Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[Doveaman]

How?

It's science that got you into this mess.

Now you want science to get you out?

 

[Doveaman]

Explain the fossil record with evolution.

Typo. Without evolution.

Typo: With evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Typo: With evolution.

No. It was a typo. I was trying to restate the thread title which is: Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution.

 

[RickG]

Typo: With evolution.

The thread is not about evolution.

 

[florida2]

Many things.

Ah, well that settles it!

I'd also love to know what exactly these 'many things' are that apparently you are privy to but us mere mortals who have studied and read about science weren't told about.

 

[Hieronymus]

The other side of the story.
The theistic view.
You only get taught the naturalistic view and they aren't to happy to admit their problems.

 

[RickG]

.

 

[lasthero]

RickG does that all the time.

He ask questions seeking only answers that he wants rather than seeking the truth.

It's a stupid thread.

You can leave. We won't miss you. I promise.

 

[RickG]

The other side of the story.
The theistic view.
You only get taught the naturalistic view and they aren't to happy to admit their problems.

The thread is about science, not theology. If you wish to discuss theology there are specific forum in the CF for that. This particular forum, "Physical and Life Sciences", is about science.

 

[Hieronymus]

The thread is about science, not theology.

I not talking about theology.

If you wish to discuss theology there are specific forum in the CF for that. This particular forum, "Physical and Life Sciences", is about science.

Yes, and you believe in dead stuff performing miracles because someone had this attractive thought 150 years ago, still no proof, but everyday more complexity to explain away.

Anyway, both sides have the same evidence to work with, to try and find out what happened.
You only know one view.
And you don't even know it well, otherwise you wouldn't be so adament.

For example, the rock-layer-dating is based on circular reasoning.
It's an assumption that it's chronologically stacked.

You have no idea how much evidence points to a great flood.
But you don't even want to know, so this thread is a farce.

Bye bye now.

 

[RickG]

I not talking about theology.Yes, and you believe in dead stuff performing miracles because someone had this attractive thought 150 years ago, still no proof, but everyday more complexity to explain away.

How many times do I have to state that this thread is not about evolution. It is about the distribution of the fossil record in sedimentary strata and how it got there without evolution.

Anyway, both sides have the same evidence to work with, to try and find out what happened.
You only know one view.
And you don't even know it well, otherwise you wouldn't be so adament.

And how would you know I don't know it well? You have credentials and experience in the Earth Sciences?

For example, the rock-layer-dating is based on circular reasoning.

Ummmm. Who doesn't know it well? No dating method is based on circular reasoning.

You have no idea how much evidence points to a great flood.

Then present the evidence of that flood. Just keep in mind that it must be scientifically explained.

But you don't even want to know, so this thread is a farce.

You know, it is absolutely amazing how much goading, belittlement, and harassment one receives for asking people to follow the forum rules. Two moderators have already posted their input on this thread. One said there is nothing wrong with what is being asked in the OP. The other said stick to the topic of the thread, and yes, they were screaming.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Hello Barbarian.

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

The artist rendered Simosuchus according to it's biological classification.
Different fossil finds of Simosuchus do vary from one another of course.

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

Simosuchus, genus of notosuchian crocodylomorphs. Crocodylomorhs means that
Simosuchus looks like a crocodile. If you still disagree with the classification
of Simosuchus, then submit your complaint to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

 

[Jfrsmth]

I don't have a definition nor do I care to look one up, it was (retired) my profession. I have an M.S. in Physical Earth Science and some 30 years as a research chemist. Do you have a background or experience in any of the physical sciences?

Then you should very easily and readily be able to give us a definition of science, as it is related to this thread, so that we may all be on the same page of music, so to speak.

Ahh, I see, so, why would you post this thread if you have so much experience and knowledge? How could I, a lowly peasant have anything to discuss? What, pray tell, was the purpose? So, does your experience and education exclude everyone else from making observations and engaging in discussion?

