More on why I reject evolution

[SilverBear]

I made a simple request...you claim there are "At least a dozen individual specimens of Tiktaalik" Direct me to the pictures of the dozen nearly complete (tiktaalik) skeletons!


There is no reptile to bird intermediate! Archaeopteryx the so called prime example is a total fraud!


The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain
"At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells (that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas)." My emphasis!


"The geology of the Grand Canyon area is claimed to include one of the most complete and studied sequences of rock on Earth. The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old." But there's a problem!
The 2021 Encyclopeaedia Britannica:
Grand Canyon | Facts, Map, Geology, & Videos | Britannica
“There are immense time gaps; many millions of years are unaccounted for, owing to gaps in the strata that resulted either from vast quantities of materials being removed by erosion or because there was little or no deposition of materials. Thus, (rock formations of considerably different ages are separated by only a thin distinct surface that reveals the vast unconformity in time.)” Curious!!!

The fossils in Canyon layers, the most complete and studied sequences of rock, indicate your fossil succession layers depiction is wrong! because of the fact that the fossils in The Grand Canyon consists mostly of marine fossils found throughout the layers not in a sliver layer at the bottom!
Also curiously there are only footprints of creatures found and no dinosaur fossils as depicted in your drawing!
Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
"The sedimentary rocks exposed throughout the canyon are rich with marine fossils such as crinoids, brachiopods, and sponges with several layers containing terrestrial fossils such as leaf and dragonfly wing impressions, and footprints of scorpions, centipedes, and reptiles."
"What about dinosaur fossils? Not at Grand Canyon!"

do you just make this stuff up?

 

[DaveISBA]

What drawing are you talking about? I haven't posted any drawings of the grand canyon.

Didn't say you did! Was talking about your so call Geologic time scale illustrated with drawings of creatures you submitted!

The rocks of the Grand canyon are older and superpositionally deeper than layers that contain dinosaur fossils.
That's the simple reason that there are no dinosaur fossils in The Grand canyon. There isn't anything mysterious about this.

Which begs the question of a great mystery! Where did the layers as indicated in your illustration of a supposed Geologic time scale disappear to? Even without evidence of dinosaurs in the Canyon layers, still no evidence of your Geologic time scale because The Grand Canyon, said to be one of the most complete and studied sequences of rock on Earth consists mostly of marine fossils found throughout the layers!

 

[Job 33:6]

Didn't say you did! Was talking about your so call Geologic time scale illustrated with drawings of creatures you submitted!


Which begs the question of a great mystery! Where did the layers as indicated in your illustration of a supposed Geologic time scale disappear to? Even without evidence of dinosaurs in the Canyon layers, still no evidence of your Geologic time scale because The Grand Canyon, said to be one of the most complete and studied sequences of rock on Earth consists mostly of marine fossils found throughout the layers!

"Also curiously there are only footprints of creatures found and no dinosaur fossils as depicted in your drawing!" -DavelSBA

The geologic column does in fact contain dinosaur fossils, so if I posted a drawing of the geologic column and it had dinosaur bones in it, then there is nothing unreasonable about this. Haha.

To understand more of the geologic column, you have to understand superposition, and you have to be willing to look at more areas beyond just the grand canyon of course.

You seem surprised by this idea that you cannot see the entire worlds worth of geology when you happen to only look at a single national park of the entire planet.

The earth is vast. There is much more to it than the grand canyon.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Also curiously there are only footprints of creatures found and no dinosaur fossils as depicted in your drawing!" -DavelSBA

The geologic column does in fact contain dinosaur fossils, so if I posted a drawing of the geologic column and it had dinosaur bones in it, then there is nothing unreasonable about this. Haha.

To understand more of the geologic column, you have to understand superposition, and you have to be willing to look at more areas beyond just the grand canyon of course.

You seem surprised by this idea that you cannot see the entire worlds worth of geology when you happen to only look at a single national park of the entire planet.

The earth is vast. There is much more to it than the grand canyon.

These images may help. And there are geologic maps if you Google them, and there are phone apps that also have all of this information digitized which are fantastic, such as the "RockD" app.

But as we can see in the images above, the grand canyon begins with pre-cambrian rock, which spans to the permian. But if you go west about 60km, you will find more layers on top of those permian layers, which contain dinosaurs. Painted desert has some triassic rocks, vermillion cliffs and zion canyon have rocks going into the jurassic, bryce canyon has rocks going up into the cretaceous and tertiary etc.

So by simply looking a little bit further outside of the grand canyon, we can find more layers which contain dinosaur bones that rest on top of the grand canyon layers. Because the rocks of the grand canyon itself predates the dinosaurs and thus the rocks are deeper and do not contain dinosaur bones.

