The fossil record explained

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2018

The IbanezerScrooge said:
Creationists can't seem to agree amongst themselves on what this "word of god" actually says.

I know what the word of God says.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That's all they need to tell an evolutionist he is wrong.

If the evolutionist doesn't understand it, that's his problem.

The POINT is that you're telling him he's wrong ... and why.

The IbanezerScrooge said:
Go get your own house in order before telling evolutionists that they are wrong.

Let me get this straight:

You guys are whining because creation scientists (whatever those guys are) are presenting faulty information.

I come along and say they shouldn't be doing that.

And now you're whining that I need to set my house in order???

Wow.

So either way, we're wrong -- aren't we?

This bears repeating:

It's not what we say that matters -- it's what we are, isn't it?

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

What transitional forms?

Fossils that every single one remain the same across millions of years with not the slightest change? New forms appearing suddenly, just as we observe with dogs?

So I agree the observations show Kind after Kind (just as all dogs are the same species) and that evolutionists simply incorrectly call the new variation a new species.... for no other reason that it looks a little different, like a wolf and a poodle.

But then I am not the one that relies on "missing" common ancestors that can't be found for any single tree in an attempt to link what are in reality separate species......

I understand that if all evolutionists had were a few fragments of dog bones and had never seen them in real life, they would classify them as separate species and think one evolved into another. Incorrect, but understandable.

But of course an evolutionists would never consider actual real life when contemplating their fantasies of how life evolved in the past. Realizing all those they call separate species are merely variations of the same species, and that where they have to insert "missing" common ancestors in a false attempt to link actual separate creatures, is where the division between species actually lies....

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2018

pitabread said:
If you're trying to convince others that their views are incorrect ...

How about I just try to convince others why I think their views are incorrect?

Okay with you?

pitabread said:
Do you think you're being an effective witness for Christ?

Yes.

Do you think otherwise?

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

Abraxos said:
What is it that you want me to address? That there are tens of millions of fossils in the strata rock layers? You seem to believe that simply seeing fossils in the dirt suffices as proof of whatever it is you're trying to sell to a crowd of skeptics and hard-nosed creationists. It's fine to make up some story on the millions of fossils that we see, but without going through any thorough scientific method, it's all really just a very cool (or lousy) story you are parroting.

I don't see the significance of avoiding an honest question I asked of you. If you're right, then why avoid having a friendly discussion about the formation of fossils and the issues that arise rather than stomping your feet and nagging us to death about "Irrelevant! Nonsense! Red herring!"? Perhaps you could change my mind with your infinite know-it-all status.

It must be fine to make up stories on the millions of fossils we see, they do it everyday, sometimes with nothing more than a pigs tooth........ so much for scientific methods....

If you applied scientific methods you would come to the realization they are not transitory species, but merely variations of the same species, like dogs. And that where you need to insert those "missing common ancestors" is where the true species separation occurs, which is why they are missing for every claimed split between species......

pitabread · Aug 27, 2018

AV1611VET said:
How about I just try to convince others why I think their views are incorrect?

Okay with you?

Sure. But what are you expecting out of this?

Yes.

Do you think otherwise?

I think creationists are generally terrible at witnessing for their beliefs. If I were a Christian, I'd be embarrassed by them (in fact, many Christians are).

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 27, 2018

AV1611VET said:
So either way, we're wrong -- aren't we?

See? There. You get it. This is the only truthful and relevant thing you've said. I'm glad we could come to this agreement, AV!

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2018

pitabread said:
Sure. But what are you expecting out of this?

To voice my opinion and get you ... um ... academians to realize I'm on your side of this issue.

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

Creation scientists have no business even trying to provide evidence of the creation events.

And if that means I have to get my house in order first, then thanks for the cheap shot.

pitabread said:
I think creationists are generally terrible at witnessing for their beliefs. If I were a Christian, I'd be embarrassed by them (in fact, many Christians are).

Right.

I intone here by saying creationists need simply to present the word of God and get out of the evidence business, and the next thing you know, I'm a "poor witness for Christ, who should hang my head in embarrassment after I get my house in order."

Wow -- just wow.

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
What transitional forms?

Fossils that every single one remain the same across millions of years with not the slightest change? New forms appearing suddenly, just as we observe with dogs?

So I agree the observations show Kind after Kind (just as all dogs are the same species) and that evolutionists simply incorrectly call the new variation a new species.... for no other reason that it looks a little different, like a wolf and a poodle.

But then I am not the one that relies on "missing" common ancestors that can't be found for any single tree in an attempt to link what are in reality separate species......

