The fossil record explained

[AV1611VET]

Ah that's how it works with you: you can blab and tattle but when asked to back it up and take respnsible for the blab and tattle it's just "not my problem".

That's what I call a roten state of mind.

I beg your pardon?

Creationism is my forte, and I'll debate my stand with anyone.

 

[Turkana]

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.

Are you asking me what I want you to address?

WHAT about the OP I wrote, for instance?

We can have a discussion about the formation of fossils but not here and not on this thread because here it's irrelevant. I want to discuss what I wrote in the OP and starting 2 posts I wrote.

If you want to have other conversations, start your own thread.

Fossilization is irrelevant here and after four days and a load of completely irrelevant posts by different creationists full of red herrings, strawmen, proselytizing, bible quotes and other junk, I am only accepting posts that are relevant for the thread and that are addressing the arguments I made. It's sheer impossible to conduct a decent and normal conversation here about the gist of the thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

WHAT about the OP I wrote, for instance?

You have two posts consisting of some 15 - 20 paragraphs ... and you want a specific question(s) answered?

State your question in one sentence or less and let's see if someone can answer it then.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'd like to know how we got here from the supposed 'simple' organisms that sprang into existence out of the blue.

That takes “magic words”.....

http://www.icr.org/article/unmasking-evolutions-magic-words/

Watch, you’ll see them pop up everywhere...

 

[Turkana]

Yes, that’s what mutation does, contrary to claims. That’s why we fail to see any of the hundreds of fruit fly mutation outside of the favorable conditions of the laboratory where these mutated flies don’t have to compete. When they aren’t pampered and fed, but have to compete, the mutations fail to materialize in the real world.


That’s because evolutionists won’t accept the truth that dogs try to tell them, that variation of forms is a sudden process when subspecies within the species mate. In the wild it simply may take a long time for famine or geological processes to bring two together if man is not interfering. It is not mutation that is driving the change, but mating when subspecies within the species are brought together. Then suddenly after backcrossing a new form appears suddenly.... just like when a Husky and Mastiff were mated and the offspring backcrossed to the Husky and suddenly we had the Chinook. But mating of subspecies or breeds is ignored by evolutionists. And hence their lack of transitory species. The breed first produced by the Husky and Mastiff was lost when the offspring backcrossed to the Husky. It is completely unknown in our dog breeds, because it only lasted for one generation....

YET the very next irrelevant post, apart form the straw men and factual falsehoods.

The truth dogs tell?

WHAT ABOUT the truth the fossils tell FOR A CHANGE, the content of my OP and 2 starting posts of this thread. SUCH as:

1. we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers. HOW these were formed is irrelevant. They were formed otherwise 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.

 

[Turkana]

You have two posts consisting of some 15 - 20 paragraphs ... and you want a specific question(s) answered?

State your question in one sentence or less and let's see if someone can answer it then.

And you are asking this NOW after 4 days?

SERIOUS?????

 

[Turkana]

I beg your pardon?

Creationism is my forte, and I'll debate my stand with anyone.

You were asked: "Except that creationists have no way to validate their ideas independently.".

Your answer: "Not my problem".

Why must I re-iterate what you wrote all the time?

So creationists failing to validate their ideas independently is not their problem????

In what world do you live?

 

[Turkana]

1.
It is relevant how they were formed. Why do you avoid the need for rapid burial and rapid geological processes. Does that need scare you????? Does it call into question your ideas of uniformatarianism and so you find the need to avoid the process? The scablands were also claimed to have taken millions of years, but Harlen Bretz falsified that belief.....

It quite matters how geological processes formed features. Ask Harlen Bretz...

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."

2.

Why would you expect to find more mobile animals trapped in lower sedimentary layers as they struggled upwards to escape the rising waters and the less mobile life was buried? But as I explained.... if you understood how sediments settle.......

3.

Or the less mobile forms unable to escape the rising waters were buried first.........

Polystrate fossils falsify your ideas since those of trees show no root stocks found in the same strata or stigmaria.

Lack of weathering between layers also destroys your beliefs, not that you will ever admit to it...... If the layers actually took hundreds of millions of years, weathering and soil between the differing sedimentary layers would be unavoidable. No such is found......

So perhaps the geological record is trying to tell you something different, but you just refuse to see it... because it might make you question your beliefs about age....

