The fossil record explained

[pitabread]

Stop insinuating Biology is the same as evolution.

I didn't. You did.

Again, you're the one making a big deal over definitions of "species". And apparently don't even know enough to understand that species definitions apply to all of biology. Taxonomy isn't exclusive to evolution.

 

[pitabread]

neither can you. Your own theory changes every day with new theories put forth every day. Stop making excuses and accept reality.....

You're confusing figuring out the minutiae in modern science with the radically different variations of creationist beliefs.

For example, creationists can't even agree on how old the planet is. Is it 4.5 billion years? 6000 years? 12000 years? Something else entirely? Those aren't small margins of error we're talking about and have consequences with respect to the whole history of the planet.

You're not going to find that level of disagreement in modern science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reminds me of this joke: http://justjokey.com/they-think-theyre-the-only-ones-here/

If you're harping about our differences, do you embrace our agreements?

100% of Christians past, present, and future agree that God exists.

One ... hundred ... percent.

So now why are you still an agnostic?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I didn't. You did.

See, you can't even admit your own errors. You insinuated I was insinuating biology was wrong.... I have never once insinuated that. Not once in any single post I have ever posted. It is YOU that therefore confused evolution theory with actual biological science, since you believed I was insinuating biology was wrong..... Don't you evolutionists ever get tired of presenting strawmen and falsehoods?

Again, you're the one making a big deal over definitions of "species". And apparently don't even know enough to understand that species definitions apply to all of biology. Taxonomy isn't exclusive to evolution.

Taxonomy isn't a science either, since it has no real scientific definition to work from..

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxonomy

"orderly classification of plants and animals according to their presumed natural relationships "

There is nothing orderly in not being able to define what one is defining consistently...... one can presume about any relationship when one can define any animal six different ways...... pick and choose what one decides is the best for the theory on any given day, instead of letting the science define the theory......

it's like your beloved whales. Taxonomy claims one evolution, while genetics says the exact opposite. But it seems the mere appearance has caused the genetics to be thrown aside, since the genetics falsified the taxonomy beliefs.....

And it was you that was attempting to make a big deal over definitions of versus. What, can't handle what you wanted to dish out thrown back at you? If it's no big deal species can be interpreted many ways, then its no big deal a verse may be interpreted different ways.

Make up your mind what you believe, that's all I ask. Either stand behind your argument or just admit it was spurious from the beginning.

So if it is a big deal a verse can be interpreted many ways, then it is a big deal species can be interpreted many ways.

So which is it?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're confusing figuring out the minutiae in modern science with the radically different variations of creationist beliefs.

For example, creationists can't even agree on how old the planet is. Is it 4.5 billion years? 6000 years? 12000 years? Something else entirely? Those aren't small margins of error we're talking about and have consequences with respect to the whole history of the planet.

You're not going to find that level of disagreement in modern science.

Right. You forget I am much older. When I was growing up the universe was 2 billion years old, then 4 billion, then 8 billion, then 12 billion, now it's 13.7 billion. When the James Webb telescope comes online they will upgrade that to 20 billion.... or more....

Not inconsequential numbers or small margins of errors at all......

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

"Nevertheless, by the late 19th century the geologists included here had reached a consensus for the age of the earth of around 100 million years. Having come that far, they were initially quite reluctant to accept a further expansion of the geologic timescale by a factor of 10 or more."

This because they believed the universe was 2 to 4 billion... You forget, to me this was just recent history, still taught in schools to show how things changed, while you are probably not even familiar with the fact it was once so radically different......

And of course no one disputes it, to do so would be academic suicide in this age. It isn't the church one has to worry about prosecuting the Galaleio's of today, but their own fellow scientists......

 

[DogmaHunter]

It shows that, in the fossil record, depth doesn't mean non-coexistence.

Now if only you can actually support the assertion that the fossil record isn't what it looks like to be and that instead all those fossils were put there Last Thursday...

As it stands, it only shows your fantasies.

 

[Turkana]

Seems you didn't pay much attention to your own thread.

Post #122, page 7.

Not going to keep repeating things every 5 pages because you can't read.

Good gracious yet another way of dodging.

 

[Turkana]

Aman has it sort of right, except the OP shows his lack of knowledge by stating that animals just die and then sit around on the surface and turn into fossils without decaying. He seems to lack any actual knowledge that fossils require immediate rapid burial (in a sedimentary layer that hardens quickly due to the bacteria, the oxygen replaced with hydrogen) so that they do not start decomposing. Which is why you do not find them today. It takes a catastrophic event from underground water tables bringing those abundant bacteria to the surface and mixing them with the sediment brought up, then the oxygen is replaced by the hydrogen. This prevents surface bacteria which live on organic material using oxygen as a catalyst from decomposing them....

