Summations Only

Shrimp?Seriously?You might as well include 'mammals'... Now yer just tryin' to make me laugh...

quote:

---

But with the bible, it predicted things before we found them which had to be undoubtedly true, certain evidences.

---

It did ?

quote:

---

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.

---

I think that people realised that dogs didn’t give birth to cats by the time Genesis was written.

quote:

---

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.

---

That’s pretty meaningless, but we can’t find a single event which killed both anomalocarids and tyrannosaurids to choose two items on your dubious list, which would seem to seriously undermine your claim.(I will note that your indisputable pollen claim is quite disputable )

There are mammals pushed back of course, that they have found in dinosaurs bellies, they have found grass fairly recently too. The point is, when we do find earlier forms than previously argued, they are identical, even though it was claimed they had not evolved, and way before the clade with all of the ancestors from which they would have derived. In what way precisely? The greater a claim is the greater the evidence has to be. Evolutionists claim evolution invented everything, but it cannot show any new design in operational science. If a man claimed to be superman but could not demonstrate ANY ability to perform like superman, would you believe his claim if he provided strong, indirect evidence?The more fantastic a claim is, the greater the burden of proof becomes. To say processes can create for example, all of the usual features of design we see in life, stands against an inductive tally of 100% of evidence which shows the contrary, that in fact only those designer features exist, where there are designers. To say evolution, with no intelligence, can create the solutions we find to obscure anatomical problems, is a contradiction also.In other words, the evidence for evolution may strike you as very good, but to a person studious in critical thinking, that person knows that the usual evidence becomes underwhelming where there are fantastic claims.I can show an example where we have the same evidence, but for one claim the evidence is underwhelming;1. I claim I can run fast, I then run fast.
2. Now we have the same evidence, my demonstration of fast running, but the claim is now, "I can run as fast as Usain bolt". Would you agree that because the claim is greater, all of a sudden the demand for evidence has grown greater?Want to read more here, message one;Bot Verification

Problem is, YECs do not understand science well enough speculate about how evolution works. I'm not going to go through the history of YEC strawman arguments in this forum alone. Of course it's rhetorical. What do you think we are doing here?And it's still a strawman argument. Just pointing that out. And it is bizarre. Mainly because it is based on a lack of understanding that I had completely underestimated until last night. You didn't explain what these things are.And Faith has not provided any evidence. She basically expresses simple denial. Ergo, it's not as good as any other speculation.I have elaborated on my position in a later post. Please read on.

Well, in a manner of speaking. If a book written thousands of years before we discovered the fossil record says a flood wiped out everything on earth, that would mean if there was a record from it, we wouldn't obviously expect to only find angiosperms under the ground, or only jellyfish, but evidence every kind of creature was killed, and evidence they were killed while they were alive, and we find many things consistent with that such as organisms in the suffocation position, giving birth, fossil graveyards, and basically exquisitely preserved forms which even neo-catastrophists may argue occurred not from slow burial. No an bare assertion that it is meaningless, is a thoughtless response, it is very meaningful to biblical claims because if we had only found under the ground, certain types of organism, we would be able to immediately falsify a flood.I am not sure what your point is about what is on the list. The list only represents things of which we have the earliest dates, that remain unchanged either between extant ones today and past ones, or between extinct forms which for a time existed, but for the latest and earliest recording, remain unchanged, and they have no ancestors.In other words the list of unchanged organisms shows the evidence we find in the fossils is pretty much unchanged animal kinds. Unless you can provide indisputable transitionals for them? So if we take even one, such as a bat, the earliest representation will appear fully bat, with no transitionals, between say quadruped progenitor and bat, as an intermediate, but rather the same kinds that exist today barring superficial change.Don't jump to conclusions about what I am saying the list means. A lot of the things listed were previously argued to have not evolved, but they later found them such as jellyfish much earlier, and grass, mammals, etc...."push backs". But one thing is sure, they sure as heck don't show any evolution unless you consider jellyfish becoming jellyfish over millions of years, evolution. Lol

Okay, so you didn't get the point.Saying that evolution is invalid because shrimp have been around for supposedly hundreds of millions of years is like saying that life has been here for supposedly billions of years. It disregards the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands of species of shrimp, and probably many more extinct ones. Your list becomes kind of meaningless. "Everything"? "Invented"?Please provide a direct quote to this effect.Actually, what I was saying is that your charge of bias is a bit hypocritical. Then please explain the fossil record.Without the omnipresent YEC tool of denial. If it's a matter of indirect evidence against no evidence at all, I would provisionally accept the claim.However, that is nothing like what we are talking about. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The problem is this reason COMPOUNDS what I say - if you aren't going to support your arguments against YECs then this is a tacit admission that your argument is a bare-assertion fallacy, which only counts as propaganda against YECs. Not very intelligent is it, for one who implies by allusion, that he understands science but YECs don't. Isn't critical thinking a part of understanding science? Acting as one voice of agreement. it's a nodding-forum where you all agree with each other that you are all correct. Lol. Generalisation though isn't it?Message one shows my scores for evolution quizzes, though of course they are fairly basic but I presume as someone that likes science you approve of an attempt to provide evidence; I also scored okay on the more difficult test, and another creationist got 10 out of 10. It's quite usual for evolutionists to counter an evaluation of evolution theory by saying, "you don't understand the science", but even if Faith doesn't understand the science of which I don't know, it would be a hasty generalisation fallacy to presume all other creationists are equal.http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6728...A more accurate statement is that a portion of YECs don't understand science but then the same can be said of evolutionists, I know many who are appallingly ignorant online. But a lot of the speculations about how things happened over long eons, aren't solid science, and causes and argued causes actually change, even within science.

Oh I got what you meant I just think it's a red-herring not worth chasing. The fact is, if there are kinds of organism, such as bats, and they show no evolution even their earliest form, when we might expect to find their ancestors if the fossils are an evolutionary history, then this isn't good evidence of macro evolution if we find identical kinds that look the same today.Just picking out shrimp, and using observer bias to ignore all of the specific ones on that list, doesn't change the fact that some have simply remained unchanged, and don't show any intermediates for how they allegedly evolved. For example a bat had to evolve from a quadrupedal progenitor, so it's forelimbs had to become wings as they presently are, but all we find is bats with the fully designed wing, none of the intermediates because they never existed, same for pterosaurs, we only find a variety of pterosaurs, or a variety of bats, variety of Ichthyosaurs, never the transitionals they purportedly evolved from. Now there is a strawman. No, but rather what I am saying is that this record of 100% stasis that actually has no evolution but either still extant or extinct animal kinds, doesn't show any evolution and this is evidence bats were always bats, since I expect to see some ancestors somewhere, heck show me just one that has it's intermediates, that can't be debunked? But one is not enough, what about the Cambrian? An explosion indeed, extinct forms yes, but where is their evolution? It is non-existent. Just admit it, the fossil record supports the creationist position, we would expect to find bats without any history of evolution because they were created to be bats.You can deny it if you want, I myself as a student of logical, cannot ignore sound deductive reason. It simply follows this is the evidence expected from created kinds, not evolution, or show me the intermediates to all of them.

quote:

---

Well, in a manner of speaking. If a book written thousands of years before we discovered the fossil record says a flood wiped out everything on earth, that would mean if there was a record from it, we wouldn't obviously expect to only find angiosperms under the ground, or only jellyfish, but evidence every kind of creature was killed, and evidence they were killed while they were alive, and we find many things consistent with that such as organisms in the suffocation position, giving birth, fossil graveyards, and basically exquisitely preserved forms which even neo-catastrophists may argue occurred not from slow burial.

---

This, of course, is what you would call confirmation evidence - and a very weak example at that. Can you really use a creature killed by a sandstorm as evidence of a flood ? What evidence do you have that these deaths were caused by a single disaster rather than many smaller scale disasters - as we should expect if the Earth is old. The evidence of dates that we have, for instance, is very solid and tells us that you are talking about creatures that died at many different times.

quote:

---

No an bare assertion that it is meaningless, is a thoughtless response, it is very meaningful to biblical claims because if we had only found under the ground, certain types of organism, we would be able to immediately falsify a flood.

---

It is funny that your response is far more thoughtless. If we found only one sort of organism in the ground we would have to look for a reason why - and nothing in modern science could explain it. It is certainly not what we would expect if evolution and an Old Earth were true.

quote:

---

I am not sure what your point is about what is on the list. The list only represents things of which we have the earliest dates, that remain unchanged either between extant ones today and past ones, or between extinct forms which for a time existed, but for the latest and earliest recording, remain unchanged, and they have no ancestors.