I understand that if all evolutionists had were a few fragments of dog bones and had never seen them in real life, they would classify them as separate species and think one evolved into another. Incorrect, but understandable.

But of course an evolutionists would never consider actual real life when contemplating their fantasies of how life evolved in the past. Realizing all those they call separate species are merely variations of the same species, and that where they have to insert "missing" common ancestors in a false attempt to link actual separate creatures, is where the division between species actually lies....

Curious why you're not including this one in your diagram? What is the reasoning for excluding it?

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2018

The IbanezerScrooge said:
See? There. You get it. This is the only truthful and relevant thing you've said. I'm glad we could come to this agreement, AV!

You people sicken me at times -- but God loves you and so I have to put up with it.

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

Turkana said:
Correct but irrelevant because the ones that did manage to fossilze clearly testify of evolution as I showed and demonstrated and so far not even touched, let alone addressed properly.

No they don't. Any more than if we had never seen dogs in real life and found only fossils of them and they called them separate species and showed what they thought was an evolutionary path - not from the lineage, but from partial fragments of bones....

Geological processes do not occur because theu are required they happen due to natural causes. Water coming in happening very now, slowly, by sea levels rising and on some places also due to subsidence processes. And it happened in the past because otherwise we would not observe geological layers full of marine fossils sitting on other ones that are completely lacking marine fossils but are swarmed with remains of terrestrial animals and plants.

See, you can't even get yourself to say flood. We know from decay rates that unless animals are buried rapidly, fossilization will not occur.

If you understood how sediments settle out of water, perhaps you could understand how different massed animals could settle out of water just like the strata do......

So the earth is only 6000 years old?
We could consider this a geological hypothesis. Normally it takes one single, well aimed experiment or observation to falsify a scientific hypothesis. Mostly such falsifications will raise a lot of discussion and the result may need to be replicated by other researchers to be sure but generally that's it.

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. Each single of these dating techniques has yielded instances where objects, materials or specimens were dated to be older than 6,000 years. To get an impression: read this, this and this (there's overlap but together they add up well over 100).

The 'hypothesis' of a 6,000 years old earth has been utterly and disastrously falsified by a tremendous amount and wide variety of observations.

The geological stratification makes minced meat out of your fantasy stories. It shows a sheer, almost endless number of different layers, each with often very distinct composition and morphology and, abovce all, fossil record. There are at least dozens of different rock types. Different rock types can not come from the same process - that's why they are different in composition.

We have:

a limestone layer containing only marine fossils...

sitting on top of a layer without a single marine fossils but swarming with terrestrial fossils...

sitting on top of a sandstone formation, lacking entirely marine fossils as well but containing fossil sand dunes, complete with ancient, captures rain droplet dimples and footprints of typically desert arthropodal species...

sitting on top of a coal layer, a former forest, sometimes complete with charcoal remnants, indicating wildfires - a bit difficult in a flood, DON'T YOU THINK?...

sitting on top of a limestone layer again, with marine fossils...

and so on and on and on, kilometers of sediments worth.

THAT is what we OBSERVE and it's completely falsifying your bronze age mythology stories, such as:

Well this IS NOT what we OBSERVE. It's simple as that.

And NOW address the points I made, please instead of these fantasies without one speck of evidence.
i am not going to address bible fantasies. EVIDENCE please.

Except sedimentary layers do not take millions of years to form:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-turn-sand-to-stone

"The treatment alters the consistency of sand, doing anything from solidifying it slightly to changing it into a substance as hard as marble. It blends a calcium solution, bacteria and other inexpensive compounds, forcing the bacteria to form carbonate precipitates with the calcium. This creates calcium carbonate, also called calcite, identical to limestone."

Except oil does not take millions of years to form either:

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029

"Engineers have created a continuous chemical process that produces useful crude oil minutes after they pour in harvested algae"

Harlen Bretz also had to fight against the establishment because his ideas suggested catostrophic formation of what they believed took millions of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz

"Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated."

"Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected."

SO his arguments were rejected on philosophical grounds because it went against their prevailing belief of uniformatarianism and could indicate a Biblical flood. But in the end the majority was incorrect, and the individual correct. As happens time, after time after time......

Turkana · Aug 27, 2018

AV1611VET said:
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.

Yup -- only one conclusion:

The marshmallows were put into the pool first.

I am really getting tired of all these red herrings and terrible tattle.

AGAIN the process of fossilization is not at stake here. It's completely irrelevant. We HAVE fossils sitting in the rocks. They are there to observe. And the biodiversity between geological formations DOES DIFFER - considerably and the more distant in age, the more different. And whether these fossils originate from fossilization process A or B or whatever, is irrelevant. They SIT THERE and tell a story. The story of evolution - the change in biodiversity.

