Fossil Record Shows Evolution as an Errant Fabricated Mess

[Heissonear]

A poster in another thread posted "fossil record facts" of evolution happening from Amublocidae to Remingtonocidae to Protoceidae fossil-based evolution.

The presentation of such fossil-based evidence of evolution is mere conjecture. A historic account of a fabricated mess of linking fossils on shoestring conjecture-based fabrications.

It is easy to dig into the posters Wikipedia presented claims of fossil-based evolution and see massive gaps and use of only fragments in fossils.

Below is the Wikipedia fossil relationship. Dig in and notice the fragments of fossils utilized, and massive conjecture to work these fossils into an evolutionary scheme of what occurred in Earths past.

Macro-assemblages of fossil use and guesstimation with conjecture-based conclutions is the best evolutionists can do in presenting that evolution happened and is displayed in the fossil record.

What a fabricated mess and shame.

Again, as posted elsewhere: there is not one sequence of fossils between two different lifeforms that shows the detailed morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. Zero fossils showing evolution ever occurred.

Wikipedia presents a fabricated mess of fossil relationships to what a poster presented as fossil record proof of evolution.

What a shame to claim such as scientific evidence.

As we dig in more attachments will show zero fossils that show detailed morphological changes inbetween two different lifeforms, only fabricated mess of conjecture-based linkages and conclusions.

What evolutionists posters are to list in the posts to follow are macro-assemblages of fossils with zero fossils between them showing detailed morphological changes that show one different creature morphologically changed into another creature over time. Conjecture-based evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

A poster in another thread posted "fossil record facts" of evolution happening from Amublocidae to Remingtonocidae to Protoceidae fossil-based evolution.

The presentation of such fossil-based evidence of evolution is mere conjecture. A historic account of a fabricated mess of linking fossils on shoestring conjecture-based fabrications.

It is easy to dig into the posters Wikipedia presented claims of fossil-based evolution and see massive gaps and use of only fragments in fossils.

Below is the Wikipedia fossil relationship. Dig in and notice the fragments of fossils utilized, and massive conjecture to work these fossils into an evolutionary scheme of what occurred in Earths past.

Macro-assemblages of fossil use and guesstimation with conjecture-based conclutions is the best evolutionists can do in presenting that evolution happened and is displayed in the fossil record.

What a fabricated mess and shame.

Again, as posted elsewhere: there is not one sequence of fossils between two different lifeforms that shows the detailed morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. Zero fossils showing evolution ever occurred.

View attachment 238867

Wikipedia presents a fabricated mess of fossil relationships to what a poster presented as fossil record proof of evolution.

What a shame to claim such as scientific evidence.

As we dig in more attachments will show zero fossils that show detailed morphological changes inbetween two different lifeforms, only fabricated mess of conjecture-based linkages and conclusions.

What evolutionists posters are to list in the posts to follow are macro-assemblages of fossils with zero fossils between them showing detailed morphological changes that show one different creature morphologically changed into another creature over time. Conjecture-based evidence.

So you keep saying.

Do you think that the fossil records offers evidence in favour of special creation?

What are your views on creationism anyway, do you believe in a Young Earth or recent global flood?

 

[Brightmoon]

Heiss why do you keep repeating that lie?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And once again, heissonear is doing nothing but repeating the same lies and myths that he always repeats when he has been proven wrong oh so often.

 

[Heissonear]

The proposed relationship of Amublocidae-Remingtonocidae-Protoceidae, is not based on fossils that present detailed morphology. Instead conjecture-based conclusions.

A mix and match in fossils found in sedimentary deposits.

This shows how evolution is based on an evolutionary scheme. How evolution is the process in how creatures become more complex and found adapted ecosystems over geologic time.

Evolution, however, is not fossil record proved.

In fact it is the opposite, the fossiil record does not show evolution in detailed morphological changes fossil sequences between two claimed related creatures.

Conclusions without detailed fossils showing morphological changes of said one lifeform changing into another said lifeform over time is called at best an educated guess, but in reality of open minded observation shows conjecture-based claims. Guesstimations.

An Eocene Radiation Event. Not.

Such is not clear, detailed, fossil record based.

But claims based on parts and pieces of macro-assemblages of fossils.

 

[Heissonear]

So you keep saying.

Do you think that the fossil records offers evidence in favour of special creation?

What are your views on creationism anyway, do you believe in a Young Earth or recent global flood?

Let's stick to what the fossil record actually presents verses what evolutionists claim.

This is a thread about such.

 

[Heissonear]

Heiss why do you keep repeating that lie?

Show fossil record evidence of what is presented in this thread.

If you cannot present evolution by fossil record facts than admit it.

Prove it true or a lie by true evidence, not conjecture-based claims and linked relationships of fossils.

 

[Heissonear]

And once again, heissonear is doing nothing but repeating the same lies and myths that he always repeats when he has been proven wrong oh so often.

Prove the OP topic true or a lie by true evidence, not conjecture-based claims and linked relationships of fossils.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Prove the OP topic true or a lie by true evidence, not conjecture-based claims and linked relationships of fossils.

You're the one who is making the claim, that 'evolutionist' claims about the fossil record are a lie, so the onus is on you to prove it right. All I see from any of your posts is just a willing ignorance of the fossil record and a complete refusal to listen to what anyone else is saying to you.

