Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[RickG]

If you have all of this knowledge, why start this thread? I tend to agree with Hieronymus' comments. Is there any room for an alternative here without having it summarily explained away?

The fossil record is a physical reality. How did it get there? I have been excluding evolution to provide an opportunity to explain it otherwise. How did it get there?

 

[RickG]

Thereby excluding any references made to science. I do not believe Jfrsmth is inventing the quotes with references. What a closed-minded view, and so often repeated in these forums. I don't know why I even try.

No, Hoghead1 is saying your source is not using science.

 

[Jfrsmth]

More precisely a creationist who has declared that no fact, however well-documented can override his interpretation of the Bible.

So why this thread?? If you two got it covered? Are you just trying to set a trap and try to destroy creationists with your evolutionary philosophy?

 

[Jfrsmth]

You have not yet addressed the topic. Addressing the topic is explaining scientifically how the fossils got where they are. The OP is assuming they did not get there by evolution. So how did they get there without evolution?

Since you and Barbarian have all of this education and knowledge. Why can't we discuss the issue without the set-up?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since you and Barbarian have all of this education and knowledge. Why can't we discuss the issue without the set-up?

What set-up? Is the whole idea of talking about science, as per the sub-forum rules, somehow frightening to you?

 

[Jfrsmth]

What set-up? Is the whole idea of talking about science, as per the sub-forum rules, somehow frightening to you?

I would love to listen to your ideas and maybe even learn something. But, you are starting from the assumption that the layers of the geo. column are the result of millions of years of accumulation - a uniformitarian view, while rejecting an alternative view of flood geology and a young earth.

I enjoy science. You guys could teach us something, but your worldview seems to be defaulted to evolution, when there is evidence that supports that model. Much of what I have been posting along these lines has been dismissed without more in-depth discussion.

Again, there are people on this thread who could contribute a lot to the discussion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I would love to listen to your ideas and maybe even learn something. But, you are starting from the assumption that the layers of the geo. column are the result of millions of years of accumulation - a uniformitarian view, while rejecting an alternative view of flood geology and a young earth.

I enjoy science. You guys could teach us something, but your worldview seems to be defaulted to evolution.

Well, since the geological column all dates as millions of years and there is zero evidence of the Earth being young and there being zero evidence for a global flood forming all of the world's geological layers, then by Occam's Razor, the uniformitarian view must be the correct one.
Of course, we could go incredibly off topic with this so back to the OP question: can you explain the fossil record without evolution and without relying the story given in the Bible?

 

[The Barbarian]

I suppose the OP could be construed as a trap to lure creationists into putting their ideas on the table for examination.

 

[RickG]

Since you and Barbarian have all of this education and knowledge. Why can't we discuss the issue without the set-up?

Are you suggesting including evolution as a possible scientific explanation since there seems to no other explanation? Just asking?

 

[RickG]

I would love to listen to your ideas and maybe even learn something. But, you are starting from the assumption that the layers of the geo. column are the result of millions of years of accumulation - a uniformitarian view, while rejecting an alternative view of flood geology and a young earth.

Actually geologic age is irrelevant with respect to the OP. Nevertheless, there are no assumptions pertaining to the geologic column, the science is solid.

I enjoy science. You guys could teach us something, but your worldview seems to be defaulted to evolution, when there is evidence that supports that model. Much of what I have been posting along these lines has been dismissed without more in-depth discussion.

It has been dismissed for two reasons: (1) off topic, (2) no science presented.

Again, there are people on this thread who could contribute a lot to the discussion.

And that is encouraged. The only stipulation is that those contributions be science.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Well, since the geological column all dates as millions of years and there is zero evidence of the Earth being young and there being zero evidence for a global flood forming all of the world's geological layers, then by Occam's Razor, the uniformitarian view must be the correct one.

There it is.

There is evidence supporting a rapid formation of the strata. You are choosing to ignore it. Is it really off-topic? The data I have presented supports a rapid burial of the fossils, and another possible mechanism for the layering we see. Nicolas Steno (considered the father of modern geology) apparently saw things from a young earth creationist perspective too. It is more of a stretch to assume millions of years in that case - thereby, I agree, Occam's Razor is the rule here.

Sources I have given, have all been rejected, one comment tries to discredit Henry Morris who had a Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering, and his observation of the geology of Mount St. Helens. You go after and try to discredit and reject me for stating the published science (go after the messenger instead of the message); you reject the scientists who say otherwise, and you reject the science of it. You call yours science but when I share mine it isn't science. How ridiculous.

Where is this gonna end? Don't you see, this is typical evolutionist behavior?

Anyone else reading this thread, be warned, this is exactly what evolutionists do.

That's too bad. Nothing is going to happen here.

