Evolution False? Absolute proof inside.

[USincognito]

he was asked by the national park service to publish his findings, and has since become the formost authority on naudiloid fossils.

Horse pucky. Absolute lie.

here is one source, not sure if it was peer reviewed or not:

Oh just grow up and stop with the peer review shtick. It's old and I'm sorry, but ever time you trot it out it just confirms that you have no idea what it is, how it works or why it's important.

Steven A. Austin and Kurt P. Wise "Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event at a Hydrothermal Mound within the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona":Geologic Society of American Abstracts with Programs, Vol.27, no. 6, 1995, p.A-369

For the record, it's not. It's a presentation at a meeting.

 

[USincognito]

I don't know the exact number etc. But He has found more than anyone else.

You're lying. That simply isn't true.

 

[createdtoworship]

You're lying. That simply isn't true.

he states so in his documentaries and books, he found the vein in the grand canyon that has what some declare as thousands of fossils. As far as one person finding them, He struck it rich.

 

[createdtoworship]

Horse pucky. Absolute lie.

Hi USincognito, I understand that when someone provides evidence against uniformitarian evolution that it is like calling your baby ugly. It's infuriating. However we must man up and do the right thing. No need to divert to the lesser man. I don't believe in what you state, yet I don't call them "lies". I would like the same respect.

Oh just grow up and stop with the peer review shtick. It's old and I'm sorry, but ever time you trot it out it just confirms that you have no idea what it is, how it works or why it's important.

I am very familar with peer review and how it works, probably more than you. However. I also know that the peer review societies reject findings that are spurious to their uniformitarian views. And such reject much of young earth submittals. There are many ID papers recently published in respected journals however and I can post them as needed if you like. But I would not say that journals really contain the necessary information to refute the claims I make regarding the Grand Canyon Geology from first hand accounts.

For the record, it's not. It's a presentation at a meeting.

I know it's not a meeting as there are publications and page numbers associated with said journals. I think you are striking in the dark here, and hoping we will bite. But I am glad you brought up peer review. Please submit one peer review on grand canyon geology according to the uniformitarian viewpoint, of said deposits and refute any claims being made. I am suspecting that the peer review societies are running away from these deposits because they can't explain them. But please nevertheless, submit one. MAking sure it is from a reputible society, with a phd in said field, and is in relation to the topic at hand.

thanks for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's a book written by a Creationist. The actual paper is behind a pay wall.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

so you know I am not mistaken.

how is it the such huge creatures and so many of them buried slowly and with a gradual fossilization?

it's obviously a huge body of water, no localized flood could do that.

 

[createdtoworship]

Youngearth.com is lying to you. Austin's primary educational work was in coal formations. Why do Creationist organizations think they can lie like this and why do so many Creationists repeat those lies without due diligence?

a dissertation doesn't reflect what one does for a living.

 

[Kylie]

Terrestrial fossils?

Gah. Missed a word... Sorry!

 

[Kylie]

Exactly Far too many to support evolution as well.

Care to explain the reasoning behind this claim?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Care to explain the reasoning behind this claim?

Creatures found as fossils in ‘Cambrian’ rocks have no evolutionary ancestors. And no new basic body plans have appeared since.

Here

‘Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox’. That was how a Scientific American article described an evolutionary problem concerning the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’.1

 

[Kylie]

Here

I take it that you don't understand the context of the statements.

The cambrian explosion was not rapid. It took place over a few million years. It's not like it happened overnight or anything.

And it was where lifeforms developed body structures robust enough to survive the fossilization process more easily. Prior to this point, life was typically too fragile to remain intact through the process. So all it points to is the development of robust structures such as shells or exoskeletons which made it more likely to survive the fossilization process.

Also, the source cited by the article is 22 years old. We've learned a lot since 1992.

Oh, and it lies too. It claims, "all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors." You want to show me a fossil lizard from the Cambrian, or will you admit that new body plans have come about since then?

And it also claims, "If in fact more and more ‘unique body plans’ appeared as one went higher through the rocks, this would fit the predictions of evolution better than creation." I present whales, primates and birds as three examples of body plans that did not exist in the Cambrian and exist now.

So, this is another example of a creationist website picking and choosing its sources and misrepresenting science to lead to a biased conclusion. And the site suggests the explanation is that all these creatures lived at the same time, but they do not provide any explanation on why their fossils are never found together.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I take it that you don't understand the context of the statements.

