The fossil record explained

[AV1611VET]

Oh, BTW, indeed they should because scientifically spoken they are lost in words.

Science can take a hike.

If they're lost for words, I'm proud of them.

As far as the bible has claims about the natural world, it's almost entirely made minced meat by modern science,

Who's swinging the cleaver though?

... that is, not only we can't finds scientifically based evidence for these claims,

That's either because you've overlooked it, or science is myopic, or both.

... they are directly falsified by scientific observations as well.

Uh-huh.

Are these the same types of observations that gave the Challenger the green light for liftoff?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

THIS is your challenge, I shall repeat my OP and starting posts in order to prevent further obfuscation by red herrings:

1. we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers. HOW these were formed is irrelevant. They were formed otherwise they would not sit there.
2. the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
3. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

NOT SO difficult to understand, isn't it.

If you want to discuss your own subjects, be my guest and start your own thread. HERE on this thread it's about the 3 points above mentioned.

That makes you whole post completely irrelevant.

THAT is your challenge.

1.
It is relevant how they were formed. Why do you avoid the need for rapid burial and rapid geological processes. Does that need scare you????? Does it call into question your ideas of uniformatarianism and so you find the need to avoid the process? The scablands were also claimed to have taken millions of years, but Harlen Bretz falsified that belief.....

It quite matters how geological processes formed features. Ask Harlen Bretz...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz

"Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated."

"Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected."

2.

Why would you expect to find more mobile animals trapped in lower sedimentary layers as they struggled upwards to escape the rising waters and the less mobile life was buried? But as I explained.... if you understood how sediments settle.......

3.

Or the less mobile forms unable to escape the rising waters were buried first.........

Polystrate fossils falsify your ideas since those of trees show no root stocks found in the same strata or stigmaria.

Lack of weathering between layers also destroys your beliefs, not that you will ever admit to it...... If the layers actually took hundreds of millions of years, weathering and soil between the differing sedimentary layers would be unavoidable. No such is found......

So perhaps the geological record is trying to tell you something different, but you just refuse to see it... because it might make you question your beliefs about age....

Polystrate fossils showing no affects from the millions of years of weathering they would have been subjected to while the layers formed under your beliefs. No soil layers between the sedimentary layers. No river channels between the layers or any signs of erosion. All the strata is laid down flat, except where later geological processes uplifted them, impossible in reality as we observe the formation of hills and valleys today due to weathering and inconsistent erosion.....

No, it is simply easier to ignore the falsifying evidence....

Not to mention the vast amounts of bones found flattened, which could only occur by rapid burial and pressure before the bones had time to fossilize.... Not sitting around for millions of years as the layers slowly accumulated.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem for paleontology is that a perfect trail is logically impossible to find.

A "perfect trail" is not at all required to demonstrate evolutionary common ancestry of species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A "perfect trail" is not at all required to demonstrate evolutionary common ancestry of species.

Understood. Just as if you had a partial trail with only dog bones without seeing them in real life, evolutionist’s would see separate species and one evolving into another. Instead of the reality of variation in one species.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

How does the fossil record make the case for evolution?

By showing morphological change over time and cross referenced with geographic distribution of such fossils, including their present day descendants at the species level:

....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

By showing morphological change over time and cross referenced with geographic distribution of such fossils, including their present day descendants at the species level:

View attachment 239135

View attachment 239136

View attachment 239137

....

Morphological change over time like a wolf to a poodle? Yet you have no problem understanding a wolf is the same species as a poodle, just variation in the species. So why do you suddenly find it hard to comprehend with everything else????

It’s when you get to actual separate species is when the “missing” common ancestors enter the picture.

That an early horse may have looked different is not surprising, a poodle looks different than a wolf.

That an early man might have looked different is not surprising, a poodle looks different than a wolf.

