Creationist's Problem: Fossil Layers and Humans

The evidence belongs in the dates and dating forum I would presume. Please lets hear it! I've been here a year and no one has bothered to show us.You also need to handle the evidence which falsifies the idea of a young earth.I'd suggest you have a look at:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Then resist the temptation to make assertions that you don't have time or the knowledge to back up. That goes for the geologic layers too. You aren't the first to make those assertions (heck you're not even in the first 100) and the result is the same whenever anyone is asked.

How many "should" there be? I'm pretty sure, at this point, that you haven't done the research. Research does not consist of reading without suspicion literalist web sites. Research would be actually reading something about the actual discoveries. Ideally the original papers but that is a bit too much to expect. Popularizations by the actual researchers is a pretty resonable subsitute.This is an assertion, again! Now it is time to explain, in your own words, with supporting evidence why they should be described as "iffy".{qsThe link you most likely think is the best between man and ape is, "Australopithecus afarensis." I believe that since pretty much all the evidence points to the guess that it is an ape, that it is an ape and an ape only. [/qs]There are, of course, a series of "links".Since you've done so much research you're aware of all the same evidence we are. It is therefore odd that we are so far apart in our assessement of it. We should try to figure out why that is.Perhaps if you started by describing both how many links there "should be" and why you think that number is reasonable. Then you could describe what you think a "link" should be like.It appears that we have different ideas on what a link is. That might explain the discrepancy.

Care to show your calculations? I think that what you are saying is so obvious I don't know why you bother to state it. Some species are represented by one specimen. It is, of course, very desirable to have as many samples of a species as you can find. Off the top of my head I'd say that a majority of species are represented by more than one sample. So? I think you're right he said something like that. But his "now" isn't our "now". When he made the statement, 150 years ago, there were pretty much zero homonid fossils. He, rightly, pointed out that his theory required more as support. Guess what! We found 'em.Another thing we have learned in the meantime is a lot about how fossils form (and more importantly how they aren't easily formed).This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-07-2004 04:59 PM

Well, it's not anything against you. It's just that a lot of people have dropped in here made similar claims and then left when it turned out that it wasn't that easy. I think it is fair that I might be very skeptical.You might note that some of us have read a lot of the creationist material (I wouldn't say I know it nearly as well as some). I have some background in the sciences. Not enough to directly judge all of the material but enough to know that some of it is dishonest. When someone lies to me once I'm very inclinded to suspect them the next time.Besides as a place to start the dating issue seems to me to be the right one. If the earth is actually 6,000 years old then I would pretty much toss out the ToE.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-07-2004 05:03 PM

I think it depends on how you take the paraphrase. As worded it is incorrect and you are right. However, I think, IIRC that Darwin did express a need for more evidence from the fossil record. It was, aftr all, very, very sparse at his time of writing.To say that he was talking about what we should find "now" (today) is absurd of course. I'm sure Probocis didn't mean anything so foolish.

Of course the fossil record is incomplete! It always will be. So what? What conclusion can you draw from this?What has occured in the last 150 years is 10,000's of fossils have been uncovered. These have filled in the nearly complete void that existed in Darwin's time. They may fill it in rather sparsely but they range across around 3,0000,000,000 years of time, the whole earth and all the major groups of life forms.Certainly there are holes. As you note we have learned a lot about taphonomy. This gives us some idea of just how few organisms will leave remains.I don't get your point. Could you explain what you've learned from the listed references and what relavance that has to the discussion?

And you actually think this makes any difference to the obvious holes in her suggestion? Did you type without a moments thougt at all? Amazing.Now think about that a bit and then come back to discuss it.

Perhaps you could describe in some what more detail what you think occured.If you happen to be a YEC (young earther) you might start in the dates and dating forum and answer the issues presented there.Clearly there was a time when there were no humans on earth. A very long time. Given that we are clearly closely connected to both extant animals and even closer to other animals that existed before us it isn't unreasonable to conclude that we are connected to them with them being our distant ancestors (or related to them).If you disagree perhaps you'd like to specify why you disagree and explain why there is such a strong appearance of this being what actually occured.

I don't think that you're making a fool out of yourself. As I said in another thread; we are all ignorant in more areas than we are knowledgable. Being ignorant is acceptable. Staying ignorant when an opportunity is there to learn is not acceptable.Now, you must not think that all we say is correct just because we are adults or because we sound clever or because some of us have advanced degrees. Your challenge in life is to figure out how to separate the BS from things that have some chance of being right.Ask lots of questions, learn how to think and then t h i n k! You have to make up your own mind.

LOL, around here that is a lot like just jumping into the tiger cage. Remember, most of the people here really like to discuss, debate and argue. If you "toss something out" without thinking about it a bit you get eaten.It's nothing personal (well not most of the time) it's just the nature of the game.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-20-2004 02:51 PM