The fossil record explained

[pitabread]

How 'bout we just quote the Bible and let it go at that?

Except nobody does "let it go at that". There's always more.

This is why I tend to view creationism as Christian fan fiction. With every creationist making up their own story.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is why I tend to view creationism as Christian fan fiction. With every creationist making up their own story.

This is why Jesus needs to come back and sync everything, isn't it?

Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[pitabread]

This is why Jesus needs to come back and sync everything, isn't it?

Sure, whatever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, whatever.

Well either He does, or He doesn't, pitabread.

You sound to me like you have an understanding spirit ... or at least try to understand.

Wouldn't you like Him to come back and set us straight?

Doesn't even academia have about nine different ways we got our moon?

 

[Aman777]

Once again, what's the point of this thread?

It's some guy who wants to tell others how smart he is about fossils. His message is so boring it is surpassed only by the Trump like nature of the nastiness of the OP.

 

[Aman777]

This is why Jesus needs to come back and sync everything, isn't it?

Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved:

I'm just happy, with all the idiots around the world in charge, to know that Jesus will return to keep us all from being destroyed. Amen?

 

[AV1611VET]

Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved:

I'm just happy, with all the idiots around the world in charge, to know that Jesus will return to keep us all from being destroyed. Amen?

AMEN!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except nobody does "let it go at that". There's always more.

This is why I tend to view creationism as Christian fan fiction. With every creationist making up their own story.

Sort of like evolution.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really?

So now you are goping to explain what parts of my OP was addressed by it because you really should explain that, it completely escapes me. So, exactly refer to the individual parts of my contentions, relate it to what you wrote "twice" and elaborate exactly what part of what I wrote was addressed by that and why.

For your conveniency:

1. the process of fossilizations is not relevant because we do have fossils sitting in the rocks. My Op is about the fossils that are already there sitting and the story they tell.
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.

And that's only a very tiny part of what I wrote. DON'T worry, i will come back to those inevitably.

1. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

Seems you didn't pay much attention to your own thread.

Post #122, page 7.

Not going to keep repeating things every 5 pages because you can't read.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not only are you a habitual deceiver but you also seem to have severe reasoning problems.
This terrible post is full of complete nonsense and blab and tattle.

But, anyway: my OP please.

The first sign of being in the mass hysteria bubble.... which you display in your posts to the fullest extent.....
Response to those in the bubble....

"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own."

So it's ok, I understand you don't understand what is wrong with my point of view except it sounds more reasonable than your own. Hence the personal attacks without any actual content in your post.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It fascinates me how every creationist on this forum seems to have their own private theology.

Is that how Christianity works? Everyone gets to make up their own version?

As it fascinates me how every evolutionist on this forum has their own theory of how things evolved.... You can't even give me a scientific definition of species that you all agree on, then want to discuss speciation and which animals are separate species, lol, just hilarious. I'll respond when I stop laughing.....

Not that you'll actually stick with any scientific definition you do give after you give it....

 

[pitabread]

As it fascinates me how every evolutionist on this forum has their own theory of how things evolved....

Nope.

While there are certainly different ideas/hypotheses/etc in scientific inquiry, you generally won't see the level of radical divergence you see from creationists.

Just the fact you are claiming there were multiple creation events versus other creationists that argue for one is a significant difference.

You can't even give me a scientific definition of species that you all agree on, then want to discuss speciation and which animals are separate species

Please, you've had the definitions of species explained to you countless times of this forum. You're just arguing a strawman.

It also comes across as more than a little desperate if *this* is the type of thing you think is an indictment of science. After all, a species is just a label we slap on groups of organisms to make categorization easier. And there is no singular definition which neatly divides all organisms (kinda contrary to what we might expect if creationism were true, in fact).

So you have a problem with the fact there are multiple ways to define species? That's your big criticism? You're clutching at straws.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again, what's the point of this thread?

It's some guy who wants to tell others how smart he is about fossils. His message is so boring it is surpassed only by the Trump like nature of the nastiness of the OP.

Aman has it sort of right, except the OP shows his lack of knowledge by stating that animals just die and then sit around on the surface and turn into fossils without decaying. He seems to lack any actual knowledge that fossils require immediate rapid burial (in a sedimentary layer that hardens quickly due to the bacteria, the oxygen replaced with hydrogen) so that they do not start decomposing. Which is why you do not find them today. It takes a catastrophic event from underground water tables bringing those abundant bacteria to the surface and mixing them with the sediment brought up, then the oxygen is replaced by the hydrogen. This prevents surface bacteria which live on organic material using oxygen as a catalyst from decomposing them....

They just lack the logical faculties to put things together into a coherent whole.... Or just refuse to use logic to do so.... Their beliefs confine them to uniformatarianism instead of catastrophic processes and worldwide floods are beyond their ability to admit to, so they confine themselves to tiny little boxes of thought.....

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-turn-sand-to-stone

"The treatment alters the consistency of sand, doing anything from solidifying it slightly to changing it into a substance as hard as marble. It blends a calcium solution, bacteria and other inexpensive compounds, forcing the bacteria to form carbonate precipitates with the calcium. This creates calcium carbonate, also called calcite, identical to limestone."

