Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

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?

Click to expand...

What is it, that people on this thread fail to recognize? The topic was addressed, has been addressed, and it is repeatedly being dismissed. What is this?

Jfrsmth said:

What is it, that people on this thread fail to recognize? The topic was addressed, has been addressed, and it is repeatedly being dismissed. What is this?

Click to expand...

The statement in the title: Explain the fossil record without evolution.
I have gone through nine pages on this thread and have seen people arguing about what science means, saying that geologists all over the world have gotten things wrong with the geological column and general attempts to derail and obfuscate the thread. But I have not seen anyone address the challenge given in the OP and thread title which is, once again, to explain the fossil record without evolution, without using the religious claims used from the Bible.

Jfrsmth said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Are you more qualified?

Click to expand...

He's an engineer. i'm a scientist. If we were discussing how to shore up a mine shaft, I'd say go with Morris. But if he thinks that gullies at Mt. St. Helens are models for entrenched meanders, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I just showed you that.

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

Click to expand...

See above.

Hello Barbarian.

Your reply gave the game away Barbarian.

I will dismantle your reply line by line, and prove that the theory of evolution is
erroneous. Then I will submit a new approach for understanding the fossil record
in accordance with the OP.

Barbarian you stated the following.

Canis familiaris is the domestic dog.

Click to expand...

There is no such entity that can be labelled a 'domestic dog', that is a false and misleading
name. The genetic code of Canis familiaris is identical to the genetic code of Canis Lupus.
The process of evolution proposes a speciation which is not evident in the DNA of these
specimens.

Dogs as you call them Barbarian, are not recently evolved from wolves. Dogs are wolves
and wolves are dogs, they have identical genetic information, a common gene pool. If we
followed your erroneous reasoning, then logically, a bulldog is a separate species to an
alsation? Using the differences in morphology of any Genus is an erroneous methadology.

Barbarian, line by line.

But keep in mind, the short face of this crocodile isn't remotely the biggest difference.

Click to expand...

Obviously the short face of a bulldog means the bulldog is a herbivore?
Thus the long snout of an alsation means the alsation is a carnivore?
Therefore they must be belong to different orders.

Notice the limbs are set for an upright posture, not a sprawling one.

Click to expand...

Thus the short fat limbs of the bulldog are entirely different to the long slender
limbs of the alsation. What more needs to be said, strong evidence exists to remove
the bulldog skeleton in the fossil record from the current dog family altogether.

The difference between dogs and wolves is much, much less than the differences
between modern crocodiles and this ancient one.

Click to expand...

Wrong Barbarian, the difference between the short snouted, herbivorous, squat, short tailed,
thick limbed bulldog. And the carnivorous, long snouted, long limbed, long tailed, thin limbed,
gray wolf is beyond conjecture.

Some consider wolves and dogs to be one species.

Click to expand...

Correct, the gene pool is identical, the morphology is misleading, no speciation has occurred.
I see you are gravitating to the new approach, genetic information is the only criteria.
The method of using the criteria of morphology to understand the fossil record is useless.
Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, if only you could read my post, before making dubious claims.

No one with any understanding of anatomy would consider these two crocodiles
to be the same species.

Click to expand...

Unless the genetic code is available for the fossil record, everything is pure speculation.
The fossil record cannot be understood using morphology, which the dog family illustrates
so powerfully.

So the OP still stands without a creationist answer.

Click to expand...

The OP has been fulfilled this very day, I demand the genetic information Barbarian.
No claim can be justified regarding the fossil record, this includes all theories whatever
they may be, unless the genetic information is first submitted for review. The OP amounts
to a claim, and only a claim.

The Barbarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

But not millions of years.

The Barbarian said:

See above. Not necessarily.

Click to expand...

How do fossils form?

"The term 'fossilisation' refers to a variety of often complex processes that enable the preservation of organic remains within the geological record. It frequently includes the following conditions: rapid and permanent burial/entombment - protecting the specimen from environmental or biological disturbance; oxygen deprivation - limiting the extent of decay and also biological activity/scavenging; continued sediment accumulation as opposed to an eroding surface - ensuring the organism remains buried in the long-term; and the absence of excessive heating or compression which might otherwise destroy it."

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/whatisafossil.htm

2. How are fossils formed?
"Different conditions during preservation may result in different types of fossils, but rapid burial is almost always important.... The fossil record contains compelling evidence of global catastrophic processes... In the Darwinian, long-age model, this is interpreted to reflect changing conditions over long periods of time"

http://grisda.org/resources/faq/fossils/

However, in the Flood model, it is interpreted to reflect changing conditions in a short period of time.

