Let me know if IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve missed anything from your post, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s been a long day
Okay okay, lets drop the transition thing then, because you know I'm going to keep going until you don't have one and then your going to say it wasn't fossilized lol.
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m ok with that. I find that debates about fossils as evidence tend to go around in circles, and I usually avoid them.
All the species we know today were not created prior to the flood. The different kinds of animals were created prior to the flood. Canines, felines, equines, humans, etc. Perhaps some of these did speciate into many different varieties before the flood, but it dosen't follow that they would have to be the same species as our extant species. They found a badger. This badger could have been different than the badgers we have today. There was only one kind of animal (that the badger belongs to) that got off of the ark. This one kind would have diversified into the species we have today.
I find it difficult to discuss Ã¢â‚¬Å“kindsÃ¢â‚¬Â with creationists, because no one can ever give me a clear definition of what exactly a kind is. The best definition IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve gotten so far has is that kind is more or less the same as the taxonomic group genus. Based on the examples youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve given, it seems like youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re following this rule.
The so-called prehistoric badger is really not a badger at all. It says in the article that while it would have resembled a badger, its closest relative would have been Repenomamus robustus. According to taxonomic classification, not only was this prehistoric mammal of a different genus, it was of a different order (Trichonodonta).
Now do you mean extant species of birds or birds in general? Birds are found buried with dinosaurs. Protoavis, Archaeopteryx, Hesperornis, and I believe some others. I wouldn't expect to find the same species of birds we have today in the fossil record because these diversified from the birds that got off of the ark.
If youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re ok with believing that birds resembling Protoavis gave rise to hummingbirds, chickens, eagles, and penguins, then I really donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see why you would have trouble accepting evolution.
Perhaps these creatures are buried with dinosaurs somewhere and we haven't discovered them yet. More than 90% of the fossils we find are marine organisms.
Or perhaps these creatures just happened to not be buried together.
Or perhaps the body density of reptiles had them settling out in the area where they did.
As long as we're seeing the same kinds, thats okay. I don't see why, in the flood scenario, there would have to be the same species we have today.
If kind=genus (feel free to provide me with a more accurate definition if you know of one), weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re really not seeing the same kinds at all in the lower layers. It could be the case that we havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t found them yet, but given the proposed method of fossilization according to the flood theory suggests that animals were buried alive in their natural habitats all at the same time. Considering weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve found so many dinosaur fossils and a few mammal fossils in the lower layers, it seems reasonable to expect that at least some of those mammals should look the mammals today. The density argument has never struck me as a particularly convincing one, because it has no scientific reasoning backing it up. There is no known reason that reptiles, regardless of how large or small they may be, would all have the same density and thus would settle into the same layers... of heavy sediment, nonetheless, which really doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t promote much floating around.
I wouldn't say entirely different. Maybe not the same species, but the same kinds of animals. If by "evolutionary mechanisms", you mean one kind of animal diversifying into many different species then yes, but one kind of animal would not have become another (ex. canine becoming a feline, equine becoming a bovine, australopithecine becoming a homo, etc.) God did not literally create more species after the flood.
This ties into what I was asking ikester about a genetic barrier. If one kind can diversify into many other species, what would prevent the formation of a new kind? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not talking about anything dramatic, like a horse giving rise to a cat. But is it so unfathomable that two relatively similar kinds, such as dogs and hyenas, could have shared a common ancestor which gave rise to both? The ancestor would have been neither a dog nor a hyena, which is a key feature of evolution. Evolution is not about ducks turning into rabbits or frogs turning into whales. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s about sharing ancestors that were unlike the animals we see today.
I guess that answers the soil question. What I mean by erosion is, if a layer is exposed for millions of years, and it rained throughout that time, wouldn't the layer show erosion from the rain over millions of years? As far as I understand, you don't find erosion in between the layers, but a flat even surface.
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen pictures of layers piled evenly so IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not denying that sometimes this does appear to be the case. But there are plenty of places where the layers are bent and uneven. You also refer to a layer being Ã¢â‚¬Å“exposed for millions of yearsÃ¢â‚¬Â which probably wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be the case. With the exception of events like volcanic eruptions, sediment deposit is generally a slow process. Think of the gradual deposit of silt on the bottom of a river, or the slow build up of organic soil on a forest floor.
A layer filled with shells and plants covering that much space seems consistent with the flood. Why dosen't it seem consistent with a flood to you? I can understand that this layer would work in your view also, but it also fits the flood scenario in my view.
It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem consistent to me because the flood is described as a sudden catastrophic event will a great deal of erosion and sediment deposit. In other words: random and messy. So what are the chances that the same type of sediment would happen to bury the same type of biological organisms in Scotland as it did in Pennsylvania? ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s certainly not impossible, but it probably wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happen all that often either. According to the old Earth view, similar sediment layers are the result of similar gradual processes that are known to occur worldwide.
I agree that polystrate fossils could be consistent with the old earth model, but you shouldn't trust the dating techniques either when there are loads of examples where they have been inconsistent. How would you know your getting the right date?
There are also many examples where several different dating techniques produce almost the exact same result, which confirms that even if the techniques are not completely accurate they are quite precise. Most papers describe the use more than one technique, and if the results differ greatly it is concluded that the age is unknown. Yes, evolutionists still publish inconclusive results.
Its no big deal for me about the species. It was a member of the crocodilia kind though. How come it looked so similar though? Why didn't it grow feathers or undergo a drastic change? Just evolutionary stasis? Why exactly does this stasis happen?
Evolutionary stasis can have two causes: no selective pressure, or stabilizing selective pressure. The latter is more likely. Stabilizing selection occurs when the average traits in a population are favoured, and extremes tend to have a negative affect on survival. If crocodiles have always lived in a relatively stable environment to which they are already well-adapted, developing longer legs or better eyes may not be beneficial. You might argue that a trait like improved vision would always be beneficial, but keep in mind that thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a trade off. Developing a trait that will make you faster, stronger, or smarter requires energy, and nutrients are usually limited.
From the pictures IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen, prehistoric crocodiles looked similar to modern crocodiles but there are some major differences. So it wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be complete evolutionary stasis.
What exactly makes them "more primitive looking"?
In evolution, Ã¢â‚¬Å“primitiveÃ¢â‚¬Â means more like the ancestral species (thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a common misconception that primitive= less complex, but this is not always the case). Rhamphorhynchoidea are considered more primitive because they had long tails and fingers adapted to climbing. Pterodactyloidea had shorter tails and longer wing bones.
Its just that, you never find a creature fossilized with half-a-wing or half-a-feather. Its just weird that they'd all be fossilized after they grew the ability to fly.
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hypothesized that tree-dwelling dinosaurs would first develop the ability to glide, then eventually to fly. If the first Ã¢â‚¬Å“wingsÃ¢â‚¬Â were no more than thin flaps of skin, they may not fossilize at all and the skeleton would appear to have had no flying adaptations. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just a guess though.
We should see the same kinds of mammals we have today. It dosen't have to be the same species.
But in the layers with the dinosaurs, are there even mammals that belong to the same genus as the mammals we see today?
Correct and we do have badgers today though. Maybe not the same species as the one that was found, but that does not effect the flood model negatively.
As I mentioned already, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not in the same order. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not even classified as a rodent, let alone a member of the badger family. Perhaps the lack of mammal fossils does not negatively affect the flood theory (although I would argue otherwise), but it certainly does not support it. On the other hand, the lack of mammals does support evolution.
As far as I know, no evolutionary scientist disputes the fact that these are dinosaur footprints. What other creature could have made them? I mean, that was an interesting point you brought up, but I think they are dinosaurs. They cut out some of these footprints and set them up under dinosaur skeletons in museums.
Actually upon further reading, it seems that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the human tracks and not the dino tracks which have been questioned by evolutionists. And from what I can tell, no consensus has been reached. Creationists claim that they are without a doubt human, and evolutionists claim that they have features which suggest otherwise. When it comes right down to it, these footprints don't seem to be conclusive enough to support either argument.
Okay, thanks. I thought the order was, he says they're fake, dosen't get arrested, takes that back, and then gets arrested, and is there today, but I'm not positive about the whole story, so I'll take your word for it. Even still, there are thousands of these stones and the man said that only some were fake. The real ones can be recognized by patina in the grooves of the drawings. This patina puts the date at a minimum of 200 years old.
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure there are real carved stones, but do they have pictures of dinosaurs?
I don't mean Stegosaur type spines.
"Recent discovery of fossilized sauropod (diplodocid) skin impressions reveals a significantly different appearance for these dinosaurs. The fossilized skin demonstrates that a median row of [dermal] spines were present . . . Some are quite narrow, and others are broader and more conical." - Czerkas, Stephen. New Look For Sauropod Dinosaurs. (Geology: 12/1992, V. 20), p. 1068.
Sauropods on the Ica stones have this "median row of spines".
The spines on those pictures resemble stegosaurus plates in my opinion. TheyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re broad and triangular, not narrow and spiky. The triangular back plates have become a generic feature in non-professional dinosaur drawings, whether they were actually seen on that species or not. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen plenty of cartoon t-rex pictures where thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a row of triangles along the spine. Even the original Godzilla movie (1954) features a giant lizard with plates on his back.
I have not seen a non-creationist source documenting these stones. Charles Hapgood, who I believe is not a creationist, did a report on the dinosaur clay figurines found in Acambaro, Mexico. You should check that out.
Ok thanks, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll take a look if I have time this weekend.