More on why I reject evolution

Job 33:6 · Jan 19, 2021

But, with all of the above said, there still is no explanation from deniers of evolution, for how the fossil succession came to be. Just misinformation mixed with baseless statements, some cherry picking of quotes and outright lies.

Indeed, evolution by common descent is the only valid explanation.

And if someone thinks that a flood could make the succession, then feel free to try to explain how:
View attachment 293722

Job 33:6 · Jan 19, 2021

SilverBear · Jan 20, 2021

DaveISBA said:
As the co-founder said in his video he spent 26 years unsuccessfully searching for an intermediate!

I'm guessing the only place he looked was underneath is couch cushions because you can stroll into any paleontology exhibit at any museum and singe any number of transitional forms.

DaveISBA · Jan 20, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
You're just continuing to lie, over and over and over again.

At least a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik have been uncovered. It's not just one skeleton. Several of which are nearly complete skeletons.
A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan | Nature

There are not a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik that have been uncovered...just one and that is all that is ever illistrated is just the one fossil! The claim of a (tetrapod like fish) is not another tiktaalik fossil...it's never even called that!

KomatiiteBIF said:
The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb | Nature
Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae

Clearly you just read the headlines and didn't do any research because the missing rear portion of the same fish containing the pectoral finand pelvic girdle were found at subsequent digs at the same site as the original find all belonging to the one fossil. In the article they show the rear portion attached to the same original fossil.
"As the researchers investigated additional blocks recovered from their original and subsequent expeditions to the dig site in northern Canada, (they discovered the rear portion of Tiktaalik), which contained the pelves as well as partial pelvic fin material."Discovery of new Tiktaalik roseae fossils reveals key link in evolution of hind limbs

KomatiiteBIF said:
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. And just because something is called a fish, doesn't mean that it isn't transitional. Every transitional species has to be called something. A reptile to bird intermediate has to be called either a reptile or a bird. You don't just make up names for things in between.

Did I say it's not claimed to be a transitional? A fish by any other name is still a fish! Besides your argument is not with me but with those who give it the technical name (Lobe-finned fish)!

KomatiiteBIF said:
And regarding the question of how fossils get up into mountains, there is a simple thing called the theory of plate tectonics that explains uplift of rock far better than any explanation you have.

You wasted your time explaining plate tectonics. I'm not arguing against that at all but how did (marine fossil) get up into mountains...did they climb? No! Before they were mountains and rose, my point being they were under water!

KomatiiteBIF said:
If you ever decide to actually address the fossil succession beyond just making up false information, feel free to let me know.

Since there is no evidence that Darwin's TOE ever occurred there can be no fossil succession proving his theory so any discussion is pointless!

KomatiiteBIF said:
And with that, I'll have to part ways.

Leaving so soon? Bye!

Job 33:6 · Jan 20, 2021

DaveISBA said:
There are not a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik that have been uncovered...just one and that is all that is ever illistrated is just the one fossil!

There are high definition photographs and descriptions of the various individual Tiktaalik specimen available for anyone who cares to look at the research. And the specimen are given individual names. They have independent shapes and sizes that are also described in published research.

To say that there is only one Tiktaalik specimen is simply false.

What you're proposing really is akin to a conspiracy theory. That perhaps people are lying about fossils, re arranging their bones to make them look like independent specimen, perhaps forging stories about how they were discovered. Peer review teams would have to be in on it, perhaps writing reviews about how they also examined multiple specimen. Museums that store the specimen, museums that store casts, the teams that removed rock matrix from the bones themselves etc. All of it would have to be a giant conspiracy.

What this suggests is that deniers of evolution are on par with moon landing denialists and 9/11 truthers. And if that's how you feel about the topic, then there is nothing I can do to help you.

So there ya have it. The Creationist response to the fossil succession is to basically say that it's a giant conspiracy...

SilverBear · Jan 20, 2021

DaveISBA said:
There are not a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik that have been uncovered...just one and that is all that is ever illistrated is just the one fossil! The claim of a (tetrapod like fish) is not another tiktaalik fossil...it's never even called that!

over 20 separate fossils of Tiktaalik have been found in northern Canada and an additional 8 in Europe.

DaveISBA · Jan 21, 2021

That's just an artistic illustration of order that is claimed to exist! It's is always only shown on paper! Darwin said if his theory is correct there should be a "finely graded chain" of a "truly enormous" amounts of intermediate links ...where is it in the drawing?
Time after time, in your drawing, you read the first this and the first that with no evolutionary history! All I see in your drawing is creatures appearing in the fossil record fully formed then most going extinct! Exactly what is observed by those who dig for and study the fossils! That incidentally also fits the creation narrative!