By the way, here is an example of 'Talk Origins' contradicting what scientists said in the quotes above:

Claim CC363:
Fossilization requires rapid burial, or the organism will decay. This suggests that a catastrophe is responsible for fossils.

TO reply: "Rapid burial is not necessary for rapid preservation."

Just goes to show... everybody has an opinion, but what does the science tell us.

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

I meant land-dwelling creatures.

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

"Liquefaction is associated with quicksand, earthquakes, and wave action. Liquefaction also played a major role in rapidly sorting sediments, plants, and animals during the flood. Indeed, the global presence of such layers and sorted fossils shows that a global flood occurred. Massive liquefaction has also left other telltale signs such as cross-bedded sandstone, plumes, and mounds."

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html

The Barbarian said:

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

Click to expand...

An incomplete record that is dogmatically adhered to by evolutionists without permitting the possibility of alternative explanations. Just look at the friction encountered here in this thread.

klutedavid said:

The OP has been fulfilled this very day, I demand the genetic information Barbarian.
No claim can be justified regarding the fossil record, this includes all theories whatever
they may be, unless the genetic information is first submitted for review. The OP amounts
to a claim, and only a claim.

Click to expand...

So, let's all go home now.

Jfrsmth said:

How do fossils form?

Click to expand...

When they're suddenly berried alive.
A dead animal waiting for soil to cover it in time will rot away before it can become a fossil.

RickG said:

That is exactly what I am asking for.

Click to expand...

Hello Rick.

Genetic information is the sole and only criteria for analyzing the fossil record.

Not morphology, appearances are extremely misleading.

We will no longer classify any life form on the basis of it's morphology.

We will advance into the new era of scientific investigation and understanding.

RickG said:

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.

Click to expand...

Evolutionary scientists are aware of alternative explanations , have weighed them, and righteously rejected them. Please read carefully the literature, Jfrsmth. OK, now can we get back on topic, which, as I understand it, is how to explain matters without evolution. If you don't believe in evolution, then just how do you explain the evidence? That is a fair question, isn't it? I have yet to heart an answer from the anti-evolutionary camp, however.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

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?

Click to expand...

All right, I'll play devil's advocate. I can think of two possible ways of explaining the fossil record without evolution.

The first is omphalism; the rocks were created with the fossils already inside them, arranged in order to give the appearance of an evolutionary sequence, not only in the fossils themselves but also leading up to extant animals and plants.

The second is progressive creationism; God created living things in sequence over a long period of time, again to give the impression of an evolutionary sequence. I don't know whether he also destroyed all the members of a species when it was time for them to become extinct, or whether they merely died out from natural causes.

Two other points here. First, I must make it quite clear that I do not believe either of these explanations; as I say, I am merely playing devil's advocate. However, both hypotheses have been put forward as serious explanations of the fossil record. Second, both of these explanations are incompatible with 'flood geology'.

Correct about Morris. He is definitely not a scientist. Also he is definitely not a biblical scholar. I'd have to see a more solid source before I would be interested in exploring alternative explanations to evolution. I know I cherry pick, but I feel I have to. First thing I do is look at the writer's credentials and qualifications. No doctorate in a scientific field related to evolution? No doctorate had history of significant publications in biblical studies, theology, etc.,? Goes right into my wastebasket.

klutedavid said:

Hello Barbarian.
Your reply gave the game away Barbarian.

Click to expand...

Oh, fudge.

I will dismantle your reply line by line, and prove that the theory of evolution is
erroneous. Then I will submit a new approach for understanding the fossil record
in accordance with the OP.

Click to expand...

This might turn out differently than you expect it to go...

Barbarian observes:
Canis familiaris is the domestic dog.

There is no such entity that can be labelled a 'domestic dog', that is a false and misleading
name.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...

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]


Although initially thought to have originated as a manmade variant of an extant canid species (variously supposed as being the dhole,[3] golden jackal,[4] or gray wolf[5]), extensive genetic studies undertaken during the 2010s indicate that dogs diverged from an extinct wolf-like canid in Eurasia 40,000 years ago.[6] Being the oldest domesticated animals with one study claiming for the past 33,000 years,[7] their long association with people has allowed dogs to be uniquely attuned to human behavior,[8] as well as thrive on a starch-rich diet which would be inadequate for other canid species.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog

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

Click to expand...

