The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[chair]

:nono:

So explain. What does a creationist think the fossil record should look like?

 

[6days]

So explain. What does a creationist think the fossil record should look like?

I think someone already said that we would expect billions of fossils on all continents and all mountain ranges. We would also expect evidence of rapid burial in sediment. We would expect many sedimentary layers with marine creatures in lower layers. We would expect fossil graveyards with with many creatures rapidly buried together.

The fossil record provides fantastic evidence for the truth of God's Word.

 

[Stripe]

Large on the bottom? That is what I'd think- big things will settle down faster. Do you agree?

No.

Large things are generally more difficult to bury.

It's not size that determines buoyancy, it is density differences between object and medium.

 

[chair]

No.

Large things are generally more difficult to bury.

It's not size that determines buoyancy, it is density differences between object and medium.

This sounds generally right (though I think it falls apart for very small objects)

So, I'd expect land animals to be deposited first, and plants (at least those lighter than water) to be deposited last.

I'd expect animals of similar structure, and thus similar densities, to end up in the same layer.

If you think differently, then please give some specific indication of what you think we should see.

 

[Stripe]

This sounds generally right.

It's generally generally right, is it?

Your comment requires there to be something wrong with what I said. What was wrong?

I think it falls apart for very small objects.

You want to discuss fossilized quarks? :AMR:

I'd expect land animals to be deposited first.

Why? The Earth was turned into one gigantic ocean, remember? What makes land animals special?

Plants (at least those lighter than water) to be deposited last.

Got an explanation for this?

I'd expect animals of similar structure, and thus similar densities, to end up in the same layer.

Generally speaking for specific locations, yes.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Bs"d

Dr. Carl Werner has written a book that gives details of Scientifically Incorrect Fossils, fossils that have been found in the wrong layers.

This book is filled with examples of Scientifically Incorrect fossils (fossils that should not exist in the layers with fossils that are O.K.)

Living Fossils Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol. 2 Dr. Carl Werner New Leaf Press ISBN 13:978-0-89221-691-8 ISBN 10: 0-89221-691-3

p. 160 Turtles with Dinosaur fossils

Birds with dinosaurs

p. 163 Dr. Strickberger “Unfortunately, no feathered intermediates appear between Archaeopteryx and its dinosaur ancestors, nor do further birdlike fossils show up until about ten million years later in the Cretaceous period. These Cretaceous [dinosaur-age] fossils are exclusively those of aquatic birds or shore birds, a few already representative of modern groups such as flamingos, loons, cormorants, and sandpipers, although some, such as Hesperornis, still retained reptile-like teeth.”

p. 164 Dr. Paul Sereno, from the University of Chicago . . . He suggested that not only parrots but penguins and owls had been found in dinosaur rock layers too.

p. 166 Dr. Stidham revealed several more birds from the dinosaur era.

p. 167 Dr. Stidham in Nature “most or all of the major modern bird groups were present in the Cretaceous.”

p. 168 Glaucous-winged Gull (Dinosaur name Larus glaucescens) lived with Pterodactylus

Mammals and Dinosaurs

p. 173 Dr. Zhe-Xi Luo at the Carnegie Museum of Natural-History “Nearly 100 Complete Dinosaur-Era Mammal Skeletons Found”

p. 173 Dr. Burge curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum “We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites.

p. 176 Hedgehog-Like Mammal Found in Dinosaur Rock Layers

p. 178 Possum-Like Mammal Found in Dinosaur Rock Layers

p. 182 Other Mammals Found in Dinosaur Layers

p. 183 Modern Plants found in Dinosaur Layers

Dr. Brad Harrub has documented evidence of a dinosaur that was found in a mammal stomach.

Their layers are far from pure.



Cambrian Fossils Found in 'Wrong' Place
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

http://www.icr.org/article/5469/

Many extinct and strange creatures were only known from Cambrian rocks--until now. Newly discovered fossils in higher, more "recent" rock layers in Morocco show "remarkable preservation" and hold a host of what were for decades considered exclusively Cambrian sea creatures. These fossil finds were quite unexpected by evolutionists, who had pictured a different evolutionary scenario.

