• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The fossil record explained

Status
Not open for further replies.

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Now, the 'hypothesis' of a 6,000 years old earth has been falsified more than 100 times by all different types of dating techniques, each based on very different principles and thus methodologically spoken entirely independent of each other.

Just FYI, but 'dad' apparently believes that everything including basic physics operated completely differently in the past and therefore we can't know anything about anything.

No it doesn't make any sense. Just giving you a heads up before you go down the endless rabbit hole with him...
 
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private

Please anwer the points I made instead of this nonsense.

If you feel that the paleontological and geological evidence I brought in is false or full of confirmation biases, I love to hear it.

No it's not important how fossils are formed. They are there, sitting in the rocks. If they are formed by process X or by process Y or Z, it's all irrelevant.

AND NOW address my posts please instead of this dodging and evading.
 
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private

Then "Dad" must provide scientific evidence for processes running differently in the past than today.

"Dad" must also realize that we have those things called "physical laws" that are based on physical constants, you know, those pesky little things creationists are so fond of because they testify of a "fine tuned universe" that "therefore" must "be created by god".

It's always breathtaking how creatinists insist on the fine tuned universe on one hand but change natural processes at their whim on the other - not realizing you can't have both.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private

BTW is there a way in this forum format to link to another user in a post not addressed to her/him in order to get him/her involved in the discussion? I'm new here so need some guidance...
 
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟133,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah Geologically the bottom section is older, but I'm talking about the fossils in each layer which get dated to the layer and seen as beginning to exist in that layer. So if the land animals that later walked onto that plot of land existed even when the land was under water they will only show up in the geologically later section of land giving the impression of speciation even know they existed since the first section. (Just not in this piece of land) How do we know we're not just dealing with the fact that land animals and plants aren't going to be in a place that's underwater to lay down fossils.
 
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private

This is not relevant here except you just meant it to be an informative question.

But let's proceed to the "I think it is a critical one to the concept of transitional fossil" part of your post, which is the gist of it.

It is not critical and even totally irrelevant for the concept of transitional fossil. We have fossils sitting in different layers. And the fossil record of these layers are distinct. How the particular boundaries between these layers look like, separated by clearly contact or whatever, is completely irrelevant.

It also completely excapes met what puntuated equilibrium has to to with the boudaries between geological layers. You mifht as well had bring in the colour of the moon.

Red herring and complete nonsense as well.
 
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private

I have no idea what you are getting at in this nonsensical post. The only thing that makes sense is your last question.

We have a geological layer of, say, limestone. It's 200 feet thick and swarmed with marine fossils, from bottom up to the top. Apparently this once was a sea floor. It might have been a lake but we can tell lakes floors (fresh water) apart from sea floors by different detection methods.

On top of that we have, say, a sandstone layer of 180 feet thick. It does not contain ANY marine fossil but only of typical land animals and some scarce plants. We also observe the profile of ancient sand dunes complete with fossilized raindroplets and footprints of land reptiles walking upstairs on those dunes and fossilized ripple marks from the wind - typical for desert sand dunes.

On top of that we have, say, a coal layer 90 feet thick. This was an ancient forest and we indeed also find fossils of land plants sitting there.

Intermezzo: do you have any idea how long it takes for a forest to produce 90 feet of coal? Well it's quite easy to estimate that: the total rate of carbon in plant biomass has fpound to be ~47.5%. But that's oven-dry, so all water content removed first. So you can measure the carbon content of a coal seam and estimate how much living biomass it represents (biomass includes the water). From that we know that an average coal seam of 1 foot thickness represents a total biomass of about 10 foot thickness. So 90 feet thick coal layers represent 900 feet thick living biomass.

Then we have erosion. The wind and rainwater rinse forest soils and take away many of the dead biomass laying rotting there (the natural erosion rate of forests can be some ~0.07 tonnes per hectare per year). But even leaving away this factor: it takes a long time before a forest accumulates a 900 feet worth of biomass.
On top of this coal layer dozens more in similar, alternating fashion.

Could you in the light of this observation explain me the sheer relevance of your question?

Or, better, cut the crap and start addressing the points I made.
 
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private

And WHERE are the rebuttals on my original OP and posts?

Nowhere.

NEXT.
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private

Cut the crap. WHERE do I find rebuttals on what I actually wrote in my OP and sebsequent opening posts?

Waiting and have seen nothing YET.

