Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Record Mistakes and Why They Don't Hurt Evolution
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 3564 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 1 of 13 (729506)
06-12-2014 6:44 PM


I'm new here and all, but this has been digging into me for a while. I just wanted to go over some of the more famous talking points about the fossil record on the creationism side and then show why they don't actually do anything to the ToE.
Let's start with the 'vertical whale'. Despite the name, this widely-known ancient whale fossil is actually about 40 to 50 degrees off its horizontal axis, and was found buried in the strata. Also, despite claims that it stretched through multiple strata layers (as evidence for the Noachian Flood), it was actually parallel to the strata formations! The strata had been folded into a new angle with the skeleton inside; thus, the odd angle of the fossil. Source material originated here; Ackerman, P. D., 1986. It's a Young World After All, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, pp. 81-83.
Then, the supposed falsification of the Dinos-to-birds theory with the discovery of a hadrosaur with skin intact, but no feathers, and buried in strata along garfish and turtles, in what appeared to have initially been water (again, support for the Noachian Flood). It was no surprise to scientists, though, since hadrosaur skin had been discovered intact by 1998! Furthermore, nobody actually thinks HADROSAURS were the ancestors of birds. The Saurischian dinos are theorized to have evolved into birds. Finally, and this may be a bit of a shocker, it's actually no surprise we found this one in water with garfish and turtles. Hadrosaurs are usually found in ancient riverbeds, simply because they were inclined to stay near water, and garfish and turtles have been around just as long as dinosaurs! Source for this claim; Vision Forum, Inc., 2003. Creation expeditions team discovers giant duck-billed dinosaur: Home-school paleontologists strike pay-dirt again (press release, 22 July).
These two debunkings are just the beginning. If anyone has a supposed anomaly in the fossil record, I'd be happy to dig up the facts and see just what they say.

Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2014 9:57 PM TryingToBeLogical has replied
 Message 5 by herebedragons, posted 06-13-2014 7:52 AM TryingToBeLogical has not replied

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 3564 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 4 of 13 (729519)
06-13-2014 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
06-12-2014 9:57 PM


Thank you, RAZD. I'll check it out, see if it might be a good idea to join in the discussion. Also, the quotes function is pretty useful... thanks!
Edit: Scratch that, the discussion has ended. No reason to join in, really. I'll see what I can do on this thread, maybe quote a few from yours...
Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : Realized linked thread had ended

Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2014 9:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 3564 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 7 of 13 (729535)
06-13-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by dwise1
06-13-2014 10:34 AM


Mm. The facts were manipulated; despite creationist claims that it was vertical, on its tail, it was about 50, 40 degrees off-horizontal. But so was the strata layer, so... that's a thing.
Have you heard this one? I picked up this argument off As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly | The Institute for Creation Research, one of your standard-issue creationist blog posts. Apparently, there are creationists who deny that the Archaeopteryx was a transitional species between reptiles and birds, and was, in fact, fully avian, barely showing any signs of being reptilian. I actually own a book, the Dinosaur Factfinder - your standard issue dino database, really - I'm quoting from it now.
Archaeopteryx may well be the most famous fossil animal of all. It is described in nearly every book about the history of life and evolution because it is thought to be a perfect example of a "missing link," between the reptiles and the birds. This means that it shows primitive features of the reptiles, such as teeth, claws on its hands, and a long bony tail, as well as advanced features of the birds, such as feathers and a wishbone. It is the oldest known bird because of the last two characteristics. Archaeopteryx could probably have flown about as well as a modern bird, but it is not certain whether it flew from tree to tree, or over the ground.The first fossils of Archaeopteryx were found in 1961, and since then a total of six skeletons have been found, the last in 1987. They are preserved in a fine limestone which used to be quarried to produce printing plates. The limestone was laid down in a warm lagoon near to land, and it preserves many fossils beautifully: jellyfish, worms, complete fish, flying reptiles with their skin, and Archaeopteryx.
The post was an excerpt from a book back in 1989. This book is for kids, actually, and was first published in 1992. Three years, and it seemed childrens' education was advancing faster than adults'.
The funny thing is, I checked the web, and found creationist articles actually saying that Archaeopteryx wasn't a bird at all, but an altered Compsognathus. Based only on the fossil in the British Museum.
Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : Fixing quotes
Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : Adding information

Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by dwise1, posted 06-13-2014 10:34 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2014 11:17 AM TryingToBeLogical has replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-13-2014 11:56 AM TryingToBeLogical has replied

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 3564 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 9 of 13 (729539)
06-13-2014 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2014 11:17 AM


Well, whaddya know. Looks like not only can creationists not agree with each other, they also can't agree with themselves. Though perhaps this guy was trying to discredit evolution by pointing out the suspected forgery, then score a second point with the absurd claim that the real fossils demonstrate that Archaeopteryx was fully bird. Who knows?

Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2014 11:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 3564 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 11 of 13 (729550)
06-13-2014 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
06-13-2014 11:56 AM


True. I suppose the redefinition of 'transitional' into something that is clearly impossible to define as one or the other is one of the key points of creationism.

Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-13-2014 11:56 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
TryingToBeLogical
Junior Member (Idle past 3564 days)
Posts: 10
From: Clermont, Florida, USA
Joined: 06-12-2014


Message 13 of 13 (729592)
06-14-2014 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2014 2:44 PM


Re: Unfossilized Dinosaurs
Love of the Higgs Boson. Why would you try to attack evolution with that? That's the same damn thing as the 'if x evolved from y, why is there still y' argument, only with a bunch of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo behind it, as well as a few (possibly deliberate) misunderstandings. After permineralization, you're basically looking at pure mineral replicas, but if it stays out of groundwater, a fossil can avoid the process. I looked it up, says that permineralization is the process of organic tissue being filled in with medals carried in by water. So, this just means it stayed dry, intact, and unbent. Remarkable for something so old, but not really proof of it being recently dead.
Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : Clarification

Logic is the ultimate argument; for none can refute logic with anything but logic. Thus, you will always walk away satisfied if you stay logical, knowing either you're right, or you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2014 2:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024