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, an American physical anthropologist and professor of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh (Sudden Origins): Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, p. 3
"We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus -- full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms."

DaveISBA · Jan 21, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
There are high definition photographs and descriptions of the various individual Tiktaalik specimen available for anyone who cares to look at the research. And the specimen are given individual names. They have independent shapes and sizes that are also described in published research.

Not talking about tiktaalik specimens linked to the same original find. I'm talking about the dozen or so (fossils of individual tiktaalik) you claim are out there!
So now you're saying the creature designated tiktaalik has different names? Then that would indicate they're not the same creature!
If you Google (individual Tiktaalik fossil finds) you get pictures and information about the one and only tiktaalik fossil!

KomatiiteBIF said:
To say that there is only one Tiktaalik specimen is simply false.

That's not what I said! I said there is one and only one tiktaalik fossil! If there are more show me the pictures of each (individual fossil named tiktaalik) not just parts of the one fossil!

KomatiiteBIF said:
What this suggests is that deniers of evolution are on par with moon landing denialists and 9/11 truthers. And if that's how you feel about the topic, then there is nothing I can do to help you.

I'm not the one you should be telling this to! I suggest you get in touch with those who study the fossils and inform them of their error...like Ernst Walter Mayr!
Ernst Walter Mayr was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists. (One Long Argument): Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, p. 138
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. (Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record)." My emphasis!

KomatiiteBIF said:
So there ya have it. The Creationist response to the fossil succession is to basically say that it's a giant conspiracy...

No...if there is such a thing it certainly doesn't prove Darwin's TOE as I can list a trove of evolution researchers, Starting with Darwin himself, having to admit they see no evidence of it!

Job 33:6 · Jan 21, 2021

DaveISBA said:
Not talking about tiktaalik specimens linked to the same original find. I'm talking about the dozen or so (fossils of individual tiktaalik) you claim are out there!
So now you're saying the creature designated tiktaalik has different names? Then that would indicate they're not the same creature!
If you Google (individual Tiktaalik fossil finds) you get pictures and information about the one and only tiktaalik fossil!

That's not what I said! I said there is one and only one tiktaalik fossil! If there are more show me the pictures of each (individual fossil named tiktaalik) not just parts of the one fossil!

I'm not the one you should be telling this to! I suggest you get in touch with those who study the fossils and inform them of their error...like Ernst Walter Mayr!
Ernst Walter Mayr was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists. (One Long Argument): Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, p. 138
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. (Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record)." My emphasis!

No...if there is such a thing it certainly doesn't prove Darwin's TOE as I can list a trove of evolution researchers, Starting with Darwin himself, having to admit they see no evidence of it!

Tiktaalik is a species in which numerous individual skeletons have been uncovered. Kind of like how mankind is a species and there are many of us.

It isn't just one skeleton. There are at least a dozen. And they are individual skeletons of one single species.

What you're proposing is a massive conspiracy theory. And I just can't subscribe to such nonsense.

Job 33:6 · Jan 21, 2021

DaveISBA said:
! If there are more show me the pictures of each (individual fossil named tiktaalik) not just parts of the one fossil!

All you have to do is google them. They aren't hard to find. They have different names too, such as NUFV108, NUFV109, NUFV110, NUFV111 etc.

Job 33:6 · Jan 21, 2021

And regarding he above, you can't say that these are bones of the same skeleton because NUFV108, is very clearly different than NUFV109 as an example depicted of the jaws above.

They are very clearly separate specimen. Two different Jaws. Same with NUFV110 and 111. They're very clearly different skeletons of the same species. They range in size too. Some tiktaaliks are larger than others.

And this is all described in peer reviewed research.

Job 33:6 · Jan 21, 2021

Here are some more quotes from research:

A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan | Nature

Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae

The collection of fossils initially discovered were determined to be from 10 individuals, as noted above in the research.

And really, the photographs prove this. Unless you believe that the photographs and the research and the peer review and the museum's holding the fossils and the people who removed the fossils from their matrix and the people who conducted digital scans of them etc. Etc. Are all part of some.master conspiracy. In which case I would simply have to inform anyone who thinks that this is all fake, that they have lost their minds.

SilverBear · Jan 21, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
And regarding he above, you can't say that these are bones of the same skeleton because NUFV108, is very clearly different than NUFV109 as an example depicted of the jaws above.

They are very clearly separate specimen. Two different Jaws. Same with NUFV110 and 111. They're very clearly different skeletons of the same species. They range in size too. Some tiktaaliks are larger than others.

And this is all described in peer reviewed research.

odds are your post won't even be looked at and the whole thing declared a hoax out of hand

Job 33:6 · Jan 22, 2021

SilverBear said:
odds are your post won't even be looked at and the whole thing declared a hoax out of hand

Ah it's ok

. I've never minded having my ideas tested, it just drives me to read more.

They're a dying breed and I don't mind watching them fade.

I remember 10-15 years ago, some forums would just swarm with deniers of evolution. But these days, it's just a few extreme stragglers holding out. Every so often on very rare occasions I'll find an honest one though.

My guess is that he will say that the bones are all from one skeleton, despite there blatantly being multiple bones depicted, such as the jaw bones. Maybe he will say that one of these bones is actually from some other random animal, or perhaps that the photos have been doctored or bones re-arranged to make them look as if they are different.

Job 33:6 · Jan 22, 2021

And, on top of all the above said, I have to point out that through all of the above, no explanation for the fossil succession has been given by deniers of evolution. Only denial of its existence.

Unless you're living in the 1700s, this is a very weak position to hold.

DaveISBA · Jan 22, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
At least a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik have been uncovered. It's not just one skeleton. Several of which are nearly complete skeletons.
A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan | Nature
The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb | Nature
Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae

I made a simple request...you claim there are "At least a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik" Direct me to the pictures of the dozen nearly complete (tiktaalik) skeletons!

KomatiiteBIF said:
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. And just because something is called a fish, doesn't mean that it isn't transitional. Every transitional species has to be called something. A reptile to bird intermediate has to be called either a reptile or a bird. You don't just make up names for things in between.

There is no reptile to bird intermediate! Archaeopteryx the so called prime example is a total fraud!

KomatiiteBIF said:
And regarding the question of how fossils get up into mountains, there is a simple thing called the theory of plate tectonics that explains uplift of rock far better than any explanation you have.

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
"At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells (that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas)." My emphasis!

KomatiiteBIF said:
If you ever decide to actually address the fossil succession beyond just making up false information, feel free to let me know.

"The geology of the Grand Canyon area is claimed to include one of the most complete and studied sequences of rock on Earth. The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old." But there's a problem!
The 2021 Encyclopeaedia Britannica:
Grand Canyon | Facts, Map, Geology, & Videos | Britannica
“There are immense time gaps; many millions of years are unaccounted for, owing to gaps in the strata that resulted either from vast quantities of materials being removed by erosion or because there was little or no deposition of materials. Thus, (rock formations of considerably different ages are separated by only a thin distinct surface that reveals the vast unconformity in time.)” Curious!!!

The fossils in Canyon layers, the most complete and studied sequences of rock, indicate your fossil succession layers depiction is wrong! because of the fact that the fossils in The Grand Canyon consists mostly of marine fossils found throughout the layers not in a sliver layer at the bottom!
Also curiously there are only footprints of creatures found and no dinosaur fossils as depicted in your drawing!
Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
"The sedimentary rocks exposed throughout the canyon are rich with marine fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, and sponges with several layers containing terrestrial fossils such as leaf and dragonfly wing impressions, and footprints of scorpions, centipedes, and reptiles."
"What about dinosaur fossils? Not at Grand Canyon!"

Job 33:6 · Jan 22, 2021

DaveISBA said:
I made a simple request...you claim there are "At least a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik" Direct me to the pictures of the dozen nearly complete (tiktaalik) skeletons!

There is no reptile to bird intermediate! Archaeopteryx the so called prime example is a total fraud!

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
"At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells (that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas)." My emphasis!

"The geology of the Grand Canyon area is claimed to include one of the most complete and studied sequences of rock on Earth. The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old." But there's a problem!
The 2021 Encyclopeaedia Britannica:
Grand Canyon | Facts, Map, Geology, & Videos | Britannica
“There are immense time gaps; many millions of years are unaccounted for, owing to gaps in the strata that resulted either from vast quantities of materials being removed by erosion or because there was little or no deposition of materials. Thus, (rock formations of considerably different ages are separated by only a thin distinct surface that reveals the vast unconformity in time.)” Curious!!!

