|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The manatee and the dugong
prove clearly that Darwin was wrong: subject to correction by sexual selection they wouldn't have lasted this long.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Are you calling me a liar because I used the word "suddenly" instead of the phrase "seemingly rapid"?
Well, geologically speaking, tens of millions of years is a short period of time, but in human terms, it doesn't 'seem rapid' at all.I don't see the wording as being that great a difference. Your argument is with Darwin, not me. He saw the flaws in his own theory and those same flaws stand today. Evolution is flawed because of the "seemingly rapid" appearance of organisms without intermediates. A weakness in the theory which Darwin recognised. Except to a YEC, I suppose,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
minspawn writes: And ignores all those multiple non-marine coastal transgressions and regressions. My explanation does take into account multiple marine transgressions. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This one was just as funny.
mindsawn writes: Yeah, I always wondered how exactly flowering plants chose to be outrunning the ferns in going for the hills. As for being ridiculous, that is opinion. When faced with flooding, I would choose highlands. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Sure. Trilobites evolved from 'primative morphology' to 'modern morphology' until they died out (300 million years after their first appearance). More than 20 000 species of trilobites that diverged from the primative 'states' have been described from fossils. OK, but I still don't see why you're jumping up and down on him We do think that all species are descended from the Last Universal Common Ancestor, because that's what it means. If you're disagreeing with him, I think you may be arguing at cross-purposes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
mindspawn writes: I don't see the wording as being that great a difference. Your argument is with Darwin, not me. He saw the flaws in his own theory and those same flaws stand today. Evolution is flawed because of the "seemingly rapid" appearance of organisms without intermediates. A weakness in the theory which Darwin recognised. Darwin clearly stated that the geologic record was flawed, not the theory. He wrote an entire chapter in Origin of Species about it. "We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created. "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html The problem is that the geologic record is not continuous. It isn't a problem with the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... our argument is with Darwin, not me. He saw the flaws in his own theory and those same flaws stand today. ... Not right, he saw that the geological record was incomplete. That doesn't add up to flaws in his theory. He observed that species change over time, and that new species arise from variation in the breeding population and natural selection culling less fit individuals from the breeding population. His insight was that this basic process was sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth and in the fossil record.
... his own theory ... (1) Can you tell me what that theory was? (2) Modern biology has expanded on the original theory, can you tell me what the modern theory of evolution is? Because I have yet to see you define what you think the theory of evolution is. If your concept is flawed for what the theory of evolution is, then your whole argument would be flawed and pointless. Seeing as your argument is flawed and pointless, I suspect that the error lies in your misconception of the theory of evolution. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
His excuse for why we can't find land mammals is that they were all in Siberia, and the fossils that they would doubtless have deposited are all hidden by the Siberian Traps. To which we might reply: The above sentence describes classic mindspawn nonsense. According to the BS he has posted in these forums, radiometric dating is wrong in a way that requires us to currently live in a universal, deadly neutron flux. He finds confirmation in sources that say that neutron fluxes are hard to measure with high precision. In other words, we may only know the neutron flux to a couple of significant figures, so therefore the flux might be ten orders of magnitude off? He also claimed that varve chronology, which confirms at least C14 dating was off because of 'salt tides' despite the fact that the periodicity of the tide cycles would not produce the result he claimed, and despite that his own references indicated that his explanation was bogus. And here is his made up natural history all of which fails to even address any of the geological record except the particular point he is focused on, and which is primarily excuses for why there is no evidence. That coupled with his "sparse" equals "none" arguments regarding the fossil record. I understand why many folks find his posts entertaining. For the most part he does not use PRATTs which alone is refreshing. But there are good reasons why nobody would repeat his ideas a thousand times. His ideas do not survive the light brought by even cursory inspection. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Creationists have been poking at C14 dating for decades and haven't come up with anything that casts doubt on the method.
