that flightless birds came from flying birds after embarking from the Ark. Therefore, by your standards, this is an example of one kind changing into another kind. Do you accept that kinds can give rise to different kinds?

I never said those things happened. I said that is what possibly could have happened.

Of course birds can give rise to varieties of birds. Dogs have been bred to varieties of dogs. This has been observed, tested and repeated. I've said this all along. The genetic information to select from has already been "top loaded" in from the beginning by an intelligence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Young earth creationism includes a world wide flood which killed lots of creature and plants and buried them in sediment all over the earth. Probably in specific environments in some cases.

So the fossil record is indeed compatible.

What you described is completely incompatible with the fossil record. That you would even pretend that it is compatible is frightening. Where are the Devonian cows?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So you say. Perhaps the problem is that the current scientific view is inconsistent and untenable and that is why there is a whole forum dedicated to discussing it.

I've been quite consistent with what I accept or don't accept. Anyone should be free to question scientific conclusions. Some of it is correct and some is incorrect. Most is based on what we know today and prone to change down the road.

Squid alert!

Don't let him distract you. ED is trying to produce a rhetorical ink cloud pseudomorph to derail the conversation. He is backed into a corner in trying to explain how the organization of the fossil record fits his model. Don't allow him to avoid his difficulties by changing the subject to the philosophy of science.

The organization we see in the fossil record exists objectively, regardless of one's interpretation, so it's silly to pretend it's not there. The problem for ED is that the pattern fits with evolution but not with his model. Are you going to resolve this ED, or are you going to scoot away from yet another failed argument?

 

[Black Akuma]

'Specific environments' like what?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Young earth creationism includes a world wide flood which killed lots of creature and plants and buried them in sediment all over the earth. Probably in specific environments in some cases.

So the fossil record is indeed compatible.

Nice try. Just saying the record is compatible doesn't make it compatible. If everything was killed by the Flood in a short time, everything should be mixed together in the fossil record. This is not the case. If things are supposedly grouped by environment, then we should see all inhabitants of a particular type of environment buried together. We don't. You have not yet (either here or on other threads) provided an explanation for this discrepancy with your model and what we actually observe. You have merely asserted over and over that it all fits.

 

[Black Akuma]

Of course birds can give rise to varieties of birds.

But what's the limit, ED? Exactly how different can a bird get from its starting population?

This has been observed, tested and repeated.

When? When was it ever observed that dogs descended from wolves - at least by your definition of the word 'observed'? Was it written down somewhere?

The genetic information to select from has already been "top loaded" in from the beginning by an intelligence.

Cool story, bro. When you actually find evidence for that assertion, let us know.

 

[EternalDragon]

Squid alert!

Don't let him distract you. ED is trying to produce a rhetorical ink cloud pseudomorph to derail the conversation. He is backed into a corner in trying to explain how the organization of the fossil record fits his model. Don't allow him to avoid his difficulties by changing the subject to the philosophy of science.

The organization we see in the fossil record exists objectively, regardless of one's interpretation, so it's silly to pretend it's not there. The problem for ED is that the pattern fits with evolution but not with his model. Are you going to resolve this ED, or are you going to scoot away from yet another failed argument?

There is nothing to resolve. I think you should know my position by now and if not, go back and read over the entire post.

The pattern only fits with evolution because you think it represents millions of years of fossilization, from the bottom up. Nature does not run in reverse.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

There is nothing to resolve. I think you should know my position by now and if not, go back and read over the entire post.

The pattern only fits with evolution because you think it represents millions of years of fossilization, from the bottom up. Nature does not run in reverse.

I know your position. You think the fossil record's organization is consistent with your mythology. I also know this is not the case. As I said, even if we ignore for the moment that it fits with evolution, it definitely doesn't fit your model. There is much indeed to resolve. Why aren't all the organisms, or at least all the organisms inhabiting a particular environment type, mixed together? I know you have not resolved this discrepancy. Feel free to link me to the post of yours that does. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Queller]

Because we see no dolphins early on. If some died and fossilized, we would see them if they could fossilize. There is NO reason to claim they could have! ONLY your belief in the present state having existed. Nothing more whatsoever.

Wonderful demonstartion of circular logic.