Your question reminds me of hoghead1's comments - you are apparently trying to divert the focus to the person rather than simply examine the data being presented. So, what do I need to get into your club? An MS degree in physical sciences? Thirty years as a research chemist? Does 36 years as a Christian, or studying (learning about) Creation science for 25 years, help? Can I buy a ticket if I have studied theology & Christian apologetics? Can I get into the club with a PhD in Christian education?

All of this chest-beating is silly. I can read and think critically just as any man has been gifted to do. Do I have to provide my resume every time I post?? This is the second time now that this has come up as what appears to be a kind of distraction from the data I have presented in response to the very thread you began with a question.

The geologic column was not devised by evolutionary philosophers or evolution anything. What is seen in the geologic column and the processes involved in its formation is observed and well documented and understood.

The point being made RickG, is that you are assuming the geologic column is a fact, when it is indeed falsifiable as my previous comments have suggested. You are basing your question on a falsifiable assumption from the very git-go. For example, living fossils falsify the evolutionist conceptual geologic column notion of extinction. A supposedly extinct creature from millions of years ago, according to the geo. column, is still with us today (and there are many), falsifies this column.

The distribution of fossils in the geologic column is not proposed, it is what is physically found.

"The Chronology of Geological Column: An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources"

"The archaeological record is very limited and its analysis has been contentious... This paper has twenty authors and they are researchers from the world’s top institutes like Max Planck Institute, Harvard, etc. Respected authors of this paper have emphatically accepted that the fossil record is inadequate and unreliable. These statements clearly substantiate that now biologists are agreeing that fossil records do not provide any significant evidence at all for conventional evolution theory."

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=22177

Also:

http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/01FallClass/geo100/Lectures/SM_lecture16.html
http://geologyclass.org/correlation_concepts.htm

 

[klutedavid]

Would you please read post # 105 before posting again. This is not a thread as to what evolution is or is not or valid or invalid. Thank you.

Hello Rick.

I am trying to develop a new scientific methodology for understanding the fossil record!

In the process Rick, it will be necessary to demolish the obsolete methodology that
'the theory of evolution' is based on. How about some encouragement Rick, all this
negativity, I know how Darwin must have felt.

 

[The Barbarian]

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 artist rendered Simosuchus according to it's biological classification.

Too bad he didn't just use the evidence. You might was well depict a wolf crawling on it's belly.

Different fossil finds of Simosuchus do vary from one another of course.

Show us that. I'll ask again, if you forget.

Simosuchus, genus of notosuchian crocodylomorphs. Crocodylomorhs means that
Simosuchus looks like a crocodile.

It means that it has certain traits that establish it as a crocodile. But as you learned, crocodiles used to look a lot different than they do now.

So the OP still stands without a creationist answer.

 

[Jfrsmth]

I don't know your source but it is clearly a misrepresentation of facts. What do you say we respect what is asked of us in the OP and use science. Here's a paper describing the Glarus Overthurst in detail with emphasis describing fluid flow along the fault line.

http://www2.ggl.ulaval.ca/personnel/medef/resumes/Glarus.pdf

http://www2.ggl.ulaval.ca/personnel/medef/resumes/Glarus.pdf

"...clearly a misrepresentation of facts." This one comes up a lot in these kinds of discussions.

Rather than inundate us with all of the reading, perhaps you could give us the gist? I think you may have stated that in your original question for this thread.

The formation of the Alps and the tectonic processed involved in their formation is well understood. The fact that we can actually trace the movement and collision of the African Plate with the Eurasian Plate and its timeline demonstrates this.

Possible explanations for two of the points raised.

Again, I don't know your source for such erroneous information, but it surely is not from any scientific source because the term 'polystrate' is not even a geologic term. The correct term is 'in situ' and there are many examples of fossilized tree trunks that can be seen in layered strata. However, what one needs to realize is that the age of those layers are of the same age and are a result of either multiple eolian or alluvial events.

