Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
180 replies to this topic

#101 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:31 PM

You said that we don't find rabbits in the cambrian because that period "seems to reflect an environment that is quite hostile to rabbits (i.e. a marine environment)". The major flaw in your thinking is that there were land areas and sea areas in the cambrian, there were just no multi-cellular organisms on the land for most of it.


Instead of "cherry-picking", which is what you accused ME of doing, I suggest you take the ENTIRE post in context.

For example, what I said just before that quote was:

"WHAT DO WE KNOW today about the populations and habitats of those creatures at the time they were fossilized?"

In other words, far from being a CLAIM, I was making an ADMISSION that I myself DO NOT KNOW the population and habitats of rabbits at the time they were fossilized, and that perhaps someone is actually making a CLAIM about what should or shouldn't be found in the Cambrian needs to demonstrate that the Cambrian does not reflect an environment rather than a period.

The words "seems to reflect" should have been a clue for you, as well as my admission that I have been "trying to find statistics" about these things without success. How anyone could turn that into a claim is beyond me!

My point was that IF the Cambrian "period" only "seems" to contain marine fossils (which it does as far as i KNOW), then perhaps.. and only perhaps.. it may have been a marine environment. Just a thought...

#102 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:46 PM

I can't, and neither can you. That was my entire point. Stop obnoxiously repeating what I said back to me and pretending it's a "gotcha".


How is responding to your post "obnoxiously repeating" what you said? (I have no clue as to what I was supposedly repeating, but I am pretty sure I haven't been "obnoxious" about it!)

As a member of this forum, which I have been for several years, I simply want you to defend comments such as:

"I would actually go one step further and say that that is not what it says, but how you are interpreting it"

My interpretation was at least supported with arguments based on context, yours was not. Athiests love to use the "interpretation" argument against Christians as though interpretation was an evil in itself, and yet try to attack the biblical account by quoting "what is says", as though what they say is says is not also an interpretation.
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#103 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:50 PM

Instead of "cherry-picking", which is what you accused ME of doing, I suggest you take the ENTIRE post in context.

For example, what I said just before that quote was:

"WHAT DO WE KNOW today about the populations and habitats of those creatures at the time they were fossilized?"

In other words, far from being a CLAIM, I was making an ADMISSION that I myself DO NOT KNOW the population and habitats of rabbits at the time they were fossilized, and that perhaps someone is actually making a CLAIM about what should or shouldn't be found in the Cambrian needs to demonstrate that the Cambrian does not reflect an environment rather than a period.

The words "seems to reflect" should have been a clue for you, as well as my admission that I have been "trying to find statistics" about these things without success. How anyone could turn that into a claim is beyond me!

My point was that IF the Cambrian "period" only "seems" to contain marine fossils (which it does as far as i KNOW), then perhaps.. and only perhaps.. it may have been a marine environment. Just a thought...

The 'rabbit in the precambrian' argument is an example of the type of find that would falsify the evolutionary timeline, not a strict requirement that only a rabbit and no other species could meet. Any mammal found with precambrian/early cambrian fossils would qualify as the 'rabbit'. For an aquatic environment, just replace rabbit with any aquatic mammal like seals, otters, whales, dolphins, etc. Sea birds or even shoreline trees and flowers would also work since they are supposed to have developed long after the Precambrian or Cambrian. Depending on how far back you want to go, shark teeth (among the most common type of marine fossils) or other bony fish fossils would also be problems for evolutionary theory. A difference in habitat doesn't work as a reason for segregated fossils when you account for the fact that for every conceivable habitat there's a modern animal that is able to live quite happily in it.

#104 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:05 PM

Then you don't believe that rabbits were around when the dinosaurs were on alive?


Sure I do. I just haven't seen any evidence that rabbits and dinos dwellt anywhere near each other under normal circumstances, let alone during an event that would bring about fossilization. Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record 80 million years ago. Does that mean that they "weren't around" during that time period?

#105 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 November 2012 - 02:18 PM

The 'rabbit in the precambrian' argument is an example of the type of find that would falsify the evolutionary timeline, not a strict requirement that only a rabbit and no other species could meet. Any mammal found with precambrian/early cambrian fossils would qualify as the 'rabbit'. For an aquatic environment, just replace rabbit with any aquatic mammal like seals, otters, whales, dolphins, etc. Sea birds or even shoreline trees and flowers would also work since they are supposed to have developed long after the Precambrian or Cambrian. Depending on how far back you want to go, shark teeth (among the most common type of marine fossils) or other bony fish fossils would also be problems for evolutionary theory. A difference in habitat doesn't work as a reason for segregated fossils when you account for the fact that for every conceivable habitat there's a modern animal that is able to live quite happily in it.


