Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

#41 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 January 2017 - 01:55 PM

[quote name="wibble" post="136161" timestamp="1485128528"]That's good because science doesn't say that organisms "sprout wings". Wings could never develop from scratch with the purpose of allowing the organism to fly in the future.


"Do you think Eldredge and Gould believed there are no transitionals?"

Why else would they have been forced to invent, because of stasis, such ridiculous and embarrassing ad hoc hypotheses like "Hopeful Monsters" and "Punctuated Equilibrium"? Doesn't sound like your hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man (Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all flora and fauna) is any good at all does it..
You need to make it up as you go along.. Great Science! LOL

"That's good because science doesn't say that organisms "sprout wings"...

When did "Science" learn to talk?

#42 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 23 January 2017 - 03:56 PM

If we are to put our Sherlock cap on, one has to ask the question, given predatorial activities have been captured in time, what could have happened so quickly to the pterosaur, which presumably did have ears, that it would carry on what it was doing? Secondly, what would preserve these organisms alive so thoroughly and quickly without any decomposition, fossilised in the rock while it was wet.
 
The answer to those two questions is rather obvious, something vast, and something so quick there was no warning at all, perhaps a tsunami wave of ginormous proportion. It's a speculation, but to say this type of evidence fits with each of the creatures dying a natural death and slowly being preserved as fossils, is preposterous.


It's a great fossil. However, your conclusion that it is obviously due to some sudden cataclysm like a ginormous tsunami fails. The Solnhofen limestone in which this, and many other exquisite fossils are preserved is of a type called plattenkalk, which is very finely grained and thinly laminated. It therefore naturally splits into flat sheets and has been quarried since Roman times for uses such as flooring and roof tiles. This all means that the original lime mud was precipitated in calm conditions. These flat, thin layers would not be produced by a turbulent cataclysm and nor would the material be composed of homogenous fine grains, there would be a mix of various sized material picked up as the tsunami washed through.

All the many images of fossils discovered in the Solnhofen limestone show that they all seem to be displayed flat in a horizontal pose, none are vertically contorted as you would expect if caught up in your tsunami.

Also, fossils of horseshoe crabs have been found that have clearly succumbed after leaving a visible track. Not something likely to occur within your seething torrent of lime mud.

 

Attached File  368abdf255f983a8a208feb6615c49ea.jpg   44.35KB   0 downloads

So it seems that the standard explanation of how the fossil that you presented came about is far more likely than the "obvious" explanation that you gave.



#43 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:13 PM

 

 Do you think Eldredge and Gould believed there are no transitionals ?
 

i believe he (eldridge in post 25) meant what he said.
i also believe boyces article to be accurate.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups" - Stephen Jay Gould



#44 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:39 PM

Do you think Eldredge and Gould believed there are no transitionals ?
 
 
(emphasis mine)
 
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups" - Stephen Jay Gould

this does not negate what niles said in post 25, and in no way demonstrates "gradualness".
there is no empirical evidence that says "one lifeform changes into another".

#45 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 January 2017 - 08:48 PM

Do you think Eldredge and Gould believed there are no transitionals ?
 

 
(emphasis mine)
 
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups" - Stephen Jay Gould



"But they are abundant between larger groups"

Which is more paleobabble and deceit.. Another "Bait and Switch" Marketing Ploy just like the duplicitous and purposely ambivalent term "Micro" "Evolution" where they point to variation, adaptation, and speciation and try to convince generations of young kids into believing that is empirical scientific evidence to support the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth...

Thay is EXACTLY the same thing Gould was doing when he started talking about "Larger Groups" EXACTLY..

Before you give me the predictable assertions about "Speciation" is the same as "Macro" Evolution, Save it for the gullibe 14 year old school kids, It wont fly here.. There are over 2000 different "Species" of Chiclids... Does NOT mean that you evolved from a worm over the course a billion years...

#46 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 January 2017 - 08:54 PM

...

If you want more, does the following list count as a multitude ?

 

http://rationalwiki....nsitional_forms

...

 

 

Rationwiki transitional forms?  :rotfl3: 

 

,...oh that's a good one, even from you Wibble, I must say, had me in tears of laughter for five minutes at least. Ever heard of, "elephant hurling"?

