Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[RickG]

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.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why would anyone want to do this for you? How about you do it yourself? My wife makes those kinds of demands on me. "Please, do this but make sure you do it my way and no other way but the way I would do it."

 

[essentialsaltes]

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would anyone want to do this for you? How about you do it yourself? My wife makes those kinds of demands on me. "Please, do this but make sure you do it my way and no other way but the way I would do it."

Many YEC's claim that they can show that the fossil record is wrong with science. This is merely a thread for them to support that claim.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think it is a very fair request. Continually, people are coming on site and knocking evolution without providing a viable alternative and by citing Scripture, rather than presenting some sort of scientific argument. On my end of it, I almost automatically discount any attacks I find here on science, as they come from people who have absolutely no real credentials, to start with. If you want to get my attention, you had better show a solid Ph.D. in science, plus evidence of major publications in peer-reviewed journals. Otherwise, you are simply speaking ass an average Hoe. Now, there is nothing wrong in being an average Joe. And there is nothing wrong in expressing your opinion as an average Joe. it is just that when it comes to serious, sensitive matters such as evolution, I don't want to hear the opinions of Sunday-afternoon armchair quarterbacks, I wasn't to her expert advice.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Many YEC's claim that they can show that the fossil record is wrong with science. This is merely a thread for them to support that claim.

Do they? I'm not very familiar with YEC claims about science. Still when asking for something one usually is best to steer clear of sounding overbearing and demanding. Its quite off putting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do they? I'm not very familiar with YEC claims about science. Still when asking for something one usually is best to steer clear of sounding overbearing and demanding. Its quite off putting.

If someone claims that something can be disproven with science, why is it wrong to ask for them to show how with science?

 

[grasping the after wind]

If someone claims that something can be disproven with science, why is it wrong to ask for them to show how with science?

If that were the case there would be nothing wrong with politely asking for that. But the OP does not say a thing about specifically asking those that made such a claim and instead demands an answer from and stipulates conditions for all that take the time to read the OP in a most authoritarian and pompous way.

 

[Hoghead1]

Nobody here appears to be overly demanding. YEC people continually claim tart evolution is wrong, yet generally provide no scientific reason why. Take Satterfield. he tries to argue that c was near infinite at the beginning of creation and has been slowing down ever since. Where is the evidence this is true? Satterfield tried to argue this is true, based on the fact that estimates of c have been getting slower through the years. However, carefully examining the estimates shows precisely the opposite. Nevertheless, many YEC people claim it is a scientific fact that c has been slowing down. Again, if they make such a claim, they should scientifically support it. The other issue is continually bringing in the inerrancy of Scripture. You cannot win scientific arguments, based on merely quoting from Scripture. Also, YEC people fail to show hard evidence that Scripture is in fact inerrant.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If that were the case there would be nothing wrong with politely asking for that. But the OP does not say a thing about specifically asking those that made such a claim and instead demands an answer from and stipulates conditions for all that take the time to read the OP in most a authoritarian and pompous way.

RickG made the OP so he can write it however he wants. I don't think that is request is 'authoritarian and pompous'. I think that it's a reasonable request, and I imagine that other people will agree with me.
There's been much worse OP's on this site, trust me.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Nobody here appears to be overly demanding.

Sorry that is objectively untrue as it is an objective fact that the OP does indeed appear, at the very least to me, to be overly demanding so someone here does appear to be overly demanding to someone else. The rest of your post is irrelevant to the attitude of the OP which is all that I am here to discuss, I have no interest in trying to explain the fossil record at all and have no problem with the basic idea that evolution is a thing that happens and that the fossils ( though the term fossil record seems to me to be a strange way of putting it ) that have been discovered point to evolution, so i did not bother to quote it. What drew my attention initially was the that a challenge was being issued and I like to see if such challenges are answered( so far it has not been but I blame the way the challenge was phrased for some of that) , but when I read the conditions and the overbearing and demanding authoritarian way in which it was handled I felt that needed to be pointed out.

 

[RickG]

If someone claims that something can be disproven with science, why is it wrong to ask for them to show how with science?

That's how science works. Scientific claims and understanding change when they can be shown to have a problem through better and more thorough scientific research.

 

[grasping the after wind]

RickG made the OP so he can write it however he wants. I don't think that is request is 'authoritarian and pompous'. I think that it's a reasonable request, and I imagine that other people will agree with me.
There's been much worse OP's on this site, trust me.

I offered RickG some constructive criticism. If one wants others to do something asking them politely to oblige is more effective than demanding they do something your way. He could have said something like " How would you scientifically explain the fossil record without using evolution" same result only phrased as a polite request to another human being rather than a demand of someone that one sees as an inferior.

 

[RickG]

Sorry that is objectively untrue as it is an objective fact that the OP does indeed appear, at the very least to me, to be overly demanding so someone here does appear to be overly demanding to someone else.

Your opinion are certainly welcome, however I do disagree with it. Why is asking science only be used pertaining to a scientific subject in as science forum overly demanding?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I offered RickG some constructive criticism. If one wants others to do something asking them politely to oblige is more effective than demanding they do something your way. He could have said something like " How would you scientifically explain the fossil record without using evolution" same result only phrased as a polite request to another human being rather than a demand of someone that one sees as an inferior.

Why are you even making an issue out of this? RickG wants something scientific discussed with science and only science. That's what happens in an actual scientific debate.
If you think he's being rude and that he views people as 'inferior', that's all on you, mate, not him.

 

[RickG]

I offered RickG some constructive criticism. If one wants others to do something asking them politely to oblige is more effective than demanding they do something your way. He could have said something like " How would you scientifically explain the fossil record without using evolution" same result only phrased as a polite request to another human being rather than a demand of someone that one sees as an inferior.

I made no demands, I placed a requirement in there for one and only one specific reason, to keep posters on topic. If you truly feel my OP to be offensive, then I urge you to report it to the moderators.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Grasping, this is supposed to be a theological discussion group. That means when you say something, you should try and support it. If all you want to do is come here and profess your faith, etc., then you should not be in a theological discussion group. Automatically, being in a theological discussion group means that you have to offer some support for your claims. The problem I have with this site is that too many here do not understand the full nature of their responsibility here. They think this is the place where you can get away with simply denouncing the character of your opponents or just cite Scripture and leave it go at that or sit in judgment of academic fields that one is not qualified in, etc. I hate to say this, but I teach theology at the college level; and about 95 percent of the people here would receive an F so fast it would make their heads spin.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why are you even making an issue out of this? RickG wants something scientific discussed with science and only science. That's what happens in an actual scientific debate.
If you think he's being rude and that he views people as 'inferior', that's all on you, mate, not him.

Words impart meanings, mate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Words impart meanings, mate.

Do you actually have anything to say on the SUBJECT of the OP, or are you just going to argue semantics?

 

[RickG]

Words impart meanings, mate.

How would you explain the fossil record without evolution? How did those fossils get where they are in the sedimentary strata (geologic column) if not by means of evolution, by what other means?