Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[Jfrsmth]

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?

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?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

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

Are you more qualified?

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?

See above.

 

[RickG]

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?

This thread is not about theology or apologetics. However, I am 67 and have been a Christian all my life.

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.

Then provide an answer to the challenge in the OP. If the fossils didn't get where they are in the geologic column, then by means did they get there, using a scientific explanation.

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.

The geologic column is nothing more than a description of stratigraphic layers. How is it no a fact that we can recognize and identify different layers of sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous strata?

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.

Again, you are straying into evolution. I am asking for possible explanations of how those fossils got there without evolution.

"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

Again, I'm not asking whether the fossil record is reliable or unreliable. I am asking how did the fossils get where they are without evolution.

 

[RickG]

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.

That is exactly what I am asking for.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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.

But not millions of years.

See above. Not necessarily.

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.

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

I meant land-dwelling creatures.

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

"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

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

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.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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.

So, let's all go home now.

 

[Hieronymus]

How do fossils form?

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.

 

[klutedavid]

That is exactly what I am asking for.

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]

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?

You have not yet addressed the topic. Addressing the topic is explaining scientifically how the fossils got where they are. The OP is assuming they did not get there by evolution. So how did they get there without evolution?

 

[freezerman2000]

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.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

 

[Astrophile]

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?

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'.

 

[Hoghead1]

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hello Barbarian.
Your reply gave the game away Barbarian.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

The prominent carnassal teeeth means it's a carnivore.

Therefore they must be belong to different orders.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

See above. Your assumption is wrong.

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

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.

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,

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.

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

 

[Jfrsmth]

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

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?

 

[Jfrsmth]

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.

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.

 

[Jfrsmth]

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.

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.

 

[RickG]

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.

No, I am asking for science and only science? How did the fossil record get there without evolution?