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/10/24/bacteria-underground/

"“We didn’t expect to find this incredible microbial diversity. But then again, we know little about the roles of subsurface microbes in biogeochemical processes, and more broadly, we don’t really know what’s down there,” - at least they are honest about their lack of knowledge....

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/life-bacterial-underground

"Microscopic organisms, often called microbes, are so small you can usually see them only under the microscope. Microbes living in rock beneath Earth's surface seem to be able to secure their own food. When microbes are mixed with ground-up minerals and heated, the minerals produce hydrogen, say the scientists behind a recent study. The microbes eat the hydrogen and stay alive. When the microbes aren't around, the minerals produce barely any hydrogen."

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

"Another unexpected discovery was a large quantity of hydrogen gas. The mud that flowed out of the hole was described as "boiling" with hydrogen."

Ahh, but of course evolutionists can never put two and two together because the answer 4 actually explains the abundance of fossils in the sedimentary layers, laid down quickly due to catastrophic worldwide floods and hardening in days..... How and why they formed..... And why they do not form in abundance today......

 

[pitabread]

Wouldn't you like Him to come back and set us straight?

Reminds me of this joke: http://justjokey.com/they-think-theyre-the-only-ones-here/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please, you've had the definitions of species explained to you countless times of this forum. You're just arguing a strawman.

It also comes across as more than a little desperate if *this* is the type of thing you think is an indictment of science. After all, a species is just a label we slap on groups of organisms to make categorization easier. And there is no singular definition which neatly divides all organisms (kinda contrary to what we might expect if creationism were true, in fact).

So you have a problem with the fact there are multiple ways to define species? That's your big criticism? You're clutching at straws.

Clutching at straws? Says the man that doesn't want there to be multiple ways of defining a verse..... but wants to have multiple ways of defining species......

Lol, you don't believe it's just a label any more than I do. So you agree that labeling Finches that are mating right in front of your nose is incorrect. After all, it's just a label so why worry about such an unimportant label, correct?

Except that's the problem. If you actually had a consistent scientific definition, like every other real science has for their science definitions, their would be a neat division of all organisms. Its your "species problem" which actually prevents the division of life into those neat categories, not any actual confusion in the life itself.... Remember, it is "your" species problem, not mine.

So maybe, just maybe if every evolutionists didn't classify something as a species using six different ways, most contradictory, why maybe, just maybe, they would all fit into the neat little categories you can't seem to see because of their confusion about what a species even is..... a problem of your own making so everyone can get their names in the books for being the one to discover a new species, why I'll call it a species today because...... Make up reason here.....

 

[pitabread]

Except that's the problem. If you actually had a consistent scientific definition, like every other real science has for their science definitions, their would be a neat division of all organisms.

Once again you're back to insinuating that biology isn't a "real science".

That you would also claim that there is a singular definition waiting to classify all organisms with nice, neat divisions suggests you also don't appreciate the reality of biology; namely that real populations can be "messy" categorically speaking compared to what gets put on paper.

In fact, this appears to be why creationists have so much trouble trying to perform the same types of divisions when it comes to classifying organisms as "kinds" and why there is as of yet no such agreement.

It's exactly what would be expected if life forms shared ancestry and the claims of created "boundaries" in nature don't appear to exist in reality.

Clutching at straws?

Yes, you are clutching at straws. Good luck with that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again you're back to insinuating that biology isn't a "real science".

On the contrary. I am not insinuating anything. I am stating as fact that evolution isn't a real science. Nothing was said about biology.... That's your straw man....

Yes, you are clutching at straws. Good luck with that.

Says the man that refuses to understand that Hebrew words often mean different things, even entire phrases, based on surrounding context, arguing against defining words differently, while at the same time arguing for defining a single word in multiple ways. But your right, I should have used the word hypocrisy.....

 

[pitabread]

I am stating as fact that evolution isn't a real science. Nothing was said about biology.... That's your straw man....

Definitions of species is used in all of biology, not just related to evolution. So if you're claiming that not having a singular definition makes it not a real science, then you're talking about all of biology.

It's a dumb claim though, so I can understand if you want to back-peddle from it.

Says the man that refuses to understand that Hebrew words often mean different things, even entire phrases, based on surrounding context, arguing against defining words differently, while at the same time arguing for defining a single word in multiple ways. But your right, I should have used the word hypocrisy.....

I'm talking about the fact that creationists can't agree on even the basic history of our planet. Forget Bible interpretation, you guys have bigger issues if you have no way to independently verify your ideas. A

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Stop insinuating Biology is the same as evolution.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biology

"a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

"descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms

The real science is simply hijacked by the fake science followers.... It is a "Theory" not a branch of science. Get it right.....

But since you have no consistent definition of species, there's no way to tell what the preexisting species really are, now is there......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Definitions of species is used in all of biology, not just related to evolution. So if you're claiming that not having a singular definition makes it not a real science, then you're talking about all of biology.

It's a dumb claim though, so I can understand if you want to back-peddle from it.

See above....

I'm talking about the fact that creationists can't agree on even the basic history of our planet. Forget Bible interpretation, you guys have bigger issues if you have no way to independently verify your ideas. A

neither can you. Your own theory changes every day with new theories put forth every day. Stop making excuses and accept reality.....