Polystrate fossils showing no affects from the millions of years of weathering they would have been subjected to while the layers formed under your beliefs. No soil layers between the sedimentary layers. No river channels between the layers or any signs of erosion. All the strata is laid down flat, except where later geological processes uplifted them, impossible in reality as we observe the formation of hills and valleys today due to weathering and inconsistent erosion.....

No, it is simply easier to ignore the falsifying evidence....

Not to mention the vast amounts of bones found flattened, which could only occur by rapid burial and pressure before the bones had time to fossilize.... Not sitting around for millions of years as the layers slowly accumulated.....

COMPLETELY irrelvant blab.

HERE is your challenge:

1. we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers. HOW these were formed is irrelevant. They were formed otherwise 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.

ANY other subject will be dismissed without ANY ADO./

 

[AV1611VET]

And you are asking this NOW after 4 days?

SERIOUS?????

Yes, serious.

I'm sure I effectively answered [at least some of] your chatty-cathy OP with what should be an understandable analogy.

But instead of getting an, "Oh, I see where you're coming from," my explanation -- (as if you even understood it) -- gets added to your list of unacceptable explanations.

You think I joined here yesterday, chief?

I'm familiar with many of you guys' tactics; and I can sum it up well in one line:

"It's not what we say that bothers you guys, it's what we are."

 

[AV1611VET]

COMPLETELY irrelvant blab.

By the way, freethinker, does it bother you that we can freethink as well?

Or do we have to toe the line with your fossil record?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

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.....

View attachment 239122

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

Excellent!

Because the one I posted was a Black Bear skull.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/6d/f3/0d6df3560e2f6d66ce1c228763f04cc2.jpg

Aren't Black Bears and dogs different "kinds" in your errant belief system? You couldn't even tell because you don't know what you're talking about. I so hope you came up with that image you added to your post by googling the image I posted. It would just further solidify the point that you don't know what you're talking about because even google can't tell the difference between the 2. Why do you think that is? Evolution explains it perfectly. They are closely related species with a lot of the same features and we have transitional fossils between them right where they should be in the fossil and geological record. Unsurprisingly there are no dinosaur bones found with them and humans don't show up until about 30 million years later when we can see more distinct bear and wolf species diverging.

Priceless. Run along, now.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

YET the very next irrelevant post, apart form the straw men and factual falsehoods.

The truth dogs tell?

WHAT ABOUT the truth the fossils tell FOR A CHANGE, the content of my OP and 2 starting posts of this thread. SUCH as:

1. we OBSERVE fossils in geological layers. HOW these were formed is irrelevant. They were formed otherwise 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.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fossil-record-explained.8078771/page-7#post-73109683

 

[dad]

So actually science does not know what forces are or what causes them. You must be kidding. You really live mentally in the bronze age, don't you? Well I live in the 21st century.

Yet when we look at say gravity, I see this

"
StarChild Question of the Month for February 2001
Question:
What is gravity?

Answer:
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves."

https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question30.html

Looking at some answers to what the strong nuclear force is we see things like this..

"Well, the answer to this is the strong force. And we don't really know WHY it exists, but we do know that it does exist. "
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlik...n_someone_please_explain_the_strong_and_weak/

etc etc..Ha

But when science doesn't know what processes are running, how do you know that processes in the past were running differently than today? Don't fall into your own trap, dude.

Remember this, that just because man/science may know what processes are running, does not mean they know why.

So you simply cannot allow for God changing His creation for the benefit of man? Great, at least you accept then that the elementary processes in the past are the same as today.

No. Who says He could not change the way forces exist so that, for example, an atom may work somewhat differently? And how would you know either way? Admit it, you don't know.

So the "so called" constants are circular beliefs all based in the present?

Correct, that is the most accurate explanation for them. Just look at those little numbers or letters in the math. You know, like C etc. What they represent is what we measure and see here in (what we could refer to as the fishbowl) the present time and space near earth and the solar system area.

 

[dad]

So the world was different in the past?

But didn't you write in your very next post:




does the right side of your brain knows what the left part thinks?

Speaking of misunderstanding you misunderstood the quote from me you posted. In other words, in simple English, 'since you believe that nature always was the same, you do not allow for God to have changed it at some point'. In other words, it is a good thing to allow for the possibility that maybe He did change things since the garden of Eden era! Just as He will again change things in the coming kingdom of God on earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Excellent!