...

 

Elephant hurling indeed. A while back Calypsis posted a brief response here that I gave him on that list just dealing with the Cynodonts. What it really demonstrates is just how loose and far evolutionists are willing to stretch the meaning of the term "transitional" to give an appearance of a "multitude of transitional forms". :rolleyes:



#47 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 744 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 23 January 2017 - 11:00 PM

Rationwiki transitional forms?  :rotfl3: 
 
,...oh that's a good one, even from you Wibble, I must say, had me in tears of laughter for five minutes at least. Ever heard of, "elephant hurling"?

What exactly were you expecting when you asked to be shown multitudes of transitionals? 
 

So then it's a question of ABC level logic; either we would expect to see any given form representative in the fossils to remain the same with no intermediates obviously, as there would be no evolution under biblical kinds, or would we expect them to not look the same?

A flood can account for jellyfish showing up all the way through the record and looking pretty much the same, but with a few extra assumptions it can also account for dinosaurs only showing up in part of it, and birds (coincidentally very similar to dinosaurs) showing up after that. With the right story, it could account for a precambrian rabbit and a lot of other stuff that evolution wouldn't be able to make any sense at all of. If it can account for all of those scenarios, can it expect any one in particular? What pattern could we find that would disprove a flood theory, keeping in mind the supposed miraculous nature of the event?

#48 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 24 January 2017 - 06:16 AM

Rationwiki transitional forms?  :rotfl3: 

 

,...oh that's a good one, even from you Wibble, I must say, had me in tears of laughter for five minutes at least. Ever heard of, "elephant hurling"?

 

I second Popoi's observation: You ask for evidence of "multitudes" of transitions, and even told Wibble that it "will not be supported by showing one or two examples, but by showing multitudinous examples."

 

Sure, properly refuting each one on the list would be a huge time commitment and I don't think anyone expects that, but you can't ask for such a list of examples then cry foul when someone gives you a list.



#49 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 24 January 2017 - 06:40 AM

Thanks guys, my thoughts exactly

#50 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 January 2017 - 10:38 AM

It's a great fossil. However, your conclusion that it is obviously due to some sudden cataclysm like a ginormous tsunami fails. The Solnhofen limestone in which this, and many other exquisite fossils are preserved is of a type called plattenkalk, which is very finely grained and thinly laminated. It therefore naturally splits into flat sheets and has been quarried since Roman times for uses such as flooring and roof tiles. This all means that the original lime mud was precipitated in calm conditions. These flat, thin layers would not be produced by a turbulent cataclysm and nor would the material be composed of homogenous fine grains, there would be a mix of various sized material picked up as the tsunami washed through.

All the many images of fossils discovered in the Solnhofen limestone show that they all seem to be displayed flat in a horizontal pose, none are vertically contorted as you would expect if caught up in your tsunami.

Also, fossils of horseshoe crabs have been found that have clearly succumbed after leaving a visible track. Not something likely to occur within your seething torrent of lime mud.
 
attachicon.gif368abdf255f983a8a208feb6615c49ea.jpg

So it seems that the standard explanation of how the fossil that you presented came about is far more likely than the "obvious" explanation that you gave.

of course you would find them "lying flat".
do you really think we would find them standing on their edge?
when an object, such as your fossil, falls to the bottom of a lake, it will lie flat, it won't stand on it's edge.
also, does a lake bottom really represent the wind swept turbulent surface?
even an inrush of water doesn't work because these fossils must rest on the encapsulating limestone (or sandstone), and they will not come to rest on their edges.

one other thing, the fossil record does not provide adequate evidence for the formal demonstration of common ancestry.
in fact, science doesn't have enough evidence from any part of evolution to provide this demonstration.

#51 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 January 2017 - 10:50 AM

. . . keeping in mind the supposed miraculous nature of the event?

this doesn't stop you from believing in abiogenesis, so why should it stop you now?????
science has you believing that we are "almost there", but the fact of the matter is very different.

