Falsifying Creation

HI TC!!! you're missing all the fun back in the other forum! im dying to hear some of your responses. if you don't give any, i suppose ill be forced to copy n paste the convos into this forum!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Perhaps because you can't see where this is going yet"
--Ohhhh, so were using battle tactics here, nice...

---

You started it

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"I will agree, that the fossil record shows a burrial sequence, and
that existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself)."
--Creationists too.

---

Creationists infer an existence sequence ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"As I understand it (please correct if wrong) your assertion is that
the burrial sequence in the fossil record has nothing to do
with the ACCOUNT of creation, only with the Great Flood."
--Never heard of anything else that has any grasp on reality.

---

OK ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"So again lets try to look at what one would expect to see from
the your interpretation of the flood."
--Lets!

​

"Prior to the flood ALL animals existed in roughly their current form."
--Emphesis on the 'rough'[ness].

​

"Apart from those animals taken aboard the Ark by Noah and his
family, all (presumably land) animals were killed in the deluge
or resulting global flood (a time span of roughly a year ..."
--Most would have been burried and died within the first couple months.

---

I take that as an agreement

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"flood waters abating by the 10th Month, then Noah opens the
Ark 40 days later to dry earth)."
--Something like that.

​

"During the time of the flood dead animals would sink to the bottom
(eventually), come to rest, and some would be buried."
--Mabye half would have had to 'sink to the bottom and come to rest', while some would have been immidiatelly burried.

​

"Some of these would be in conditions whereby fossilisation
would occur."
--Anything that touched sea bottom...their gonna get fossilized unless protected by some force, ie a predator or something of the like.

​

"Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correct
conditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised. ANY
animal could have become fossilised."
--Yup.

​

"Under these conditions we should expect to see NO SEQUENCE in
the burrial record, because the waters contained a number
of ALL animals and their death and subsequent burrial would be
related to the individual ability to survive in the water."
--Note: God didn't keep all the animals out of the water and wait till it was flooded to throw everything back onto the earth to be burrial, thereby constituting randomness...

---

Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that the
burrials would be random ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"What we see (and there are NO anomalies to the best of my knowledge)"
--Ofcourse there are no anomalies, Evolution will cooperate with anything found.

---

Not so. If a fossilised hominid were found in the jaws of an
Allosaurus evolution could NOT cope with that ... and I doubt
any modification of the theory could.By 'no anomalies' I meant that where fossils are found, the same
(broadly speaking) types of fossil are found in the equivalent
layers ... all around the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"is a sequence of burrial which shows increasing complexity of form
from the oldest burrials to the most recent."
--Basically.

​

"Fossilised remains are restricted in the orders of animals represented."
--presented for burrial you mean.

---

No, not presented for burrial. In the flood model ALL animals
(barring the Arkers) were presented for burrial within a one year
period starting with the deluge.I was getting more at the idea that only certain, 'older'
forms are represented in the fossil record. That's older
in a evolutionary interpretation, of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"There are NO fossilised lions, say."
--Because there were no lions preceeding the flood. For instance, Tigers and lions are related, along with the possible mountain lion and panther.

---

Is there then a single, fossilised proto-lion which you know of ?
The flood model would require it as evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Fossilised ammonites ALWAYS
and ONLY occur in layers lower than dinosaurs despite ammonites
being aquatic and able to survive a flood."
--The flood wasn't all that gentle...And thats because they all died out before another phase of the flood.

---

Another phase ... where's that come from ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"Before debating the specific examples (and they are off the top
of my head) think about what in the flood scenario could have
caused the consistent sequencing that IS SEEN in the fossil
record."
--(thinx hard).

​

"Explain exactly how this sequence could occur by way of a flood."
--Ok, I'll quote myself from a bit ago:

There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to
menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I
believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom
of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it
stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are
thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure),
also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes
could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on
the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very
small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.

​

"Mechanism for burrial in a flood?"
--Yes, see above quote (from myself).

---

So you agree with my comment that burrial sequence would be
related to individual ability to survive the conditions.None of the animals would be able to completely survive the flood,
but some individuals could last longer than others.That's NOT species, that's individual animals. Some proto-lions
would be stronger than others and so survive longer, and be buried
later.Why (in this scenario) are there so few infant fossils?
Not eggs, mind you, but cubs/pups/kits whatever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Why should burrial during a flood be anything other than
random ?"
--Because of the conditions in events during the flood. To put it so the most basic mind could understnd (I'm not implying at all as an insult, just a very basic fundemental understanding), if you throw a clam in the water, and then throw any kind of bird in the water...in any number your not going to have randomness. When you contribute characteristics, intelligence, agility and the like as I have given above, these wide non-random figures will be contributed on a smaller scale than a clam and a bird within other types.

