Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[Atheos canadensis]

Sorry that is objectively untrue...at the very least to me

Lol

 

[expos4ever]

...speaking ass an average Hoe.

Now lest I be called a hypocrite, my intent here is not to be pedantic, but rather to point out the amusing nature of these typos (perhaps they were intentional).

 

[Michael]

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'.

The amusing part to me is the assumption that humans somehow lived along side of T-Rex.

 

[RickG]

The amusing part to me is the assumption that humans somehow lived along side of T-Rex.

Assuming they did one would then need to explain why there human and dinosaur fossils are not found in the same age strata.

 

[lasthero]

Lol

I was wondering if anyone else noticed that.

 

[Michael]

Assuming they did one would then need to explain why there human and dinosaur fossils are not found in the same age strata.

Not to mention explaining how our ancestors managed to not be eaten.

 

[Heissonear]

The fossil record is distributed throughout earth's sedimentary strata from the oldest and simplest life forms progressively becoming more and more complex and diversified with respect to time, environmental conditions and extinction events in such a manner as to suggest evolution according to the mainstream scientific community.

In this thread I am issuing a specific challenge.

Explain the fossil record contained in earth's sedimentary strata without evolution.

In doing this you are required to utilize science and only science.

Also, if you provide a link, you are to provide information about what is contained in that link, not just a link. You are also expected to be familiar with the information contained in any links provided or citations made.

Rick, this is your original post, and you have no proof of evolution. You have no evidence.

What you state as evidence is infered.

You infer the extensive sedimementary rock record shows that lower life forms went through a "mutation, adaptation, and natural selection process" to produce higher life forms.

But where are the transition species that should show this Dawarinism?

There are no sequences of strata where we have unearthed the change of a lower life form that has step by step clearly transitioned into a higher life form. We have zero sequences.

You have zero proof of what you have infered.

And you call that science? I call that a theory with the most important evidence missing.

You have tried to make science Lord: what we are to submit and bow to.

Yet the most important evidence to support your claim is entirely missing. No if's, and's, or but's.

And you want us to present solid science of another way? Excuse me, science is not Lord for a reason you have yet to recognized.

 

[Heissonear]

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

Rick, you have inserted major assumptions. Major assumptions. And have excluded major "causes" that are from the One on High. You have dismissed and restricted His Work and Purpose in the geologic rock record.

And your state your "science is solid"? It is a theory, Rick. A theory lacking the most important evidence. You do know that.

 

[Michael]

Rick, this is your original post, and you have no proof of evolution. You have no evidence.

What you state as evidence is infered.

You infer the extensive sedimementary rock record shows that lower life forms went through a "mutation, adaptation, and natural selection process" to produce higher life forms.

It's more of an "observation" than inference. If we routinely found human fossil remains mixed together with T-Rex remains in the same layer of sediment, you might have a case. As it stands, we observe various layers of sediment, each with varying degrees of complex life. Furthermore we find evidence of mass extinction events that correspond with an unusual concentration of olivine in that layer of sediment, a mineral that most commonly is found in comets. After that layer is observed, no more large body dinosaurs can be found.

There is a wealth of information that very much corresponds to an ancient Earth, and that information alone is entirely consistent with a layering process that took place over a very prolonged period of time, not from a singular event.

IMO you're misusing the term "evidence". Evidence is often highly subjective, particularly when it deviates from empirical physics. The evidence of an ancient Earth is actually entirely empirical at this point.

 

[Reasoning]

Rick, this is your original post, and you have no proof of evolution. You have no evidence.
What you state as evidence is infered.
You infer the extensive sedimementary rock record shows that lower life forms went through a "mutation, adaptation, and natural selection process" to produce higher life forms.
But where are the transition species that should show this Dawarinism?
There are no sequences of strata where we have unearthed the change of a lower life form that has step by step clearly transitioned into a higher life form. We have zero sequences.
You have zero proof of what you have infered.
And you call that science? I call that a theory with the most important evidence missing.
You have tried to make science Lord: what we are to submit and bow to.
Yet the most important evidence to support your claim is entirely missing. No if's, and's, or but's.
And you want us to present solid science of another way? Excuse me, science is not Lord for a reason you have yet to recognized.

Please, evolution is a fact and it is supported by 150 years of consecutive evidence by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Not a single shred of evidence has ever been found that opposes it. This topic explains some of it: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...reationist-accepted-evolution.7925537/page-28. It is all explained here too: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

I suggest you start at the beginning, because stating that there is no evidence for evolution is just plain wrong and ignorant. It is the most documented and most certain scientific theory we have, it's a shame I have to keep on repeating this over and over. Also the 'sequences' or 'missing link' is a false argument that has been explained so many times already, please read the websites I gave you, and if you really have any questions I'll come back on that later.

Also, please look up what is meant by a scientific theory, because from your post it seems like you are falling for the very common (but very ignorant) 'just a theory' fallacy, which is a shame if you really want to grasp the topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Rick, you have inserted major assumptions. Major assumptions. And have excluded major "causes" that are from the One on High. You have dismissed and restricted His Work and Purpose in the geologic rock record.