 

[SkyWriting]

A poster in another thread posted "fossil record facts" of evolution happening from Amublocidae to Remingtonocidae to Protoceidae fossil-based evolution.

The presentation of such fossil-based evidence of evolution is mere conjecture. A historic account of a fabricated mess of linking fossils on shoestring conjecture-based fabrications.

It is easy to dig into the posters Wikipedia presented claims of fossil-based evolution and see massive gaps and use of only fragments in fossils.

Below is the Wikipedia fossil relationship. Dig in and notice the fragments of fossils utilized, and massive conjecture to work these fossils into an evolutionary scheme of what occurred in Earths past.

Macro-assemblages of fossil use and guesstimation with conjecture-based conclutions is the best evolutionists can do in presenting that evolution happened and is displayed in the fossil record.

What a fabricated mess and shame.

Again, as posted elsewhere: there is not one sequence of fossils between two different lifeforms that shows the detailed morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time. Zero fossils showing evolution ever occurred.

View attachment 238867

Wikipedia presents a fabricated mess of fossil relationships to what a poster presented as fossil record proof of evolution.

What a shame to claim such as scientific evidence.

As we dig in more attachments will show zero fossils that show detailed morphological changes inbetween two different lifeforms, only fabricated mess of conjecture-based linkages and conclusions.

What evolutionists posters are to list in the posts to follow are macro-assemblages of fossils with zero fossils between them showing detailed morphological changes that show one different creature morphologically changed into another creature over time. Conjecture-based evidence.

That's true of any past events, and evolution is among the most difficult to reproduce.
The big bang being the king of all fictions. But being fictional does not rule out it being correct. Like evolution, it's a useful, if not very tall tale.

 

[Brightmoon]

Sky writing , You do realize that we can see back in time to about half a million years after the Big Bang . Right? Before then the universe was too hot and densely opaque to see through . So we do know that the Big Bang happened. In fact that expansion of spacetime is still occurring.

As far as evolution is concerned, The so called gaps in the fossil record are filled in with genetics. We don’t actually need the fossils to confirm common descent . Darwin and Wallace needed the fossils to confirm common descent in the 19th century but we don’t . Welcome to the 21 century

By the way there’s a lot more fossil whales than the ones shown in your diagram. That ” idae” ending means that this is an entire family of closely related genera involving more than one species

 

[Brightmoon]

Well, well, well! Looky here! Was it you who kept claiming that hybrid speciation doesn’t happen. Screenshot from the Wikipedia article on whale evolution.

 

[drjean]

All I have to do is look around and see the degradation of everything to realize evolution is a myth (meaning: we are devolving not evolving).

 

[Brightmoon]

All I have to do is look around and see the degradation of everything to realize evolution is a myth (meaning: we are devolving not evolving).

there’s no such thing as devolution in living organisms . It would be nice if creationists actually learned some science in school

 

[Basil the Great]

As my late elderly Jewish neighbor friend used to tell me, "Believe what you want".

 

[Brightmoon]

As my late elderly Jewish neighbor friend used to tell me, "Believe what you want".

that works for religions . Misrepresentation and /or misunderstandings of science causes accidents famines or deaths .

 

[Heissonear]

View attachment 238890 Well, well, well! Looky here! Was it you who kept claiming that hybrid speciation doesn’t happen. Screenshot from the Wikipedia article on whale evolution.

Had your hopes up without understanding Species and Genus in view of Biblical Kinds.

You need to show fossil record distinctions above Genus lifeforms.

AV has several recent post stating clarifying: Kind = Genus

As shown bellow is the Genus Stenella, and the Species you list are therein.

As per Kind = Genus already understood in prior discussions:

And to clarify Microevolition verses Macroevolution for sake of fossil sequences required to prove evolution produces more complex distinctly different lifeforms over geologic time, per within the fossil record proof, the below is added.

Both of AV's quotes are within the current Evolution Has Hit a Brick Wall

 

[Heissonear]

All I have to do is look around and see the degradation of everything to realize evolution is a myth (meaning: we are devolving not evolving).

You have had an open mind in your view of natural things and processes around you.

Degradation of past civilization's is another obvious standout. And our current enlightened age civilization is no different, it appears.

You did say about "everything". I fully concur.

On another thread I presented how evolutionists view evolution as the process that makes lifeforms more advanced and more complex over time, which is an erroneous view and claim. You presented such much more concise.

 

[Heissonear]

there’s no such thing as devolution in living organisms . It would be nice if creationists actually learned some science in school

It appears you have yet to learn what drjean presented concisely.

 

[Heissonear]

that works for religions . Misrepresentation and /or misunderstandings of science causes accidents famines or deaths .

It still appears you are in well over your head. It seems hard for you to be open minded and look above and beyond the group-think groups like evolutionists.

It appears many are having problems understanding plain and clear problems about the fossil record and evolution. They appear to stay in a bias view of evolution has no problems.

I mentioned before it was when I finally understood evolution required faith, that evolution is built not upon the fossil record proof but built upon a foundation of conjecture - I became open minded to items of faith, rather than follow the conjecture-based evolutionists crowd down their non-factual claims and conclusions.