In the geologic timescale, the "Cambrian period" refers to the lowermost densely fossil-bearing rocks. These rocks record the sudden appearance of creatures, with representatives of almost every living phylum found fully formed and with no signs of evolutionary transition, which is an enigma for evolution.1

The soft-bodied creatures found in Cambrian strata were considered stem or basal creatures. They were supposed to have been the worms, arthropods, and other odd creatures that "gave rise" to subsequent body forms found in upper strata. Although none of them ever showed clear transition toward the more familiar sea animals that are found in higher strata or are living today, they were considered to be evolutionary predecessors because they were thought to be exclusive to Cambrian rocks.

Now all of that has changed. A recent study in Nature reported that some of the same soft-bodied "Cambrian" sea creatures were found in Morocco--preserved in brilliant reds and yellows because of the oxidation of pyrite that occurred on their soft tissues while they were being fossilized--in a higher layer, mixed in with "later" animals.2 This discovery erases the argument for evolution, which relies on the absence of these creatures in higher layers to support the assumption that they "diverged" into "later" life forms--and eventually into people.

This find forces evolutionists to add a new belief in order to support their overall concept of past life. Before, evolutionists believed that some creatures evolved into others--an easy story to assert but one that lacked the expected transitional forms in the fossil record.3 Now, they must also believe that some creatures evolved into others, and at the same time spawned more of themselves in "parallel." They must insist that the "stem" soft-bodied animals "gave rise" to newer life forms found in higher sediments, as well as to populations that continued to produce more forms just like themselves.

Since both of these "parallel" populations lived alongside one another, instead of in separate periods of time, then why are the Cambrian creatures not typically found as fossils in higher strata? The study's authors said, "The rarity of Burgess Shale-type taxa [organisms] in post-Middle Cambrian rocks elsewhere probably results from a lack of preservation rather than the extinction and replacement of these faunas during the later Cambrian."2 (The Burgess Shale Formation is widely known for soft-tissue preservation in its fossils.)

This one brief statement rewrites a foundational part of the evolutionary story. Instead of going extinct because they evolved into subsequent forms, it must now be believed that they evolved into other forms despite what these new fossils show--not transitional forms evolving, but stable forms persisting. This find forces the evolutionary story to take too many twists and turns to be true.

On the other hand, if God created all creatures during the same week-long miraculous event, and if God subsequently judged the world in a globe-covering watery catastrophe, then one would expect to find exactly what has been described: ancient sea creatures that were fully-formed and coexisted in time, buried together in mud in a massive, worldwide graveyard.


Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach

http://www.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html


In China, scientists have identified the fossilized remains of a tiny dinosaur in the stomach of a mammal. Scientists say the animal's last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago.

It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.


Are There Human Fossils in the "Wrong Place" for Evolution?

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/are-there-human-fossils-wrong-place-evolution


Geological column is sometimes out of order (Talk.Origins)

http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column_is_sometimes_out_of_order_(Talk.Origins)

What is interesting about your post is the references to hedgehog-like or possum-like. It has long been known that early mammals existed with dinosaurs. When somebody says hedgehog-like it means that the fossil found bears a resemblance to the modern form of the animal but is not identical to it. It was an early mammal that may well have evolved into the modern form of at least one animal.

The fossil record can be very challenging to decipher as the layers the fossils are found in are subject to geological processes such as upheaval and folding. These processes can move layers and fold older layers over younger layers. If somebody were to ignore the effects of geologic process that would allow them to make claims about out-of-order fossils that don't hold up to a more rigorous examination of the fossils and surrounding layers.

 

[CabinetMaker]

FTFY, and you are welcome

Stripe claims that creation scientists are real scientists. If this is true, why wouldn't they be willing to submit their work to the larger scientific world for review? Other scientists do, why not creation scientists?

You seem to know what kind of animal is a horse.
:thumb:

Kind=Species. The two terms are synonymous.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Guess what happens when an evolutionist scientist finds a fossil of a modern animal in the layers with the dinosaurs.

They document it and publish it and then scientists start trying to figure out how it happened. What do you think happens?

 

[CabinetMaker]

That seems to be the problem with evolutionary terminology as well.


To Europeans, a kangaroo was a new kind of animal, since it was a kind of animal they had never encountered before.

Non responsive.

What would be a new kind of animal to you?

A new species would be unique and heretofore unobserved such as new species being found in the rain forests.

_____
sufficient
having or providing as much as is needed
​

Why would you think that would matter?