It is only when they attempt to connect unrelated species is when they have to insert “missing” common ancestors on every single tree for every single split. But hey, why question dogma, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Understood. Just as if you had a partial trail with only dog bones without seeing them in real life, evolutionist’s would see separate species and one evolving into another. Instead of the reality of variation in one species.....

No. Your lies and falsehoods notwithstanding.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Morphological change over time like a wolf to a poodle? Yet you have no problem understanding a wolf is the same species as a poodle, just variation in the species.

It’s when you get to actual separate species is when the “missing” common ancestors enter the picture.

That an early horse may have looked different is not surprising, a poodle looks different than a wolf.

That an early man might have looked different is not surprising, a poodle looks different than a wolf.

It is only when they attempt to connect unrelated species is when they have to insert “missing” common ancestors on every single tree for every single split. But hey, why question dogma, right?

Wolfs and poodles's, aren't the same species.

Dogs aren't found in different geological layers.
Artificial dogbreeds, that wouldn't even exist in nature had it not been for domestic breeding programs, are only a couple thousand years old.

You have been corrected on this nonsense on multiple occasions.

And, perhaps more importantly (yet very unsurprising), this is a derailment of the thread topic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You had the nerve to include whales? Lol.

I guess if you make up half the features. Not that I expect evolutionists to actually read the evidence against them or even watch the videos with the ones who discovered them admitting the truth....

http://kgov.com/evidence-against-whale-evolution
Whale evolution is a whale of a tale alright....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wolfs and poodles's, aren't the same species.

Dogs aren't found in different geological layers.
Artificial dogbreeds, that wouldn't even exist in nature had it not been for domestic breeding programs, are only a couple thousand years old.

You have been corrected on this nonsense on multiple occasions.

And, perhaps more importantly (yet very unsurprising), this is a derailment of the thread topic.

That statement just shows your denial of facts....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/53841-how-know-dogs-are-same-species.html

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Artificial dogbreeds, that wouldn't even exist in nature had it not been for domestic breeding programs, are only a couple thousand years old.

Agreed, what you see in nature accelerated through man’s interference.... without man instead of 200+ variations of the SAME species, we would only have 6 or 7 as found in nature when man doesn’t interfere. Your arguments are moot.

You have been corrected on this nonsense on multiple occasions.

Says the man that thinks wolves and poodles are separate species.....

And, perhaps more importantly (yet very unsurprising), this is a derailment of the thread topic.

Says the man trying to avoid the problems....

But you are correct, it is funny how there are no recent fossils....... or any even undergoing fossilization..... even small local floods fail to produce them, it takes a catastrophic sized event....:

 

[Aman777]

Does your birthday last millions of years?

No, but since Adam was made BEFORE the plants, herbs and trees of the 3rd Day Genesis 2:4-7 and lived until some 12k years ago, AND the beginning of our Universe was AFTER Adam was made on the 3rd Day, that means that Adam lived for more than 13.77 Billion years, in man's time. Do you still not know what Day it is?

 

[Aman777]

I wrote a OP and two starting posts. They are about what the fossil record shows. How they got there is not relevant on this thread. They are there. And they testify unambiguously about evolution.

False, since evolution is the unbelievers term for "descent with modification within His and Their kinds".

Were they created by the Jojo in the Sky? Seriously? You want me to tell something about your fantasies? When you want to suggest the fossils are put there by Jebus the Bearded Man, YOU provide the evidence. Scientific evidence, that is, which includes - a little introduction to the mehodology of science:

Your blasphemy and arrogance are against the rules of this forum. You lose.

Whatever boy. Live happily in your bronze age mythology fantasies.

I live in the 21st dentury where science has made minced meat out of this claptrap.

In your dreams and thanks for calling me a boy. It's nice for someone of my age.

 

[Aman777]

I think creationists are generally terrible at witnessing for their beliefs. If I were a Christian, I'd be embarrassed by them (in fact, many Christians are).

Is that why you keep running away from God's Truth which agrees in every way with Science and History? Of course it is. Have a nice Day.