Ok, so how many otters and dolphins have been found burried together? How many seals and whales?

And what is a coelacanth if not a "modern animal"?

#106 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:42 PM

Ok, so how many otters and dolphins have been found burried together? How many seals and whales?

And what is a coelacanth if not a "modern animal"?

All otter, dolphin, seal, and whale fossils are found in rocks dated relatively young (generally around 50 million years or less), so the answer is 'all of them' in terms of being found buried together by geologic period.

For buried together by location here's a creationist source for around 300 whales and seals buried together: http://creation.com/...s-telling-tales
In fact, they noticed some whale bones embedded with the tips of shark teeth. The team found other vertebrates in the deposit besides sharks and whales. These included marine animals such as fish, turtles, seals and porpoises, and land animals such as ground sloths and penguins.

The modern species of coelacanth are not found as fossils anywhere. The living members of the family are different species from their fossilized relatives. Fossil ceolacanths also aren't found in precambrian or cambrian layers.

#107 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:58 PM

All otter, dolphin, seal, and whale fossils are found in rocks dated relatively young (generally around 50 million years or less), so the answer is 'all of them' in terms of being found buried together by geologic period.


Of course they are dated young, the rocks are dated according to what fossils are found in them!

For buried together by location here's a creationist source for around 300 whales and seals buried together: http://creation.com/...s-telling-tales
In fact, they noticed some whale bones embedded with the tips of shark teeth. The team found other vertebrates in the deposit besides sharks and whales. These included marine animals such as fish, turtles, seals and porpoises, and land animals such as ground sloths and penguins.


Thanks. Thats part of what I am looking for, but as I said I have been looking for information that can provide statistics about what animals have been burried together, their total number found in the fossil record and so on..

The modern species of coelacanth are not found as fossils anywhere. The living members of the family are different species from their fossilized relatives. Fossil ceolacanths also aren't found in precambrian or cambrian layers.


Why would they have to be the same species??? The fossil record doesn't show ANY SPECIES of coelacanth for 80 million years.

Since you seem to like creation.com, here is another article concerning fossils:

http://creation.com/...ils-wrong-place

And here are over 200 Cambrian rabbits (which according to you, don't need to be rabbits):

http://creationwiki....curring_Fossils

So, how much money do I win.

#108 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:38 AM

This is what creationists do, it is not allowed in science. Specifically relying on abductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. Creationists look at evidence, think "how could the flood or x biblical event explain this", and then whatever pops into their head they preach as gospel. That is where science begins, not where it ends. A scientist also says "how could I explain this?" But after some hair-brained idea pops into their head they say "how can I test my hypothesis"? They then predict something that must be true if their hypothesis is correct or can't be true if it's not and see if their prediction is accurate, either by a lab experiment or by predicting something no one has ever observed or discovered.

As I said in the other thread (which was ignored by everyone) archeopteryx wasn't considered solid evidence of evolution because scientists sat around speculating about it - it was considered solid evidence for evolution because darwin specifically predicted it's existence two years prior, what traits it would have, and explained why if it was not discovered his model of how birds' wings evolved was impossible.


Look, we have a book that many have tried to discredit but it has been proved accurate over and over again by archaeology, which is a science. On that basis alone we can safely rely on its accounts. If there be any variance with any theory from any quarters we can stick to what it says considering that the variance was not generated by the findings themselves but by the interpretation thereof.
Scientists have been guilty on several occasions of misrepresenting, misinterpreting and plain fabrication of data just to advance their beliefs. It doesn't sound scientific to be selective about data as long as it supports your hypothesis. Science should follow the evidence wherever it leads but thee idea of a higher power has since been rejected hence some will only look at data as long as it leads in the opposite direction.
Someone asked the question 'if the observations shout 'design', why is are the unbelieving scientist not looking for a designer?
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#109 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:55 AM

Still waiting for you to quote me telling someone not to do something I have done. Instead you are just arguing with what I've said. The accusation is hypocrisy, not that you don't agree with me. Try again.


The first reply already demonstrated it, please go read it (ten times over)... In fact here it is, again...

" No problem:

(1) hewas not being obnoxious and (2) He didn't say 'gotcha' O imaginative one.

The man you're posting to is one of the nicest persons on this board and he is anything but obnoxious. The truth is that you have an attitude towards Christians who pin-point your mistakes and failures in logic.



Attitude. You come here with bad attitude and make statements that we have debated many times with many skeptics and you think we should just blindly accept what you post as if you were the first one to come up with that stuff.

