Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[klutedavid]

And yet you attempted to convince us that ancient crocodiles were virtually identical to modern ones, based on morphology. This behavior dosen't do much for your credibility.

Hello Barbarian.

I am referring to the Genus blueprint (basic morphology) of the crocodile.

 

[klutedavid]

And yet you attempted to convince us that ancient crocodiles were virtually identical to modern ones, based on morphology. This behavior dosen't do much for your credibility.

Hello Barbarian.

Here is a question for you.

Can a bull dog be regarded as a separate species to the gray wolf species?

 

[Astrophile]

a method so cruel, "red in tooth and claw" as one evolutionist famously quipped?

'Nature, red in tooth and claw' is actually a line from Tennyson's In Memoriam, lvi. Tennyson completed In Memoriam in 1849, ten years before Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Okay folks, we have additional posters contributing to the thread. I appreciate everyone's participation, however, this thread is not about evolution. It is about explaining the fossil record throughout earth's sedimentary stratigraphic layers without evolution.

Please, please, please, please understand that this thread is not about proving or disproving evolution. Transitional fossils are irrelevant to the discussion. The thread is looking for a mechanism other than evolution that can explain the distribution of the fossil record. WHAT IS THAT MECHANISM? Keep in mind that it must be explained scientifically and founded in solid science, not opinion.

So, what is your definition of science?

Do you believe the geologic column devised by evolutionary philosophers is an accurate representation of what is seen in geology; that these fossils are layered in the exact way throughout the proposed millions of years?

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

The complexity issue was nullified by the fact that complexity is
revealed as infinite at each new level discovered. The complexity
theory/myth has been debunked.

 

[Jfrsmth]

First question: Is it your assumption that the evolution's geologic column is a falsifiable (i.e. capable of being tested) representation of what is found in the earth's strata?

Second question: If it is shown that the geo. column is falsifiable, would you accept it?

Let's test that belief. Show me that the same species of shells are found in Cambrian and Cretaceous strata. Remember, the same, not "sorta look alike."

I can see that you are ready to pounce, so let me restate my main point: Marine fossils are found in every strata. How does that fit into the geologic column which is supposed to represent millions of years of progress from lower life forms in the ocean to more developed? (All of this is based on the evolutionist assumption that lower life forms are less intricate - which they are not, since they have cells and DNA).

That's easy. A lot of species exist for millions of years. Tens of millions, not so many. Hundreds of millions, pretty rare, if any.

Simple example: coelacanths, thought to be extinct 65 million years ago, or so, suddenly show up in 1938. The assumption is that if it is not found in the fossils beyond a certain time, it must have become extinct. The discovery of this, and numerous other "living fossils" falsifies the geo. column hypothesis, as it is obviously possible that life / creatures are out of place and not in the order as represented in textbooks, museums, and other locations where this philosophy is promoted. If it is possible that extinct species, are not really extinct, as is the case, then the evolutionary geo. column cannot be accurate, thus, the hypothesis, as has been observed by scientific discovery, has been falsified.

Show us that.

Out of place layers: one example: the Ordovician over Cretaceous found near El Paso, Texas

Out of place fossils: [provided]

Out of place artifacts: one example: Malachite (man) find in Utah in Lower Cretaceous strata, where we also find dinosaur fossils.

To reiterate: The discovery of these anomalies falsifies the geo. column hypothesis, as it is obviously possible that the order as represented in textbooks, museums, and other locations where this philosophy is promoted. The evolutionary geo. column cannot be accurate, thus, the hypothesis, as has been observed by scientific discovery, has been falsified.

Evolutionists assume that the geo. column is infallible, and it is presented as the "definitive" record of progression. Whenever something is presented as falsifying it, the evolutionists "explain it away," as you may very well do. If that be the case, then I must ask you again, what is your definition of science?

The evolutionary assumption, is based on a uniformitarian assumption that everything continues as it has, while excluding the possibility of a worldwide natural disaster such as a worldwide flood could have also created the geology we see today.

