Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[Astrophile]

Whatever gave you the idea that Darwin was a geologist?

Darwin started as a geologist. He read Lyell's Principles of Geology and said that he saw geological phenomena through Lyell's eyes. He collected fossils in South America and Australasia and sent them back to England. After the completion of the voyage of the Beagle he wrote a highly technical book about volcanic islands, which, incidentally, contains the first description in English of a tektite (Chapter 3), and proposed a hypothesis for the origin of atolls that is still accepted as correct in essentials. Darwin's Fossils by Adrian Lister (Natural History Museum, 2018) will give you more information.

 

[tas8831]

why darwin (a geologist) wrote about evolution?

Why xianghua (a car owner) wrote about evolution?

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

That's not true. The only way to accept a young Earth is to flat out ignore findings in every branch of the natural sciences, among other things.

Heck, even the Institute for Creation Research (a YEC organization) admits to hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay per the findings in their RATE project.

The only way to believe in a Young Earth is to fundamentally reject an objective universe; which means rejecting the basis on which scientific inquiry is performed.

There is another way to accept a Young Earth.... for it's old age to never have been proven you.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is another way to accept a Young Earth.... for it's old age to never have been proven you.

So, ignorance.

 

[pitabread]

There is another way to accept a Young Earth.... for it's old age to never have been proven you.

Well, not really. Not knowing how old the Earth is means one doesn't know how old the Earth is. A "young Earth" is not the null hypothesis.

 

[tas8831]

There is another way to accept a Young Earth.... for it's old age to never have been proven you.

Young earth has never been proven to me, so...

 

[bhsmte]

There is another way to accept a Young Earth.... for it's old age to never have been proven you.

Denial is a terrific defense mechanism. In the short term it brings comfort, but over time, it takes its toll with the amount energy one has to spend to keep denying and experiencing the cognitive dissonance that comes along with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Denial is a terrific defense mechanism.

Are you speaking from experience?

 

[trophy33]

Are you speaking from experience?

We all experience it, its wired in our brains, its a self-defense mechanism, well described in neuropsychology.

We must conciously force ourselves to accept facts that contradict our faiths and opinions.

To be "open minded" requires our full concentration and awareness. Denial is a default, natural state of mind, its automatic.

 

[AV1611VET]

We all experience it,

But we all don't use it to ridicule others.

 

[Speedwell]

But we all don't use it to ridicule others.

Only those who deny it.

 

[tas8831]

We should learn from history why it is often a waste of time...

Of course it does.
Is this part of the 'thought experiment'?
I don't recall ever reading or hearing any evolutionary biologist making such a claim. So it must be part of the 'experiment.' Unless you can provide actual examples. We can, of course, 'predict' what sorts of features we might expect to see in a particular group of organisms in a particular time frame, like the predictions about what we might see in wasp/ant ancestor, but I am personally unaware of any 'prediction' regarding a specific fossil order.


What do you mean "where"? Where as in location, or where as in time frame? Or both? If Noah's flood had actually happened, for example, I would predict, given their relative size and thus density and their general shape and thus hydrodynamic properties that we should find fossils of large modern mammals such as rhinos in the same stratum that we find juvenile triceratops in. Or modern horses and Camelops. But I digress.


Great thought experiment.

Pity that it is premised on an essentially backwards understanding of how scientific theories are developed and used.
Having extant anatomy knowledge tells us nothing about rates of change, biogeography, etc.

You fail to recognize or understand that such things do not exist in a vacuum. It is like you want us to describe the best way to win a game of chess using only the chess board and no actual knowledge of how the game pieces move. The Theory of Evolution, even in its original formulation, did not rely on a single type of knowledge. It relied on, among other things, embryology, artificial selection (as a model, of sorts), biogeography, etc.

So in reality, this is NOT a 'thought experiment' in which we take a Theory of Evolution and use it to make predictions based solely on anatomy, it is a scam - for the ToE's formulation knowledge of anatomy along with knowledge of fossils (and many other things) was used.

It would be like asking you to explain YEC cultism without referencing Noah's flood myth.

It is disingenuous.

Is this sort of thing your "mission" or something?

That is, it is a set up, and one, I think is obvious, premised on your rather shallow grasp of science - which may be a product of your past psychedelic drug use, but who knows. I will point out more flaws as time allows, but that is good for today.

Off to tell impressionable youngsters not to trust YEC fanatics.