---

Yes ... if you place them in the water in a particular sequence,
then there is a sequence. You already said that's not what happened
though.If, on the other hand, you have an environment with a variety of
life, covering the major ecological niches required, and then deluge
it rapidly how does the OBSERVED sequence occur ?It's a difficult one to explain, because you are putting up the
kind of suppositions and scenario reasoning that you discount
when put forward as evolutionary explanations.In the flood scenario, strong intelligent animals would survive
longer than weaker, less intelligent animals.Many dinosaurs are thought to have been able to swim ... duck-billed
varieties spring to mind, and even T.Rex might have
been able to, and these animals are big and strong. Sure they
would starve to death eventually, but if they had metabolisms similar
to modern day crocodiles that could take over a year (big if
but there are prescedents for SOME animals to be able to survive
without ANY food for extended periods).The sequence of burrial evident in the fossil record shows increasing
complexity of form. In some layers there are a mixture of animals
which fit ecological niche concepts, some small, some large.This does not fit with what can be expected from a flood scenario.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"That's an evasion. I noticed you like to point out these little
debating tactics so I thought I'd join in"
--It is only true, unless you can point out the various characteristics as I have shown above, you cannot fit a trilobite into an equasion as an unknown factor.

​

"The question is about the consistency of sequence in the fossil
record."
--ok.

​

"This is exactly predicted by an evolutionary explanation for life
on earth."
--Who's to say thats the only explination.

---

I'm not saying it's the only explanation that fits, I'm saying
that evolution fits the fossil record data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"It is exactly contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation, mixed up in
a global flood and deposited at random on the flood bed."
--Not the smartest thing to come to conclusions any-time this rapid, it signifies pre-conseived beliefs and ideas, which shouldn't be a factor in the scientific method.

---

This IS NOT a conclusion.I am exploring the flood scenario with you at the moment, in an
attempt to see how the Great Flood could have lead to the burrial
sequence evident in the fossil record.So far I cannot find a convincing explanation for that sequence
which is explainable by the flood scenario.Hopefully I have made clear my objections to the sequencing suggestions you have made.

[QUOTE] "For example there are no clams in the early Cambrian. Why not? Were they more intelligent than the trilobites? Or faster?"
--I don't think we know proper anatomy in trilobites to figure this equation, or do we have a good knowledge on what trilobite chracteristics in anatomy are or were?
[/B][/QUOTE]Wow.I am surprised that even you would make such a claim, TC, without at least a prefunctory web search to cover yourself.We know a LOT about Trilobites because their fossils are so abundant. http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/trilo.html#intro
http://24.114.7.13/kevin/Trilobites.htmlThis last link it to a very detailed Trilobite morphology: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/morph.html#General------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

I wish, I'm pointing my finger at Joz, and look, I even have supporting evidence!Joz and his Big Guns and fishing lure - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=9&t=3&p=1

quote:

---

Lure them in and then open up with the big guns....

---

"Creationists infer an existence sequence ?"
--Of course, otherwize I would have no other choice but refer a retreat in shouting 'conspiracy conspiracy!'."OK ..."
--Allrighty."I take that as an agreement "
--Sure thing."Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that the
burrials would be random ?"
--If my story of God holding the animals till one sudden momment at the climax of the Flood, sure there would be emensly more randomness (though there still would be a consistancy to a degree)."Not so. If a fossilised hominid were found in the jaws of an
Allosaurus evolution could NOT cope with that ... and I doubt
any modification of the theory could."
--Now if this hominid found in the jaws of an Allosaurus were found, there would possibly be some burrial excuses, but then again, something this extream would not hold up well at all of course. There are modifications taking place in evolution theory alot of the time. When different organisms are found in different layers and such. Your not going to find something like your hominid approach or a wallrus in cambrian strata, those are large extremeties. What you will find is possibly few ammounts of one type of animal in lower strata, which Evolution is well adapt to cooperate I have found. Keep in mind that the Geo column isn't a hill's worth of strata. There are thousands of layers, that are marked with eras, periods, etc. by the order of the find of variations in phylogeny and anatomy of organisms."By 'no anomalies' I meant that where fossils are found, the same
(broadly speaking) types of fossil are found in the equivalent
layers ... all around the world."
--Thats right, though refer to the above. The Geologic column by distribution of fossils is not blocky, that is things just don't all of a soden appearing in massive quantities in the same marked strata. Its a smooth spectrum, where your going to find one animal, the further you go down, the less densly they will be found."No, not presented for burrial. In the flood model ALL animals
(barring the Arkers) were presented for burrial within a one year
period starting with the deluge."
--Hm.. I guess it was just a miss-wording and understanding, I concur."I was getting more at the idea that only certain, 'older'
forms are represented in the fossil record. That's older
in a evolutionary interpretation, of course."
--And Flood interperetation might I add."Is there then a single, fossilised proto-lion which you know of ?"
--Frankely, I can't find much at all on lion evolution, let alone the cats. Can you find anything?"The flood model would require it as evidence."
--So would evolution , unless ofcourse they would accept Jumps from dogs to cats in a generation. Lions do exist, and according to evolution theory, everything has come from one common ancestor, thus the lion."Another phase ... where's that come from ?"
--Phases in the Flood, such as the point of the ice age, killing off dinosaurs, a phase in which sediment settled and were transported by oceanic currents during the flood at different places on the earth. In all simplicity these factors produce a phase-like progression."So you agree with my comment that burrial sequence would be
related to individual ability to survive the conditions."
--You could say that."None of the animals would be able to completely survive the flood,
but some individuals could last longer than others."
--Thats right, thats why we don't see every animal look as if they all keeled over and died like the dinosaurs, we se progression, which is none-the-less evidence for the Flood, likewize Evolution by this factor alone."That's NOT species, that's individual animals. Some proto-lions
would be stronger than others and so survive longer, and be buried
later."
--No doubt."Why (in this scenario) are there so few infant fossils?
Not eggs, mind you, but cubs/pups/kits whatever."
--Wouldn't happen to have any informational reference on what we do find concerning infant fossils, also on how they attribute it as being an infant anatomically in the fossil?"Yes ... if you place them in the water in a particular sequence,
then there is a sequence."
--You don't have to put them in sequencially, you could throw a clam in the water, and throw the bird in the water at the same time, your going to get the clam on the bottom, and with massive quantities, many other factors would be brought in, that is, seeing that clams would be overlapping with birds after a while, for instance."You already said that's not what happened
though."
--I don't believe I did, what did I say?"If, on the other hand, you have an environment with a variety of
life, covering the major ecological niches required, and then deluge
it rapidly how does the OBSERVED sequence occur ?"
--I don't fully understand what you mean by 'how does the OBSERVED sequence occur', but I believe the answer would be to attribute and consider characteristics and any factor that would contribute to its order of deposition."It's a difficult one to explain, because you are putting up the
kind of suppositions and scenario reasoning that you discount
when put forward as evolutionary explanations."
--Not really, many attributions of Flood explination not only is evidence of the Flood, but as you see throughout these debates very frequently, your going to consider 'interepretation'."In the flood scenario, strong intelligent animals would survive
longer than weaker, less intelligent animals."
--Right."Many dinosaurs are thought to have been able to swim ... duck-billed
varieties spring to mind, and even T.Rex might have
been able to, and these animals are big and strong. Sure they
would starve to death eventually, but if they had metabolisms similar
to modern day crocodiles that could take over a year (big if
but there are prescedents for SOME animals to be able to survive
without ANY food for extended periods)."
--I don't think they have the same anatomical structure and functions as crocodiles and alligators, being dinosaurs in contrast. My explination of Dinosaur 'extinction', is placing it at the rise of the ice age, thereby annialating dinosaurs over a period of time. This also would include other's that arent exactly 'dinosaurs' such as pterosaurs."The sequence of burrial evident in the fossil record shows increasing
complexity of form. In some layers there are a mixture of animals
which fit ecological niche concepts, some small, some large."
--Right."This does not fit with what can be expected from a flood scenario."
--See above."I'm not saying it's the only explanation that fits, I'm saying
that evolution fits the fossil record data."
--See above on my response on this specific."This IS NOT a conclusion."
--Whew, I'm glad to hear that. "I am exploring the flood scenario with you at the moment, in an
attempt to see how the Great Flood could have lead to the burrial
sequence evident in the fossil record."
--See above."So far I cannot find a convincing explanation for that sequence
which is explainable by the flood scenario."
--I wouldn't expect you to think otherwize, otherwize, you most likely wouldn't be an Evolutionist now would you? "Hopefully I have made clear my objections to the sequencing suggestions you have made."
--Discussion continues, and yes we are making nice progress, I am enjoying exchangment of examples, objections, and ideas.-------------------

"I am surprised that even you would make such a claim, TC, without at least a prefunctory web search to cover yourself.We know a LOT about Trilobites because their fossils are so abundant."
--As you would notice, I made the claim with little confidence, 'or do we have a good knowledge on what trilobite chracteristics in anatomy are or were?'.
--I actually have done web searches on trilobites, but what I used to always find is that we don't know too much about them (at least not compaired to the links you provided), I found that in most cases, environmental factors and the like were based on how they are found in the fossil record with the assumption of a uniformitarian deposition. As the link you provided is very nice, I see otherwize.--I found in the contents that Trilobite Evolution, Enviroment, and the Decline of the Trilobites the most interesting. Trilobite Anatomy I had allready had knowledge of.
--I found some things interesting in the articles:Environment - http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/envir.html#environment

quote:

---

This trilobite seen to the right (Bumastoides, taken from PaleoPalace.com) did not have the ability to see, however this did not pose a problem as it was constantly submerged in the sea floor sediment.

---

--And indicating from an earlier read text, Eyes obviously appeared later in Trilobite geologic history, in which they were sometimes 'swimmers', but also well built for retreat to submerge themselves in sediment. This seems to comply with a theoretical Flood.
--Also, just as a thought, it was an interesting note to read that it is evident that they lived at ocean bottom salt water. I'm not sure if it would effect Trilobite fossilization, but as I learned from research in the Field of Marine Geology, ocean bottoms are not only next to freezing, but well oxygenated. Thereby complying an argument of Evolutionary deposition with the factor of decay and anaerobic and aerobic bacterial activity.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-27-2002]

"HI TC!!! you're missing all the fun back in the other forum! im dying to hear some of your responses. if you don't give any, i suppose ill be forced to copy n paste the convos into this forum! "
--Actually if you copy and paste them here, it would be much more helpful, I don't think I'll be posting in that forum for a couple of reasons. One being it's extreamly small font, and with my monitor's set resolution, individual letters are no more than 1.5-2.0 mm. in diameter, a quite strenuous reading. Also because I have found that it is very hard with my participation rate in discussions to keep up to pace with more than one forum. Even with the Factor of myself trying to create a web site, 2 of them for that matter. Percipients EvCforum gains my favor in both of these details. ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-27-2002]

i refresh this page, but i can't see the new messages...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Creationists infer an existence sequence ?"
--Of course, otherwize I would have no other choice but refer a retreat in shouting 'conspiracy conspiracy!'.

​

"Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that the
burrials would be random ?"
--If my story of God holding the animals till one sudden moment
at the climax of the Flood, sure there would be emensly more randomness (though there still would be a consistancy to a degree).

---

So the burrials SHOULD be random ... not ordered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Not so. If a fossilised hominid were found in the jaws of an
Allosaurus evolution could NOT cope with that ... and I doubt
any modification of the theory could."
--Now if this hominid found in the jaws of an Allosaurus were found, there would possibly be some burrial excuses, but then again, something this extream would not hold up well at all of course.

---

Glad we agree on that ... Evolution IS refutable given approriate
evidence. It may NOT have to be THAT extreme, but not going into
that in this thread (I think it's more for a 'What would
convince you?' thread).

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

There are modifications taking place in evolution theory alot of the time. When different organisms are found in different layers and such. Your not going to find something like your hominid approach or a wallrus in cambrian strata, those are large extremeties. What you will find is possibly few ammounts of one type of animal in lower strata, which Evolution is well adapt to cooperate I have found. Keep in mind that the Geo column isn't a hill's worth of strata. There are thousands of layers, that are marked with eras, periods, etc. by the order of the find of variations in phylogeny and anatomy of organisms.