Getting back on topic, general sorting of fossils as found in the earth's strata can also be explained by way of natural habitat. Why does that have to be excluded? The sheer mass of layering that goes on for thousands of miles in N. America precludes local disasters. So, why couldn't a flood have caused these things?

 

[The Barbarian]

First question: Is it your assumption that the evolution's geologic column is a falsifiable (i.e. capable of being tested) representation of what is found in the earth's strata?

Of course. If we would find the layers out of order, where no folding had occured, there you'd have falsified it.

Second question: If it is shown that the geo. column is falsifiable, would you accept it?

See above.

(Barbarian suggests that one provide evidence that the same sea shells are in all strata)

I can see that you are ready to pounce, so let me restate my main point: Marine fossils are found in every strata.

Well, let's check that. You wrote:

One basic and well-known observation of geology: we find the same seashells in every strata.

Show us that. Or if you misspoke, just say so. In fact, we see a steady progression in types of marine animals over time.

How does that fit into the geologic column which is supposed to represent millions of years of progress from lower life forms in the ocean to more developed?

Let's take cephalopods. The first known one was pretty much like a limpet. Then we see ammonites, nautilids, squid, and eventually octopi, appearing over time, as they became more complex.

(All of this is based on the evolutionist assumption that lower life forms are less intricate

"Lower" is not a scientific term. But as you see, complexity increased for cephalopods. However, an increase in complexity is not a necessary requirement for evolution. It can just as easily simplify and make an organism less complex than ancestors.

Simple example: coelacanths, thought to be extinct 65 million years ago, or so, suddenly show up in 1938.

The relict populations are of species and genera unknown in the fossil record. Over time, coelacanths evolved to larger size and a change in life from mostly small, freshwater species, to deep ocean organisms. The ones today would die in the environment of those early coelacanths. Evolution changed them to something rather different.

The assumption is that if it is not found in the fossils beyond a certain time, it must have become extinct.

Early on, it was. But of course, it hasn't been so for a long time.

The discovery of this, and numerous other "living fossils" falsifies the geo. column hypothesis, as it is obviously possible that life / creatures are out of place and not in the order as represented in textbooks, museums, and other locations where this philosophy is promoted.

No, that's not right. Think about it. If a line of coelacanths happened to survive and evolve to become deepwater marine fish, while all the earlier species went extinct, that says nothing about the geologic column.

Out of place layers: one example: the Ordovician over Cretaceous found near El Paso, Texas

The geology of that area is folded, with overthrusts and one plane tilted by about 40 degrees. No geologist is surprised by folding or overthrusts.

The geology of west Texas is arguably the state's most complex, with a mix of exposed Cretaceous and Pennsylvanian strata, overlain by Quaternary conglomerates. A series of faults trend southeast to northwest across the region, from Big Bend to El Paso; there are also extensive volcanic deposits. The Marathon Mountains northeast of Big Bend National Park have long been of special interest to geologists; they are the folded and eroded remains of an ancient mountain range, created in the same orogeny that formed the Ouachita and Appalachian Mountains.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Texas

Out of place fossils

No cite given. Do you have some details for us?

Out of place artifacts: one example: Malachite (man) find in Utah in Lower Cretaceous strata, where we also find dinosaur fossils.

Cite? Show us that.

The evolutionary assumption, is based on a uniformitarian assumption that everything continues as it has, while excluding the possibility of a worldwide natural disaster such as a worldwide flood could have also created the geology we see today.

You've been misled about that. "Uniformitarian" does not mean what you seem to think it means. The geologists who proposed it, did not mean that all processes were gradual and at the same speed. They cited all sorts of catastrophic events. It's just that there's no physically possible way to make the Grand Canyon into a catastrophic event.

Getting back on topic, general sorting of fossils as found in the earth's strata can also be explained by way of natural habitat. Why does that have to be excluded?

Won't work. For example, there are plenty of oceanic layers in the Cretaceous. But the organisms there are much different than the organisms in the Ordovician.

The sheer mass of layering that goes on for thousands of miles in N. America precludes local disasters. So, why couldn't a flood have caused these things?

Here's one reason:

The feature is hundreds of meters high. Show us how a sudden flood could make this formation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And yet you attempted to convince us that ancient crocodiles were virtually identical to modern ones, based on morphology. This behavior dosen't do much for your credibility.

Hello Barbarian.

I am referring to the Genus blueprint (basic morphology) of the crocodile.

How is this virtually identical to today's crocodiles?

Not much "basic morphology"that relates to today's crocodiles.

 

[pshun2404]

Indeed it "appears" to be more of an Armadillomorph...except for the head of course...NO I am just kidding but I do have to ask, were these alleged scales part of the actual fossils found

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Barbarian.

Let me add some flesh to this skeleton of simosuchus.

Looks like a modern crocodile to me, what do you think Barbarian.

 

[pshun2404]

The feature is hundreds of meters high. Show us how a sudden flood could make this formation.[/B]

Are we talking about a flood that took forty straight days where the deep broke up as well, which implies huge rapid plate shifting and water shooting up with great pressure from below the surface of the earth, and then calling it "a sudden flood"? The waters to create this formation had to be at least 1,000 feet higher...

 

[Armoured]

Posting blind, but let me guess.; 6 pages of YECs making increasingly condescending excuses for why they shouldn't have to?

 

[Armoured]

Hello Barbarian.

Let me add some flesh to this skeleton of simosuchus.

View attachment 168658
Looks like a modern crocodile to me, what do you think Barbarian.

Not remotely. But even if it did, sharks and dolphins LOOK similar. I don't imagine you're going to tell us they're the same thing?

 

[lasthero]

Either you need to get your eyes checked, or you've never actually seen a modern croc.

 

[klutedavid]

Not remotely. But even if it did, sharks and dolphins LOOK similar. I don't imagine you're going to tell us they're the same thing?

Hello Armoured.

Family Delphinidae, ocean dolphins.

Super order Selachii, sharks.

The difference between your two examples is extreme.

Entirely different creatures.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let me add some flesh to this skeleton of simosuchus.

You also lengthened the tail twofold, changed the limbs from an upright to sprawling posture, and changed the scutes to make them more modern.

Still doesn't look like a modern croc, though.

Notice the shoulder joint in the skeleton.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
The feature is hundreds of meters high. Show us how a sudden flood could make this formation.

Are we talking about a flood that took forty straight days where the deep broke up as well, which implies huge rapid plate shifting and water shooting up with great pressure from below the surface of the earth, and then calling it "a sudden flood"?

Yep. But explain how a single flood could make a channel with a hairpin turn out of soft sediment piled vertically about a kilometer high.

 

[toLiJC]

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.

and what information to provide if the living word of the true God reveals something that for some reason cannot be found anywhere (neither on the internet nor in any document/book/scripture)?!

Blessings

 

[The Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian.

Here is a question for you.

Can a bull dog be regarded as a separate species to the gray wolf species?

Canis familiaris is the domestic dog. Canis lupis is the wolf. Dogs are very recently evolved from wolves. So yes. But keep in mind, the short face of this crocodile isn't remotely the biggest difference. Notice the limbs are set for an upright posture, not a sprawling one. Notice the teeth are adapted to eating plants. The difference between dogs and wolves is much, much less than the differences between modern crocodiles and this ancient one. Some consider wolves and dogs to be one species. No one with any understanding of anatomy would consider these two crocodiles to be the same species.

 

[lasthero]

Hello Armoured.

Family Delphinidae, ocean dolphins.

Super order Selachii, sharks.

The difference between your two examples is extreme.

Entirely different creatures.

I thought you said morphology doesn't tell us anything.