Did you really think you could come to this Christian website and not be confronted with the gospel truth...part of which is that God is Creator and he created the world just the way He said He did in Genesis?"
  • Nash likes this

#110 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:35 AM

Uh huh. And I pointed out that even if this were the case there are still no modern marine animals in the cambrian.

#111 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:42 AM

"How is responding to your post "obnoxiously repeating" what you said? (I have no clue as to what I was supposedly repeating, but I am pretty sure I haven't been "obnoxious" about it!)"

I gave an in-line response, what I was referring to was quoted directly above the line you quoted.

"As a member of this forum, which I have been for several years, I simply want you to defend comments such as:
"I would actually go one step further and say that that is not what it says, but how you are interpreting it"
My interpretation was at least supported with arguments based on context, yours was not. Athiests love to use the "interpretation" argument against Christians as though interpretation was an evil in itself, and yet try to attack the biblical account by quoting "what is says", as though what they say is says is not also an interpretation."

You have dander up and are taking my comment as being hostile to you when it wasn't. I was saying that both of us were interpreting the text and that neither of our interpretations were necessarily correct. You act like I was saying "my interpretation is wrong and yours isn't because you're a poopy head!"

There is honestly no reason for you to be ticked off or defensive. I was just trying to have a friendly conversation, I wasn't being hostile to you or christianity in the least.

#112 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:05 AM

"Look, we have a book that many have tried to discredit but it has been proved accurate over and over again by archaeology, which is a science."

If there was a nuclear war or something and civilization was mostly wiped out and history forgotten and someone found a copy of the harry potter books, they could verify many of the facts, events, peoples' languages, countries, names, customs etc were real. Would that mean wizards were real too? There is a prophecy in the first book that is fulfilled in the last book - does this prove that it's contents are accurate? Or is there another explanation?

Any student of history can tell you that all history is mixed with mythology. As I said to someone yesterday on this forum, evangelical christians often argue that if we treated the historicity of jesus the same way we treat figures from antiquity like alexander the great everyone would accept jesus' miracles. The problem with this is that we treat alexander the great (and most ancient figures) the way an atheist treats jesus. We acknowledge he existed, but take the extraordinary claims as legends. He was claimed and widely believed at the time to have been immaculately conceived, born of a virgin, to have been the son of god and to have fulfilled prophecies (some from the bible). The reason we don't accept this today is because he was said to be the son of zeus, immaculately conceived by a bolt of lightning. And since nobody believes in zeus anymore we call it a myth, just a fanciful legend that was tacked onto the story of a mere mortal. The same way atheists see the miracles of jesus.

"On that basis alone we can safely rely on its accounts. If there be any variance with any theory from any quarters we can stick to what it says considering that the variance was not generated by the findings themselves but by the interpretation thereof."

Many events in the bible like the flood even creationists don't agree on - and geologists overwhelmingly reject as incompatible with the evidence. As I pointed out in the flood forum, there is no point in the last few thousand years when every civilization in the world just died out except one. It literally never happened. I asked people if they could give an example of a time when this did happen and if they would accept the flood didn't happen if other ancient civilizations did not disappear during that time and the only answer I got was (paraphrasing) "No I won't accept anything that contradicts the bible".

"Scientists have been guilty on several occasions of misrepresenting, misinterpreting and plain fabrication of data just to advance their beliefs. It doesn't sound scientific to be selective about data as long as it supports your hypothesis."

This is why we have peer review and things like double-blind, controlled studies. The scientific process is designed to remove bias and opinion from the process as much as possible. Once you do a double blind controlled study on the effectiveness of a certain medication and control for the placebo effect it is no longer a matter of opinion if the medicine works or not, it either does or it doesn't.

And the occasional falsehood from a scientist no more discredits all of science than the not so occasional religious hoaxter or con man discredits the bible.

"Science should follow the evidence wherever it leads but thee idea of a higher power has since been rejected hence some will only look at data as long as it leads in the opposite direction. Someone asked the question 'if the observations shout 'design', why is are the unbelieving scientist not looking for a designer?"

A "higher power" is not testable. Ideas must be precise and refer to objective phenomenon to be tested scientifically. The majority of scientists believe in a "designer" of some sort, though most are not literal creationists. But virtually all of them agree that it cannot be empirically tested.

For instance lets say I believed the world was created by an all-powerful genie. How could I test that? Normally in science you test something by asking yourself what the limitations or parameters of your hypothesis are. But an all-powerful genie has no known limitations or parameters.