Well, I'm gonna take my leave now of this thread. Enjoy guys.

 

[RickG]

Sources I have given, have all been rejected, one comment tries to discredit Henry Morris who had a Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering, and his observation of the geology of Mount St. Helens. You go after and try to discredit and reject me for stating the published science (go after the messenger instead of the message); you reject the scientists who say otherwise, and you reject the science of it. You call yours science but when I share mine it isn't science. How ridiculous.

I'll tell you what Jfrsmth, I'll meet you half-way. If you wish to make a point on geologic strata, do so. The only thing I ask is that it is presented with science and you don't go on another Gish Gallop. One specific item at a time.

Where is this gonna end? Don't you see, this is typical evolutionist behavior?

That's up to you. I've been trying to avoid evolution.

Anyone else reading this thread, be warned, this is exactly what evolutionists do.

The thread is not about evolution.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Barbarian.

Thanks for your reply.

I said,

The genetic code of Canis familiaris is identical to the genetic code of Canis Lupus.

You stated,

A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a
new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.

Which means dogs and wolves have the same ancestoral parents.

Here is the evidence to support my statement.

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at
most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence....In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild
relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”
(Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D, 'Molecular evolution of the dog family', theoretical and applied genetics.)

Read that again Barbarian, at most 0.2% of mtDNA, there is no difference between a domestic dog
and a gray wolf.

I need the genetic data of the extinct ancestoral specimen, to verify this speculative claim.
What you will find is the extinct ancestor is a canid with virtually no difference in DNA
to the offspring, whether dog or wolf.

Barbarian observes: Canis familiaris is the domestic dog.

The wolf-like canids, the fox-like canids, and the South American canids, including the
bush dog are a monophyletic group.

A monophyletic taxon, is one that includes a group of organisms descended from a single
ancestor. Just as human races are all just one monophylectic group, descended from one
ancestor, so are canids. Though you may classify a subspecies of humans due to selective
breeding, I would reject that idea immediately.

The idea that selective breeding is different to a natural breeding is erroneous. The genetic
disposition of the canid is all that matters in the end. We are always talking from the stand
point of Genetics.

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is a domesticated canid
which has been selectively bred for millennia for various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and
physical attributes.[2]

That's not what the genetics tells us Barbarian, still stumbling over the morphology.

Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought A widely held belief is that dogs evolved from gray wolves, but a new study finds that the common ancestor of dogs and wolves went extinct thousands of years ago.

At most 0.2% of mtDNA.

What's more, the extensive DNA analysis -- published in the latest PLoS Genetics -- found that dogs are more closely related to each other than to wolves, regardless of their geographic origin. The genetic overlap seen today between dogs and wolves is likely then due to interbreeding after dog domestication.

The genetic overlap is due to a common ancestor, boneheads.

"The common ancestor of dogs and wolves was a large, wolf-like animal that lived between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago," Robert Wayne, co-senior author of the study, told Discovery News. "Based on DNA evidence, it lived in Europe."
http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/dogs-not-as-close-kin-to-wolves-as-thought-140116.htm

All we are interested in is the genetic code of this extinct wolf Barbarian.

The process of evolution proposes a speciation which is not evident in the DNA of these
specimens.

I reject the concept of speciation, the DNA is identical, David is now laughing.

Genetically, they differ from wolves by about as much as we differ from chimpanzees,
a few percent, at most.

Barbarian, 0.2% of mtDNA is the figure, not a few percent.

Using the differences in morphology of any Genus is an erroneous methadology.
Genes, however, are very good for this purpose, and as you can see, they don't support your belief.

But they do establish my initial claim, and refute your erroneous claim.

 

[The Barbarian]

There it is.

There is evidence supporting a rapid formation of the strata. You are choosing to ignore it. Is it really off-topic? The data I have presented supports a rapid burial of the fossils, and another possible mechanism for the layering we see.

So how, exactly, is rapid burial inconsistent with the rapidly-buried fossil persisting for millions of years? You do know that sedimentation tends to be periodic, right?

Sources I have given, have all been rejected, one comment tries to discredit Henry Morris who had a Ph.D. in Hydraulic Engineering, and his observation of the geology of Mount St. Helens.

Wrong Morris. And as you learned, there was nothing like the convoluted Grand Canyon topography at Mt. St. Helens. Morris, not being familiar with the subject, got it completely wrong.

You go after and try to discredit and reject me for stating the published science (go after the messenger instead of the message); you reject the scientists who say otherwise, and you reject the science of it. You call yours science but when I share mine it isn't science. How ridiculous.

Science is about facts, not opinions. That's why Morris' pronouncements fell flat. I showed you the features in question, and as you can see, they aren't anything like the river canyons I also showed you. If you want to do better, endorsements aren't going to help you. Present some of your own facts.