And you've asked why there are more layers in some areas than others, well because some have been eroded away and others have not. Rocks that are dense, such as quartzite or granite, tend to resist erosion more than softer rocks such as shale or limestone. Rocks that are uplifted (such as those in the grand canyon) are also more aggressively eroded by incising rivers trying to reach the groundwater table. Lift water up and it has a greater gravitational potential energy, which means it will erode rocks beneath it away, more aggressively.

Which is why the grand canyon exists in one location and not everywhere, because this location was uplifted during the laramide orogeny, while most other places have not. And thus the rock in this areas was eroded more aggressively, thereby creating massive gorges.

And if you go to other gorges, if you like hiking by rivers for example and through deeper chasms such as those of the Adirondacks or Shanendoah, usually you are near mountains that have undergone uplift as well. We don't find chasms and gorges in non-mountainous regions because they haven't been uplifted. Usually we just find swamps like the Everglades in places that aren't uplifted, as opposed to canyons.

So erosion largely depends on the history of the region.

 

[DaveISBA]

If I bake a chocolate cake in the oven at 5pm, and at 6pm I pour milk over that cake and wash part of it away...

What? You have just left observable science and entered into the world of imagination!

And dinosaurs existed in the grand canyon between the ages in which the layers first formed and the age in which the canyon within the layers formed.
Thus, The layers of the canyon are older than dinosaurs, but the canyon itself is younger than dinosaurs.

Which begs the question where are the 200 million years of missing layers from the Grand Canyon located?

The layers of the grand canyon range in time from pre-cambrian to permian, but the erosion occurred in the mid cenozoic. And dinosaurs lived in-between, during the mesozoic. And since there are no Mesozoic rocks in the Grand canyon, there are no dinosaurs.

If the Canyon layers, during the mesozoic, eroded away why did the erosion stop precisely at the upper most Kaibab formation leaving it intact? Erosion could never be that precise!

However it is also true that if we go a bit outside of the Grand canyon, we do find Mesozoic rocks super positionally above and more shallower than the layers of the Grand canyon. Because of course rock layers don't just stop at the Grand canyon, they continue on over vast distances. So when we follow those Grand canyon layers, eventually they become overlain by Mesozoic rock, which does contains dinosaur fossils.

The fossils are (entombed) mainly in (sedimentary) rock layers as are most on earth! The layers are made up of their own unique and almost pure elements laid down, except for igneous, by the action of water and are laid down horizontal and flat to each other with only a thin line between! What modern topography is like that?
Geology of the Grand Canyon area
"The geology of the Grand Canyon area exposes one of the most complete sequences of rock anywhere, representing a period of nearly 2 billion years of the Earth's history in that part of North America. The major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. (Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores)" My emphasis!

And that's how we know that the grand canyon layers predate dinosaurs, because dinosaur fossils exist in shallower rocks (remember that deeper rocks are older than shallower rocks, and that If shallower rocks were older, they would be floating in thin air because the rocks below them wouldn't exist yet). Generally speaking.

What I do know is that there are 200 million years of layers missing in the Canyon and that there is no evidence of your fossil succession there because, "one of the most complete sequences of rock anywhere" the Grand Canyon consist mainly of marine fossils throughout it's layers!

 

[Job 33:6]

"If the Canyon layers, during the mesozoic, eroded away why did the erosion stop precisely at the upper most Kaibab formation leaving it intact? Erosion could never be that precise!"

To be fair, it didn't. The kaibab is overlain by the moenkopi.

In some areas the kaibab remains because it consists of resistant rock.

And we shouldn't confuse the formation having a smooth surface with the idea that it is not a product of erosion.

Remember, erosion acts upon odd rigid objects that rest above flat surfaces. If wind blows, it will knock down a sand castle before it digs underground. Which means that erosion naturally creates flat surfaces. Unless uplift (or incision by water or ice) is involved. And gravity creates flat surfaces as well of course. Its a combination of the two. Which is why if you build a sand castle at the beach, wind and water eventually flatten it within maybe 24 hours or so.

 

[Job 33:6]

"The fossils are (entombed) mainly in (sedimentary) rock layers as are most on earth! The layers are made up of their own unique and almost pure elements laid down, except for igneous, by the action of water and are laid down horizontal and flat to each other with only a thin line between! What modern topography is like that?"

How about beaches? Those are flat.

And it should be no surprise that most (but not all) fossils reside in sedimentary rocks. The only other rock types aside from sedimentary are igneous (hot lava and magma) and metamorphic (subducted and superheater and crushed). Neither of which are conducive to fossil preservation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, it was asked where those mesozoic beds went. Once they were eroded.

Where do you think they went? If we have a river eroding the rock away, the sediments have to go somewhere, right? They aren't in outer space.

The most logical place to look is downstream. And currently there are at least two major locations, one being south of the san andreas fault and one being down toward texas that can be viewed through Google maps where we can see sediment eroding from the canyon being carried out to the ocean.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is one location that grand canyon sediment is deposited into a bay which makes its way out to the pacific ocean.


All layers and sediment of the mesozoic that has been removed from the grand canyon area never left our planet. It just flows downstream and gets recycled.

 

[DaveISBA]

How about beach? Those are flat.

Beaches are narrow and layers, magnitude times larger than any beach, can be traced clear across North America! Beaches are not made of almost pure Lime, as in the limestone layers in the canyon!

And it should be no surprise that most (but not all) fossils reside in sedimentary rocks. The only other rock types aside from sedimentary are igneous (hot lava and magma) and metamorphic (subducted and superheater and crushed). Neither of which are conducive to fossil preservation.

Right...sort of! Fossils, most are marine, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks, that cover 75% of Earth's continental land mass and the sediment that make up the layers where laid down by the action of water!
Stories | Sedimentary Rocks (earthscienceeducation.org)
"Running water sorts sediments by size and density. So when the particles are deposited, their sorting by size and shape is far from random. That's why some sediments look layered."

What is surprising is that fossils have to be buried quickly before scavenging or
decomposition but the layers are claimed to have been laid down over multiple millions of years?
The Chalk deposits assigned to the Cretaceous geologic period that supposedly took 35 million years to form and are found on many continental regions of the world, including the British Isle and the American midwestern states, notably the Niobrara chalk beds, according to (geokansas.ku.edu/ mosasaur), have “Fossils of the large, swimming reptiles called mosasaurs are common." "The longest one found in Kansas was about 40 feet long." According to the Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 225, “The deposition of this material took place at a rate of approximately 0.036 mm per year” A 40 ft. mosasaur with a height of say 5 ft. would take 42,300 years to bury at that rate! Bodies from the Titanic sank to the ocean floor but after just a little over 100 years, according to theweek. com, article “Those who have spent the most time exploring the wreckage insist that any bodies at the site have long since decomposed”

 

[Job 33:6]

Beaches are narrow and layers, magnitude times larger than any beach, can be traced clear across North America! Beaches are not made of almost pure Lime, as in the limestone layers in the canyon!


Right...sort of! Fossils, most are marine, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks, that cover 75% of Earth's continental land mass and the sediment that make up the layers where laid down by the action of water!
Stories | Sedimentary Rocks (earthscienceeducation.org)
"Running water sorts sediments by size and density. So when the particles are deposited, their sorting by size and shape is far from random. That's why some sediments look layered."

What is surprising is that fossils have to be buried quickly before scavenging or
decomposition but the layers are claimed to have been laid down over multiple millions of years?
The Chalk deposits assigned to the Cretaceous geologic period that supposedly took 35 million years to form and are found on many continental regions of the world, including the British Isle and the American midwestern states, notably the Niobrara chalk beds, according to (geokansas.ku.edu/ mosasaur), have “Fossils of the large, swimming reptiles called mosasaurs are common." "The longest one found in Kansas was about 40 feet long." According to the Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 225, “The deposition of this material took place at a rate of approximately 0.036 mm per year” A 40 ft. mosasaur with a height of say 5 ft. would take 42,300 years to bury at that rate! Bodies from the Titanic sank to the ocean floor but after just a little over 100 years, according to theweek. com, article “Those who have spent the most time exploring the wreckage insist that any bodies at the site have long since decomposed”

Surely you know that beaches, or more specifically sand, continues under water. Flat layers of sand don't just stop at waters edge. And I hope you also know that beaches migrate as well they don't just exist in one place indefinitely. Some beaches are growing, some are eroding etc. A beach changes location with time, meaning that flat layers of deposited sediment also are created in varying locations over time. Sea level also rises and lowers which also determines where sediment is laterally deposited. For example if sea level goes down you get the deposition of layers further out and away from the center of the continent. If sea level rises, you get more deposition further inland.

And with regards to North America, much (but not all) of North America itself at one point was under water in what is called the Western interior seaway. So we shouldn't be surprised to find laterally extensive shallow marine geology in this part of north america (in some layers, but many layers are different and do not consist of limestone at all).

Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia

You also seem baffled by the idea that erosion could create flat surfaces and yet beaches are very flat and they are created by erosion.

Do you accept that erosion can in-fact make flat surfaces?

And regarding the formation of stratigtaphic layers, many layers do not take millions of years to form. A storm or hurricane for example, can bury objects overnight and form their own layers. So it is a misconception to believe that it takes millions of years for something like bones to be buried.

What actually takes millions of years to form are things like angular unconformities.

 

[Job 33:6]

And I just want to point out that with all the previous discussion, no explanation for the fossil record has been given by deniers of evolution. I see a lot of denial of the existence of the fossil record. I see a lot of denial of the existence of the geological record. I see denial even of the existence of certain fossils.

But denial just isn't a reasonable response.

And now you seen baffled by the idea that wind or water erosion could create flat surfaces. And yet anyone can go to the beach and can see a very flat surface created by erosion.

Regarding limestone, much limestone forms in deep marine environments where deposited layers are extraordinarily flat.

 

[Job 33:6]

Davel, if you have any questions about how the ocean makes flat sedimentary (sandstone, shale, siltstone, limestone etc.) layers as described in the video above, feel free to ask.

 

[ChristServant]

Since the subject of evolution and my response to it generates so many responses to my posts, I find it hard to keep track and even harder to be bothered covering the same old ground. So for those who are interested, I post an article of 75 points that cover most of my objections to evolution. I did not write it. The fact that David R Pogge (aka Do-While Jones) is not a biologist is entirely irrelevant. Evolution is not rocket surgery. The concept is simple enough. What is incredibly complex is the mental gymnastics required to believe in evolution.

So, you can find the link to the article here: Seventy-five Theses

If the link does not work, I've uploaded a .pdf copy as well.

Can anyone show an actual change of species from one to another with a real fossil record? The only things I've seen have been fakes.

Every single defect I've seen in genes never produce anything positive?

Does having big noses, ears, feet etc or having smaller ones show evolution?

 

[Job 33:6]

Can anyone show an actual change of species from one to another with a real fossil record? The only things I've seen have been fakes.

The question is, can deniers of evolution provide a viable explanation for the fossil succession beyond common descent? Common descent explains the fossil record beautifully and suggests that evolution occurs via speciation.

So the question really is, if not common descent via speciation, then what is the cause for the fossil record?

At best, all I can gather from the above is that perhaps deniers of evolution think that the fossil succession itself is fake or that it is made with fake fossils.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Can anyone show an actual change of species from one to another with a real fossil record? The only things I've seen have been fakes.

Every single defect I've seen in genes never produce anything positive?

Does having big noses, ears, feet etc or having smaller ones show evolution?

Evolutionists have not been able to show Darwinian evolution. So they cheat. They take what used to be called adaptation, which is observable, and say that it is evolution. Which it is NOT. Very few genetic changes are positive. That does not sway the evolutionist. They think that they have time on their side, literally. Obviously I do not agree. Every stage of evolution requires a male and female embryo to be produced at the same time and same location, grow to maturity, find each other and successfully mate. The male and female cannot be from the same animal or genetic disorders arise. Otherwise, the genetic trail is literally a dead end. Just.... No.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, you can find the link to the article here: Seventy-five Theses

If the link does not work, I've uploaded a .pdf copy as well.

Disappointed to see that your guy spent so much time on abiogenesis, which is not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species 1872

However, God does say that life came from nature. Check Genesis 1.

Then he declares it impossible for single cells to become multicellular organisms. But the evidence is compelling for that, and even in living organisms today we see all the intermediate steps. A good reference for non-specialists on what we know of it today can be found in the book Metazoans:
Book review – Metazoa: Animal Minds and the Birth of Consciousness

Suffice to say, the evidence is overwhelming. The unicellular choanoflagellates are closely related to cells in sponges, simple animals with no organized tissues. And so on. We can discuss it, if you're interested.

Every one of those 75 assumptions turns out to be wrong. If you doubt this, bring them up one at a time, and we'll discuss it. Which one would you like to do first?

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionists have not been able to show Darwinian evolution.

It's directly observed to happen. Would you like some examples?

I wonder if you maybe don't know what "Darwinian evolution" is. What do you think it is?

 

[The Barbarian]

Every stage of evolution requires a male and female embryo to be produced at the same time and same location, grow to maturity, find each other and successfully mate.

No. Many organisms are asexual. And it's not hard to show how speciation happens with no problems at all.

Should we talk about that?

 

[Aussie Pete]

And I just want to point out that with all the previous discussion, no explanation for the fossil record has been given by deniers of evolution. I see a lot of denial of the existence of the fossil record. I see a lot of denial of the existence of the geological record. I see denial even of the existence of certain fossils.

But denial just isn't a reasonable response.

And now you seen baffled by the idea that wind or water erosion could create flat surfaces. And yet anyone can go to the beach and can see a very flat surface created by erosion.

Regarding limestone, much limestone forms in deep marine environments where deposited layers are extraordinarily flat.

The presence of fossils is readily explained by the concept of a pre-Adamic creation. I am convinced that Noah's flood was the second world wide flood, not the first. So no, I don't think that the earth is 6,000 years old. However, the 4.5 billion year age is implausible.

I don't have every answer to every question tossed up by evolutionist. Elon Musk works on the concept of first principles. In the realm of evolution, so do I. Life cannot arise spontaneously. If life does not arise in that manner, then evolution as a concept is stillborn. So you have to find another explanation.