I can for instance test the hypothesis that someone was shot to death rather than stabbed by simulating a gunshot wound and a stabbing and comparing the blood splatter patterns of each, or by comparing crime scene photos of known shootings or stabbings - but that is because blood, bullets, knives and arteries all have known, measurable properties and are all observable phenomenon. A genie is not a phenomenon in nature like a star or an atom, it cannot be observed and has no known properties or parameters.

So there is nothing science can do with the idea. The same is true of your "higher power".

And because there is nothing science can do with it to claim that science can prove it is a lie. It's really really really dishonest. Which is why creationism is shunned and considered disgraceful. It's not that science is atheistic (most scientists are not atheists), it's because it's just quack science.

"It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him."

- Abraham Lincoln

#113 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:14 AM

Of course they are dated young, the rocks are dated according to what fossils are found in them!

A. Please think about what your saying, if dating were done relatively there'd be no way to assign number values to the ages. Since we have assigned ages for rocks, then the rocks can't be dated solely by what fossils are found in them. In some cases index fossils can be used as a rule-of-thumb form of dating but if your claim were true there'd never be any news stories about "new fossil indicates X species began earlier than previously thought"
B. The fact that certain fossils are found in different layers is the problem you are trying to explain. Because modern animals are found in all habitats, there's no reason to think habitat is related to why modern fossils are never found in precambrian/cambrian rock.

Thanks. Thats part of what I am looking for, but as I said I have been looking for information that can provide statistics about what animals have been burried together, their total number found in the fossil record and so on..

I feel I should point out it's actually irrelevant whether an animal was buried next to another animal or not. The argument is about the age of the rock it's buried in.

Why would they have to be the same species??? The fossil record doesn't show ANY SPECIES of coelacanth for 80 million years.

It doesn't matter if the coelacanth family is missing from the fossil record. Please remember the problem isn't that any particular modern animal hasn't been found in precambrian/cambrian rock. The problem is that all modern animals are absent in precambrian/cambrian rock.

Since you seem to like creation.com, here is another article concerning fossils:
http://creation.com/...ils-wrong-place

That article doesn't have anything to do with why modern animals are never found in cambrian or precambrian rocks.

And here are over 200 Cambrian rabbits (which according to you, don't need to be rabbits):
http://creationwiki....curring_Fossils

I think you should look at that list again (sort by 'found in' column)
1) only 8 entries in that entire list deal with fossils found in the cambrian or pre-cambrian. There are 0 modern animals in those 8 entries, exactly as expected by evolutionary theory.
2) 2 of the 8 (including the only animal fossil) deal with fossils found later than expected, not earlier. (at worst this just means they didn't go extinct when previously thought)
3) the other 6 of the 8 are microfossils. It's relatively common for a pollen/spore to be washed into cracks into older rock and then fossilized. The whole point of pollen/spores is that they can be spread easily. If you look at that list you'll see that most of the entries are pollen, spores, or other types of microfossil.
Description in last column added by me  
Type							   Expected						  Found in						 	   description 									 										
Spores						   Jurassic							Precambrian						   microfossil
Spores						  Carboniferous				   Precambrian						  microfossil											
Pollen						    "Paleozoic"						 Precambrian						 microfossil											
Diacrodians				    Ordovician						Precambrian						  microfossil													
Pollen							 Cretaceous					   Cambrian							   microfossil											
Spores						    Jurassic							Cambrian							   microfossil											
Trilobites						 Cambrian (lower)			  Cambrian (medial)				 animal, found later not earlier											
Algae							   Precambrian					 Cambrian or Ordovician		found later not earlier

So, how much money do I win.

Nothing. There's still no modern animals in precambrain or cambrian rocks.

#114 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:51 AM

That is where "rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks" becomes circular reasoning ;)

#115 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:06 AM

You have dander up and are taking my comment as being hostile to you when it wasn't.


What make you say that? What on earth did I write that gave you the imression that I was seeing you as "hostile"? You need to simmer down because you are taking things way too personally. I might disagree strongly about what you have written here, which is what you would expect in a forum like this, but I haven't made the slightest comment that reveals what I think about you personally and whether or not you are hostile.

If you want to know what I think about you then you only need to ask, and believe me, it is not entirely negative, but I am totally sure that I have not been obnoxious towards you or acted like a "poopy head"

Look, I have been involved in debates for years and years and I know how easy it is to pick up a "hostile" attitude just because of the nature of the debate. In other words I have made that mistake myself. Later on I have gone back and read my opponents posts without finding the hostility I thought was there.