#52 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 January 2017 - 12:57 PM

Goku, to show intermediates are multitudinous as a claim isn't to elephant-hurl a list of them that irrational-atheo-wiki, says is a list. What you have to do is give properly qualified intermediates, as I expounded.

 

Wibble has to name say twenty, and tell us why they are in no uncertain terms, intermediate, between a progenitor that walked on all fours for example, and a more modern species that would fly or swim.

 

It is common knowledge that the examples evolutionists gives are always the same flawed examples, and they hurl them at us ad-nauseam despite the fact they can be picked apart fairly easily. Those examples are usually the evolution of mammals from reptiles, the evolution of tetrapods from fish, the evolution of birds from therapods, the false evolution of whales via ambulocetus, rhodocetus and pakitecus, and the evolution of humans by showing australopithecines.

 

None of which have intermediate features but have mosaic, complete features from "either" the alleged progenitor, "or" the modern species they allegedly evolved into.

 

How you can betray me like this Goku I just don't know....I even named you Darth Atreyu,..."I've been like a father to you Goku......be a son to me now." 

 

:rotfl3: ;)



#53 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 January 2017 - 09:16 PM

Mike the wiz said:

Posted 24 January 2017 - 12:57 PM
Goku, to show intermediates are multitudinous as a claim isn't to elephant-hurl a list of them that irrational-atheo-wiki, says is a list. What you have to do is give properly qualified intermediates, as I expounded.
 
Wibble has to name say twenty, and tell us why they are in no uncertain terms, intermediate, between a progenitor that walked on all fours for example, and a more modern species that would fly or swim.
 
It is common knowledge that the examples evolutionists gives are always the same flawed examples, and they hurl them at us ad-nauseam despite the fact they can be picked apart fairly easily. Those examples are usually the evolution of mammals from reptiles, the evolution of tetrapods from fish, the evolution of birds from therapods, the false evolution of whales via ambulocetus, rhodocetus and pakitecus, and the evolution of humans by showing australopithecines.
 
None of which have intermediate features but have mosaic, complete features from "either" the alleged progenitor, "or" the modern species they allegedly evolved into.
 
How you can betray me like this Goku I just don't know....I even named you Darth Atreyu,..."I've been like a father to you Goku......be a son to me now."

Mike, "Resistance is futile", Goku wants you to be absorbed by the Borg (atheism/ evolution). I don't think that it is goinmg to happen with you. LOL

One of the reasons I try so hard to show that infomation and code serve different purposes is that informatiooon is non coruptible. It is not made of matter. Only code is made of matter.

Mutation does not create "new" information. Here is what I think is going on. Consider code as the location or coordinates of specific information on a vast sea of uncorruptible information. In this analogy the coordinates are true variables with associated meaning by mutual agreement of the code users and code generators--intelligent beings. The wrong code (mutated code) in my analogy already assigned meaning could take the end user to the wrong meaning (location) on the vast sea of information.

Here are two codes from different language systems; Chien and dog. The first word is French code. The second is Enlish. So you see the analogy. Both units of code take us to the same locaion of informmation associated to the code (words). Hence my conclusion code (words) do not store information rather takes our mind to the location of the information in the vast sea of information. Infromation is the same in all human beings.

Now consider the German code word "gift" and the English code word "gift". The German code takes us to the meaning, "poison" while the English coordinates (gift) takes us to the definition "present" (as in birthday presenet). Once again our amazing software shows the brilliance of its creator--multiple mean ings from the same code.

Because of the extreme sophistication of our software package depending on context a word (code) can re-direct meaning to a different location on the sea of information. Here is a sentence I created to illustrate; (audible version) "Write the right spelling of the word wright on the right side of your paper." Because we are intelligent and concious beings and even though the auduble code is the same our software knows to redirect each "rit" to the correct coordinates--everyone except the third "rit" (long "i"). The "rit" used in that position could have several meanings. Our software flags that "rit" for the thinker (us) as ambiguous. We would probably ask, "Spell which 'rit'?"

Here is a sentence I have used to show how our software handles our location to send our mind to the correct coordinates. "The chickens are ready to eat," spoken in a barnyard. "The chickens are ready to eat," spoken at a large family cookout. So even though the sentence is exactly the same its context allows the listener to understand its two different meanings even though there is no mention of pertinent locatioin information in the sentence. Our software automatically adjusts meaning based on location.