That's about the 10th red herring by now.

Can't you just do a little bit better, that already would make a great difference.

THIS is your challenge, I shall repeat it in order to prevent further obfuscation by red herrings:

we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers. HOW these were formed is irrelevant. They were formed otherwise they would not sit there.
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.
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.

THAT is your challenge.
And STOP obfuscating.

Justatruthseeker · Aug 27, 2018

The IbanezerScrooge said:
View attachment 239119

Curious why you're not including this one in your diagram? What is the reasoning for excluding it?

I didn't make the picture, we can include all the dog forms..... that's fine by me, it will just show your ideas of transitional forms are even more in error..... and are not in reality separate species.....

Let's include all you like, it will just show the variation capable within a single species.....

Turkana · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
No they don't. Any more than if we had never seen dogs in real life and found only fossils of them and they called them separate species and showed what they thought was an evolutionary path - not from the lineage, but from partial fragments of bones....

View attachment 239118

See, you can't even get yourself to say flood. We know from decay rates that unless animals are buried rapidly, fossilization will not occur.

If you understood how sediments settle out of water, perhaps you could understand how different massed animals could settle out of water just like the strata do......

Except sedimentary layers do not take millions of years to form:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-turn-sand-to-stone

"The treatment alters the consistency of sand, doing anything from solidifying it slightly to changing it into a substance as hard as marble. It blends a calcium solution, bacteria and other inexpensive compounds, forcing the bacteria to form carbonate precipitates with the calcium. This creates calcium carbonate, also called calcite, identical to limestone."

Except oil does not take millions of years to form either:

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029

"Engineers have created a continuous chemical process that produces useful crude oil minutes after they pour in harvested algae"

Harlen Bretz also had to fight against the establishment because his ideas suggested catostrophic formation of what they believed took millions of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz

"Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated."

"Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected."

SO his arguments were rejected on philosophical grounds because it went against their prevailing belief of uniformatarianism and could indicate a Biblical flood. But in the end the majority was incorrect, and the individual correct. As happens time, after time after time......

THIS is your challenge, I shall repeat my OP and starting posts in order to prevent further obfuscation by red herrings:

we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers. HOW these were formed is irrelevant. They were formed otherwise they would not sit there.
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.
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.

If you want to discuss your own subjects, be my guest and start your own thread. HERE on this thread it's about the 3 points above mentioned.

That makes you whole post completely irrelevant.

THAT is your challenge.

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
I didn't make the picture, we can include all the dog forms..... that's fine by me, it will just show your ideas of transitional forms are even more in error..... and are not in reality separate species.....

Do you agree that the skull I posted at least belongs amongst those in your diagram? Why do you think the authors didn't include it? Along with a few dozen other variations? It's almost like there's cherry picking going on?

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 27, 2018

Duplicate Post

Turkana · Aug 27, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Creationists shouldn't produce anything but the word of God to tell evolutionists they are wrong.

Fine and NOW address the point made by me in my OP and 2 starting posts.
With scientific arguments, the rest will be discarded without any ado.

It is getting terribly embarrassing.

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2018

Turkana said:
we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers.

Did I not say the same thing with my example?

We OBSERVE marshmallows and inner tubes at two different depths in that swimming pool-turned-mound of dirt.

Turkana said:
HOW these were formed is irrelevant.

No argument there.

In my example, they were already "fossils" -- albeit an inner tube and marshmallows.

I'll agree that trilobites and T. rexes are found at different depths in the ground.

But I won't agree as to how they got there.

Turkana · Aug 27, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Creationists shouldn't produce anything but the word of God to tell evolutionists they are wrong.

Oh, BTW, indeed they should because scientifically spoken they are lost in words.

As far as the bible has claims about the natural world, it's almost entirely made minced meat by modern science, that is, not only we can't finds scientifically based evidence for these claims, they are directly falsified by scientific observations as well.

Turkana · Aug 27, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
I didn't make the picture, we can include all the dog forms..... that's fine by me, it will just show your ideas of transitional forms are even more in error..... and are not in reality separate species.....

Let's include all you like, it will just show the variation capable within a single species.....

Your ideas about transitional forms are wrong and falsehoods. Why, read my OP and 2 starting posts. Please stay on par with the discussion here and address the points made.

AV1611VET · Aug 27, 2018

Turkana said:
Fine and NOW address the point made by me in my OP and 2 starting posts.

I already did with my swimming pool analogy.

They were PUSHED OR DRAGGED DOWN to their respective levels by sediments.

Some were just pushed down farther than others.

The fossil record explained

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency