Yes, each new fossil tells us more about the history of evolution. Each new fossil is also a stark reminder of how poorly creationism explains the data.
Upvote
0
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.
Hello person, Also we forgot to mention that all fossils in this world have NOT been discovered yet!
Each new fossil found actually keeps changing the Theory of Evolution!!
Yes, each new fossil tells us more about the history of evolution. Each new fossil is also a stark reminder of how poorly creationism explains the data.
Anya, you are referring to is Differential escape, one of three different, well-known YEC arguments against the fossil record, the other two being Ecological Zonation and Hydrological Sorting.
I've already dealt with Ecological Zonation
What you are describing is Differential Escape. It fails to explain the fossil record as we see it.
Here's just one reason:
"Fossils are not sorted according to their ability to escape rising floodwaters. If they were, we would expect to see slow-moving species like sloths and tortoises and every low-elevation plant at the bottom of the fossil record, while fast-moving species, such as velociraptors, pterosaurs, and giant dragonflies, would be at the top. But this is nothing like what we actually observe; in many cases we find just the opposite. For example, in undisturbed strata there has not been a single sloth fossil found below even the highest velociraptor remains, and flowering plants do not appear in the fossil record until after winged insects and reptiles."
We don't find whales with plesiosaurs. So what? There may be several different factors concerning the behavior and physiology of those extinct aquatic reptiles that differentiate them from mammals.
I will keep repeating this: if you turned even a percentage of these critical standards to Evolution, your theory would be left in shambles. You will strain at any gnat when it comes to YEC, but swallow any camel when it comes to Evolution.
We don't find whales with plesiosaurs. So what? There may be several different factors concerning the behavior and physiology of those extinct aquatic reptiles that differentiate them from mammals.
The same goes for dinosaurs being separate from mammals in general. So what?
Evolution doesn't explain anything about mammals or dinosaurs.
You really should have read the thread before posting this.Okay, I did not read the whole thread and apologize if this has already been explained, but here you go.
Your question makes it sound like you have never even attempted to investigate Young Earth Creation theories.
Here's the thing, if the Bible did not contain an account of a catastrophic global flood, then you would have a point. However it does contain this account, and the Bible also says this flood killed all life that lived on land and breathed through its nostrils.
When we look at the fossil record we can see a general pattern of lifeforms sorted by ecological zonation, in the order in which they were buried by erosion and sedimentation processes caused by the flood.
In the lower rocks we find bacteria that lived in the ocean floor, and then benthic communities that lived on the seafloor. Next swimming creatures that lived in more shallow habitats. Then we find amphibious creatures, aquatic reptiles, and other reptilian animals known for living in swampy lowlands.
No we do not necessarily expect to find whales and other aquatic mammals. If you look at these animals, they are both very fast swimmers, and comfortable in deep open waters. They are not restricted to seafloor ecosystems that would have been buried. In fact, most of these aquatic mammals would be expected to be found in the upper most layers when the floodwaters receded and left them stranded on dry land. (which is why we find whale fossil graveyards in the middle of a Chiliean desert)
For the same reason you don't find whales and seals in the lower rocks, is also why you don't find the big mackerel sharks in the fossil record till way up in the Cretaceous. Yet some little shallow-living sharks appear way down in the Silurian.
Next factor we take into account is animal mobility. (otherwise known as Differential Escape) Reptiles and Mammals are like Night and Day in terms of both speed and stamina for running long distances. If floodwaters were gradually rising, rivers overflowing, basins flooding, mammals would be expected to retreat to higher ground seeking shelter. Animals that could cling to the tops of trees (like Sloths) would also have an advantage. (of course that's not to say some reptiles would not already be at higher ground to begin with)
So, back to your original question. Why do we not find cows in the Devonian? The Devonian shows evidence of aquatic/amphibious ecosystems. A cow, like all bovids at this time would be both miles inland and probably thousands of feet higher in elevation retreating from flooding rivers. (interestingly one of the last bovids to show up in the record is the Mountain Goat) That is why, from a flood model perspective, we do not expect to find cows (or any land mammals) in the lower rock layers.
Of course the model is not perfect and has its own puzzles. But it generally holds up quite well.
Do you not think what you did above is "ad hoc storytelling"? At least evolution's "stories" have the evidence to back it up.Why do mammals generally only appear in the upper layers from an Evolutionist's perspective? You have no answer, except for ad-hoc storytelling. Evolution does not predict mammals will evolve ever. You simply accommodated your theory to fit the fossil record and pretend you predicted it.
She is not going to be convinced, but I do wonder why she seems to think she can convince us she is right. Especially since she doesn't really try to be respectful, although there are definitely worse people on here.
How about the fact that all of these living creatures couldn't have even fit on earth at the same time. Creationism, by its nature, means that all creatures that ever existed had to have coexisted, at least briefly. Considering the fact that over 99% of species are currently extinct, and in most cases you need a minimum of 50 individuals to have just barely enough genetic diversity to establish a population. The sheer mass of all of the species would not have fit on earth. Especially when you consider the plants and the animals. The earth is a finite area, and it is crowded enough as it is with the species that are alive right now. If you combined that with the multitude of animals that existed in the past, it just doesn't work.
Isn't it the evolutionists that are invited here, that are the ones trying to convince someone of something or that a Christian's belief is a myth and fairy tale? That the born again Christians are the ones giving answers according to God's word?
Crabs, lobsters, starfish and sea grass all live at the bottom of the sea as well but we never find them with trilobites.I just told you. Because whales, seals, etc. are fast animals that swim in deep open water. They are not bound to lower seafloor habitats.
You do understand that this is EXACTLY what you are doing regarding the theory of evolution.Again, just because you can wave your hands and say "What about this?!?!" is of no consequence.
No it doesn't. Not even remotely. Especially in the face of a theory that better explains the evidence.The model generally holds up well.
What fossil evidence would falsify creationism?
Evolution does explain why you don't find modern mammals in the same sediments as dinosaurs. Or did you miss that?
That is an excellent argument that I never made myself. There is no possible way that the earth could support every organism that ever lived at the same time.
Evidence of Evolution. Still waiting...
Evidence of Evolution. Still waiting...
Nope, it doesn't. Evolution just accommodated the data. Paleontologists discovered a pattern of mammals being found in uppermost layers decades before Darwinian Evolution came along.
If modern mammals appeared in the early Mesozoic, evolutionists would have just built the theory up around that.
Evolution does not even predict that mammals will evolve at all, much less when mammals will evolve. Your jello theory could accommodate near limitless arrangements of data.
Can you give an example supported by evidence?Your argument fails. If you compare aquatic reptiles and aquatic mammals they are actually quite different in their mobility capabilities.
Based on what?Mammals generally have much more speed and stamina.
Differential escape does not explain the fossil record.On top of that there is also an argument for differential escape and animal intelligence.
Why would they be living everywhere?Already explained. Some slow-moving reptiles would already be living at higher elevations.
The breeze coming off your waving hands is hard to ignore.Nobody knows how well pterosaurs could fly. Birds are found in the upper layers. You're making no argument here, just waving your hands.
Flood geology is nothing but enigmas. Every explanation you have given is contradicted by the fossil record.Again, enigmas are expected within a model of chaotic events. But the general patterns holds up well. It actually explains the fossil record better than Evolution.
How so?The gaps in Evolution's model are outrageous.
Name one.And Evolution is such a flexible theory that it could have accommodated many different fossil patterns.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?