Challenge: Explain the fossil record without evolution

[-57]

It was not an unreasonable demand and since CRS openly admits that what they do is not science they are not a valid source in a science debate.

Judging from your post...you don't get out much.

 

[-57]

Are you suggesting that bones cannot be thoroughly scavenged and still make it into the fossil record?

How long can a bone last lying on the surface...waiting to be slowly covered?

 

[-57]

Well, you know how it is. Rather than having to buy some organization's book based on their preconceived notion of what HAS to happen in order to justify their reading of the Bible I'm probably going to wait until it comes out in a science journal.

OR you could explain to me the REACTIONS involved. I'd be open to that.

IF you can, that is.



I don't know the organization, however I DO see that they have in their name an indication of a severe bias.

So if I found an organization called the "Organization Dedicated to Finding Error in the Bible" and they put out a book called "Errors in the Bible", would you consider it a critique of the Bible worthy of your trust sight unseen?

Or would you reason that the organization is going to find "errors" in the Bible that you probably disagree with? Wouldn't you think the organization is biased from the beginning?

fargonic, the evo-version of the bible creates its own errors.

 

[lasthero]

How long can a bone last lying on the surface...waiting to be slowly covered?

Pretty long time, actually. We find fossils with things like teeth marks and signs of scavenging on them all the time, which would mean that things were gnoshing on them after they died.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Judging from your post...you don't get out much.

Why do you say that? And why did you use a bogus source? Do you think that I cannot support my claim? Please, that is a creationist sin.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

This is all way off topic again. If -57 can't provide some real evidence of how the fossil record is organized the way it is without evolution then -57 has nothing to contribute here.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How long can a bone last lying on the surface...waiting to be slowly covered?

Depends on the bacteria. Most of the old bones they find are from people that were killed at a young age. Often from a spear or arrow head. Young people do not have a lot of bacteria and the bones tend not deteriorate. Often they are doing a routine investigation of a murder only to find out the person was killed man thousands of years ago. This is also true of some of the Monks that purify their body of bacteria. When they die they tend not to deteriorate.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is all way off topic again. If -57 can't provide some real evidence of how the fossil record is organized the way it is without evolution then -57 has nothing to contribute here.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with it. The fossil record is organized based on the geological ages. Even evolution is based on the geological ages and the changes that have taken place over time in the earths environment. What they call the earth's ecosystems. You can not get the cart before the horse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on the bacteria. Most of the old bones they find are from people that were killed at a young age. Often from a spear or arrow head. Young people do not have a lot of bacteria and the bones tend not deteriorate. Often they are doing a routine investigation of a murder only to find out the person was killed man thousands of years ago. This is also true of some of the Monks that purify their body of bacteria. When they die they tend not to deteriorate.

Where did you get this idea from? You have to be making this stuff up.

And everybody has a "lot of bacteria" in their body. By number of cells you have more bacteria cells in your body than human cells. And without those bacteria you would probably die.

 

[Reasoning]

Such a typical answer.....If you slam the organization....you win? Right? Screw science, who needs that when the evo-babblers can just slam an organization.

"The creation research society" has confirmation bias all over itself. Wouldn't you distrust an organization called "The evolution proof finders"? Because I would. I don't want any scientist to go look for evidence that fits their idea, I want them to do objective observations, that then come to a conclusion.

 

[-57]

Why do you say that? And why did you use a bogus source? Do you think that I cannot support my claim? Please, that is a creationist sin.

I know you can't support your lie.

 

[-57]

Depends on the bacteria. Most of the old bones they find are from people that were killed at a young age. Often from a spear or arrow head. Young people do not have a lot of bacteria and the bones tend not deteriorate. Often they are doing a routine investigation of a murder only to find out the person was killed man thousands of years ago. This is also true of some of the Monks that purify their body of bacteria. When they die they tend not to deteriorate.

Were talknig abot a bone lying on the surface...waiting to get covered....by the slow evo-rate.

 

[-57]

"The creation research society" has confirmation bias all over itself. Wouldn't you distrust an organization called "The evolution proof finders"? Because I would. I don't want any scientist to go look for evidence that fits their idea, I want them to do objective observations, that then come to a conclusion.

You don't mind if I don't pay attention to your atheist lip service do you?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Were talknig abot a bone lying on the surface...waiting to get covered....by the slow evo-rate.

With Global Warming they are finding bones as the ice melts.

 

[Astrophile]

If the "depositions" took that long of a time to slowly deposit around the bones...the bones would have been scavenged or rotted away long before becoming buried..

Don't you understand that deposition rates are variable and that sediments can be deposited fairly rapidly by short-lived local disasters such as storms and floods? This does not mean that all sedimentary rocks were deposited rapidly.

There are plenty of sedimentary successions that do not contain fossils, or whose fossils occur only in thin beds covering small areas. Perhaps these rocks were deposited so slowly that their dead organisms were destroyed before they could be fossilised. If you argue that the presence of fossils in a rock requires rapid deposition, I can argue that the absence of fossils requires slow deposition.

 

[Reasoning]

You don't mind if I don't pay attention to your atheist lip service do you?

Haha that's a little pathetic, but ok. Do what you want mate, when people are going ad hominem it just proves my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know you can't support your lie.

Once again, I don't lie. I have no need to since the facts support my claims. Also it is against the rules to accuse others of lying here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With Global Warming they are finding bones as the ice melts.

I am not so sure if that is due to global warming. They have been finding frozen mammoth for some time now. But those bones are not fossilized at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Were talknig abot a bone lying on the surface...waiting to get covered....by the slow evo-rate.

The rate of burial can vary quite a bit. Once again it is apparent that you have no understanding of the idea that you are arguing against.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

Evolution has NOTHING to do with it. The fossil record is organized based on the geological ages. Even evolution is based on the geological ages and the changes that have taken place over time in the earths environment. What they call the earth's ecosystems. You can not get the cart before the horse.

If evolution has nothing to do with the organization of the fossil record, then people like -57 shouldn't have any trouble explaining its organization, with evidence, as would be on topic here.