• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The fossil record explained

Status
Not open for further replies.

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Stop insinuating Biology is the same as evolution.

I didn't. You did.

Again, you're the one making a big deal over definitions of "species". And apparently don't even know enough to understand that species definitions apply to all of biology. Taxonomy isn't exclusive to evolution.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
neither can you. Your own theory changes every day with new theories put forth every day. Stop making excuses and accept reality.....

You're confusing figuring out the minutiae in modern science with the radically different variations of creationist beliefs.

For example, creationists can't even agree on how old the planet is. Is it 4.5 billion years? 6000 years? 12000 years? Something else entirely? Those aren't small margins of error we're talking about and have consequences with respect to the whole history of the planet.

You're not going to find that level of disagreement in modern science.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,610
52,511
Guam
✟5,128,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I didn't. You did.
See, you can't even admit your own errors. You insinuated I was insinuating biology was wrong.... I have never once insinuated that. Not once in any single post I have ever posted. It is YOU that therefore confused evolution theory with actual biological science, since you believed I was insinuating biology was wrong..... Don't you evolutionists ever get tired of presenting strawmen and falsehoods?


Again, you're the one making a big deal over definitions of "species". And apparently don't even know enough to understand that species definitions apply to all of biology. Taxonomy isn't exclusive to evolution.
Taxonomy isn't a science either, since it has no real scientific definition to work from..

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

"orderly classification of plants and animals according to their presumed natural relationships "

There is nothing orderly in not being able to define what one is defining consistently...... one can presume about any relationship when one can define any animal six different ways...... pick and choose what one decides is the best for the theory on any given day, instead of letting the science define the theory......

it's like your beloved whales. Taxonomy claims one evolution, while genetics says the exact opposite. But it seems the mere appearance has caused the genetics to be thrown aside, since the genetics falsified the taxonomy beliefs.....

And it was you that was attempting to make a big deal over definitions of versus. What, can't handle what you wanted to dish out thrown back at you? If it's no big deal species can be interpreted many ways, then its no big deal a verse may be interpreted different ways.

Make up your mind what you believe, that's all I ask. Either stand behind your argument or just admit it was spurious from the beginning.

So if it is a big deal a verse can be interpreted many ways, then it is a big deal species can be interpreted many ways.

So which is it?????
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You're confusing figuring out the minutiae in modern science with the radically different variations of creationist beliefs.

For example, creationists can't even agree on how old the planet is. Is it 4.5 billion years? 6000 years? 12000 years? Something else entirely? Those aren't small margins of error we're talking about and have consequences with respect to the whole history of the planet.

You're not going to find that level of disagreement in modern science.

Right. You forget I am much older. When I was growing up the universe was 2 billion years old, then 4 billion, then 8 billion, then 12 billion, now it's 13.7 billion. When the James Webb telescope comes online they will upgrade that to 20 billion.... or more....

Not inconsequential numbers or small margins of errors at all......

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

"Nevertheless, by the late 19th century the geologists included here had reached a consensus for the age of the earth of around 100 million years. Having come that far, they were initially quite reluctant to accept a further expansion of the geologic timescale by a factor of 10 or more."

This because they believed the universe was 2 to 4 billion... You forget, to me this was just recent history, still taught in schools to show how things changed, while you are probably not even familiar with the fact it was once so radically different......

And of course no one disputes it, to do so would be academic suicide in this age. It isn't the church one has to worry about prosecuting the Galaleio's of today, but their own fellow scientists......
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It shows that, in the fossil record, depth doesn't mean non-coexistence.

Now if only you can actually support the assertion that the fossil record isn't what it looks like to be and that instead all those fossils were put there Last Thursday...

As it stands, it only shows your fantasies.
 
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private
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.

Good gracious yet another way of dodging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private
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....

I have VASTLY MORE knowledge of how fossils are formed than you have.

And it's completely irrelevant.

Because we HAVE fossils sitting in the rocks. And mostly they are there indeed due to rapid burial.

So as they are there, sitting in the rocks, mostly due to rapid burial, we can talk about their distribution and stratification, RIGHT?

So, now I've dealt with your little plaything, BACK TO my OP. For the 30th time - or so.

It is getting pathetic boy.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ruin/restoration explains it better than evolution. It's the suddenness and completeness of the change in the geologic column that eliminates the possibility of evolution. Evolution implies gradual uninterrupted change. The evidence of sudden cataclysm seen in the geologic record denies this possibility.


Dude - you made it clear that you do not understand evolution months ago. Why are you still rambling on like a fool? Penance or something?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Taxonomy isn't a science either, since it has no real scientific definition to work from..

Wow. You really don't like biology do you? ^_^

So if it is a big deal a verse can be interpreted many ways, then it is a big deal species can be interpreted many ways.

My point was never about 'verses'. My point is that creationists have no objective way to distinguish their ideas and consequently have radically different (and blatantly contradictory) views of the history of this planet. You won't find the same level of radical difference in science that you will in creationist beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Right. You forget I am much older.

I'd expect so. Creationist demographics tend to be older. It's partially why creationism is on the decline.

When I was growing up the universe was 2 billion years old, then 4 billion, then 8 billion, then 12 billion, now it's 13.7 billion. When the James Webb telescope comes online they will upgrade that to 20 billion.... or more....

Not inconsequential numbers or small margins of errors at all......

What you are describing is changes to scientific theories/hypotheses/etc. based on the gathering of new information. That's how science works; it formulates conclusions based on the best information available at the time. The idea is that over time, it gets ever closer to a more accurate description of the universe in which we live.

Creationists however are starting with radically different ideas and have no way to distinguish them. If there was still ongoing debate over the age of the universe (say 100 million years versus 13 billion years) you might have a point. But is there still that level of debate in science? No.

Meanwhile creationists can't seem to agree on something like the age of the Earth. How how old is the Earth? Is it only 6000 years? 4.5 billion? Something in between? Why can't creationists come to an agreement? You still haven't answered this...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So, where did you get your PhD from? How many fossil digs have you been on? I'm sure those are silly questions since you obviously have the academic background and tons of experience with fossils and are well known in paleontological circles since you know so much more than all those so-called "experts."

Right?
Let us not forget that this is the creationist genius that declared that 'vocalizations' such as when you stub your toe or something are caused by "the gut" sending motor impulses via the recurrent laryngeal nerve directly to the larynx...

He also later expanded on that biology expertise by declaring that the aorta can do the same.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Can you refute my assertions?
One can see that YOU did not support them in any way.
Why do you think you can expect detailed refutations when you provide nothing to refute?

Mere assertions can be rejected with mere dismissals.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What an attitude. Why bother going to optician to sort out your eyes?? They've only been studying their chosen profession for like forever.
The list could go on and on. Just what is the point in anybody dedicating their lives to the study of a subject. Might as well just use the local postman to sort out that tumour in your brain. Ridiculous!!!
Unless, of course, the discussion is involves:

1. What THEY do for a living, for you see, what THEY do takes skill, knowledge and experience. But my goodness, those 'scientists' - what do they know? They are just elitists and arrogant know-it-alls who can't tie their own shoes. But do NOT try to tell them that graphic design, or auto body repair is easy!

2. Creation scientists. Those guys are the world's leading experts on everything and are never ever never wrong!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It seems that creatures were able to continue to evolve uninterrupted throughout incredibly destructive cataclysmic environmental events. Of course this ability has been conveniently lost, as during such events today.........they die. :eek:
Yeah, well, except for, you know, those mass extinction events...

Question - why do so many creationists think they know more than they really do?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.