Here is an example of our auto complete function. "Please give me a glass of water." Notice there is no subject in the sentence. Our software supplys the missing subject, "you."

Our human software is not the stuff of random assembly of time and chance code. Anyone in IT knows that computer code is anything but random mutated code. From the early days of propgrmminmg comes the expresion computer geeks know "garbage in garbage out."

We can not record our mental state. As in computers RAM memory disappears when we die. So we have a very rudementary way of attempting to save some of our thoughts (information). We can associate code to information. As long as our language is written and spoken meaning can be evoked in our mind by information associated to that code.

Finallly, here is an example how we associate code to information:
Let A=My
Let B=name
Let C=is
Let D=Mike
Let E-.
Therefore ABCDE=My name is Mike.

If we both agree to associate the same meaning to the code ABCDE then we could say ABCDE and we would both evoke the same meaning from that speific (ABCDE) code=MY name is Mike.--in our minds. That's how it's done.

Therefore I suggest that code is code and not information. When code is associated to information in a learning process, the code will evoke information in those that have formed the same associations to meaning (something we learn from our caregivers) and in school.

 



#54 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 January 2017 - 10:51 PM

Anyone in IT knows that computer code is anything but random mutated code.

that's the truth if i ever heard it.
just one "random mutation" of computer code will most likely result in some type of error.
three such mutations and you can be practically guarenteed that the program will be non functional.
even changing one character can, and most probably will, result in a program that will not run.

in this respect, DNA cannot be likened to computer code because the genome itself mutates genetic sequences on a routine basis.
transposons, reverse reads, and gene duplication are all mutations, and they have negligible effect on the organism.

it seems DNA can be divided into 2 main groups:
the first group includes protein coding sequences, body plan sequences, and DNA storage sequences and comprise roughly 2% of the total number of base pairs.
the other 98% is devoted to the 3 genomic processes i mentioned.

it's my opinion that epigenetics makes use of this 98% to effect the biomolecular changes needed by the organism.
i also believe that this routine randomizing of sequences is what allows epigenetics to select what works.

there is evidence that suggests that most major changes are the results of a series of changes where natural selection is relatively absent.
IOW, natural selection is a minor player in the role of macroevolution.
the only thing missing from the epigenetics explanation is the fixation of genes/ sequences.
if and when this is proved true, then it's my guess that epigenetics is responsible for ALL of evolution.

#55 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:05 AM

 

 

Mike Summers: If we both agree to associate the same meaning to the code ABCDE then we could say ABCDE and we would both evoke the same meaning from that speific (ABCDE) code=MY name is Mike.--in our minds. That's how it's done.

Therefore I suggest that code is code and not information. When code is associated to information in a learning process, the code will evoke information in those that have formed the same associations to meaning

 

Mike, ask not what your code can do for you but what you can do for your code! :D

 

 

 

Mike Summers: Mike, "Resistance is futile", Goku wants you to be absorbed by the Borg (atheism/ evolution). I don't think that it is goinmg to happen with you. LOL

 

In that case all I can say is......................"God speed Goku-man!"

 

(Okay, in the movie he actually says "God speed spider-man", but I switched the code Mike.) ;)

 

(in case people are confused here is what they say in the movie;

 

Mr O; "Peter, I've been like a father to you....be a son to me now."

Spider-man; "I have a father, his name is Ben Parker.."

Mr O; "God-speed spider-man." (at which time mr O surreptitiously has been activating his radio control device to kill spiderman, but spiderman's spidey senses alert him to the device, and instead the device is about to kill Mr O because spiderman jumps out of the path of the device to which Mr O says;

 

Mr O; "o!", .....then gets killed by his own device.

 

:rotfl3: 



#56 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 January 2017 - 01:56 PM

Those examples are usually the evolution of mammals from reptiles, the evolution of tetrapods from fish, the evolution of birds from therapods, the false evolution of whales via ambulocetus, rhodocetus and pakitecus, and the evolution of humans by showing australopithecines.
 
None of which have intermediate features but have mosaic, complete features from "either" the alleged progenitor, "or" the modern species they allegedly evolved into.


So in other words, whatever intermediate form is shown to you, you are going to flourish the mosaic card. How convenient. Can you think of any species today that have a genuine mix of features between major groups ?
What kind of intermediate feature in the fossil record would satisfy you ?

Don’t you find it odd that all the transitional groups, some of which you mention above, do not appear in some random place in the geological record but are found in rocks dated to an age that makes evolutionary sense. So the quadriped siren ancestor (which you have ignored so far) or any whale don’t pitch up next to an icthyosaur in the Jurassic, feathered therapods aren’t found in the Carboniferous, australopithecines aren’t suddenly uncovered in the Eocene. When the palaeontologists wanted to unearth a fish- tetrapod transitional they looked on a geological map to search for surface rocks of the right age. That being younger than the oldest known tetrapod and older than rocks bearing lobe finned fish fossils. They went to the Canadian Arctic and after much searching, they found Tiktaalik. Do you reckon that was blind lucky chance ? If creationism is true they could have uncovered mammal or reptile bones in those rocks but I suppose you think they would hide those from the world, just to keep the evolutionary story safe huh ?



#57 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 January 2017 - 02:12 PM

of course you would find them "lying flat".
do you really think we would find them standing on their edge?
when an object, such as your fossil, falls to the bottom of a lake, it will lie flat, it won't stand on it's edge.


I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. No I wouldn't expect to find them standing on their edge but Mike W would because he reckons the deposit is a result of a massively turbulent gigantic flood carrying sediment.

Or perhaps he doesn't now since he's suddenly gone quiet on this issue after I pointed out the sedimentary characteristics of the limestone. Which obviously CMI don't mention in the article he referred to. Hiding facts tut tut.



#58 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 January 2017 - 02:08 AM

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. No I wouldn't expect to find them standing on their edge but Mike W would because he reckons the deposit is a result of a massively turbulent gigantic flood carrying sediment.

Or perhaps he doesn't now since he's suddenly gone quiet on this issue after I pointed out the sedimentary characteristics of the limestone. Which obviously CMI don't mention in the article he referred to. Hiding facts tut tut.

 

I know, how silly to think that an 80 foot baleen whale could be found standing on its edge through millions of years of strata..  LOL..

Oh, Wait.... :think:

 

Polystrate Whale Fossil: Diatomaceous earth is formed of the remains of dead diatoms, and because these are microscopic single-celled algae, old-Earth geologists naturally believe that diatom deposits represent lengthy periods of time, with claims of deposition rates as slow as 0.09 millimeters per year. However, as a picture is worth a thousand words, and a well-devised experiment is worth a thousand hypotheses, so too, one good discovery trumps a thousand opinions.

Discovery of an 80-foot long fossilized baleen whale in a diatomite deposit at the Miguelito Mine in Lompoc, California, indicates rapid deposition, as documented in a paper by Dr. Andrew Snelling. If this diatomite was deposited gradually, as claimed by uniformitarian-biased old-earth geologists, the diatomite would not be pure, as it is. (Similarly, the extraordinary purity of some limestone deposits should be sufficient to falsify claims of million-year depositions.) And most significantly for this creature, a slow deposition rate would result in corrosion and scavenging of the whale's bones, because the rib cage, for example, would have been awaiting burial for eons. (Likewise, consider these 171 tadpoles fossilized in diatoms, and as always, rememberthenautiloids.com.) Rather, this whale was buried rapidly in diatomite along with fish, sea lions, birds, and other whales.

Dr. Snelling's on-site investigation was facilitated by Mark Armitage, a published author on dinosaur soft tissue and whom Real Science Radio spoke to for a first-hand account of this paleontological site. Snelling documented the clear evidence indicating the whale's catastrophic burial, and therefore, also, the rapid deposition of the layered, entombing diatomites. While old-earth geologists stubbornly continue to claim super-slow deposition of diatoms, Real Science Radio believes that discoveries like this whale will make them increasingly hesitant to "do the math" in public pronouncements about how long such deposits would take to form. Snelling compares this find with a whale skeleton from the 1900s in the sea near Catalina Island which, as expected, by its decomposition has attracted many sea floor dwelling creatures like clams, mussels, and snails. The Lompoc deposition has no such bottom dwellers and instead the whale's fossil companions include "cod, herring, pipefish, sea liions, and birds, none of which are sea floor bottom dwellers..." making it evident that "the Lompoc assemblage represents a catastrophically buried death assemblage, not the progressive burial of a habitat..." 