---

But it certainly is not that. Modern coelacanths are not identical to fossil coelacanths so you fail on the first example. And it is hardly the only problem.

quote:

---

In other words the list of unchanged organisms shows the evidence we find in the fossils is pretty much unchanged animal kinds. Unless you can provide indisputable transitionals for them? So if we take even one, such as a bat, the earliest representation will appear fully bat, with no transitionals, between say quadruped progenitor and bat, as an intermediate, but rather the same kinds that exist today barring superficial change.

---

No, I don’t need transitionals to show differences between ancient and modern forms. The idea is absurd. Bats have a poor fossil record but the earliest forms are not modern species. How then can you say that they are unchanged ?

Then you need to deal with species of bats, not 'kinds of organism'. Saying 'shrimp' for instance, does not deal with any particular species.So, you are making a claim that the species are the same?Weren't you just complaining about me making baseless assertions? "Some of them"?Please be more specific.And furthermore, please explain why a certain organism has to evolve. Where does the theory of evolution say this? Well, how many is enough? No, not 'indeed an explosion'. Unless you think the tens of millions of years is sudden.And no, there is evidence for precursors millions of years older. Look up 'ediacaran fauna'.And where are those Cambrian mammals? Where are they in your list? But you have not shown sound reasoning for your position. All I see is complaints and attacks on the theory of evolution. You have no explanation. This is not an explanation. It is an assertion. Please show your logic.

No, this is not a Bible study group. Sure. What's the problem with that. It is a well-grounded generalization from our experience here. Yes, an overwhelming portion of YECs. Well, it is an enormously broad field and very complex in detail. So, I'm not surprised. Well, I suppose you have some experience with learning, yes?That's where you start of knowing nothing and possibly invent gods to explain the universe. Then eventually, you learn something. Sometimes things go wrong, but basically you progress. It almost never happens that you go backward. I have no problem with revising evolutionary mechanisms and pathways, etc. But there is nothing to replace it right now.

The depth required to lithify the sediment is quite variable depending on the local conditions and the type of sediment; but there are places today (ie. Arizona) where the bedrock is almost 5 km deep. The sand at the bottom of the Sonoran desert is more than enough pressure to turn to rock - all that's needed is enough time for the sediment to crystallise. And there are no 'different types of sediment' necessary in this case - there's just a shitload of sand; some of which will certainly be sandstone in the next few hundred thousand years.There is no disappearance - the stuff at the bottom is lithifying slowly as we speak; while animals and plants still carry on as normal at the surface.

Yes I was addressing a literal landscape, by choosing the Permian and Triassic for the example. I wasn't confusing anything, I intented to choose LAND scapes.So you introduce a sea transgression into the scenario. But surely that WOULD kill off ALL the creatures. And that in fact is what you go on to say: OK, so there is no evolution either, life no longer exists, it's all gone, eroded away or buried, eventually it ends up in the stratigraphic column presumably, though how is still a mystery. Any way I've tried to sort it out everything has to die, and you just added another way.Also, where are the topographic features in the stratigraphic column that you say remain after the transgression. All the strata I've seen in, say, the Grand Staircase area where we find the Triassic, is flat flat flat.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, you are not talking about continuous, straight and planar, pure strata, right? So how does that explain the Grand Canyon that you talk about? Why is that? The creatures that you describe remain on the land side of the boundary. No, that life remains where the land continues to exist. Well, some of them are the monadnocks in the Grand Canyon. Sure. They were deposited on initially flat surfaces. The irregularities were removed earlier during several periods of erosion and deposition resulting in low relief and no real canyons or hills.These formations show the interplay between land and sea in a fluctuating relationship. In fact, some of the Navajo dune sands extend into the Kayenta swamps and seas in what are called sandstone tongues. The same things happen with the Dakota Sandstone in the Cretaceous seaway.

I might add that 'rock' is kind of a subjective term. We know that, in general, Precambrian rocks are harder than Paleozoic rocks, which are harder than Mesozoic rocks and they, in turn are harder than Tertiary rocks. And sitting on top are the recent sediments. It's process. Something that YECs do not seem to understand. Depending on your line of study the term 'rock' might mean different things. To a solid earth geophysicist, all of that stuff is just overburden.