The cambrian explosion was not rapid. It took place over a few million years. It's not like it happened overnight or anything.

And it was where lifeforms developed body structures robust enough to survive the fossilization process more easily. Prior to this point, life was typically too fragile to remain intact through the process. So all it points to is the development of robust structures such as shells or exoskeletons which made it more likely to survive the fossilization process.

Also, the source cited by the article is 22 years old. We've learned a lot since 1992.

Oh, and it lies too. It claims, "all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors." You want to show me a fossil lizard from the Cambrian, or will you admit that new body plans have come about since then?

And it also claims, "If in fact more and more ‘unique body plans’ appeared as one went higher through the rocks, this would fit the predictions of evolution better than creation." I present whales, primates and birds as three examples of body plans that did not exist in the Cambrian and exist now.

So, this is another example of a creationist website picking and choosing its sources and misrepresenting science to lead to a biased conclusion. And the site suggests the explanation is that all these creatures lived at the same time, but they do not provide any explanation on why their fossils are never found together.

These things cannot be millions of years old -the whole of creation has been around only 6000

 

[Kylie]

These things cannot be millions of years old -the whole of creation has been around only 6000

Then why does all of reality say otherwise?

You can never learn about reality if you get your information from a book. Look at reality itself if you want to learn about it.

Also, you never actually addressed a single thing I said. You're just blindly trying to push it away without really understanding what I'm telling you.

 

[TasManOfGod]

It fascinates me how those who consider themselves scientific literate don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that in a flood the water bound life forms are the first ones to perish (assuming some form of contaminated water) Later perhaps other fauna and flora contemporaries perish in sedimentary layers above. Now when this is a global flood (and there has only ever been one) you would expect to find this evidence all over the world -which you do.
No real scientific explanation is needed really.

 

[Kylie]

It fascinates me how those who consider themselves scientific literate don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that in a flood the water bound life forms are the first ones to perish (assuming some form of contaminated water) Later perhaps other fauna and flora contemporaries perish in sedimentary layers above. Now when this is a global flood (and there has only ever been one) you would expect to find this evidence all over the world -which you do.
No real scientific explanation is needed really.

Then why do we see more modern aquatic life form (such as icthyosaurs) in higher layers than more primitive land animals (such as dimetrodon)? If you are correct, wouldn't the icthyosaurs be in lower layers instead of the layers higher than dimetrodon?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Then why does all of reality say otherwise?

You can never learn about reality if you get your information from a book. Look at reality itself if you want to learn about it.

Also, you never actually addressed a single thing I said. You're just blindly trying to push it away without really understanding what I'm telling you.

And I keep telling you that the universe is only 6000 yo - but you don't seem to want to believe that either.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Let us assume that there was a flood and all the water bound life died, how come the sea is now filled with water bound life? did it take 4000 odd years for them to evolve or did your God re-create them all? what happened?

You can assume that if you like but all did not die -neither does the Bible say they did.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Then why do we see more modern aquatic life form (such as icthyosaurs) in higher layers than more primitive land animals (such as dimetrodon)? If you are correct, wouldn't the icthyosaurs be in lower layers instead of the layers higher than dimetrodon?

There is also the concept of flood aftermath of receeding waters. Take the tsunamis as a minature example -humans can finish up in the sea and fish can end up on land. Does that mean they previously lived in those places?

 

[Kylie]

And I keep telling you that the universe is only 6000 yo - but you don't seem to want to believe that either.

I don't believe it because the only support you offer is the claim that the Bible says so, and also because all of reality (which is actually testable, y'know) shows the Bible to be false.

There is also the concept of flood aftermath of receeding waters. Take the tsunamis as a minature example -humans can finish up in the sea and fish can end up on land. Does that mean they previously lived in those places?

This does not answer the question. We NEVER see dimetrodon fossils in more recent layers than icthyosaur fossils. Literally never. Are you suggesting that every single icthyosaur fossil was moved by a tsunami?

 

[Kylie]

You can assume that if you like but all did not die -neither does the Bible say they did.

Yes it does. The Bible says very clearly that all life that was not on the ark was destroyed.

Genesis 6:12,13

6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.​

 

[TasManOfGod]

Yes it does. The Bible says very clearly that all life that was not on the ark was destroyed.

Genesis 6:12,13

6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.​

This is what my Bible says:

Genesis 7:19-24 (KJV)
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

No talk of fish there