We don't see dolphin fossils in Devonian strata. Why? Because there was something different about early dolphins that prevented them from fossilizing. How do you know? Because we don't see fossils in Devonian strata. Why? Because there was something different about early dolphins that prevented them from fossilizing. How do you know? Because we don't see fossils in Devonian strata. Why? Because there was something different about early dolphins that prevented them from fossilizing. How do you know? Because we don't see fossils in Devonian strata. Why? Because there was something different about early dolphins that prevented them from fossilizing. How do you know? Because we don't see fossils in Devonian strata. Why? Because there was something different about early dolphins that prevented them from fossilizing. How do you know? Because we don't see fossils in Devonian strata.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Queller]

Does the same state past have any?

Don't deflect. Answer my question then we'll address yours.

Just name what you think you have for a same state past, and I will better explain it in a DSP light.

Radioactive decay rates. If you want to claim that they aren't correct, show some evidence not just hand-waving.

The belief in the same state past way.

That doesn't follow from the previous post.

 

[Queller]

False. We cannot say how spacetime was.

Then how can you say creation was 6,000 years ago?

Nor can we say how time away from earth at that time was!

Show some evidence that time away from Earth was different. Just claiming it was is meaningless without evidence.

You can't even say what could fossilize

Of course we can say what would fossilize. Anything with a bony structure could fossilize.

or how much time that took in the former time!

Considering there is no evidence of a former time, we can say that fossilization took just as much time as it does now.

 

[Queller]

I disagree with the extra fiction added in by scientists and you guys ask me why. I tell you and you ask for more explanation. I give you plausible scenarios and you refuse to accept anything but an evolutionary explanation.

Because you provide no evidence for your claims other than "eyewitness" testimony that in many cases wasn't even written down until hundreds, sometimes thousands of years after the events in question happened.

 

[Queller]

Young earth creationism includes a world wide flood which killed lots of creature and plants and buried them in sediment all over the earth. Probably in specific environments in some cases.

So the fossil record is indeed compatible.

No, it isn't. Ecological Zonation, the YEC explanation you are referring to, is not compatible with the fossil record.

For example, dolphins, whales, sea turtles share the same Ecological Zone/specific environment (salt water oceans) as plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, and archelons. However, they are NEVER found together in the same layer of sediment.

Another example, elephants, buffalo, and sheep share the same ecological zones (grasslands and woodlands) as Brachiosaurs, Anklyosaurs, and Wannanosaurs. Yet they are NEVER found together in the the same layer of sediment.

Finally, sparrows and finches share the same ecological zones (the air) as pteranadons and pterodactyls yet are NEVER found in the same layer of sediment.

How does YEC geology explain this? The other two favorite YEC explanations, Hydrological Sorting and Differential Escape fail to explain it as well (and each has their own fatal problems).

 

[Queller]

How do we determine the difference between the Devonian, Triassic, and Jurassic environments? Why are they sometimes on top of one another?

Could you explain how a Flood deposits a thickness of several miles of fine-grained sediments first, and then places boulder-laden conglomerates on top? Think about the expression "to sink like a stone".

Bump

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn't. Ecological Zonation, the YEC explanation you are referring to, is not compatible with the fossil record.

For example, dolphins, whales, sea turtles share the same Ecological Zone/specific environment (salt water oceans) as plesiosaurs, pliosaurs, and archelons. However, they are NEVER found together in the same layer of sediment.

Another example, elephants, buffalo, and sheep share the same ecological zones (grasslands and woodlands) as Brachiosaurs, Anklyosaurs, and Wannanosaurs. Yet they are NEVER found together in the the same layer of sediment.

Finally, flying birds share the same ecological zones (the air) as pteranadons and pterodactyls yet are NEVER found in the same layer of sediment.

How does YEC geology explain this? The other two favorite YEC explanations, Hydrological Sorting and Differential Escape fail to explain it as well (and each has their own fatal problems).

Yup, manatees can out swim almost all fishes and of course pleiosaurus and other swimming reptiles. The slow leisurely pace that they seem to take is only a front

 

[EternalDragon]

Because you provide no evidence for your claims other than "eyewitness" testimony that in many cases wasn't even written down until hundreds, sometimes thousands of years after the events in question happened.

You do know that God guided the writer to write the first five books of the bible? God was the eyewitness. So it matters not if it was written in 500 B.C. or 2013 A.D.

 

[Queller]

You do know that God guided the writer to write the first five books of the bible? God was the eyewitness. So it matters not if it was written in 500 B.C. or 2013 A.D.

Perhaps you can quote chapter and verse from the Bible that says God "guided" the writers of the Bible? My Bible says "inspired". Inspired men can still be fallible.

BTW, when did God stop "guiding" the writers of the Bible. Why are there copyist errors?

Are you ever going to address my refutations of your "specific environment" hypothesis?