The fossil record explained

[Turkana]

I sure can.

Here's an answer to part of your challenge:

Your fossil record doesn't "unambiguously depict a change in biodiversity" -- except on paper.

All it does is show what fossils settled where.

1. Put an inner tube into a swimming pool.
2. Now pour in some marshmallows.
3. Now dump some dirt into the pool.

What's going to happen?

The dirt will take the marshmallows to the bottom with it first.

IF the dirt takes the inner tube with it, it will eventually break free and resurface.

4. Now saturate the pool with dirt and allow it to solidify.

What does your record show?

Marshmallows on the bottom; inner tube halfway down.

Completely irrelevant and not even closely related to what I wrote.

Please answer the questions I posed and notr out own ones.

NEXT.

So explain exactly which of my points are addressed here by you.

Because it completely escapes me.

Quote exactly the corresponding phrase of my OP and explain exactly how your blab relates to it and why, word by word.

 

[Turkana]

Gladly.

Here's an answer to part of your challenge:

Your fossil record doesn't "unambiguously depict a change in biodiversity" -- except on paper.

All it does is show what fossils settled where.

1. Put an inner tube into a swimming pool.
2. Now pour in some marshmallows.
3. Now dump some dirt into the pool.

What's going to happen?

The dirt will take the marshmallows to the bottom with it first.

IF the dirt takes the inner tube with it, it will eventually break free and resurface.

4. Now saturate the pool with dirt and allow it to solidify.

What does your record show?

Marshmallows on the bottom; inner tube halfway down.

Irrelevant and totally unrelated to what i wrote.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you know, Turkana, that smoking is a sin?

 

[Turkana]

You're relatively new here, aren't you?

Yep. Brandnew.

And the creationists here are of a seldom seen level of deceit. Even worse of what I experienced elsewhere. Rare examples of people with a rotten mentality.

But I'm used to it.

My posts aren't focussed on them. They are focussed on the silent readers passing by and reading all the stuff and who still might sit on the fence. The creationists walk with open eyes into this trap and exhibit all their terrible lying, deceit, obfuscating and it stinks all over the place and I just stir their saucepan ever more and more, spreading the stink. I just let them expose their own decay. That's the best way to get rid of this culture of lies and deceit which festers already too long. The best way to treat a festering boil is to cut it open and let the pus out. It stinks but it helps.

 

[Turkana]

Did you know, Turkana, that smoking is a sin?

Do you know that lying and deceit is still a sin, even when you lie for Jebus the Bearded man?

 

[Turkana]

No, that's not what it says.

No, I did not say or even implied that.

Instead of producing strawman falalcies, which is a form of deceit, you better start to address the actual points I made, for variation's sake. Because you constant obfuscation and divertion tactics are getting embarrasing and shameful.

 

[Turkana]

Yep, just as I predicted, backpedaling.

Oh it has everything to do with it. If it doesn’t matter which interpretation of Bible verse we use, then it doesn’t matter which scientific interpretation of species we use, correct?

Why are you backpedaling now? Stand your ground. Either any interpretation is correct or it isn’t, either any scientific definition is valid or it isn’t.

You won’t even stand behind your own argument but suddenly when your argument is turned around to apply to you, you want to try to duck and run and pretend it just doesn’t apply.

So, so very sad that you don’t even believe in the very stance you claim to take....

ALL of your posts are totally unrelated to the OP I wrote.

Which was:

1. wise they would not sit there.
2. the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
3. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

NOT SO difficult to understand, isn't it.

 

[Turkana]

I answered you twice, you just ignored the answers both times, quit crying if you just want to pretend your not being answered. Perhaps you need to go back and reread posts....

Really?

So now you are goping to explain what parts of my OP was addressed by it because you really should explain that, it completely escapes me. So, exactly refer to the individual parts of my contentions, relate it to what you wrote "twice" and elaborate exactly what part of what I wrote was addressed by that and why.

For your conveniency:

1. the process of fossilizations is not relevant because we do have fossils sitting in the rocks. My Op is about the fossils that are already there sitting and the story they tell.
2. the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.

And that's only a very tiny part of what I wrote. DON'T worry, i will come back to those inevitably.

1. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

 

[Turkana]

Formed= created.



In others words each destruction event killed all the life in those formations, and evolution had to start over from scratch.



Not when you consider ruin/restoration theory.



There's really nothing to discuss in your three points; like saying "on a clear day the sky is blue". What's to discuss?

Sorry dude,

No answer here except on your own talking points.

Here we go again:

1. the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
2. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

NOT SO difficult to understand, isn't it.

 

[Turkana]

It doesn't suggest that. Starting over from scratch would imply all life being completely wiped out. And while extinction events have occurred that may wipe out most life, that is not the same as everything.

No indeed it doesn't say that but now he has another talking point to blab about in order not to have address the actual points I made.

 

[Turkana]

But that's what it suggests.

So you have your very next talking point that allows you to blab without having to address my OP.

1. the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
2. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

NOT SO difficult to understand, isn't it.

 

[Turkana]

Oh no, the brand new life forms that continued on (that just can’t be found in the previous layer) miraculously survived the event that killed off all the other creatures..... in great enough numbers no bottleneck occurred.

That and some that didn’t go extinct evolved almost instantly into all new creatures, so can’t be found in the later layers is all.

A very good theory I am partial to. Mainly because of “hayah” the second word in the second verse of Genesis. Showing the earth “became” desolate and waste, and darkness “became” upon the surface of the deep. Hence the dinosaurs died out and the creation of man began....

I agree there have been five destructions and six creations, with man being part of the sixth. Soon there will be a sixth destruction and a seventh and final creation. Hence the 666 in the Bible. Man being part of the sixth creation on the sixth day of it and the cause of the sixth destruction to come..... only then will there be a seventh creation, with all new life forms created, like a lion-like creature that eats straw......

Not only are you a habitual deceiver but you also seem to have severe reasoning problems.
This terrible post is full of complete nonsense and blab and tattle.

But, anyway: my OP please.

 

[Turkana]

Legitimate fossils take 10,000 years to be complete, according to science.



My point is a technical one.

It's a tangent, typical of such threads.

No it doesn't.

Lying and deceiving is your second nature, isn't it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry dude,

No answer here except on your own talking points.

Here we go again:

1. the fossil record of geological formation A differs demonstrably from the biodiversity found in geological formation B. Example: in the geological formatioins of the Ediacaran we observe the typical Ediacaran biota. Nothing of the Ediacran biota was left after the Ediacaran-Cambrian mass extinction event. Because in none of the thousands post-Ediacaran paleontological site worldwide we literally can't find not even one single specimen of Ediacran fossil. On the other hand, in the Ediacaran we literally won't find not even one single specimen of the following major groups of extant life: arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans and the like), fish, plants, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals. The fossils of these major groups of organisms are entirely lacking in the Ediacran formations, not one single specimen in any of the dozens of Ediacaran sites we have worldwide.
2. the more distant formation A is situated in the geological from formation B, the larger the differences in biodiversity.

NOT SO difficult to understand, isn't it.

Once again, what's the point of this thread?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it doesn't.

Lying and deceiving is your second nature, isn't it?

It's not my "lie" dude, it's one of your 'own'.

"Guide students to understand that a fossil is any evidence of life that is at least 10,000 years old."

https://www.amnh.org/explore/curric...activities-and-lesson-plans/what-is-a-fossil/

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it doesn't.

Lying and deceiving is your second nature, isn't it?

I'll admit to trolling now and then.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll admit to trolling now and then.

That makes two of us!

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know that lying and deceit is still a sin,

Would you know it if I did?

 

[pitabread]

I agree there have been five destructions and six creations, with man being part of the sixth. Soon there will be a sixth destruction and a seventh and final creation. Hence the 666 in the Bible. Man being part of the sixth creation on the sixth day of it and the cause of the sixth destruction to come..... only then will there be a seventh creation, with all new life forms created, like a lion-like creature that eats straw......

It fascinates me how every creationist on this forum seems to have their own private theology.

Is that how Christianity works? Everyone gets to make up their own version?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that how Christianity works? Everyone gets to make up their own version?

How 'bout we just quote the Bible and let it go at that?