I suggest you do the same. I have not been disrespectfull to you. Disagreement is not disrespect, and as you undoubtedly have seen in one of the other threads, you need to take a few steps back, take a deep breath and approach this a little differtently. This is a HOT debate. I have been cursed at, had countless vulgarities thrown at me, had my dead mother mocked by an athiest/evolutionist that I opened myself up to, and have constantly been called an ignorant idiot by evolutionists despite the fact that I have honestly tried to investigate this debate as much as my free time has allowed me to do. Ignorant people by definition don't do those kinds of things.

Most of the time I have not been equally insulting as those who oppose me, and I suggest you clothe yourself in a similar attitude.
  • gilbo12345 and Calypsis4 like this

#116 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:46 AM

What make you say that? What on earth did I write that gave you the imression that I was seeing you as "hostile"? You need to simmer down because you are taking things way too personally..


Quite. He's been a problem ever since he came on board.

#117 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:56 AM

A. Please think about what your saying, if dating were done relatively there'd be no way to assign
"new fossil indicates X species began earlier than previously thought"


Perhaps you should think about what you are saying, because I'm not really sure if that is supposed to be an argument in support of, or against dating methods.

Because modern animals are found in all habitats, there's no reason to think habitat is related to why modern fossils are never found in precambrian/cambrian rock.


So what is a "modern animal" and how "modern" are they? I'm still having trouble understaning how you can claim that a diffent species of coelacanth makes the difference between what is modern and what is not. We observe speciation today which means that two species can co-exist, so determining the timespan between species doesn't seem to be a simple matter.

It doesn't matter if the coelacanth family is missing from the fossil record. Please remember the problem isn't that any particular modern animal hasn't been found in precambrian/cambrian rock. The problem is that all modern animals are absent in precambrian/cambrian rock.


And that is exactly my point. NO rock containing "modern animals" would be classified as cambrian (which makes being burried together VERY important), and IF the cambrian represented the habitat of those animals that lived at the bottom of the oceans during the flood (i.e. NOT whale, sharks, otters, and so on), which were not preserved on the ark, then why would "modern animals" be found there?

#118 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:50 AM

The living members of the family are different species from their fossilized relatives.


I am a little curious as to how anyone can determine whether or not a modern variation is a "different species" from a fossilized variation.

#119 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:59 AM

This is the closest thing to 'evolution' they will ever get:Posted Image Notice the variation within the kind of organism displayed...but all still flies.

But if they think they


can come up with something like this: Posted Image then let them show us. But the truth is that it is not just the change from one type of organism to another they need to demonstrate; they need to prove it by revealing a true genetic change from one type to another.

#120 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

Perhaps you should think about what you are saying, because I'm not really sure if that is supposed to be an argument in support of, or against dating methods.

My statement was intended to point out the problems with your claim that rocks with mammals are considered young because they have mammals. If this were true it would have been impossible to assign dates to those rocks to start with. Dating of rocks can be done independently of the fossils they contain.

So what is a "modern animal" and how "modern" are they? I'm still having trouble understaning how you can claim that a diffent species of coelacanth makes the difference between what is modern and what is not. We observe speciation today which means that two species can co-exist, so determining the timespan between species doesn't seem to be a simple matter.

Modern animal meaning just about any species alive today with the possible exception of some sponges, jellyfish, or bacteria.

Some specific types which are expected to have originated well after the cambrian would be any mammal, any tree, any bird, or any flowering plant (the plant not the pollen). Any of these found in a rock dating to the cambrian or precambrian would contradict evolutionary theory.
Sharks and other fish with jaws are thought to have developed after the cambrian so any shark (shark teeth are very common fossils) or jawed-fish fossil in a pre-cambrian layer would also pose a problem for evolutionary theory.

The Ceolocanth family only goes back to the Devonian (400 mya). The cambrian and pre-cambraian are older than that (around 500mya).

And that is exactly my point. NO rock containing "modern animals" would be classified as cambrian (which makes being burried together VERY important), and IF the cambrian represented the habitat of those animals that lived at the bottom of the oceans during the flood (i.e. NOT whale, sharks, otters, and so on), which were not preserved on the ark, then why would "modern animals" be found there?

The cambrian fossils don't represent a deep-sea bottom of the ocean habitat. In-fact they frequently indicate a shoreline environment where many fish, birds, mammals etc. would have been able to live. As an example, stromatolites are produced by mats of photosynthetic organisms which means fossil stromatolites would have been formed in water shallow enough for sunlight to reach bottom.


I am a little curious as to how anyone can determine whether or not a modern variation is a "different species" from a fossilized variation.

Morphology (size, fin/skeletal arrangement) and habitat differences (salt vs. fresh). The criterion of reproductive isolation is not useful for fossil classification for obvious reasons.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users