Jar writes:
There is a reason people depict the landscapes as they do and it goes back the the fact that we have the fossils, have the geology, have the processes, methods, mechanisms, procedures and models that explain the sorting and can observe the processes, methods, mechanisms, procedures and models happening today.
That is true in some ways, today we can see for example, and indeed witnessed, a canyon being formed in days at Mt St Helens, and laminated strata being put down and many other effects. It seems to me your list is designed to impress but does it really?
For example how did fossils caught in the act of suffocation, digestion, fighting, giving birth, how can we see such fossils happening today for example? Or how about fossil graveyards or polystrate fossils or planated surfaces? Are you saying we can see this today?
Jar writes:
Land itself is raised and subsides. We have measured the growth of mountains and the subsidence of land.
Over very long periods of time stuff gets buried.
Did you measure the long period of time, or extrapolate backwards based on the available time? Did you test that it is actually and in fact time, long time, that did it? Are you aware of the axiom; "A little force over a long time or a lot of force over a short time?" It applies to many things I find.
Jar writes:
All that is required to understand this is to acknowledge that all the evidence shows the Earth is very old, that things have lived, that the geological processes we see today also happened in the past, and that the evidence we find represents the critters and environment as it existed when they were alive.
Now remember Faith, none of this is based on belief, rather it is all based on the actual physical evidence and the fact that there is no other model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that would produce what is seen in reality.
Even if that was true and there was only one model, logically it wouldn't follow that this model is the correct one, as that would depend on affirming the consequent. What you mean to say is, there is only one model men will accept, which is the science-model of the past they argue happened.
So you are basically selecting the evidence but confirmation evidence isn't impressive, if it is only circumstantial. So I disagree I think it is based on belief largely because there is a distinct refusal to accept any other model, of which there is also consistent evidence.
It isn't a prediction of evolution that we would find the particular record we find, with the 99% absent transitionals, and unchanged organisms, and features such as flat gaps, planated surfaces and polystrate fossils. All of these things are argued with hindsight.
But with the bible, it predicted things before we found them which had to be undoubtedly true, certain evidences. The bible says animals reproduce according to kind so if there is a fossil record we expect to find generally, the same types of organisms unchanged. Here is my list of some of them which show no evolutionary history;
mike the wiz writes:
The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old)
Gingko Trees (125 million years),
Crocodiles (140 million years),
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years),
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years),
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years),
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)
http://creation.com/...octopus-fossilsDragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)
http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.htmlHydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene)
http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.htmlAlnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene)
http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.htmlSwartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)
http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.htmlSycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years.
Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.
Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years
Mayfly - 97—110 million years.
Moss - 330 million years,. (Apparently no evolution of this moss has occurred for 330 Ma. The fossil record of Sphagnum moss itself occurs in the Cenozoic, which means that the record of this type of common moss appears to be pushed back at least 265 Ma.)
Gastropoda (snails and slugs) - Cambrian
Nectocaris - mid Cambrian (cephalopod) 500 million years.
Cryptobranchid (salamander) - pushed back to 161 million years (60 million years older than argued)
Grass phytoliths (silica bodies found in plants) in dinosaur coprolites (65 million year old grass)
Anomalocaris - 515 million years. (Arthropod) (Burgess shale)
Large tyrannosauroids (Early Cretaceous, pushed back from late Cretaceous)
Bilaterian burrows - (Many organisms burrow into and disturb soil or bottom sediments of a lake or ocean. This process is called bioturbation and is ubiquitous on the bottom of lakes and the oceans today.31 Burrows of likely bilaterians have been found recently in the late Precambrian of Siberia as old as 555 Ma32,33 and in Uruguay in rocks claimed to be older than 585 Ma.31,34 In the burrows from Uruguay, researchers found evidence of active backfilling, the ability to burrow up and down, and meandering burrows that suggest ‘advanced behavioral adaptations’. This would mean that the evolution of bilaterians was significantly earlier than was recently believed.)
https://creation.com...j27_3_79-83.pdfBioturbation - (pushed back 45my, to pre-Cambrian from Cambrian)
(The organisms highlighted in red are examples of the argument-from-silence fallacy previously argued by evolutionists, that because previously such organisms were not found earlier they concluded they had not yet evolved only to later find them in the, "earlier" layer, proving how poor such reasoning-from-ignorance, is. Or, they are examples of things silent in the periods later than where they are found and so where concluded to be extinct. "living fossils".
We would also expect evidence of catastrophe, the bible says every kind of animal perished in the flood, consistent evidence is to find every kind of animal type represented, or close to all of them since all life perished.
The correct predictions for an evolutionary history are that we should see a history of evolution, with certain types of flora and fauna until modernity, mostly consisting of ancestors, not mostly consisting of the same kinds of organisms there always were.
CONCLUSION: I think you make out that it's all about the evidence but really it's all about insisting using observer-bias, that all of the evidence is consistent with evolution and long ages, and ignoring strong arguments against that notion such as scientifically provable young, soft tissue, they have experimented can simply not last millions of years under even the most conducive circumstances. There also are not any present day processes showing any new design of anatomy, a bacteria becoming a bacteria isn't very impressive if bacteria were supposed to have become men eventually, a little bit like saying that we should conclude superman exists if an ordinary man can show us he can walk like an ordinary man.
UNDERWHELMING evidence to the minds of many intelligent people, Jar, I am afraid, but as evolutionist laymen, you obviously are biased.
In other words, the claims of evolution, that it created everything on the planet, are not matched in any way whatsoever by any actual demonstration that it has the ability to invent so much as a finger nail.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
