If Evolution

[Jonahdog]

All fossil records follow the same curve.

This is strong evidence that these dinosaurs were created as individual species.

Wow, you should be teaching this at a major university, or at least be publishing in "Science".

 

[iouae]

Wow, you should be teaching this at a major university, or at least be publishing in "Science".

Thanks Jonahdog.

I am no prophet but I think the evolutionists are soon going to be invoking their god Taphonomy

taphonomy
taˈfɒnəmi
noun
the branch of palaeontology that deals with the processes of fossilization.

 

[Stripe]

Oh Stripey, I'm still waiting for you to explain the physics/"Darwinist" issue you raised in the Ark/speciation thread.
Think you could manage that? Contribute something of value there?

Already done, Dum Dum. Try reading. :up:

 

[4string]

This is strong evidence that these dinosaurs were created as individual species.

Could it also be used as evidence that fossils are hard to make and rare to find? Thus be compatible with a methodological naturalism world view?

 

[iouae]

Could it also be used as evidence that fossils are hard to make and rare to find? Thus be compatible with a methodological naturalism world view?

Hi 4string. That would be to play the taphonology card which says that fossils are rare to make and rarer to find.

Even if that were so, (which I absolutely disagree with, but have not thought of how to prove it), then the fossil record is what it is. So let's look at what it is as if we have a nearly mature set of data. Does the evidence support creation or evolution?

Large ghost lineages (lots of missing fossil links) support creation.
Small or few ghost lineages support evolution.

The fossil record, if one looks at any tree of life, is mostly ghost lineages, therefore it settles it for me.

Evolutionists will insist that with time more and new fossils will come in. And they are right. But look at the graph and the rate they are coming in. It would take forever to fill in the ghost lineages at the current rate, so they will never, in many lifetimes, "prove" evolution.

Evolutionists have faith in finding missing links, but if the science says it will take forever to find these if they exist, maybe they should reject methodological naturalism (which is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. ).

Ps. Here may be why fossils are not as rare as evolutionists make them out to be.

Some fossils are found in huge numbers of the exact same species.
Why can we not find just one missing link fossil?

Are we saying that animals went through their missing link stages very quickly and in small numbers which so reduced the chances of finding missing links?

I see absolutely no mechanism to suggest any life form today is a "missing link", hurrying to extinction, without leaving a trace of it being here on earth.

I believe that fossils are more likely captured by some catastrophe which captures a snapshot of all creatures around at the time of the catastrophe. Luckily for us, the geologic column is full of catastrophes and mass extinctions capturing fossils.

But normal life has means of capturing fossils on an ongoing basis. Means such as mudslides and amber resin, and tar pits, volcanic eruptions burying things in ash. Most species of dinosaurs were around for 75 million years according to evolutionists, and are they telling us that NOT ONE of the missing links got fossilised, while thousands of their kin were being fossilised?

And if one is a YEC and does not like mention of long periods of geologic time, remember this is what evolutionists believe. Those long periods of time mean lots of time for JUST ONE missing link to get fossilised and found.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Begging the question is still a logical fallacy.

You just told me you wanted a challenge.

Then I provide one, and you say "that's begging the question."

I'll take that as you don't have a clue how to even start answering my challenge. Pity. I was hoping you'd put up

 

[Greg Jennings]

From http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/10/29/on-the-fossil-record/

3 – Historical tests of the completeness of the fossil record

In natural history fieldwork, the “collector curve” is often used to indicate how close to complete ones work is, as new discoveries will begin to tail off. ....
.... Benton gives similar graphs on dinosaur discoveries:

Fig09.jpegOne can see that in the old European collecting grounds, the graph is near saturation, whereas in the less-studied Chinese beds, there is still a steep curve, with a levelling of uncertain significance only in the last decade or two. It is fair, though, to predict that some time in this century the Chinese graph will match the European, and that other areas will follow suit (presumably Antarctica being the last to yield its unique species).

This means that we can be pretty certain that we are now aware of most European dinosaur species that have left fossils.

It is my opinion that the strongest evidence against evolution is encapsulated in graphs such as the above.

What we see with fossil hunting is that at first finds are slow, then they pick up pace, then the curve flattens out as no new dinosaur fossil species are found.

That last sentence in italics above shows that we have [nearly] the complete fossil record of European dinosaurs. And do European dinosaurs have most missing links filled in? Absolutely not. The graph is SHOUTING at us that the chances of further missing links being found is nearly zero. We have almost all we are going to have.

This being the case, are we satisfied that evolution occurred, since dinosaurs occur as different animals, with NOT ONE SINGLE DINOSAUR HAVING ALL ITS MISSING LINKS. Most of the dinosaur record is ghost lineages. And the graph is telling us it will stay that way.

And the same applies to all fossils. The Chinese dinosaur record is rapidly becoming the same as the European one with the flattened top of the "S" shaped curve appearing.

All fossil records follow the same curve.

This is strong evidence that these dinosaurs were created as individual species.

Thank God for you. You actually provided a challenge to evolution that is really really intriguing

 

[Stripe]

You just told me you wanted a challenge.

Then I provide one, and you say "that's begging the question."

I'll take that as you don't have a clue how to even start answering my challenge. Pity. I was hoping you'd put up

Challenges have to be rational, otherwise it's not a challenge.

Darwinists have logical fallacies coming out their ears.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Challenges have to be rational, otherwise it's not a challenge.

Darwinists have logical fallacies coming out their ears.

Explain how this question, the same I asked you before, is not rational:
Why are Dinos and modern animal species NEVER found in the same rock strata?

 

[6days]

Explain how this question, the same I asked you before, is not rational:
Why are Dinos and modern animal species NEVER found in the same rock strata?

I think your claim involves some circular reasoning. When modern looking bird fossils are found with dinosaur fossils..... is it considered a 'modern' bird?

 

[Greg Jennings]

I think your claim involves some circular reasoning. When modern looking bird fossils are found with dinosaur fossils..... is it considered a 'modern' bird?

By modern bird, you of course mean a feathered, hollow-boned creature that can probably fly. Those existed in the dinosaurs' time. Modern bird species did not.

You won't find any cardinals next to a velociraptor

 

[Stripe]

Explain how this question, the same I asked you before, is not rational:
Why are Dinos and modern animal species NEVER found in the same rock strata?

I've already explained why. When you describe dinos as prehistoric, separate from "modern" animals, you assume the truth of your Darwinism.

You have to respect the ideas of the other side to conduct a rational discussion.

 

[4string]

Hi 4string. That would be to play the taphonology card which says that fossils are rare to make and rarer to find.

Even if that were so, (which I absolutely disagree with, but have not thought of how to prove it), then the fossil record is what it is. So let's look at what it is as if we have a nearly mature set of data. Does the evidence support creation or evolution?

Well there wouldn't be an issue with playing the taphonology card if it were true. If you can't think of a way to prove it then why do you believe it? (Not trying to be glib here, I'm asking a legitimate question).

Large ghost lineages (lots of missing fossil links) support creation.
Small or few ghost lineages support evolution.

Is it possible that methodological naturalism could explain large gaps in the fossil record if fossils were only created under specific circumstances?

How do you feel about other evidences used to support evolution like the genetic evidence?



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[iouae]

Well there wouldn't be an issue with playing the taphonology card if it were true. If you can't think of a way to prove it then why do you believe it? (Not trying to be glib here, I'm asking a legitimate question).

I gave you the "proof" under Ps. in the post which you quote.

Here is my "proof" again...

Ps. Here may be why fossils are not as rare as evolutionists make them out to be.

Some fossils are found in huge numbers of the exact same species.
Why can we not find just one missing link fossil?

Are we saying that animals went through their missing link stages very quickly and in small numbers which so reduced the chances of finding missing links?

I see absolutely no mechanism to suggest any life form today is a "missing link", hurrying to extinction, without leaving a trace of it being here on earth.

I believe that fossils are more likely captured by some catastrophe which captures a snapshot of all creatures around at the time of the catastrophe. Luckily for us, the geologic column is full of catastrophes and mass extinctions capturing fossils.

But normal life has means of capturing fossils on an ongoing basis. Means such as mudslides and amber resin, and tar pits, volcanic eruptions burying things in ash. Most species of dinosaurs were around for 75 million years according to evolutionists, and are they telling us that NOT ONE of the missing links got fossilised, while thousands of their kin were being fossilised?

And if one is a YEC and does not like mention of long periods of geologic time, remember this is what evolutionists believe. Those long periods of time mean lots of time for JUST ONE missing link to get fossilised and found.

 

[iouae]

How do you feel about other evidences used to support evolution like the genetic evidence?

I believe genetic evidence supports creation as much as it might support evolution. So any genetic evidence cancels out.

If all Creation has genetic and morphological similarity it is because all Creation has a common Creator. He would use and reuse the same genetic code over and over again with modifications for each species. This genetic similarity would resemble evolutionary similarity.

Now YEC might have a problem with the accumulation of mutations over time.
But as an OEC I have no problem with God using accumulated code and modifying it over time.
And since I have tried my hand at programming now and then, I don't feel a need to clean up my code - I am a pragmatist, and just so long as the code works - job done.

Besides, we don't understand the genetic code enough to criticise it, saying this bit is useless, and that bit is redundant. When we read the ATCG's like we do English, that may be the time.

The gene code is extremely robust. Cyanobacteria have existed since the beginning almost unchanged. Genetic code was designed to be robust and suffer abuse, and continue to work, or life would be fragile, which it is not.

If organisms accumulate damage as in some Protozoa which have huge amounts of DNA for a one-celled organism, it still continues to work, 350 million years later, or 6000 years - whichever you prefer.

 

[6days]

26115[/ATTACH]Jennings;5171292]By modern bird, you of course mean a feathered, hollow-boned creature that can probably fly. Those existed in the dinosaurs' time. Modern bird species did not.

You won't find any cardinals next to a velociraptor

Well..... you might not get a secular museum portraying modern birds with dinosaurs...But they ARE found together. Here is an avocet, a modern bird along with a dinosaur layer avocet. (Top pic is bird portrayed with dinosaurs in the Milwaukee museum)

View attachment 26115

 

[Jonahdog]

I've already explained why. When you describe dinos as prehistoric, separate from "modern" animals, you assume the truth of your Darwinism.

You have to respect the ideas of the other side to conduct a rational discussion.

Not if those ideas are irrational as yours are.

 

[Jonahdog]

Well..... you might not get a secular museum portraying modern birds with dinosaurs...But they ARE found together. Here is an avocet, a modern bird along with a dinosaur layer avocet. (Top pic is bird portrayed with dinosaurs in the Milwaukee museum)

View attachment 26115

I'll bet that Milwaukee museum does not suggest that the dinosaurs lived with men. Interesting, no?

 

[Stripe]

Not if those ideas are irrational as yours are.

If you don't want to be in a rational discussion, the easiest way is to just be silent. :up:

 

[2003cobra]

If Evolution was true of this world, it would be a super natural event. Seriously. There would be nothing natural about it. Billions of things would have to take place in order to have what we have today. And yet the Evolutionist say there is no God.

Isaiah 43:10. so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

Many evolutionist say that there is a God.

Many Christians view evolution as the work of God.