This important find was also reported in Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 54, 1976 by Kenneth M. Reese in “Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry.” Lawrence G. Barnes of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County reported that he also saw other whales along with a small seal, fish, and birds in that quarry which is 238–530 feet above sea level and at 34°37'30.40"N, 120°29'01.79"W.

Here's the point: This whale is a 100% typical example of fossils from around the world buried in allegedly slow-forming layers even though such specimens, including tall trees, show no evidence of greater erosion in the allegedly long-exposed portions of the organism. These direct observations trump the knee-jerk slow-burial hypotheses.



#59 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 January 2017 - 04:00 AM

Thanks Blitzking, and this part of your quote in particular highlights the point I made earlier - that slow burial isn't a good way to create a fossil;

 

"Snelling compares this find with a whale skeleton from the 1900s in the sea near Catalina Island which, as expected, by its decomposition has attracted many sea floor dwelling creatures like clams, mussels, and snails. The Lompoc deposition has no such bottom dwellers and instead the whale's fossil companions include "cod, herring, pipefish, sea liions, and birds, none of which are sea floor bottom dwellers..." making it evident that "the Lompoc assemblage represents a catastrophically buried death assemblage, not the progressive burial of a habitat..." 

 

 

Just like I said earlier, if there is no bacterial action or oxygen, because of quick burial, then we wouldn't expect a fossil whale to attract the scavangers of deposition, so such fossil evidence is not good evidence of long ages like they make out, but the opposite - evidence of quick burial, like with the pterosaur still catching it's prey while fossilized. Most fossils comprise of intact forms, eating, fighting, necks thrown back in the suffocation position, or just complete forms not preserved with scavengers as expected from long age evo.

 

as you can see from the blue part of the quote, it's exceptionally OBVIOUS that the cod, herring and sea lions were also buried quickly.



#60 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:10 PM

. . . I suppose you think they would hide those from the world, just to keep the evolutionary story safe huh ?

yes.
barabara mcclintock and her discovery of transposons is a perfect example.

i have yet to resolve the following quote i found in an issue of science:
In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from 884 what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."
- Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

and what about this:
In New Zealand, the government actually stepped in and enacted a law forbidding the public
from entering a controversial archaeological zone. This story appeared in the book,
Ancient Celtic New Zealand, by Mark Doutré.

However, as we will find, this is a complicated conspiracy.
Scientists trying to protect their "hallowed" theories while furthering their careers are not the
only ones who want artifacts and data suppressed. This is where the situation gets sticky.

The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New Zealand because an archaeological dig apparently
showed evidence of a non-Polynesian culture that preceded the Maori--a fact that the tribe was not happy
with. They learned of the results of the excavations before the general public did and complained to the
government. According to Doutré, the outcome was "an official archival document, which clearly showed
an intention by New Zealand government departments to withhold archaeological information from public
scrutiny for 75 years".

The public got wind of this fiasco but the government denied the claim. However, official documents
show that an embargo had been placed on the site. Doutré is a student of New Zealand history and
archaeology. He is concerned because he says that artifacts proving that there was an earlier culture which
preceded the Maori are missing from museums. He asks what happened to several anomalous remains:

Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy red brown hair), originally obtained from a
rock shelter near Watakere, that were on display at the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many
years? Where is the giant skeleton found near Mitimati?

and this:
In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value,
that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective,
investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of
impartial reporting.

The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists"
but bona fide scientists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to
issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to
go to air. Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of
Darwin's theory:

Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would
never accept in other circumstances.

and this:
Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his
investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he
suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his
doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.

Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every
main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory
could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative journalism.

The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the
Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more
myths about science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:

I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand it was deeply
disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as
"loony", "stupid" and "in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 1 anonymous users