It matters tremendously. If you insist that the change happen in one generation then you are most likely to end up with a genetic monster. As previously pointed out, genetic monsters are not part of evolution as they are unsuccessful off-spring meaning they do not reproduce. Take the horse. If an ancient horse were to suddenly give birth to a modern horse, the modern horse would be a genetic monster. It would not be able to mate with the ancient horse so the genes that make up that horse never enter the gene pool. On the other hand, a series of gradual changes that result in the modern horse do not result in genetic monsters as the gradual change can still reproduce so its modified genes and alleles enter the gene pool and evolution of the species proceeds.

This is exactly the process Stripe describes when he talks about adaptation of a kind.

That is exactly what will happen when there is change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind and is why evolution is a failed theory.

See above. Do you honestly think that the emergence of a new species/kind happens in one generation? Why do you think this?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Because you have not responded to the challenge or even acknowledged its existence.

You haven't issued any challenge so none exists. If you want to issue a challenge, please do so.

Nope. Try again.

From your link:
The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.
What is the point of this statement?

You've already been provided with an image of extant horses. That you would think we want to line them up to show a progression of inheritance exposes your religious commitment to Darwin and anti-science bent.

So you can't do it it. Why am I not surprised. The picture provided is a picture of horse breeds, that is all. I want you to line up a series of living animals to show us how the horse kind developed from a common ancestor.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You need to learn to conduct a rational discussion.

So that would be a no, the creationist model does not predict the separation of fossils that is actually observed. You should learn to honestly represent your "science".

 

[Stripe]

Stripe claims that creation scientists are real scientists. If this is true, why wouldn't they be willing to submit their work to the larger scientific world for review? Other scientists do, why not creation scientists?

They do. So much for your nonsense.

Kind=Species. The two terms are synonymous.

:darwinsm:

This is why you're mocked incessantly. You're a blithering idiot thinking this nonsense will wash.

You haven't issued any challenge so none exists.

Darwinists hate reading.

What is the point of this statement?

It shows that lining up traits to illustrate a progression is an arbitrary selection and ignores other features that would not support your conclusions.

So Darwinists will line up fossils to highlight a "progression," but ignore that fact that other traits contradict their narrative. Meanwhile, extant creatures could be lined up to show a "progression" of traits, but that is clearly not evidence of descent with modification.

I want you to line up a series of living animals to show us how the horse kind developed from a common ancestor.

You're not very good at understanding other points of view, are you?

So that would be a no, the creationist model does not predict the separation of fossils that is actually observed. You should learn to honestly represent your "science".

Nope. You demand adherence to your terms and ideas that carry Darwinist baggage. We reject your religion. A rational, scientific discussion can ensue when you learn to respect opposing viewpoints instead of insisting on the primacy of your own.

 

[CabinetMaker]

They do. So much for your nonsense.

So, where is the journal they are published in?

:darwinsm:

This is why you're mocked incessantly. You're a blithering idiot thinking this nonsense will wash.

What is obviously missing here is your explanation of the why a biblical kind and a species are not the samel Why is that? Did you just forget that you need to support your assertions? Please explain to use how a kind and a species differ. We eagerly await your response.

Darwinists hate reading.
It shows that lining up traits to illustrate a progression is an arbitrary selection and ignores other features that would not support your conclusions.

Can you show us how you determined that lining up traits was arbitrary? Again, we eagerly await your explination.

So Darwinists will line up fossils to highlight a "progression," but ignore that fact that other traits contradict their narrative. Meanwhile, extant creatures could be lined up to show a "progression" of traits, but that is clearly not evidence of descent with modification.

Why would varying numbers of ribs in vertebra in early horse forms be contradictory to the evolution of the horse? Modern horses have varying numbers of vertebra. Its a trait present in modern horses so why would seeing a similar trait in early horse forms contradict a progression?

You're not very good at understanding other points of view, are you?

You're not very good at explaining your point of view. You just throw something out and expect it to be accepted as universal truth simply because Stripe said it. Sorry, real science doesn't work that way.

Nope. You demand adherence to your terms and ideas that carry Darwinist baggage. We reject your religion. A rational, scientific discussion can ensue when you learn to respect opposing viewpoints instead of insisting on the primacy of your own.

I never demanded anything. I asked you to explain if the Creationist model accurately predicts what is observed in the field. To this point, you have never answered the question. You make these silly little quips about "Darwinists" instead of addressing the point. So Mr. Fallacy, what fallacy are you making when you do that? Ill give you a hint: its called an ad hominem.