The fossils in Canyon layers, the most complete and studied sequences of rock, indicate your fossil succession layers depiction is wrong! because of the fact that the fossils in The Grand Canyon consists mostly of marine fossils found throughout the layers not in a sliver layer at the bottom!
Also curiously there are only footprints of creatures found and no dinosaur fossils as depicted in your drawing!
Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
"The sedimentary rocks exposed throughout the canyon are rich with marine fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, and sponges with several layers containing terrestrial fossils such as leaf and dragonfly wing impressions, and footprints of scorpions, centipedes, and reptiles."
"What about dinosaur fossils? Not at Grand Canyon!"

Looks like you're trying to change the subject again.

So let's recap. You believed there was just 1 individual animal called Tiktaalik. I made reference to research that describes some 20 individual specimen known as NUFV108 through NUFV135.

You wanted proof that they weren't all from one animal, and I have posted high definition photographs of multiples of the same bones from what has been described as having originated from at least 10 individuals. In the images above, there are clearly multiple jaw bones depicted that are different from one another, therefore demonstrating that indeed Tiktaalik isn't just 1 animal, as you have insisted.

The high definition pictures demonstrate that you're wrong, the three-dimensional scans demonstrate that you're wrong, the research demonstrates that you're wrong, statements from those who have prepared the fossils at individual museums suggest that you're wrong...

By all accounts you are simply wrong. And it's blatantly obvious.

Now, with that said I'll move on to discuss other topics.

Job 33:6 · Jan 22, 2021

DaveISBA said:
The fossils in Canyon layers, the most complete and studied sequences of rock, indicate your fossil succession layers depiction is wrong! because of the fact that the fossils in The Grand Canyon consists mostly of marine fossils found throughout the layers not in a sliver layer at the bottom!
Also curiously there are only footprints of creatures found and no dinosaur fossils as depicted in your drawing!
Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
"The sedimentary rocks exposed throughout the canyon are rich with marine fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, and sponges with several layers containing terrestrial fossils such as leaf and dragonfly wing impressions, and footprints of scorpions, centipedes, and reptiles."
"What about dinosaur fossils? Not at Grand Canyon!"

What drawing are you talking about? I haven't posted any drawings of the grand canyon.

The rocks of the Grand canyon are older and superpositionally deeper than layers that contain dinosaur fossils.

That's the simple reason that there are no dinosaur fossils in the Grand canyon. There isn't anything mysterious about this.

I guess I'll let you respond to this one before I respond to anything else.

Job 33:6 · Jan 22, 2021

As per the images above, dinosaurs lived during the mesozoic, but the grand canyon rocks end at the permian, before the mesozoic begins.

Job 33:6 · Jan 22, 2021

KomatiiteBIF said:
What drawing are you talking about? I haven't posted any drawings of the grand canyon.

The rocks of the Grand canyon are older and superpositionally deeper than layers that contain dinosaur fossils.

That's the simple reason that there are no dinosaur fossils in the Grand canyon. There isn't anything mysterious about this.

I guess I'll let you respond to this one before I respond to anything else.

Also, the age of the rocks that make up the canyon, should not be confused with the age of the canyon itself.

If I bake a chocolate cake in the oven at 5pm, and at 6pm I pour milk over that cake and wash part of it away...

There is a difference between the age of the layers of the cake and the age of the canyon made in the cake by the milk. One originated at 5pm, the other at 6pm.

And dinosaurs existed in the grand canyon between the ages in which the layers first formed and the age in which the canyon within the layers formed.

Thus, The layers of the canyon are older than dinosaurs, but the canyon itself is younger than dinosaurs.

If dinosaurs were in my cake analogy, they would have lived at around 530 pm. Too late in time to be within the layers, but early enough in time to predate erosion.

The layers of the grand canyon range in time from pre-cambrian to permian, but the erosion occurred in the mid cenozoic. And dinosaurs lived in-between, during the mesozoic. And since there are no Mesozoic rocks in the Grand canyon, there are no dinosaurs.

However it is also true that if we go a bit outside of the Grand canyon, we do find Mesozoic rocks super positionally above and more shallower than the layers of the Grand canyon. Because of course rock layers don't just stop at the Grand canyon, they continue on over vast distances. So when we follow those Grand canyon layers, eventually they become overlain by Mesozoic rock, which does contains dinosaur fossils.

And that's how we know that the grand canyon layers predate dinosaurs, because dinosaur fossils exist in shallower rocks (remember that deeper rocks are older than shallower rocks, and that If shallower rocks were older, they would be floating in thin air because the rocks below them wouldn't exist yet). Generally speaking.

More on why I reject evolution

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads