The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Let me clarify , I was referring to marine conditions.

You say: "As soft-bodied bilaterians, things like, say, Dickinsonia do seem like plausible precursors to bilaterians with exoskeletons, with species with cataphract armor as an intermediate stage."Please post your evidence. what are your sources?

And you don't think that world-wide marine oxygen concentrations have any relationship to the oxygen content of the atmosphere ?

Well, they're more primitive than the Cambrian fauna, which acquired hard parts, this being the definition of the Cambrian explosion.

I agree that organisms with a common ancestor can end up very dissimilar. For example: you and an oak tree have a common ancestor and yet are markedly different.What I don't see is why you wish to appeal to this fact, rather than, for example, vociferously denying it.

Context is pretty clear. Its referring to breeding pairs of every kind. That is what Noah did. He brought breeding pairs of every kind onto the boat. Some kinds he brought on 7 breeding pairs, some kinds, just one breeding pair. I don't see any clear restriction to only one pair in Genesis 6 and 7.Bring on breeding pairs from every kind.
Sometimes seven breeding pairs, sometimes one breeding pair.
It's splitting semantic hairs to see any contradiction there. The bible was not a legal document.

quote:

---

I explained myself. I don't believe humans evolved from primitive chordates. That then is a strawman argument.

---

It is not a strawman. It is a logical consequence of claiming the sudden appearance of phyla as evidence for creation. If you want to claim that particular groups are individual creations you need to establish that THOSE groups "suddenly appeared".Seeing the implications of your arguments is a far different thing from constructing a strawman. Saying that using the "sudden appearance" of phyla as evidence of creation implicitly identifies phyla as "kinds" is not talking about what you believe - but it is talking about what your arguments are saying.

That argument is from evolutionary assumption. You cannot use the unproven theory of evolution as evidence for evolution. You also need to start giving evidence for your statements. My argument is proven from recent research of Australian marsupials. Two vastly outwardly different breeds can have the same genetic structure. In creationist terms this speaks of rapid diversity of the same kind.

We proved it. No-one told you?But in any case, you're missing my point. You, not I, pointed to these marsupials and admitted that they were very different, and admitted that they have a common ancestor. I am of course glad that you admit this, but puzzled to know why you think it's a point in your favor.

Nope. You suffer the same disease all creationists suffer from. Not knowing enough. In science, those relevant scientists have evidence for their assumptions.Also, biological evolution is not an assumption. It's a fact-based conclusion.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Nope. It's not assumption. Seeing the header of this threat, have a look at http://www.stratigraphy.org/...t/ChronostratChart2016-10.pdf. Fossils.Those different colours you see are not rock "layers" at all. They are time periods. What different organisms lived together at the same time.Read the whole website. It's from the International Committee on Stratigraphy. Read exactly how the international geological commutiny get to their conclusions. In there you'll read what the Cambrian System/Period is. In there you will also read about the Cambrian. You can read about what the fossils found in the Fortunian, Stages 2, 3, 4, 5, the Drumian, Guzhangian, Paibian, Jiangshan, and Stage 10 Stages/ Ages are. Together with the absolute dates.You will also read about stratigraphy, Biozones, etc.Evolution is not an assumption. It's a conclusion.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

you say evolution has been proved it, but there exists no core evidence for the theory of evolution.Nearly every modern organism has more coding genes than a prokaryote, therefore evolution needs to prove that unique coding genes can be produced in nature. The only evidence I have seen is a dormant gene whose function was re-introduced through a mutation. That is not a unique coding gene.So evolution is without evidence for the sudden appearance of most phyla, and is without evidence for the basic process that explains the existence of nearly every organism as per evolutionary theory. That is quite a lack.Transitional sequences sometimes do exist, but even this merely proves rapid outward adaptation. Most transitional sequences are unproven guesswork that could very well represent the diversity of multiple kinds, rather than adaptation.

This one is funny, too. He-he-he. "Core evidence". It's like a "Golden Bullet". It seems as if mindspawn really is not too bright when it comes to how science works.

Looking at your chart, yes there are geological layers. Yes there are always predominant organisms in each age. Yet some organisms survive in niche areas and the fossils of niche orgaisms will always be difficult to find. This is why the coelecanth was such a surprise, it wasn't seen in multiple layers and was therefore presumed extinct. Yet it was always there throughout the epochs. The predictability of creationism is that increasingly modern organisms will be found in the lower layers, and sometimes ancient organisms will be found living today. This is what we find.I just don't see how some organisms being predominant in certain epochs is somehow proof of evolution. Please explain why your link is in any manner any proof of evolution?

Wrong in your first sentence. Those are not layers.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.