|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Those on this site can mock as you will. Deride. Insult. C'mon mindspawn, roll back the persecution act. No-one is deriding or insulting you. True, I have said that you lack understanding of biology and palaeontology, but that's not an insult. 99.99% of people lack understanding of this subject, simply because it's a vast and complicated subject that's extremely difficult to get a handle on. There's no shame in not knowing these things. I don't pretend to be an expert myself; my palaeontological knowledge is decidedly lacking. But you know what? I'm not the one telling the scientific community that they're all wrong and that I know better!
Yet the facts are there for all to see. And if any of the "facts" in your posts were actually real facts, you might have a point. In reality, 90% of the "facts" you rely upon are bogus. And yes, everyone but you can see it.
It would take a unique non-conformist mind-set that searches for truth rather than respect from peers to acknowledge the truth of what I say. And that's how you see yourself is it? The lone voice in the wilderness, surrounded by biased fools who scoff at your genius? Hubristic rubbish. I'm not going to lather you up by offering false flattery; that really would be an insult. I tell it as I see it because it would be patronising to do otherwise. And what I see is someone who is out of his depth and who is wrong about nearly every single claim he makes. Worse, you are insistently wrong, making the same false claims, over and over, ignoring contradictory evidence as if it had never been raised. That is not the path to truth. I applaud you for walking back your error about arthropod diets. That was cool of you. But it's worth nothing if you immediately replace it with another falsehood that you just made up. You need to grow a thicker skin, take responsibility for your own arguments and, above all, fact check. Unless you start to do these things, you'll continue to spout bizarre nonsense forever. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Of course it goes well beyond a single mutation. Speciation events will often occur in a limited area, and given the size of the areas you are talking about much more evolution can occur before the population breaks out into the wider world. This is precisely what your own sources suggest happened. It is also the case that we were missing intermediates covering whale evolution, and the return to an aquatic existence until palaeontologists found them in Pakistan. It is also the case that these events can produce "sudden appearances" - thus you are in no position to claim that trilobites, for instance, were created because they "suddenly appeared" - by using them as an example of a "unique location" you have admitted that their history prior to their appearance is unknown.
quote: Well that is rather obviously not the case, since there are numerous intermediates that we would not expect if creationism were true. Your best example is the Cambrian explosion, but even that is unclear - and there is evidence suggesting that the "sudden appearance" is a limit of the fossil record. Compare with your idea of modern mammals living in Siberia all the way from the Precambrian to the end of the Permian which has no evidence at all - all you can do is point to things that might make it plausible, and even then they do not go nearly far enough. (For instance, do you really have evidence that conditions in Siberia were constant throughout that period ? It isn't something that seems very likely. ) If your views were correct we should have far more "sudden appearances" than we do. There are far too many intermediates for your ideas to be considered reasonable.
quote: Anyone who searches for the truth would immediately uncover many of your errors. You may mistake spinning an ignorant fantasy for "undeniable" logic but anyone who searches for the truth would check your claims and find you out. Your behaviour invites - and arguably deserves - ridicule. Especially the ridiculous and arrogant boasts like the above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
mindspawn writes: Dolphins breathe oxygen. They would have battled at sea level and were most likely confined to pre-boundary lakes at higher altitude where the oxygen was not toxic. Evidence?
Sure birds could fly to other highlands, but what are the chances of fossilisation if one did not make the crossing? Very small. Its unlikely we will ever find those one or two that did not make it. Other pre-boundary highlands? The Appalachian heights were completely eroded away since and so its difficult to find fossils that clearly originate from those highland sediments. Highlands were not as common in the pre-boundary world. Evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Mindspawn seems to be ignoring the dating issue I raised in Message 962.
That one issue alone sinks his entire scheme. 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: |
How many times must I say that the missing pre-boundary fossils are in Siberia. [...] This area is remote and largely covered by flood basalts and so has been neglected re fossils. How many times do I need to quote: "the Cambrian of the Siberian Craton is famous for the variety and preservation of its fossils"? The remoteness and the flood basalts have not prevented us from finding so many Paleozoic fossils in Siberia that the region is famous, mindspawn, famous for the copious variety of well-preserved Paleozoic fossils found there. So there must be some other reason why we don't find Mesozoic and Cenozoic organisms in the Paleozoic rocks. The excuses you have been using do not work. Think of another one. (Or you could face reality, that would work.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Sure birds could fly to other highlands, but what are the chances of fossilisation if one did not make the crossing? Very small. Its unlikely we will ever find those one or two that did not make it. Other pre-boundary highlands? The Appalachian heights were completely eroded away since and so its difficult to find fossils that clearly originate from those highland sediments. Highlands were not as common in the pre-boundary world.
I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. Are you saying that because angiosperms might have had an isolated 'cradle' for their origin and emanated from there, that all ("pre-boundary") organisms originated in Siberia?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
My problem with evolutionary theory is that other than the "clades" one would expect from creationism ... "One" would? But no creationist ever has before you. So, yeah, one. Just one. Whoever else in the whole world has read the Bible, decided to fight for a literal interpretation and Young Earth Creationism, and also decided that all marsupials evolved from a common ancestor?
Those on this site can mock as you will. Deride. Insult. Yet the facts are there for all to see. I thought that according to you the facts are all hiding under the Siberian Traps, explaining why we can't see any of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I thought that according to you the facts are all hiding under the Siberian Traps, explaining why we can't see any of them.
I've always thought it interesting how YECs can take something that we (theoretically) don't know (like what's beneath the traps), and turn it into a 'fact' that underpins a theory for all of life. Contrarily, the ToE takes what we do know and then explains all of the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My problem with evolutionary theory is that other than the "clades" one would expect from creationism ... "One" would? But no creationist ever has before you. ... Actually I have argued that the closest we can get on the evolutionary side to creationism concept of "kinds" is clades ... all descendants are still members of the kinds\clades, and we just disagree on how far back the clades go, where the original common ancestors began. 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: |
Well said. Yes the observance of clades would be a natural assumption of both theories. Creationists often acknowledge the diversification of dogs, and humans and cats and some examples like the finch. So there is that implicit agreement in creationism to the concept of clades even if not always clearly admitted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Umm the same finger points back at evolutionists. We observe the sudden appearance of most organisms fully formed with no ancestral trace back to the LUCA. No evidence exists.
And so the same comment applies to evolutionists who take something we do not observe (evolution from a LUCA) and turn it into fact that underpins a theory for ALL LIFE. There is no evidence, yet the theory of evolution is widely accepted. ahem .... hehehe it would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. Why was it so READILY accepted without evidence. For two reasons:1) Darwin's book was actually very well written and convincing, even though not conclusive. 2) The world was looking for an excuse to deny God. They found it. Until then creationism was a common/natural concept because God was a natural concept. Now the concept of God is regularly mocked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
mindspawn writes: There is no evidence, yet the theory of evolution is widely accepted. There are libraries and museums and laboratories stuffed full of evidence. Waving you hands around doesn't magic it all away. Millions of scientists and 150 years of research and mindspawn alone knows the truth. You creationists sure have some ego.
The world was looking for an excuse to deny God. That's actually even more rediculous. Apart from the fact that evolution in no way denies god, the world was very happy with its gods. Gods solved all the problems of life, death and suffering for them. Nope religion is in decline in the West because it's being shown to be in error.
Until then creationism was a common/natural concept because God was a natural concept. It was and is a belief system. Belief systems change as real information about the world is discovered. We don't count angels on pinheads anymore and only the dreadfully deluded believe in the literal truth of their holy books. Religious belief changes along with our new understandings - that's going to annoy those with dogma, but that's just tough.
Now the concept of God is regularly mocked. Mostly it's the concept of silly religious beliefs and practices that are mocked. And quite rightly, most are objectively barking mad.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
What is increasingly observed is that the spread of individual species throughout the geological column is wider than expected. The coelecanth, angiosperms, etc etc. Most phyla existed fully formed during the Cambrian Explosion and still exist today. This observance of early fossils surprisingly found alive today, and also of modern organisms surprisingly found fully formed in the Cambrian will continue until the current geological column is seen for what it is. The current geological column is a mere reflection of common widespread conditions. More and more niche environments will be uncovered over time. I am stating the obvious, obviously we will discover more niche environments the more we dig.
Looking at the pre-flood world (the world before the known transgression/regression of the PT boundary) the most likely location of niche environments reflecting today's more common fauna/flora is the Siberian Plateau. This is where the lower oxygen levels and a non-aquatic environment were more conducive to the flourishing of mammals/humans/birds/angiosperms. The only reason they have not been found is because no one is looking in the only place they logically would be found. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You say "there are libraries and museums and laboratories stuffed full of evidence."
This is where you are incorrect. The fossil evidence shows a variety of species, most appearing fully formed. The evidence shows that the dominant classes of chordata changed according to suitability of conditions, this does not prove evolution, it proves that a class of chordata will dominate when conditions are suitable (that's obvious). The evidence shows occasional adaptation of some organisms into "clades". The evidence shows a shocking number of organisms appearing fully formed with no intermediates. Sure the museums are stuffed full of evidence. But the evidence does nothing to conclude evolution, the theory of evolution remains an unlikely explanation for that evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
When you refer to Siberian Paleozoic fossils are you referring to marine or low elevation fossils? My obvious emphasis is the terrestrial Paleozoic fossils from the Siberian highlands, a large part of Siberia being terrestrial during the Paleozoic. Can you name some of the copious Paleozoic terrestrial organisms from the Siberian highlands of that time? My focus is those highlands.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024