Please reread them and write proper and relevant posts.

Remember Genesis is the best and only evidence of these events?

You must be kidding.

SCIENTIFIC evidence I meant.

No bronze age mythology stories please.

NEXT please.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
72
Chicago
✟131,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

Don't run away if you think you are the one who knows the nature of transitional fossil. Face the problem with courage! Otherwise, ALL you said in this thread would be hogwash.

Assume a sandstone layer laid direction on top of a limestone layer with a sharp contact (a very common situation). It means lives (fossils) preserved in the limestone directly faced a drastic environmental change across the lithological boundary. Question one here is: how much time is represented by the contact? Possibility one is, no time, it was continuous. Possibility two is that the boundary represents a mini-disconformity. In either case, there should be a consequence of fossil preservation which directly reflect the facies change across the boundary of these two layers. The nature of fossil changes across a conformable lithological boundary would show the nature of transitional fossil.

In most, if not in all, cases, what we see is either no change, or an abrupt change. So, what do you think is the nature of transitional boundary with possible fossil change on and over the boundary?

By the way, do you know anything about nanofossils? The change of nanofossils would be the best fossil type to consider this question. How did nanofossil change across sedimentary beds? They change abruptly, not gradually. If they changed gradually, some part in the oil industry would quickly collapse.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm sorry that you don't even know what Day it is, dad. Jesus told us. 2Co 6:2 We live today at Genesis 1:27 and will not advance to the prophecy of Genesis 1:28-31 until AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign for a thousand years. Amen?
I guess if I knew what a day was, I would realize it was millions of years, eh? By the way I do not live in any verse in Genesis. I live here and now. I do not live in the garden either. Maybe ease up on the pi in the sky.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And WHERE are the rebuttals on my original OP and posts?

Nowhere.

NEXT.
I replied to something you posted to me. You were shown to be flailing wildly off target, and badmouthing the bible. Not impressive.

As for the OP we see this fro you.

"... fossils that are very difficult to classify are the hallmark of evolution."

I tend to agree....confusion and ignorance and godless leaping to conclusions is the hallmark of that religion.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

It seems that creatures were able to continue to evolve uninterrupted throughout incredibly destructive cataclysmic environmental events. Of course this ability has been conveniently lost, as during such events today.........they die.
 
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟133,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Cut the crap", "answer my points", what's your problem man. I am just asking a question, something you should be familiar with as a free thinker. NM, I'll ask someone else that cares about answering questions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It's always breathtaking how creatinists insist on the fine tuned universe on one hand but change natural processes at their whim on the other - not realizing you can't have both.

It's basically Last Thursdayism. A few posters here subscribe to such philosophies. Unfortunately being inherently untenable positions, there isn't much real debate to be had.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It seems that creatures were able to continue to evolve uninterrupted throughout incredibly destructive cataclysmic environmental events. Of course this ability has been conveniently lost, as during such events today.........they die.


Which events and creatures are you referring to specifically?
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Remember Genesis is the best and only evidence of these events?

You must be kidding.

SCIENTIFIC evidence I meant.

No bronze age mythology stories please.

NEXT please.

Then please don't ask questions today's scientists know nothing of, such as the FIRST 3 Days/Ages (14 Billion years in man's time). Can I help it IF people who study Science are totally ignorant of the time BEFORE the Big Bang? Just admit the failure of scientists to be able to understand Genesis One. If they all are like you, they insist on posting only to fellow believers in the changeable theories of man. Eliminating God's Truth is what some call Godless Science. Amen?
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
I guess if I knew what a day was, I would realize it was millions of years, eh? By the way I do not live in any verse in Genesis. I live here and now. I do not live in the garden either. Maybe ease up on the pi in the sky.

Reminds me of the Scoffers of the last days who don't know that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the flood. 2Pet3:3-7 They will be so ignorant that they don't know the difference between the world that THEN WAS and the world WHICH IS NOW. IOW, their Scriptural illiteracy is legend. God Bless you
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

The thread is about the fossil record, please take your rambling elsewhere. We are all familiar with your views.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
It's basically Last Thursdayism. A few posters here subscribe to such philosophies. Unfortunately being inherently untenable positions, there isn't much real debate to be had.

The debate suffocates because some of those who oppose God's Truth can be so nasty no one wants to post to them. The rest hide from debating actual Scripture and dismiss things written more than 3k years ago as MYTH even when they agree with recent scientific discoveries.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.