Because the one I posted was a Black Bear skull.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/6d/f3/0d6df3560e2f6d66ce1c228763f04cc2.jpg

Aren't Black Bears and dogs different "kinds" in your errant belief system? You couldn't even tell because you don't know what you're talking about. I so hope you came up with that image you added to your post by googling the image I posted. It would just further solidify the point that you don't know what you're talking about because even google can't tell the difference between the 2. Why do you think that is? Evolution explains it perfectly. They are closely related species with a lot of the same features and we have transitional fossils between them right where they should be in the fossil and geological record. Unsurprisingly there are no dinosaur bones found with them and humans don't show up until about 30 million years later when we can see more distinct bear and wolf species diverging.

Priceless. Run along, now.

Which just supports my contention that similarity can't be used to explain ancestry. Like a pigs tooth being used to derive human ancestry......

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...alked-with-dinosaurs-it-ate-them-5344650.html

but we have already seen how evolutionists like to incorrectly portray things with the development of Neanderthal man, from ape-like to just like modern man......

But that's the problem isn't it..... the animals created with man..... can't be traced backwards any more than man can. And no real transitional can be found after the dinosaurs....

Its all mythical and conjecture with no ancestors being able to be found......

Every tree is the same for every modern animal, "missing" common ancestors in an attempt to link different species. Which you can never seem to admit to yourself that your theory relies on "faith" more than fact.......

Is this the point where you are going to insist "missing" ancestors show relationship??????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So actually science does not know what forces are or what causes them. You must be kidding. You really live mentally in the bronze age, don't you? Well I live in the 21st century.

But when science doesn't know what processes are running, how do you know that processes in the past were running differently than today? Don't fall into your own trap, dude.

So you simply cannot allow for God changing His creation for the benefit of man? Great, at least you accept then that the elementary processes in the past are the same as today.

But, errr, wasn't that what I wrote? Yes it was.

So the "so called" constants are circular beliefs all based in the present?

Whatever you say, dude, out of your bronze age mythology world.

Good gracious.

Only someone ignoring reality would believe dinosaurs could exist in today's gravity...... and doesn't mass change with velocity????? So what happens to mass in an accelerating universe?????

As for constants, think about what you are saying. If I am travling at 1/2 of c, meaning my energy level is increased, my rulers are shorter, my clock ticks are longer..... do you actually believe that I am measuring the same constant value starting points as you are with my different measuring devices based upon my different energy level?????

But go ahead, explain to me how with a longer tick of a clock (regardless that we may still call it a second) and a shorter ruler (regardless we may still call it a meter), that we would measure the same value for the mass of an electron with our increased energy state due to relativistic mass increase and relativistic energy increase????

When you find yourself at a loss for the answer perhaps I might explain to you why the constants always appear as constants despite different energy levels due to relativistic increases.....

I mean do you really think two separate frames traveling at different velocities with different energy levels are actually measuring the same value with different length clock ticks and rulers????? Really?????? Seriously????

 

[dad]

No, but since Adam was made BEFORE the plants, herbs and trees of the 3rd Day Genesis 2:4-7 and lived until some 12k years ago, AND the beginning of our Universe was AFTER Adam was made on the 3rd Day, that means that Adam lived for more than 13.77 Billion years, in man's time. Do you still not know what Day it is?

You are looking at creation order after the fact in a chapter written after the fact, and trying to impose some alternate schizoid created order. In fact Adam was created days after plants. Your whole bizarre confused story about Adam landing on some other planet, and living under the great body of water in some magic bubble, and being involved with millions of years or some such silly notion...all rests on the same mistaken premise.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

As I've told you before, the Word of God written in the cosmic background radiation, the nucleosynthesis in stars, isotope geochemistry of rocks and meteorites, genetics, developmental biology, biogeography and a score of other fields and disciplines declares that you are mistaken.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I've told you before, the Word of God written in the cosmic background radiation, the nucleosynthesis in stars, isotope geochemistry of rocks and meteorites, genetics, developmental biology, biogeography and a score of other fields and disciplines declares that you are mistaken.

Does it not take computers nowadays to correlate all this data into one explainable picture of the past?

Computers that are programmed to give the picture its credibility?

Any data that would run contrary to this picture (depth of moondust, strength of magnetic field, ocean salination, etc.) would be automatically excluded from input, would it not?

What would happen, for example, if a rabbit were to be found in the pre-Cambrian?

In my opinion, they would reprogram their computers and recalibrate the date of the pre-Cambrian era, so as to keep intact the "fact" that there are no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.

 

[pitabread]

Creationism is my forte,

How could we even tell? A lot of what you post contradicts what other creationists claim.

This is why creationists need to get together and sort things out amongst themselves first, before trying to argue with everyone else.