I have VASTLY MORE knowledge of how fossils are formed than you have.

And it's completely irrelevant.

Because we HAVE fossils sitting in the rocks. And mostly they are there indeed due to rapid burial.

So as they are there, sitting in the rocks, mostly due to rapid burial, we can talk about their distribution and stratification, RIGHT?

So, now I've dealt with your little plaything, BACK TO my OP. For the 30th time - or so.

It is getting pathetic boy.

 

[tas8831]

Ruin/restoration explains it better than evolution. It's the suddenness and completeness of the change in the geologic column that eliminates the possibility of evolution. Evolution implies gradual uninterrupted change. The evidence of sudden cataclysm seen in the geologic record denies this possibility.

Dude - you made it clear that you do not understand evolution months ago. Why are you still rambling on like a fool? Penance or something?

 

[pitabread]

Taxonomy isn't a science either, since it has no real scientific definition to work from..

Wow. You really don't like biology do you?

So if it is a big deal a verse can be interpreted many ways, then it is a big deal species can be interpreted many ways.

My point was never about 'verses'. My point is that creationists have no objective way to distinguish their ideas and consequently have radically different (and blatantly contradictory) views of the history of this planet. You won't find the same level of radical difference in science that you will in creationist beliefs.

 

[pitabread]

Right. You forget I am much older.

I'd expect so. Creationist demographics tend to be older. It's partially why creationism is on the decline.

When I was growing up the universe was 2 billion years old, then 4 billion, then 8 billion, then 12 billion, now it's 13.7 billion. When the James Webb telescope comes online they will upgrade that to 20 billion.... or more....

Not inconsequential numbers or small margins of errors at all......

What you are describing is changes to scientific theories/hypotheses/etc. based on the gathering of new information. That's how science works; it formulates conclusions based on the best information available at the time. The idea is that over time, it gets ever closer to a more accurate description of the universe in which we live.

Creationists however are starting with radically different ideas and have no way to distinguish them. If there was still ongoing debate over the age of the universe (say 100 million years versus 13 billion years) you might have a point. But is there still that level of debate in science? No.

Meanwhile creationists can't seem to agree on something like the age of the Earth. How how old is the Earth? Is it only 6000 years? 4.5 billion? Something in between? Why can't creationists come to an agreement? You still haven't answered this...

 

[tas8831]

Fossils , DNA , Molecules , atoms .subatomic particles, light waves God said. "Let there be light "

Such scientific insight.... Great scientific explanations there!

 

[tas8831]

No I don't.

Well do tell!

EXPLAIN to us all - with your grand IQ-driven uber-knowledge, what is missing and how you know it!

Can't wait!

 

[tas8831]

So, where did you get your PhD from? How many fossil digs have you been on? I'm sure those are silly questions since you obviously have the academic background and tons of experience with fossils and are well known in paleontological circles since you know so much more than all those so-called "experts."

Right?

Let us not forget that this is the creationist genius that declared that 'vocalizations' such as when you stub your toe or something are caused by "the gut" sending motor impulses via the recurrent laryngeal nerve directly to the larynx...

He also later expanded on that biology expertise by declaring that the aorta can do the same.

 

[tas8831]

Can you refute my assertions?

One can see that YOU did not support them in any way.
Why do you think you can expect detailed refutations when you provide nothing to refute?

Mere assertions can be rejected with mere dismissals.

 

[tas8831]

What an attitude. Why bother going to optician to sort out your eyes?? They've only been studying their chosen profession for like forever.
The list could go on and on. Just what is the point in anybody dedicating their lives to the study of a subject. Might as well just use the local postman to sort out that tumour in your brain. Ridiculous!!!

Unless, of course, the discussion is involves:

1. What THEY do for a living, for you see, what THEY do takes skill, knowledge and experience. But my goodness, those 'scientists' - what do they know? They are just elitists and arrogant know-it-alls who can't tie their own shoes. But do NOT try to tell them that graphic design, or auto body repair is easy!

2. Creation scientists. Those guys are the world's leading experts on everything and are never ever never wrong!

 

[tas8831]

How does the fossil record make the case for evolution?

It clearly refutes the notion of creation.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Yeah, well, except for, you know, those mass extinction events...

Question - why do so many creationists think they know more than they really do?

 

[AV1611VET]

It clearly refutes the notion of creation.

How?

Fossils weren't present at the creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Question - why do so many creationists think they know more than they really do?

We don't.

We know more than you [guys] really do.