"Erroneous"...?

Pardon me if I do not use your version of vernacular for geology. 'Polystrate' is a term used to describe trees embedded vertically through layers of rock. 'In situ' is an archaeological term used to describe a fossil is in its original position. Your use of the term in situ implies that the fossil never moved to the location it is in, such as a tree, rooted in the ground in its original place of growth, and buried as you expressed, by eolian or alluvial events. HOWEVER, the majority of these fossil trees are found protruding through multiple layers of strata WITHOUT roots. This very same phenomenon is also observed taking place in Spirit Lake, Washington, some years after Mt. St. Helens erupted back in 1980:

"The eruption at Mount St. Helens taught us much about the effects of dynamic processes. It provided a model for deciphering unseen past geologic cataclysms, and produced effects which before had puzzled us. Our understanding of possible events during the great Flood of Noah's day was substantially expanded, including that rapid deposition of sediments and burial of fossils could be expected during such a deluge. The more evidence that science uncovers, the more it supports the biblical account of earth's history."

Morris, J. 2009. A Classic Polystrate Fossil. Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 15.

Now, lets get back on topic. Explain the distribution of the fossil record without evolution. How did they get distributed in the manner in which we find them?

I have already done that in #86 and #128, but it keeps getting side-stepped in favor of lateral discussions.

Again, a cataclysmic flood could have created the strata and fossilization we encounter. Fossils require rapid burial. The general "layering" we see in the layers could be related to natural habitat, as we do see generally speaking, marine life at the bottom and more capable life forms at higher levels. The sorting could have been accomplished during a worldwide flood. However, we cannot seem to get past the philosophy that the geologic column is THE definitive reference and no other model can provide alternatives for the geological features we see today.

You keep saying get back on topic, but there are far too many detours in this thread.

 

[The Barbarian]

"The eruption at Mount St. Helens taught us much about the effects of dynamic processes. It provided a model for deciphering unseen past geologic cataclysms, and produced effects which before had puzzled us. Our understanding of possible events during the great Flood of Noah's day was substantially expanded, including that rapid deposition of sediments and burial of fossils could be expected during such a deluge. The more evidence that science uncovers, the more it supports the biblical account of earth's history."

I notice that when you tried to use Mt. St. Helens as an explanation for entrenched meanders, the story fell apart. There never have been gullies at Mt. St. Helens with the sort of hairpin turns you see in entrenched meanders, and of course, gullies at the eruption site collapse if they get more than a few meters high, while entrenched meanders have vertical walls hundreds of meters high.

I'm guessing you were never there; if you had been, you would have realized this.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So... are we ever actually going to see someone actually address the topic in the title and OP? Or is it just going to be an attempt at people to obfuscate and derail a perfectly sensible thread?

 

[Jfrsmth]

That was quote from a scientist. Take it or leave it.

Are you more qualified? Or, is it that you just don't like the man's comments?

Have you ever been to the moon? North Pole? South? The Amazon? Other places you have never been?

What makes you qualified to comment on them?

Can you read? Can you think? Can you observe? Can you research articles and publications?

C'mon, what is this nonsense?

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, a cataclysmic flood could have created the strata and fossilization we encounter.

Or, as in the case of the polystrate trees in the lake near my house, seasonal flow over a period of decades. One or the other.

Fossils require rapid burial.

See above. Not necessarily.

The general "layering" we see in the layers could be related to natural habitat, as we do see generally speaking, marine life at the bottom and more capable life forms at higher levels.

If so, then corals are more "capable" than fish. Explain what you mean by that.

The sorting could have been accomplished during a worldwide flood.

How do you think that worked? Use examples and facts.

However, we cannot seem to get past the philosophy that the geologic column is THE definitive reference and no other model can provide alternatives for the geological features we see today.

I think you're reading too much into it. It's just the record of past ages, not a theory.