In order for a rational conversation to ensue, you must actually address the questions put to you regarding your viewpoint. You don't do that. You have been asked several questions regarding your viewpoint that you refuse to answer. How can anybody have a rational conversation with you if you wont answer the simplest of questions? Keep in mind, that being asked to defend your viewpoint does not mean that people don't respect it, it means they are exploring it. The other side of that coin, of course, is that total lack of respect you show towards my viewpoint.

 

[Stripe]

So, where is the journal they are published in?

The same journals anyone else is published in.

What is obviously missing here is your explanation of the why a biblical kind and a species are not the samel Why is that? Did you just forget that you need to support your assertions? Please explain to use how a kind and a species differ. We eagerly await your response.

:thumb:

Can you show us how you determined that lining up traits was arbitrary?

Because they picked one and ignored others. It wasn't so much arbitrary as it was dishonest or at least ignorant.

We eagerly await your explination.

:thumb:

Why would varying numbers of ribs in vertebra in early horse forms be contradictory to the evolution of the horse?

You have to learn to respond to what people say, not what you wish they would say.

It is not contradicting evolution; it is questioning the usefulness of your evidence.

I never demanded anything. I asked you to explain if the Creationist model accurately predicts what is observed in the field. To this point, you have never answered the question. You make these silly little quips about "Darwinists" instead of addressing the point. So Mr. Fallacy, what fallacy are you making when you do that? Ill give you a hint: its called an ad hominem.

Nope.


There has been a challenge issued. Let us know when you want to acknowledge it. :thumb:

In order for a rational conversation to ensue, you must actually address the questions put to you regarding your viewpoint. You don't do that. You have been asked several questions regarding your viewpoint that you refuse to answer. How can anybody have a rational conversation with you if you wont answer the simplest of questions? Keep in mind, that being asked to defend your viewpoint does not mean that people don't respect it, it means they are exploring it. The other side of that coin, of course, is that total lack of respect you show towards my viewpoint.

Again you have no idea what we mean by "respect."

I'm not asking you to believe what I say; what you need to do is put away the terms and ideas that assume the truth of Darwinism when assessing a counter claim. And to do that, you need to first know what the claim is.

I have no chance of ever believing your nonsense ideas, but I could "respect" them by assessing them according to their own place against reality rather than by insisting they line up with what I believe.

The key scientific failure of the Darwinist is that he thinks his ideas are evidence and he calls his theory a fact.

Evolution is just a theory. That's what it has to remain if you want to be part of a rational discussion.

 

[6days]

Stripe claims that creation scientists are real scientists. If this is true

Duh..... of course a real scientist is a real scientist. he could be a vegetarian or an atheist, but still be a scientist.
Stripe is correct.

why wouldn't they be willing to submit their work to the larger scientific world for review? Other scientists do, why not creation scientists?

Again.... DUH!!! Biblical creationist scientists ARE published in secular journals. However, a secular journal isn't going to publish an article that angers their base. IOW... They aren't going to publish an article from a scientist writing about evidence for the Genesis global flood.

Kind=Species. The two terms are synonymous.

A third DUH....No, a wolf and a poodle are not the same species. Biblical kinds is not the same as the rubbery word 'species'. Speciation generally is a result of a loss of genetic information from the original kind.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The same journals anyone else is published in.

Link us to one please.

:thumb:

Everything we have come to expect from you in a response.

Because they picked one and ignored others. It wasn't so much arbitrary as it was dishonest or at least ignorant.[/quote]By all means, please list for us what traits they ignored. We eagerly await your response.

:thumb:

Everything we have come to expect from you in a response.

You have to learn to respond to what people say, not what you wish they would say.

You need this lesson far more than I do.

It is not contradicting evolution; it is questioning the usefulness of your evidence.

In what way? We see the same trait in both modern and ancient horses. How is that not usefull evidence?

Nope.


There has been a challenge issued. Let us know when you want to acknowledge it. :thumb:

As soon as you issue it, I'll acknowledge it. I eagerly await your challenge.

Again you have no idea what we mean by "respect."

I'm not asking you to believe what I say; what you need to do is put away the terms and ideas that assume the truth of Darwinism when assessing a counter claim. And to do that, you need to first know what the claim is.

I will when you put away the terms and ideas that assume the truth of Creationism. See how that works? You cannot insist on a double standard and expect to be taken seriously.