Where is this gonna end?

It's not going to end. That's how science works. We deal in facts.

Don't you see, this is typical evolutionist behavior?

Anyone else reading this thread, be warned, this is exactly what evolutionists do.

In spite of what some people say, not every creationist regards facts the way a vampire regards a crucifix. Some actually try to deal in facts themselves. You would do well to emulate them.

 

[Grafted In]

Perhaps God has destroyed and restored the earth an infinite number of times.

 

[Jfrsmth]

After this, I'm signing off from this thread okay Barbarian, RickG. It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

Flood geology can also interpret the same observed layering:

"Up to 400 feet thickness of strata have formed since 1980 at Mount St. Helens... Mount St. Helens teaches us that the stratified layers commonly characterizing geological formations can form very rapidly by flow processes. Such features have been formed quickly underwater in laboratory sedimentation tanks, and it should not surprise us to see that they have formed in a natural catastrophe... Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere... Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which produced, within a few months, changes which geologists might otherwise assume required many thousands of years. The volcano, therefore, challenges our way of thinking about how the earth works, how it changes, and the time scale we are accustomed to attaching to its formations. These processes and their effects allow Mount St. Helens to serve as a miniature laboratory for catastrophism. Mount St. Helens helps us to imagine what the Biblical Flood, of Noah's day, may have been like."

Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

http://www.icr.org/article/mt-st-helens-catastrophism/

Are you going to discredit him / this too Barbarian, because "I" wasn't there. That seems to be your reasoning. I am sharing the observations from my own research of the data. Isn't that what we do when we write research papers - cite references?? Don't / Didn't you ever cite references to data that you did not personally attend to?

I already presented Nicolas Steno and Dr. Morris, and you discounted their observations too which is puzzling.

Barbarian, you stated: "In spite of what some people say, not every creationist regards facts the way a vampire regards a crucifix. Some actually try to deal in facts themselves. You would do well to emulate them."

That one brought a chuckle. . I thought I was. I don't fear the truth of what we are discussing here, I think it (science) is pretty cool; because I know no matter what we discover, it will all point to God; but when you or RickG say science, I'm wondering what you mean. This is why I asked for a definition early on. But, RickG didn't want to stoop to that.

Also, RickG, you stated, "...mainstream scientific community" in your original post. Who is that? Since the majority of the "mainstream" appears to be evolutionists, I assume you mean those who predominantly subscribe to evolutionary theory?

Take care guys, and grace to you through Jesus Christ.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are you going to discredit him / this too Barbarian, because "I" wasn't there. That seems to be your reasoning. I am sharing the observations from my own research of the data. Isn't that what we do when we write research papers - cite references?? Don't / Didn't you ever cite references to data that you did not personally attend to?

Well, let's take a look:

"Mudflows, from Mount St. Helens, were responsible for the most significant erosion. A mudflow on March 19, 1982, eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley, establishing the new dendritic pattern of drainage. As ICR scientists surveyed this new terrain, they began to contemplate the processes which may have formed the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The little "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon."

Except no switchbacks, or entrenched meanders. As Mt. St. Helens demonstrates, those feature cannot be formed rapidly. They take far, far longer than a human lifetime to form. Scaling up would also be impossible, since the gulleys, being formed of soft sediment are observed to slump whenever vertical walls get more than a few meters high.

"The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly!"

Unless one actually knows what an old river bed looks like.

Then, one would not be fooled:

"Extrapolating from the area of lake floor surveyed to the entire lake bottom, we estimate more than 19,000 upright stumps existed on the floor of the lake in August 1985. The average height of an upright deposited stump is 20 feet. Sonar records and scuba investigations verified that many of the upright deposited trees have root masses radiating away from the bases of the trunks. Furthermore, the trees are randomly spaced, not clumped together, over the bottom of the lake, again having the appearance of being an in situ forest."

Or such formations could actually be a submerged forest, such as is forming near my house. It can form either by flooding, or by a volcanic explosion that just happens to go sideways instead of upward. Which do you think would be the more common occurrance? Me too.

I already presented Nicolas Steno

But his observations don't agree with your beliefs:
These, Steno argued, must have grown from fluids percolating within the Earth, in the same manner that crystals could be made to grow in chemistry experiments. Finally, in the case of strata, layers on top of a set of strata conform to the shape of lower layers. . . and therefore, in a set of strata, the youngest layers must be those of the top, and the oldest must lie on the bottom. This conclusion also follows from Steno's reasoning that rock strata form when particles fall out of suspension in a fluid -- but it also applies to rocks that do not form in this way, such as many igneous rocks. This is now referred to as Steno's law of superposition: layers of rock are arranged in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top, unless later processes disturb this arrangement. It is Steno's most famous contribution to geology.