All of these failures cast doubt instead on creation "science."Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Creationists have been poking at C14 dating for decades ... Except when it confirms biblical events, dead sea scrolls, etc. ... which leads to the question of when did the accuracy change. The usual answer is the flood, but then it should be able to date when the flood occurred ... by a marked difference between C14 dates and dates derived by annual methods (tree rings, varves, ice cores, etc) ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You quoted Darwin:
"We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created. "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html So Darwin acknowledges that the fossil record appears as if species are suddenly created. This still favors creationism because sudden creation explains the sudden appearance of species better than evolution which gives excuses for the huge lapses in the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
mindspawn writes: So Darwin acknowledges that the fossil record appears as if species are suddenly created. This still favors creationism because sudden creation explains the sudden appearance of species better than evolution which gives excuses for the huge lapses in the fossil record. They aren't excuses. They are facts. There are massive gaps in the geologic record. There are millions and millions of years between fossil bearing strata with no fossil bearing strata in between them. Also, when has magic ever been a better explanation than known and understood natural processes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So Darwin acknowledges that the fossil record appears as if species are suddenly created. This still favors creationism because sudden creation explains the sudden appearance of species better than evolution which gives excuses for the huge lapses in the fossil record. Are you aware of just how sparse the fossil record was in the 1850s? And do you think nothing has changed since then? That paleontologists have been idle all that time? Its creation "scientists" who don't bother to go out and look for new evidence, not real scientists.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So Darwin acknowledges that the fossil record appears as if species are suddenly created. This still favors creationism because sudden creation explains the sudden appearance of species better than evolution which gives excuses for the huge lapses in the fossil record. Except that in the creationist fantasy all the varieties of life were not magicked into existence successively over hundreds of millions of years (which would conform to your inaccurate beliefs about the fossil record) but were all magicked up in just one week In The Beginning. Which leaves you with much, much, bigger lapses to explain away (see this thread) --- and, as we have seen, a bunch of excuses for them which on examination turn out to be wretched ridiculous nonsense. Take mammals, for example. We have in fact got beautiful sequences of intermediate forms showing their evolution from more basal tetrapods. But suppose we didn't, suppose for a moment that your daydreams about the fossil record (based on an outdated passage written in the 1860s) were correct. Then you would still have to face the awkward question of why the fossil record shows mammals suddenly appearing some time after the Flood (which you place at the PT boundary). That isn't what your creation myth says, mindspawn. As it is, since we do have the intermediates in the fossil record, you face two questions --- why were there no mammals before the Flood, and what are all these intermediate forms doing? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I haven't got time to deal with all of your posts, being very involved in work lately. However I logged in and saw this post , which is impressive due to Dr Adequate's ability to get to grips with my viewpoint, and also I enjoy his dry humour. So this is the post I will currently make time to respond to. I deal with some of your points in point form.
1) You say that the deposition of the Siberian Traps would have annihilated all the mammals. True. Hence Noah would most likely have located the ark by a river delta or lagoon least exposed to the traps. ie exposed to the downriver flooding of volcanic induced torrential downpours before being exposed to the volcanic activity. 2) By focussing on pre-boundary marine portions of Siberia you imply that the entire Siberian region was marine before the PT boundary. Without that implication your point is irrelevant. But with that implication you are incorrect. So choose, you are either making an incorrect point, or an irrelevant one. In fact there were major terrestrial areas in Siberia during the Permian. Kindly refer to the link which shows a map of the late Permian which shows a large terrestrial region. Other maps show how the Permian traps dominated this terrestrial portion of Siberia.USGS.gov | Science for a changing world 3) You refer to the flourishing of coral alongside trilobites if I understand you correctly. I have no problem conceding that point because there are other reasons why organisms would have radiated out from a central location. ie trilobites feed on bacteria, yet lobsters feed mainly on fish droppings. Fish have various feeding habits but its possible that their eco-systems are primarily based on seaweed and plankton distribution. So its possible that the radiation of prevalent species was caused through first bacterial radiation of both anoxic and aerobic types of bacteria depending on prevalent conditions, then trilobites suited to either habitat. Then a radiation of seaweed and plankton followed by various types of fish which fed on the plants or the plankton or eachother. Then the "bottom feeders" which feed on fish droppings. This is just a suggestion which requires more research, my main point being that conditions change and therefore the prevalent organisms change even though the others are still around in niche locations. 4) Reptiles were flood survivors , being able to handle marine conditions. Mammals numbers were minor during the Triassic and confined to the Turkish/Iraq border area and the southern Turkey highlands. Even the birds were of small number and took time to radiate and breed in sufficient numbers to be discovered in dinosaur fossil layers. Only the small fast breeding mammals/marsupials and of course birds could infiltrate the Jurassic landscape, they could fill ecological gaps that the large reptiles could not. 5) Pre-boundary reptiles are not that different to Triassic and Jurassic kinds. The various kinds of archosaurs and even others like the placerias have a strong resemblance to what we know as dinosaurs. 6) Regarding the extent of the fossil record, my view is not as extreme as the popular flood model which tries to explain most geologic layers before the KT boundary as flood related. I focus mainly on late-Permian to early Triassic as flood layers which does explain a significant portion thereof. ie I am not confined solely to the P-T boundary but sometimes late Permian fossil graveyards containing disarticulated fossils reflect the flood. Also sometimes early Triassic layers with limited fossilisation reflect the flood. Not that I understand geology well, this just appears to be where science confirms flooding as per my non-stretched timeframes model. (evolution having stretched timeframes) 7) Regarding my preference for the P-T boundary, my main difference is my absolute respect for science and mainstream geology. I dispute the timeframes of mainstream science, and I dispute the assumption that one predominant group of kinds evolved into another group of kinds, but I do not dispute general consensus concerning the changing world conditions over time and the predominant kinds within each geologic period. The P-T boundary does actually show flooding in the geologic record, and has a logical radiation of marine survivors followed by ark survivors. The K-T boundary however does appear to be collision related (iridium layer etc) as opposed to flood related.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024