The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

I am not asserting any facts or supposed facts. Historians could have had endless arguments over whether Troy was a real story or not. Until they found the city. Sometimes one does not use science, but instead looks at claimed evidence and decides whether it rings true or not. That is not science nor scientific procedure, and I do not claim OOPARTS are science, or evidence, or facts.They are interesting claims, some of which are convincing to me, and I'm sure others would agree. But that is not evidence and so I will not post them as evidence.

I have never heard of that theory.

Well, we've been asking for evidence. Does this mean that you have no intention of providing it? Are you a conspiracy theorist also?ETA: By the way, I have no problem with people using stories and imagination to contrive and idea that they will resolve by testing. That can easily be a part of science. The problem I have is when they accept those stories without question. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

It was proposed on another board a year or so ago.Do you think your theory is better?ETA: Oh, I forgot to tell you ... you were supposed to laugh ...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Semantics aside, evolutionists claim that a trilobite evolved from a LUCA. In fact they claim all organisms evolved from a LUCA, that is what LUCA means.

But you simplify. A rhetorical tool, but still a fallacy.The evidence overwhelmingly supports a LUCA. That is the theory. No one is saying that it is absolutely proven.

And exactly where in either of the Biblical Creation Myths are angiosperms mentioned?But in case you missed it (try reading the Bible) there are lots of critters that ARE mentioned in the Creation Week and angiosperms are not among them but humans and ravens and fish and cattle and fruit trees and flowers and grasses and serpent are mentioned.But there has never been any evidence of anything in the Creation Myths found below the P/T boundary. Too funny. Noah is not mentioned as living before the flood? His neighbors are not mentioned as living before the flood? You know (maybe you don't) that there are even genealogies in the Bible? And they are all living close enough to screw and beget and begot?You know that Noah is one of them begets and begots? And he is in the Middle east?Granted the Bible accounts are mutually exclusive and filled with factual errors but then I don't use folktales and myths as a basis for reality.Where are ANY examples of anything mentioned in either of the Creation myths that has been found below the P
T boundary? And don't try to sell the utterly stupid idea that all the evidence is covered by the Siberian Traps because there is lots of evidence of life forms below the P/T boundary all over the world; just not of anything mentioned in the Creation myths. My timeframes are based on ALL of the evidence, not 2000 year old myths.

You're cherry-picking. You're grasping at straws for anything that might support your religious beliefs.Unfortunately you are forced to ignore all of the many things that directly contradict your religious beliefs.Of particular note is the dating issue. There is simply no evidence for humans and similar critters before the P-T boundary and vast amounts of evidence that humans and similar critters came along a couple of hundred million years later.By ignoring the dating issue you are trying to collapse 250 million or so years into something like 6,000 years. It simply doesn't fit, and all the belief and scripture and wishful thinking you're relying on can't make it fit.The issue of trilobites originating in Siberia (or not) has no bearing on the main problem: You are off by about 250 million years in your dating, and that's not chicken feed! And there is no evidence for a global flood in that entire time span.

Yes we know that.Our timeframes have evidence, yours do not. In fact, the evidence flatly contradicts your timeframes.But you keep ducking the dating issue and stretching 6,000 years to 250 million years just to find some place to park that global flood.And even that stretch fails...

Well, let us know when you find it, and then you'll have more than fantasy and conjecture to work with.Were the whales also hiding behind trees somewhere? How 'bout the lobsters?How about the crocodiles and the frogs? If your excuse for not finding any pre-Triassic mammals is that the land was one vast swamp (which it wasn't, as we know from studying the rocks) then why don't we find the exact sort of animals that live in swamps?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You're missing all of them, mindspawn.

But a little googling around shows that we do have pre-Triassic fossils from the Siberian Traps. For example, Tunguska is slap in the middle, and has Ordovician tabular corals. Up north a bit is Anabar, with Cambrian Small Shelly Fauna. To the east, the Lena River exposes Cambrian trilobites. Indeed, I read that "the Cambrian of the Siberian Craton is famous for the variety and preservation of its fossils". None of which, mindspawn, are giraffes, or mice, or hedgehogs, or aardvarks, or antelopes, or gnus, or naked mole rats, or leopards, or pangolins, or wallabies ... are you beginning to see a theme here?

quote:

---

Not at all. It's perfectly logical that kinds or even species should be recognised through DNA similarities and not outward features wherever possible.

---

Assuming that "kinds" exist in the first place. However, since the evidence (at least) suggests that they do not the assertion that DNA does show clear distinctions between kinds is hardly justified.Accordingly the mere assertion that DNA does show a clear distinction between "kinds" - made in ignorance of any actual distinction - must be classified as pure bluster.

quote:

---

So your use of the term "bluster" is a little emotive, which is not exactly "understanding through discussion" as per the nature of this website. Do you use debating techniques rather than a search for truth in these forums?

---

By which you mean that by asking you to support your assertion - which is engaging in honest debate - I discovered the truth that you could not, leading to the understanding that you were engaging in mere bluster. Which might fairly be called a debating trick and certainly a response that has no concern for the truth.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You may notice that all the evidence I quote from is written by evolutionists. Evolution is so blindly accepted as fact, that they use evolutionary terms.

---

More debating tricks. The question is whether the quote actually supports your claims or not. That you impose your own interpretation on it - contrary to the intended meaning - only makes you guilty of misrepresentation.

quote:

---

I look past the evolutionary terminology at the actual facts presented

---

But you don't. In fact the quote does not present sufficient facts to support your claim. Nor have you done any serious thinking about the situation.For instance you might want to consider the fact that many wetland species - which you believe to have been present at the time - are not present in the fossil record of the Carboniferous.Or that a simple change of fauna through population movements need not be expected to show an evolutionary pattern - especially when we are talking about creatures that - according to you - have no evolutionary relationship.

quote:

---

Evidence is everything, evolutionary terms are mere assumption.

---

Then your continued refusal to seriously engage with the evidence - preferring your own inventions - is damning to your case.

quote:

---

I mean, really, if an ocean bed dries up, during the transition phase we would have some kind of mudfish. Then amphibians. Then purely terrestrial. How does this prove evolution

---

Aside from the fact that we see clear intermediates - for instance between fish and land animals. Apart from the fact that there are plenty of other animals we should see alongside amphibians (crocodilians, to raise an obvious example). And that is just a couple of examples off the top of my head.You aren't taking the evidence into account at all. Just taking a selective and superficial impression of it and claiming it supports you.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

From a quick google search this article is the most informative relating to evolution and the blood clotting cascade. If I had more time I might be able to find something I consider better, but it is pretty useful to the discussion.