Hmm...

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.


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 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

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

Click to expand...

Surprise.

Dogs as you call them Barbarian, are not recently evolved from wolves. Dogs are wolves
and wolves are dogs, they have identical genetic information, a common gene pool.

Click to expand...

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

If we followed your erroneous reasoning, then logically, a bulldog is a separate species to an
alsation?

Click to expand...

See above. All dogs are more closely related to each other, than any of them are related to wolves.

Using the differences in morphology of any Genus is an erroneous methadology.

Click to expand...

Genes, however, are very good for this purpose, and as you can see, they don't support your belief.

Barbarian observes:
But keep in mind, the short face of this crocodile isn't remotely the biggest difference.

Obviously the short face of a bulldog means the bulldog is a herbivore?

Click to expand...

The flattened teeth, adapted for plants, says that the ancient form of a crocodile was an herbivore.

Thus the long snout of an alsation means the alsation is a carnivore?

Click to expand...

The prominent carnassal teeeth means it's a carnivore.

Therefore they must be belong to different orders.

Click to expand...

I don't think you know what "order" means.

Barbarian observes:
Notice the limbs are set for an upright posture, not a sprawling one.

Thus the short fat limbs of the bulldog are entirely different to the long slender
limbs of the alsation.

Click to expand...

Bulldogs don't have a sprawling posture, either. You see, dogs and ancient crocodiles had legs set under the body, to stand upright, unlike the evolved form today, which sprawls. However, crocodiles can still gallop when they feel the need to move quickly. They do it as a means of escape, not attack, however.

I told you, it wasn't likely to turn out the way you hoped.

What more needs to be said

Click to expand...

Perhaps a suggestion that you do a review of tetrapod anatomy, and avoid a similar debacle in the future?

The difference between dogs and wolves is much, much less than the differences
between modern crocodiles and this ancient one.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that you realize this. Turns out, ancient crocodiles were very different than modern ones.

Wrong Barbarian, the difference between the short snouted, herbivorous, squat, short tailed,
thick limbed bulldog. And the carnivorous, long snouted, long limbed, long tailed, thin limbed,
gray wolf is beyond conjecture.

Click to expand...

See above:
"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."

Some consider wolves and dogs to be one species.

Click to expand...

With only about 40,000 years of departure from the common ancestor of dogs and wolves, one wouldn't expect much difference. A few percent, it seems, a bit less than between humans and chimps, but of course the last common ancestor between them, was much longer ago.

Correct, the gene pool is identical,

Click to expand...

See above. Your assumption is wrong.

I see you are gravitating to the new approach, genetic information is the only criteria.

Click to expand...

That assumption is also faulty. Homologies (genetic and morphological) are very useful in determining relatedness.

The method of using the criteria of morphology to understand the fossil record is useless.

Click to expand...

For example, birds were predicted to be descended from dinosaurs. So when a bit of T-rex heme was found, it was an opportunity to test that prediction. As the theory predicted, the heme of a dinosaur turned out to be more like that of a bird than that of turtles, snakes, or lizards. Turns out, anatomical homologies are useful in determining evolutionary relationships.

Barbarian chuckles:
No one with any understanding of anatomy would consider these two crocodiles
to be the same species.

Unless the genetic code is available for the fossil record, everything is pure speculation.
The fossil record cannot be understood using morphology,

Click to expand...

See the T-rex example above. Your assumption is wrong again.

Barbarian observes:
So the OP still stands without a creationist answer.

The OP has been fulfilled this very day, I demand the genetic information Barbarian.

Click to expand...

See above. It's a surprise, I suppose. But one you can learn from.

RickG said:

Really? Without a Gish Gallop, just what was it that they withheld from me in graduate school?

Click to expand...

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?

RickG said:

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.

Click to expand...

By default you are excluding any alternative view beyond "naturalistic" and "materialistic" means. That is your worldview. So, we are talking about philosophy here not science.

Hoghead1 said:

Correct about Morris. He is definitely not a scientist. Also he is definitely not a biblical scholar. I'd have to see a more solid source before I would be interested in exploring alternative explanations to evolution. I know I cherry pick, but I feel I have to. First thing I do is look at the writer's credentials and qualifications. No doctorate in a scientific field related to evolution? No doctorate had history of significant publications in biblical studies, theology, etc.,? Goes right into my wastebasket.

Click to expand...

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.