Is this an admission that you don't have an explanation for the observed fossil record?

And your state your "science is solid"? It is a theory, Rick. A theory lacking the most important evidence. You do know that.

We are asking for your theory. How do you explain the fossil record?

 

[Loudmouth]

Rick, this is your original post, and you have no proof of evolution. You have no evidence.

The distribution of fossils in the fossil record is not based on the theory of evolution. The thread is asking for YOUR theory as it pertains to the fossil record. You are free to assume that evolution is false for the purposes of this thread.

You infer

the extensive sedimementary rock record shows that lower life forms went through a "mutation, adaptation, and natural selection process" to produce higher life forms.

What do you infer, and why?

There are no sequences of strata where we have unearthed the change of a lower life form that has step by step clearly transitioned into a higher life form. We have zero sequences.

How did you determine this? What criteria are you using to compare fossils?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's just naturalistic interpretation, which has many problems (which they don't tell you)Allright, no problem.
God created life, which through procreation filled the earth.
Then there was a huge flood, and now we have dried mud layers with dead animals and plants in it.

Bye.

If that's the case, why is there no even spread of animals throughout all strata?
Why don't we find rabbits in pre-cambrian strata?
Why don't we find humans next to dino's?
Etc?

In other words, why does the fossil record show a progression of species through strata instead of a relatively random mix?

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, why does the fossil record show a progression of species through strata instead of a relatively random mix?

Has this been tested in a laboratory, using life-like dummies, instead of real animals?

 

[Hieronymus]

If that's the case, why is there no even spread of animals throughout all strata?
Why don't we find rabbits in pre-cambrian strata?
Why don't we find humans next to dino's?
Etc?

In other words, why does the fossil record show a progression of species through strata instead of a relatively random mix?

Has this been tested in a laboratory, using life-like dummies, instead of real animals?

It has actually, more or less.
Stratification doesn't just occur when over time you add layers, it happens when a big jumble of mud, rocks and organisms come to rest too.
Obviously birds will end higher up than fish, because of their volume to weight ratio.
Size also plays a roll.

There are good models ceationists subscibe to that are consistent with both the flood and what we see today.

Let's not forget,or let's realize the naturlistic / (popularizd) scientific models have some serious problems too.
The dating of the layers is usually based on the type of fossils in them, and the age of the fossils are usually based on what layer they're in.
So that's circular reasoning.
Radioactive dating turns out to be unreliable as well, for various resons.
Things naturalists are unaware of usually, or they just ignore it.

Folks, it's a controversy. Really it is.
But we take the well known models for granted, because it has a huge platform in the world.
Is that justified?
I don't think so.

We should compare both models.
That is the naturalistic popular model versus the creationist model.
Both sides have the same scientific data to work with.
You'll have to assess which model is more plausible, more consistent with the evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Has this been tested in a laboratory, using life-like dummies, instead of real animals?

It seems that this is a question you should ask a YEC advocate.
Why would a scientist, who doesn't make silly claims about supernatural floods, test such an idea? Especially considering that the scientist has a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the fossil record is the way it is already....

 

[DogmaHunter]

It has actually, more or less.
Stratification doesn't just occur when over time you add layers, it happens when a big jumble of mud, rocks and organisms come to rest too.
Obviously birds will end higher up than fish, because of their volume to weight ratio.
Size also plays a roll.

There are good models ceationists subscibe to that are consistent with both the flood and what we see today.

Let's not forget,or let's realize the naturlistic / scientific models have some serious problems too.
The dating of the layers is usually based on the type of fossils in them, and the age of the fossils are usually based on what layer they're in.
So that's circular reasoning.
Radioactive dating turns out to be unreliable as well, for various resons.
Things naturalists are unaware of usually, or they just ignore it.

Folks, it's a controversy. Really it is.
But we take the well known models for granted, because it has a huge platform in the world.
Is that justified?
I don't think so.

We should compare both models.
That is the naturalistic popular model versus the creationist model.
Both sides have the same scientific data to work with.
You'll have to assess which model is more plausible, more consistent with the evidence.

I note that you actually didn't answer the question.

Please address the question...

Why does the fossil record show a progression of species throughout the strata? Why is there not a relatively random mix of animals accross all strata, if it was done in a flash flood?

Why no humans with dino's?
Why no whales with sea dino's?
Why no rabbits in the pre-cambrian?

If you are going to reference "experiments" that demonstrate why they would be neatly layered (as an evolutionary history would expect), then please include links to the papers about said experiments.

 

[The Barbarian]

Has this been tested in a laboratory, using life-like dummies, instead of real animals?

It's been tested in real life floods and lahars. And yet, the species caught and drowned are distributed randomly in the debris.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'll have to assess which model is more plausible, more consistent with the evidence.

I vote we let the Bible break the tie.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems that this is a question you should ask a YEC advocate.
Why would a scientist, who doesn't make silly claims about supernatural floods, test such an idea? Especially considering that the scientist has a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the fossil record is the way it is already....

And why would a YEC advocate waste his time testing it in a laboratory, just to satisfy those who say the Flood couldn't have been global?