Why do we only find fossils?

So?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-11-2005 09:07 AM

bumpitty bump

I don't see what you don't understand about this. Triceretops lived in the SAME AREA as ancient bison. In EQUAL NUMBERS. HUGE HERDS. Not only that, but they also shared it with MANY OTHER HERDING GRAZERS FROM THE DINOSAUR AND MAMMAL AGES. See what I'm saying? It's impossible. We are talking about MASSIVE ammounts of animals. No room to move kind of amounts.But again, we have already agreed, different groups of creatures were around at different periods of time. This means new groups of creatures are periodically "appearing" and/or disapering. So what is the mechanism behind this? No need really, just answer yes or no:Do new species/groups of animals "pop" into existance periodicaly without the aid of evolution? Sounds interesting, I would love to hear about it in another thread as you said. However I am more interested in hearing your view about how new creatures come to exist.For instance, when the mammoths appear on the earth, what put them there? They weren't there durring the dinos, evolution didn't happen, therefore something must have put them there after the dinos. So where did the mammoth come from?This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-11-2005 02:18 PM

No, we agreed. Mamuths didn't exist at the time of the dino and dinos didn't exist at the time of the mammuths. So who put the mammuths here?ABE: The maxim: if we don't see it in the fossil record at a given time, it probably wasn't there.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-11-2005 02:31 PM

Personaly, I don't think anyone did. I think they just are.For the sake of this conversation where I have accepted the following premisses: I don't know, 'who' if there even was a 'who', put the rocks there.However, it seems to me, that your ID mechanism is proposing that mammuths, humans, and all other creaturs, spontaneusly appeard fully formed on earth due to the mechanations of an inteligent designer.Every few million years, after the old animals "run out", this designer creates a whole bunch of new and different animals and lets them loose on the planet.

So, are you saying that we could potentialy whitness a "poof"?So it's theoreticaly possible that suddenly a herd of Bantha will appear in central park?

I. Why are there so many different animals? II. Why do animals LOOK related? This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-13-2005 01:25 PM

Yes, but as an artist the consequences of my actions do not cause pain and discomfort for billions of beings. Why on earth have a world where something as awfull as desiese could survive?How about parasites, why on earth create the worms that cause elephantiasis? Or malaria?If I paint a picture, I don't consign any sentient, feeling, creatures to a horrible fate. So, you suggest the designer is board so he makes variety? How could a creature that is all knowing ever be anything but eternaly board?When I make a new piece of art it's exciting and pleasurable to me because I am creating something 'new', something I haven't seen before. It is also a test of my skills meaning the result isn't certain. When it comes out right I am elated!An omniscient, all powerfull designer is likely incapable of deriving pleasure from an artistic process. Further, his creations seem malicious.

I agree that this current tack could be leading toward a theological debate which would be OT. My interest was more in discussing the "poofer". The ID that supposedly exists in this world.If I was to discern this creatures nature by examining the world around me, I would determin that this being is , at best, indiferent to our condition, at worst takes pleasure in it.What would you infer randman, from examining a creature like the parasites that cause malaria or elephantiasis?

Excelent Point!Creos. should be totaly abandoning genetics!PTOM for you.

I didn't mention the god of the bible. I mentioned the ID.I think its perfectly within topic to explore this proposition further.You have proposed an ID which "poofs" creatures into existance. If this is true, certain observations should follow from this premiss.What would you expect to see in nature if an ID is real?

That is hillarious!!!I would PTOM you again, but that would be unfair

I don't intend to follow that line of argument further. It's absurdity alone renders it self refuting. I will restate the origional intent of this thread in the hopes others, beyond randman, will contribute.

a repost of message 54.If anyone is interested in adressing these issues from a YEC/creationist prespective, please do so.

quote:

---

I think La Brea is definative proof that the YEC view on things is pretty much flawed. Two things are easely proven using La Brea as an example:

1) The earth is far older than 6,000 years.

​

2) The biodiversety of earth has changed thrughout the millenia.

Point number 2 is intriguing, because it also acts as proof for evolution (or at least leaves a very big unanswerd question for the creationist). Where did all these strange creatures go, and where did they come from?

​

After all, we can safely say dinos weren't arround to get stuck in the pit. Further, we can also say that the critters in the pit weren't arround when dinos were around.

​

The later point (2) needs to be elaborated a bit here:

1) Dino fossil beds contain no post ice-age fauna 'intermingled' with pre ice-age fauna. Likewise, post ice-age La Brea, shows that no dinos are intermingled with post ice-age mammals.

​

2) Since La Brea is a near perfect cross section of a functioning ancient eccosystem, how can we see any of these creatures fitting in a nich with dinosaurs?

That is to say, how are ancient bison going to compete for grazing land with herds of tricerotops? There simply isn't enugh room for all of these creatures, they can't all be filling the same niches.

​

It is impossible to imagine a time where such vast numbers of mega-fauna (dinos and ancient mammals) were roaming the earth together with the animals of today, and somehow surviving along side each other with out eating themselves out of house and home.

​

Conclusion:

​

This suggests evolution to me. However, the creationist would have much trouble addressing the 2 points above which can be safely infered by examining La Brea.

---

This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-15-2005 12:23 PM