I have no chance of ever believing your nonsense ideas, but I could "respect" them by assessing them according to their own place against reality rather than by insisting they line up with what I believe.

That is what creation science is - you insisting that reality line up with what you believe. Yet when asked a simple question about whether creation science accurately models what is observed in the fossil record you avoid the question.

Other scientists wil find something that doesn't line up with their model and wonder why, whats wrong with the model and work to correct the model. It has happened in the past, it will happen in the future. That is how our understanding of the world around us increases overtime.

The key scientific failure of the Darwinist is that he thinks his ideas are evidence and he calls his theory a fact.

That is actually exactly backwards. Darwin didn't go to the Galapagos thinking that evolution was a thing. Darwin looked at what he saw on the islands and asked why is it this way? He started to explorer what might account for the diversity.

No person who actually does science for a living would ever call a scientific theory a fact. Gravity is not called a fact, it is a theory. Evolution is not a fact, its a theory that continues to be refined. Learn what a scientific theory is and is not. When you you call evolution a theory you are stating that evolution is real.

Evolution is just a theory. That's what it has to remain if you want to be part of a rational discussion.

Why yes, yes it is. Thank you for admitting that it is a well substantiated explanation developed through scientific method. You have now earned the title of Darwinist by your own confession of evolution as a theory.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od noun noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Welcome to Darwinism! We have cookies!

 

[CabinetMaker]

Duh..... of course a real scientist is a real scientist. he could be a vegetarian or an atheist, but still be a scientist.
Stripe is correct.

Do they approace their subject through the scientific method or through some other method?

IOW... They aren't going to publish an article from a scientist writing about evidence for the Genesis global flood.

Again.... DUH!!! Biblical creationist scientists ARE published in secular journals. However, a secular journal isn't going to publish an article that angers their base.

An article on the global flood may anger a few but not the majority. The majority may just submit a bunch of question to the author of the article to respond to.

A third DUH....No, a wolf and a poodle are not the same species. Biblical kinds is not the same as the rubbery word 'species'. Speciation generally is a result of a loss of genetic information from the original kind.

Interesting claim. Can you support this idea of loss of genetic information from the original kind?

The wolf and poodle are different but they are both part of the Canis genus.

Here is the hierarchy of biological classifications used to classify animals. Can you show us how the biblical kind relates to this structure?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why would you expect that sort of thing in such a short time?

Only a change that large would prove evolution, any thing less is merely changes within a single kind, which fit the creationist model quite well.

 

[6days]

Do they approace their subject through the scientific method or through some other method?

Cabinet.... I'm not usually in the habit of saying "Duh" to people... but your questions seem so dumb. It is as if you think intetpretations of evidence can come from a blank slate. For example.... a Biblical creationist and an atheist can work side-by-side in a lab. They both use the scientific method examining genetic sequences and mutation rates. However there beliefs about the past are totally opposite. But they still perform the same science.

IOW... They aren't going to publish an article from a scientist writing about evidence for the Genesis global flood.

Correct! We agree! A secular Journal will not publish evidence where the global flood in the Bible. But if you wish to see peer-reviewed articles in Christian journals on the topic they are availabl

Interesting claim. Can you support this idea of loss of genetic information from the original kind?

Of course. Even evolutionists agree that natural selection / adaptation results from a loss of genetic info.

The wolf and poodle are different but they are both part of the Canis genus.

Yes...an excellent example of the Biblical model. A poodle is a mutant... a loss of genetic info. A breeder can always eliminate unwanted traits / pre-existing genetic info as has been done with poodles. (But poodles and wolves are the same kind of animal, aren't they?)

 

[genuineoriginal]

Cross breeding suggests they are the same created kind.

There are many legends of beasts that are a combination of two different kinds of creatures.
These may be only legends created by imaginative minds, or they could be a misunderstanding of a kind of animal that is described in terms of two other kinds, or there could have been actual cross-breeding of two different kinds.
We also have creatures like the mule that is bred from a donkey and a horse, which are most likely two different kinds and not two breeds of a single kind.

To account for everything, I leave open the possibility of cross-breeding between two different kinds, which does make classifying a kind a bit more difficult.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Any particular order expected?

Yes.
The ones killed first in the flood will usually end up in the bottom layers, and the ones killed last will usually end up in the top layers.
:thumb: