162 replies to this topic

[jason777]

....Yet the fossil record is still organised according to something.

According to what? Surely you did'nt observe any of these supposed changes in DNA,I have'nt even seen any of the predicted transitional fossils.

The fossil record does follow a pattern,but not one that supports evolution. It follows a pattern of created kinds sorted by ecological levels and environments. If you know of a spot where we can observe these 'so called' changes without assuming or piecing it together by circular reasoning,then please share this location and we'll look at the fossils.





Thanks.

[AFJ]

Something has just occurred to me, and its repercussions are quite large if you think about it.
When the global flood is debated, YECs and "evolutionists" often talk about how life, in the fossil record, is graduated. Mainstream scientists say this, if evidence of anything, is evidence of evolutionary change over the earth's history. Macrevolutionary events etc. Creationists, on the other hand, dont have a good answer. Why is the fossil record so clean cut?

Mammals above a certain depth. Reptiles above another. Amphibians above another. There is overlap, of course, but nothing that could disprove evolutionary logic. Just add to it. There are not, as someone famously said (whose name temporarily escapes me) rabbits in the precambian.

Surely, given a global flood, we would see, not only a worldwide, single strata of flood geology (as we see, with, well, floods), but also a disorded pile of fossils.

The fossil record is not organised according to a given organism's mass.
The fossil record is not organised according to a given organism's ability to swim or survive underwater.
The fossil record is not organised according to labels we give to modern geography

These are the kind of answers YEC often resort to.  Ive even read something about the fossil record being ordered according to how god liked the organism in question.

....Yet the fossil record is still organised according to something.
Think about it like this:

The fossil record is organised according to the history of changes in DNA.

that happens to be true, by the way.

You will find, in modern species, and even in so called "living fossils", that they have acquired the DNA of a species below them. It is never the other way around.

Quite why the flood waters were able to deposit corpses based on the heirachy in DNA is a mystery.

Pick the bones out of that one me dears

Have you ever been to a fossil dig? If we find marine fossils in the mountains then the earth supposedly uplifted--so please--it's all fit into the timescale and spoon fed to you via the universities and textbooks.

I've often wondered if Lyell would have discovered whale fossils in the desert--would he have written all that stuff against the flood?

[Flatland]

Have you ever been to a fossil dig?  If we find marine fossils in the mountains then the earth supposedly uplifted--so please--it's all fit into the timescale and spoon fed to you via the universities and textbooks.

I've often wondered if Lyell would have discovered whale fossils in the desert--would he have written all that stuff against the flood?

The earth does uplift. Ever heard of the Himalaya Mountains? It's actually growing by a few centimeters every year.

So why are the fossils arranged in perfect order? Just like everything else, creationists have no answer.

[Yorzhik]

A homogenous, worldwide flood.

This is not what YEC's believe.

And don't forget, what layer one happens to be in is decided by the fossils therein. You see the problem with that don't you?

[jason777]

no jason777 that is a completely contradictory position. According to YEC, a worldwide flood occured. A homogenous, worldwide flood. The earth's surface, presumably, would have been mud underwater. So all we would find are flood desposits. We wouldnt find desert sandstones, with wind patterns in.

We would find global layers of chalk formed from a mass kill of marine plankton.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=25960

We would also find mass fossil deposits that had to be deposited by catastrophe.

http://www.youngeart...-fossil-deposit

we would find that desert dunes are actually the result of high turbid flow and deposited on a much larger scale than observed today.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=47328

This position makes even less sense. Somehow the flood was able to characterise and sort ecological niches? Okay, well in that case, african herbivorous mammals should be lower down with african herbivorous dinosaurs (and vice versa), modern day plants should all be buried too, and whales should be down there with other large krill-eaters from the past. You havent thought about your position enough.

Dinosaurs are cold-blooded and only able to live in tropical niches. Have you ever seen an aligator in Minnesota? Do you think polar bears and dinosaurs should be buried together if they existed at the same time? Why you guys are never able to understand the fundamentals of ecology is beyond me.

Dinosaur and mammal fossils are both found in Africa. Can you find a geologic cross-section and place the fossils in the order you claim they are in? You will have to correlate one layer into the next,because dinosaurs grazed in jungle tree tops and large herbivorous mammals graze in grassy plains,both of which are found in Africa,but not the same spot.




Enjoy.

[AFJ]

The earth does uplift.  Ever heard of the Himalaya Mountains?  It's actually growing by a few centimeters every year. 

So why are the fossils arranged in perfect order?  Just like everything else, creationists have no answer.

Of course the earth uplifts--my point is that when something is not in order unis just tell a story as to how something got to where it is.

The "fossils are in order" is a totally false charge.

First of all, the fossils are 95% marine and found all over the world--just like a world wide flood would also predict. The flood account was around for testing long before James Hutton. Hutton never saw a whale in the desert, nor the deluge, so he assumed "all things continue the same" just like it was predicted in scripture.

Secondly, have you ever heard of an animal graveyard?The world is a graveyard

Here's just an excerpt from this article:

...billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids (figure 2) are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon (figure 1).1 This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2)....

...Hundreds of thousands of marine creatures were buried with amphibians, spiders, scorpions, millipedes, insects, and reptiles in a fossil graveyard at Montceau-les-Mines, France....

So maybe you can explain how billions of nautiloids were quickly buried over over an area of 30,000 km2 x 7 feet deep--15 % are found in an upright position. That's a massive amount of sediment--it would have taken megatons of water to move it quickly.

Maybe you can explain how graveyards are found with so many mixed species in them, both land and marine organisms together.

Third, that's why I asked had the poster ever been to a fossil dig. They've found dinosaur fossils several feet in the dirt. I've seen in it magazines. Why after 65 m years?

So you see, your textbooks have brainwashed you.

[Scanman]

Dinosaurs are cold-blooded and only able to live in tropical niches. Have you ever seen an aligator in Minnesota? Do you think polar bears and dinosaurs should be buried together if they existed at the same time? Why you guys are never able to understand the fundamentals of ecology is beyond me.

Dinosaur and mammal fossils are both found in Africa. Can you find a geologic cross-section and place the fossils in the order you claim they are in? You will have to correlate one layer into the next,because dinosaurs grazed in jungle tree tops and large herbivorous mammals graze in grassy plains,both of which are found in Africa,but not the same spot.
Enjoy.

Mammals are found in every climate known...in jungles, savannahs, deserts, frozen tundra and the ocean...yet no modern day mammals are ever found in the same stratigraphic layer with dinosaurs.

Biostratigraphy of forams is so precise, that petro-geologist at any point in the globe, can easily identify stratigraphic layers from a core drill.

Forams show a detailed evolutionary development, from the lower strata levels on upward. They are virtually the same size and mass, yet are never intermixed between strata levels. It would be impossible for a flood to lay these microscopic fossils down an such a precise order.

Peace

[jason777]

Mammals are found in every climate known...in jungles, savannahs, deserts, frozen tundra and the ocean...yet no modern day mammals are ever found in the same stratigraphic layer with dinosaurs.

Thats an equivocation. Even the platypus goes all the way back to 100+ million years. Just because it demonstrates variation does'nt mean it's not a platypus.

Biostratigraphy of forams is so precise, that petro-geologist at any point in the globe, can easily identify stratigraphic layers from a core drill.

They said the same thing about paleozoic graptolites.

Graptolites, Sue Rigby, British Geol. Survey, "All paleontologist dream of finding a 'living fossil.' Noel Dilly, it seems has done so... As graptolites are arguably the most important zone fossils of the Lower Palaeozoic (570-360 MYBP), this is far from an esoteric issue." Nature, Vol.363, p.209, 3/18/'93.

And how about Neopilina?

Niles Eldridge, "...were thought to have been extinct by the end of the Middle Devonian [385 MYA]. Modern Neopilina species, however, were dredged from the deep oceans in the 1950’s..." Fossils, 1991, p.101.

Forams show a detailed evolutionary development, from the lower strata levels on upward. They are virtually the same size and mass, yet are never intermixed between strata levels. It would be impossible for a flood to lay these microscopic fossils down an such a precise order.

Perhaps you could show us some of those if you have time. I prefer not to comment on something I can't see or verify. And what do mean by lower strata and up? Cambrian to present?




Thanks.　

[Scanman]

Secondly, have you ever heard of an animal graveyard?

Animal graveyards are not uncommon. They typically consist of animals from a specific era. (i.e. elephant graveyards, dinosaur graveyards)

They are found at natural flood/river trap pockets, tar pits, areas of volcanic activity.

So maybe you can explain how billions of nautiloids were quickly buried over over an area of 30,000 km2 x 7 feet deep--15 % are found in an upright position.  That's a massive amount of sediment--it would have taken megatons of water to move it quickly.

Austins' numbers are extrapolated from what he counted on the nautilous canyon walls, and are pure speculation. The natiloids that he examined were all mostly intact (could such a turbulent flood have done that?). What about the possibility that the nautilods in the Nautilous Canyon formation were from a local flood event?

Maybe you can explain how graveyards are found with so many mixed species in them, both land and marine organisms together.

Animals caught in a river flood would be mixed with marine life.

They've found dinosaur fossils several feet in the dirt.

It's called erosion...

Peace

[Scanman]

Mammals are found in every climate known...in jungles, savannahs, deserts, frozen tundra and the ocean...yet no modern day mammals are ever found in the same stratigraphic layer with dinosaurs.

Thats an equivocation. Even the platypus goes all the way back to 100+ million years. Just because it demonstrates variation does'nt mean it's not a platypus.

