The fossil record explained

[AV1611VET]

Looks like the new poster hasn't learned how to communicate effectively and his scientific "buddies" have ignored him.

No argument there, Aman.

Remember verysincere that used to stomp around here yelling at us in capital letters?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if someone were raised from the dead, you wouldn't believe. Would you?

So true.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[Aman777]

Doesn't change the fact the energy release would have vaporized the atmosphere. The Ark must have been a space ship.

Again you stumble over the truth. Our third Rock from the Sun has NEVER and will NEVER be totally destroyed in a flood. It is currently covered in water and does not dissolve since rocks don't dissolve in water. It was Adam's small world, the world that THEN WAS 2Pet3:6 which was destroyed in the flood. Our world will burn. 2Pet3:10

We live in a multiverse which began with THREE Heavens or Universes. God made One on the 2nd Day. Genesis 1:8 Lord God made otherS on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 That's at least three worlds/firmaments/Heavens. How many times do I have to post this? Can anyone refute this Scripturally? Of course not.

 

[Aman777]

No argument there, Aman.

Remember verysincere that used to stomp around here yelling at us in capital letters?

Amen, LOL. I had almost forgotten about him.

 

[pitabread]

....

 

[Aman777]

This is the problem with creationist beliefs; there is no way to independently validate them.

String theory has already validated a multiverse. I just try to smooth out the rough edges on their theory. They will come around in the end.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

But we are not aliens and we do know that dogs and wolves are different species.
Because we basically made the dogs. Some do exactly that for a living.

The evolution that dogs went through, would never happen in nature.
As for those aliens, they would also know that something is fishy about these dogs. A LOT of them would not even survive without human aid. Some can't even naturally reproduce. They've anatomically been altered through artificial selection radically, but didn't have natural selection to filter them out. We thought it was cute and kept it alive and used its sperm/eggs to produce more of them.

So yes, aliens visiting earth would be confused by these dogs. Without knowing they are the result of artificial breathing, they'ld be a very clear anomaly in the tree of life.

But the hypothetical is flawed. If aliens visited earth and observer dogs, they'ld also quickly understand why they exist: humans.

If humans would first disappear all at once, then dogs would reduce to only a handfull of breeds/species very quickly.

It's rather pointless, not to mention dishonest, to take a species of animals that have been breed to hell and back, producing breeds that can barely stay alive at times, to try and make a point against natural diversification in nature.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Then what are you complaining about?

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

Technically you are correct.
I was talking about species in the sense of do they naturally breed, not can they breed.
Canis Lupus and Canis Domesticus.

It's not surprising they can breed, considering they are extremely closely related. By only a few thousand years.

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

What 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....:

You're complaining that you can't observe an animal dying and becoming a fossil?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Some 3.8 billion years worth of evolution.

 

[Turkana]

Funny.

I don't see a challenge in there anywhere.

And I have more challenge threads than you have posts.

Really?

Poop in your eyes?

Dishonest tactics won't work with me. People with a rotten mentality like you are low on my list of respectfullness. Tell me boy, why must creationists lie and deceive that much?

But surely then you can answer this because it's no challenge for you:

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.

UP to the very next obfuscation.

 

[Turkana]

Except science has already shown fossilization only occurs after rapid burial so as to prevent rapid decay. So we find right off the bat a false scenario......

https://www.livescience.com/37781-how-do-fossils-form-rocks.html

the conditions where fossilization is ideal occurs through rapid burial in sediments. You know, floods.......


And entire mountain ranges which were once ocean floor.....


Again we find observations do not match your scenaripo.

http://prehistoricflorida.org/131-2/

"the remains of ancient land and sea animals are often mixed together, making it difficult to be sure where animals lived and at what time."

Of course they blame it on the sea reworking the sediments, but naturally failing to weather the fossils




but you were just shown we do. And again, your scenario of them dying then magically fossilizing without first decaying without rapid burial has already been shown to be false. Not a single scientists believes fossilization occurs without immediate and rapid burial in sediments......


Hmm, and yet they are using the excuse that the rock sedimentary layers were reworked to explain exactly what you say didn't happen. I am glad to see you reject their silly excuse.

"Since the sea rose and receded from Florida many times and sediments were reworked each time, the remains of ancient land and sea animals are often mixed together, making it difficult to be sure where animals lived and at what time. Typically, however, the oldest land animals are found in higher elevations in the northern third of the state and along the central ridge, but the creatures of Florida’s last two million years – the Pleistocene animals – are found throughout Florida’s strata."

They are found mixed together all over, you just don't generally hear about it because it tends to weaken the theory of immense time instead of one large catastrophe..... something they prefer not to mention.....

If you are going to challenge flood theory, and all of science which insists animals were buried in sediments rapidly in order to fossilize... please at least understand the theory first..

Sorry dude, none of the things I wrote in my OP are addressed here.

Here is (part of) the challenge:

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.

It's getting embarrassing.

 

[Turkana]

[...] But dont be fooled by young earthers. The fossil record strongly supports the theory of evolution. But of course nothing in science is perfect, its always an ongoing practice of research and discovery

Thanks for your post, it's among the very few, a handful, here by Christians that are worthwhile to read. The rest is obfuscation and junk.

 

[Turkana]

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

Sorry dude but that's off topic here. Here is the challenge:

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.

 

[Jimmy D]

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....:

I appreciate that Turkana doesn't want the thread derailing but I just want to draw attention to Justa"truth"seeker's dishonesty.

Maybe he's a liar, maybe he's forgotten that his nonsense was refuted last year.

Either way, he's wrong.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/another-flood-question.8034353/page-30#post-71989827

I'm still waiting on the Dodo bird fossilization info.

It's in the link. If you have any issues start a new thread or respond in the one linked.

 

[Jimmy D]

Sorry dude but that's off topic here. Here is the challenge:

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.

It's strange that creationists can't get together and at least attempt to come up with a consistent explanation.

Sometimes they claim that the fossils are a result of a flood 4000 years ago, but what you described above clearly doesn't fit in with such a phenomenon - Even when they start with the ad-hoc rationalizations like some animals "running faster" to escape the flood or heavier animals sinking to lower layers.

Sometimes we see the old "multiple" creation events which is just as bad. As well as being an admission that young earth creationism is garbage and that the fossil record doesn't support "special Creation" it's pretty insulting to their God (who would appear to be incompetent). Obviously it isn't consistent with what we actually see in the fossil record either (i.e morphological change over time).

So what are we left with? Just denials of the evidence, obfuscation and lies. It's very sad really but I'm afraid it's par for the course.

 

[Turkana]

The problem is both smaller and larger than you illustrate.

The task is to show one single change.
The assumption is that additional changes will form a complete trail of transition.
The challenge is for creationists to show what would prevent small changes
from accumulating to form an endless succession.

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

If you had read my OP and 2 starting posts, you'd understand that this is an irrelevant evaluation of non-existing problems in paleontology. We don't need a complete trail of transition. One single, well-aimed fossil specimen which depicts unique traits of an ancestral group of organisms and unique traits of a descendant group may already suffice greatly. "Unique trait" here means a trait that does not exist in all other life forms thus that clearly and unambiguously identifies a particular group of organisms.

In one of my OP's I elaborated on Dorudon, an early cetacean (whales, dolphins and their relatives). I explained there that Dorudon indeed was a cetacean, because it had very specific traits exclusively found in cetaceans. It also depicts some unique traits only found in artiodactyls. So, taxonomically spoken, Dorudon was an artiodactyl. Now the first cetaceans appear in geological layers that postdate ones that already were teeming with artiodactyls and all those were land animals.

In other words, Dorudon was a fully marine animal that possessed both artiodactyl and cetacean traits. It also had tiny hind legs, attached to a small pelvis that on its turn was disconnected from the spinal cord. All carpals and the ankle bones were fused. So it couldn't walk with those. Yet those hind limbs and pelvis were still anatomically spoken pretty much still in place. They are typical Artiodactyl hind limbs (one thing you can tell artiodactyls apart from other animals happens to be the double bulge of the ankle bone).

So, even when we wouldn't find any other fossil, Dorudon on its very own is a valid and decisive transitional fossil. Of course it would be more compelling to find others as well, we did - abundantly - or to find more specimens of Dorudon to confirm anatomical feats. For instance, its pelvis detached from the spine may be due to the high pressure and stress the fossil could have experienced sitting millions of years in rocks. But we meanwhilst do have more specimens of Dorudon and they all depict the same detached pelvis - and we have many specimens of another early cetacean, Basilosaur, which has the same disconnected pelvis as well.

 

[Turkana]

Let me put it another way. It's not what I believe but lets say all the old animals existed at once. This plot started as a sea bed so has tons of sea fossils, then it dries up as it moves above sea level. At which point a forest grows, then the land animals that were also in existence at the start wander to their new home.

How do we know from the layers that they came about later rather than wandering in to a new environment?

The both came later and wandered into a different environment. When a plot of land sinks due to geological activity and/or sea levels are rising due to climate change, land gets inundated and ev

No argument there, Aman.

Remember verysincere that used to stomp around here yelling at us in capital letters?

Oh boy the deceiver has found another babble point.

 

[Turkana]

Looks like the new poster hasn't learned how to communicate effectively and his scientific "buddies" have ignored him. Reminds me of Trump trying to run the country. It's Amateur Hour, all over again.

SURE dude, must be why every creationist fails to address the points I made.

Up to the very next irrelvant, weak minded post.

 

[Turkana]

All you said is

Fossil a is found in Formation A;
Fossil b is found in Formation B.

No one voiced anything against that observation.
But, no one sees any question about it either.

What is your point?

No that was not "all that I said".

Strawman fallacy. Next please.

 

[Turkana]

I could list the recently discovered scientific facts in Genesis but you wouldn't read them. Even if someone were raised from the dead, you wouldn't believe. Would you?

Sorry dude. start another thread about your fantasy word or make a nice B-movie of it. Creationists are always entertaining.

Here is the challenge you have to address in this thread:

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.