Steno realized that other geological processes could create apparent exceptions to his laws of superposition and horizontality. He reasoned that the formation of caves might remove part of a lower layer, and that the collapse of a cave might transport large pieces of an upper layer downwards. He recognized that rocks might be uplifted by subterranean forces. Geologists now recognize that tilting, folding, and faulting may also complicate the analysis of a stratigraphic sequence. Molten rock may force its way through surrounding rocks and may sometimes squeeze between older rock layers, also forming an exception to Steno's law. However, such anomalies leave physical evidence in the disturbed rocks; for example, faulted rock layers may be cracked, broken, or metamorphosed along the fault line.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html

and Dr. Morris

I showed you his error. This demonstrates the danger of appeals to authority. Dr. Morris might be a fine engineer, but when he leaves his profession for other things, he is more easily fooled.

Barbarian observes:
In spite of what some people say, not every creationist regards facts the way a vampire regards a crucifix. Some actually try to deal in facts themselves. You would do well to emulate them.

That one brought a chuckle. . I thought I was.

See above. You cited Steno as an authority, not knowing what his conclusions were, or the facts that supported them.

Trust God, you shouid never fear the truth. He is truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which means dogs and wolves have the same ancestoral parents.

In the way that it means humans and chimps had the same ancestral parents, yes.

Here is the evidence to support my statement.

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at
most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence....In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild
relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”
(Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D, 'Molecular evolution of the dog family', theoretical and applied genetics.)

Read that again Barbarian, at most 0.2% of mtDNA, there is no difference between a domestic dog
and a gray wolf.

You've been misled again. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is not our own DNA, but the genome of the mitochondria that live in our cells. And it is also only inherited on the maternal side; males never contribute anything to it.

The actual nuclear DNA of dogs is about 1.2% different than that of wolves, not identical as you argued. This is more than is seen in some species, but reflects the relatively recent (perhaps 20,000 years ago) divergence from a common ancestor.

I need the genetic data of the extinct ancestoral specimen, to verify this speculative claim.
What you will find is the extinct ancestor is a canid with virtually no difference in DNA
to the offspring, whether dog or wolf.

Genetic evidence from an ancient wolf bone discovered lying on the tundra in Siberia's Taimyr Peninsula reveals that wolves and dogs split from their common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago. "Although separation isn't the same as domestication, this opens up the possibility that domestication occurred much earlier than we thought before," said lead study author Pontus Skoglund, who studies ancient DNA at Harvard Medical School and the Broad Institute in Massachusetts. Previously, scientists had pegged the wolf-dog split at no earlier than 16,000 years ago.
http://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html

So again, not identical, not even 10,000 years ago.

 

[RickG]

After this, I'm signing off from this thread okay Barbarian, RickG. It doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

Flood geology can also interpret the same observed layering:

And that is where they stop using science, ignoring the numerous different types of sedimentation and the processes that are very distinctive and unique to each. It is not the same data with a different interpretation, it is ignoring the entire sciences of 'sedimentology' and 'sedimentry petrology'.

 

[RickG]

Hello Barbarian.

Thanks for your reply.

I said,
You stated,
Which means dogs and wolves have the same ancestoral parents.

Here is the evidence to support my statement.

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at
most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence....In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild
relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”
(Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D, 'Molecular evolution of the dog family', theoretical and applied genetics.)

Read that again Barbarian, at most 0.2% of mtDNA, there is no difference between a domestic dog
and a gray wolf.

I need the genetic data of the extinct ancestoral specimen, to verify this speculative claim.
What you will find is the extinct ancestor is a canid with virtually no difference in DNA
to the offspring, whether dog or wolf.


The wolf-like canids, the fox-like canids, and the South American canids, including the
bush dog are a monophyletic group.

A monophyletic taxon, is one that includes a group of organisms descended from a single
ancestor. Just as human races are all just one monophylectic group, descended from one
ancestor, so are canids. Though you may classify a subspecies of humans due to selective
breeding, I would reject that idea immediately.

The idea that selective breeding is different to a natural breeding is erroneous. The genetic
disposition of the canid is all that matters in the end. We are always talking from the stand
point of Genetics.


That's not what the genetics tells us Barbarian, still stumbling over the morphology.


At most 0.2% of mtDNA.


The genetic overlap is due to a common ancestor, boneheads.


All we are interested in is the genetic code of this extinct wolf Barbarian.


I reject the concept of speciation, the DNA is identical, David is now laughing.


Barbarian, 0.2% of mtDNA is the figure, not a few percent.


But they do establish my initial claim, and refute your erroneous claim.

If you and The Barbarian wish to discuss the processes of evolution, please do it in another thread.

Thank you.