Your response makes no sense to the point that I was making...and how is that an equivocation?

Peace

[Scanman]

They said the same thing about paleozoic graptolites.

Paleozoic Graptolites and Dillys 'living version(Cephalodiscus graptiloides) bear little resemblance to each other.

By Dilly's own admission the chemical structure of the graptolite rhabdosome and that of his living fossil is only "similar," not identical.

Graptolite Link

Whoever authored your source neglected to include Dillys' remarks.

And how about Neopilina?

There are many examples of creatures that have found an evolutionary niche, where the stresses are not great enough to produce change...dragonflies, horseshoe crabs, scorpions, etc...

Perhaps you could show us some of those if you have time. I prefer not to comment on something I can't see or verify. And what do mean by lower strata and up? Cambrian to present?

Foram Evolution Link


Here is a link that goes into the many forms of Forams and their biostratigraphic use.
Foram website

Peace

[scott]

Mcstone, Fossils aren't recorded on DNA. Fossils are rocks, therefore they don't contain DNA.

Of course, Blood, and Bone marrow has been Found in numerous types fossilized of bones, but then again Red Blood Cells, don't contain DNA. Plus that confirms more YEC evidence because why in the world would those organic substances last for over 65 million years??? Seriously.

DNA progression is so false, that just by looking at the fossils (rock) one can quickly see the illogic in thinking that. Why even begin to think that? Oh we will take modern DNA samples, and test them with Fossilized DNA samples ( which don't exist...). Therefore DNA progression studies based on fossils is pure speculation, and a very huge assumption on the evolutionist part.

Progressive Homology in the DNA of fossils is so fundamentaly false, that I can't even begin to understand why you'd continue on with such an idea. The fossils can't be ordered that way because:

They don't contain DNA.

Also Mcstone your Idea that all dinosaurs were warm-blooded is patently false, because even paleontologist speculate on this, it is not a solid fact, and you know it. Paleontologist debate the Warm-Blooded vs Cold Blooded all the time. Why do they speculate on it? Because they have no solid evidence to test this on.

The T-Rex may have been warm-blooded though, based on the Red Blood cells found in it's bone, which were very bird-like in nature, but the T-Rex has a Bird-Shaped frame, and for many years this has been thought about.

Now, what about Triceratops? What about Diplodocus? Those could've been cold-blooded because we have no evidence to make such claims as ALL dinosaurs being warm-blooded... A few carnivores maybe, and a few herbivores, but certainly not all of them.

[AFJ]

Better than interpretations of men--here's the real raw dig. This is a site with alot of pictures of a dinosaur dig. These fossils are found in the dried mud and probably mudstone. The dinosaurs are mixed with other marine life by a river valley. Again, we can argue the formation of the river valley. But it's not hard to imagine that this river valley being a result of the drainage stage of the deluge, cut through mud laid down earlier.

You will notice very little stratification if any, as if this was a thick deposit of mud. Also notice how the bones are twisted, mangled, and broken apart.

dig


dig2

[AFJ]

Here is a link that goes into the many forms of Forams and their biostratigraphic use.
Foram website

Peace

I have seen this strip before. This has been sorted by man. The specimens are not at the point of find. Neither is there any proof that some of these are not the same species suffering from deformation or decay.

I hope you view the dig pictures in the previous post.

[jason777]

have seen this strip before. This has been sorted by man. The specimens are not at the point of find. Neither is there any proof that some of these are not the same species suffering from deformation or decay.

Did you also notice how he ignored the fact that creationists consider the paleocene post-flood strata? I figured that is where he would try to hide a "The flood can't do this" strawman.

Scanman,

The geolgic evidence is strongly against the tertiary strata as being formed by the global flood.




Enjoy.

[jason777]

By Dilly's own admission the chemical structure of the graptolite rhabdosome and that of his living fossil is only "similar," not identical.

More equivocation? I guess a poodle is only similar to a dog as well. Why can't you guys just be honest and admit there is no evidence of Graptolite or Foram evolving into anything but slight variations of the original species?



Enjoy.

[Scanman]

I have seen this strip before.  This has been sorted by man. 

No, they are actually sorted according to strata... lower/oldest to higher/youngest.

They are what petro-geologist use to understand what strata they are dealing with in order to predict the presence of oil.

The specimens are not at the point of find. 

Of course they are...just not all together because they represent different geological eras and strata.

They are found all over the world...they are biostratigraphic markers.

Neither is there any proof that some of these are not the same species suffering from deformation or decay.

This is grasping at straws...pure speculation...Forams are the most well documented and studied fossils in existance.

I hope you view the dig pictures in the previous post.

I viewed them all...funny all of the fossils seemed to be ...wait...dinosaurs.

It actually looks like a fun thing to do.

Peace