• 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.

Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

No one ever said the walls were liquid mud....my post said they were not rock. There is plenty of evidence where sapping was involved.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker


The problem with your idea of using different sorting methods all over the globe is that, if that were the case, we'd expect no cosistency across the globe. In certain areas some animals would be above others, in other areas they'd be below them, depending on what sorting method was going on at the time.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic

You haven't shown how this would produce the order of fossils we see, except to assert it with no evidence. Why would we never find a buffalo fossil with a T. rex? Why don't we find any modern mammals with dinosaurs? Why don't we find burrowing mammals at the bottom of the terrestrial fossil record?
2) Zonation
a. Ecological
b. biogeographic

Why wouldn't we find bony fish in the earliest marine sediments? Bony fish are found throughout all marine ecosystems, so why are they completely absent from the Cambrian?
3) Chance
4) Selective preservation
5) Differential escape

None of which explain the fossil record. Did all grasses run away from the flood faster than birds, allowing them to be buried above the earliest birds?


Floods don't sort animals and rocks so that specific species are always buried rocks with specific ratios of isotopes. In the fossil record, we never find dinosaur fossils above rocks that contain a ratios of 40K and 40Ar consistent with 65 million years of decay. Why?
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No one ever said the walls were liquid mud....my post said they were not rock. There is plenty of evidence where sapping was involved.
Please, you really need to fix your reading comprehension problems. I did not say that they were liquid mud either. Unconsolidated sediments do not make vertical walls. Long before the slope becomes vertical wet sediments slump, sometimes disastrously.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How did the underfit Colorado river....create such a huge canyon? The answer....it didn't. It was formed rapidly.
Wrong again. Millions of years of slow erosion and uplift.

You need to quit listening to the creationist sites. When you don't understand you need to ask real scientists.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Soft dino tissue has demonstrated that you are incorrect.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wrong again. Millions of years of slow erosion and uplift.

You need to quit listening to the creationist sites. When you don't understand you need to ask real scientists.

You can claim that...because it's all you got...yet still can't demonstrate the underfit river could create the canyon. This clearly indicates your science is messed up big time.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You can claim that...because it's all you got...yet still can't demonstrate the underfit river could create the canyon. This clearly indicates your science is messed up big time.
No, we can demonstrate that. What part do you not understand?

And please, no false accusations. Technically if you make an accusation, even against scientists that you do not know, that is technically a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

Once more when you don't understand you need to ask questions politely.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,701
1,957
✟77,658.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Do tell me, where has it been demonstrated?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It is not understood how the tissue could have survived.
They did not "survive", but it is known how they were preserved. I am sure that others have linked the articles for you explaining how iron can act as a preservative. I could link them for you again.

Why do you keep making such obviously wrong statements?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.