 

[pitabread]

I intone here by saying creationists need simply to present the word of God and get out of the evidence business, and the next thing you know, I'm a "poor witness for Christ, who should hang my head in embarrassment after I get my house in order."

Think about what you're trying to do though. Science operates based on evidence; that is how it derives its conclusions about the world in which we live. On top of that, it treats the universe as inherently objective, which is how ideas are ultimately compared in science.

You're coming along and saying to throw all that away just because of your particular interpretation of an ancient religious text. You're also effectively arguing for a non-objective universe in the process, which makes for not only a scientifically indefensible position, but a philosophically indefensible one as well.

So yes, it's rather embarrassing. I can't help but wonder if you are doing more harm than good.

Wow -- just wow.

I'm telling you how you come across to non-believers. If your ego can't handle that, oh well.

 

[pitabread]

Is that why you keep running away from God's Truth which agrees in every way with Science and History? Of course it is. Have a nice Day.

I'm sure you need to believe that. I suppose that's easier than taking responsibility for the way you witness for your own faith.

This is why I keep saying that God needs a better screening process for their sales people.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Morphological change over time like a wolf to a poodle? Yet you have no problem understanding a wolf is the same species as a poodle, just variation in the species. So why do you suddenly find it hard to comprehend with everything else????

It’s when you get to actual separate species is when the “missing” common ancestors enter the picture.

That an early horse may have looked different is not surprising, a poodle looks different than a wolf.

That an early man might have looked different is not surprising, a poodle looks different than a wolf.

It is only when they attempt to connect unrelated species is when they have to insert “missing” common ancestors on every single tree for every single split. But hey, why question dogma, right?

What is also curious is why did some species die out just because small changes occurred in the next generation. Were they suddenly 'unfit' for survival?

Also the complete lack of intermediate (not transitional) species is revealing. The fossil records shows quantum leaps in physical changes, not small incremental changes that one would expect.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

By showing morphological change over time and cross referenced with geographic distribution of such fossils, including their present day descendants at the species level:

View attachment 239135

View attachment 239136

View attachment 239137

....

I'd like to know how we got here from the supposed 'simple' organisms that sprang into existence out of the blue.

 

[Turkana]

That's not our problem.

Thank you for the advice, but I'll pass.

Again, that's not my problem.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Translation: Sagan can take a hike.

Ah that's how it works with you: you can blab and tattle but when asked to back it up and take respnsible for the blab and tattle it's just "not my problem".

That's what I call a roten state of mind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is also curious is why did some species die out just because small changes occurred in the next generation. Were they suddenly 'unfit' for survival?

Yes, that’s what mutation does, contrary to claims. That’s why we fail to see any of the hundreds of fruit fly mutation outside of the favorable conditions of the laboratory where these mutated flies don’t have to compete. When they aren’t pampered and fed, but have to compete, the mutations fail to materialize in the real world.

Also the complete lack of intermediate (not transitional) species is revealing. The fossil records shows quantum leaps in physical changes, not small incremental changes that one would expect.

That’s because evolutionists won’t accept the truth that dogs try to tell them, that variation of forms is a sudden process when subspecies within the species mate. In the wild it simply may take a long time for famine or geological processes to bring two together if man is not interfering. It is not mutation that is driving the change, but mating when subspecies within the species are brought together. Then suddenly after backcrossing a new form appears suddenly.... just like when a Husky and Mastiff were mated and the offspring backcrossed to the Husky and suddenly we had the Chinook. But mating of subspecies or breeds is ignored by evolutionists. And hence their lack of transitory species. The breed first produced by the Husky and Mastiff was lost when the offspring backcrossed to the Husky. It is completely unknown in our dog breeds, because it only lasted for one generation....

And so they can’t see the reality because like some on here erroneously insisting dogs are separate from wolves, they see separate species everywhere. It’s how they were trained to think, instead of rationally and logically. They can’t apply the sudden variation of forms of dogs to the past, because it falsifies their belief of separate species....