---

That's the nature of theories ... if new evidence emerges some or all
of a theory has to be re-arranged.If the evidence is completely contrary to the theory the theory
WILL be discarded.Creationists do exactly the same. Come up with some evidence that
appears to refute a claim, and there's a bit more 'research', and
a get out appears.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"By 'no anomalies' I meant that where fossils are found, the same
(broadly speaking) types of fossil are found in the equivalent
layers ... all around the world."
--Thats right, though refer to the above. The Geologic column by distribution of fossils is not blocky, that is things just don't all of a soden appearing in massive quantities in the same marked strata. Its a smooth spectrum, where your going to find one animal, the further you go down, the less densly they will be found.

---

Yes, and there will be layers above and below where those remains
are completely absent. (It is the 'below' part that is the
most important ... since scientists have been wrong about
extinctions in the past).

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"No, not presented for burrial. In the flood model ALL animals
(barring the Arkers) were presented for burrial within a one year
period starting with the deluge."
--Hm.. I guess it was just a miss-wording and understanding, I concur.

​

"I was getting more at the idea that only certain, 'older'
forms are represented in the fossil record. That's older
in a evolutionary interpretation, of course."
--And Flood interperetation might I add.

---

So you agree that the fossil record shows an existence sequence
from older forms to newer, and yet still hold the Biblical
account of creation and of a great flood to be literally
correct ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Is there then a single, fossilised proto-lion which you know of ?"
--Frankely, I can't find much at all on lion evolution, let alone the cats. Can you find anything?

​

"The flood model would require it as evidence."
--So would evolution , unless ofcourse they would accept Jumps from dogs to cats in a generation. Lions do exist, and according to evolution theory, everything has come from one common ancestor, thus the lion.

---

Evolution does not REQUIRE it as evidence, without this there is
plenty of other evidence for evolution (with which you tend
to disagree/interpret different, but none the less ... ).For the flood model as you have stated it::Any animal touching bottom will be fossilised.
Animals on the Ark were those BEFORE speciation.Would require these proto-whatevers to support the model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Another phase ... where's that come from ?"
--Phases in the Flood, such as the point of the ice age, killing off dinosaurs, a phase in which sediment settled and were transported by oceanic currents during the flood at different places on the earth. In all simplicity these factors produce a phase-like progression.

---

So is the Bible literally correct or not, in this matter ?If the bible has omitted important information, then it is not
complete, and so we cannot claim what is there to be anything
other than an abridged/edited highlights version. That being the
case how can we ascribe literal truth to what IS included ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"So you agree with my comment that burrial sequence would be
related to individual ability to survive the conditions."
--You could say that.

​

"None of the animals would be able to completely survive the flood,
but some individuals could last longer than others."
--Thats right, thats why we don't see every animal look as if they all keeled over and died like the dinosaurs, we se progression, which is none-the-less evidence for the Flood, likewize Evolution by this factor alone.

​

"That's NOT species, that's individual animals. Some proto-lions
would be stronger than others and so survive longer, and be buried
later."
--No doubt.

---

In general there are marked differences in vertebrate skeletal
structure between infants and adults. These alone can be
used to identify infant remains.In the flood model, with anything touching sea bed being fossilised
we should see many fossils of infants, since these would have been
too weak to survive for more than a very short time.We do not see that many infant remains.Sorry ... the baby's crying I'll carry on with this reply later

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Yes ... if you place them in the water in a particular sequence,
then there is a sequence."
--You don't have to put them in sequencially, you could throw a clam in the water, and throw the bird in the water at the same time, your going to get the clam on the bottom, and with massive quantities, many other factors would be brought in, that is, seeing that clams would be overlapping with birds after a while, for instance.

​

"You already said that's not what happened
though."
--I don't believe I did, what did I say?

---

And what about throwing in an elephant and a juvenile
apatosaurus ?Why would one (elephants can swim, sauropods are thought to have
been able to swim) hit bottom before the other ?And not JUST one, all apatosaurs hit the bottom before ANY
elephants ... when survival is based (you agreed) on INDIVUDUAL
survivability.OR in case we have a problem with supposing that a sauropod could
swim, why would ALL elasmosaurs (water dwellers as it is) die
before ANY elephants (or mastodons or whatever YOU would expect
to be the proto-elephant of Noah's time) ?BTW you said ::

quote:

---

--Note: God didn't keep all the animals out of the water and wait till it was flooded to throw everything back onto the earth to be burrial, thereby constituting randomness...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"If, on the other hand, you have an environment with a variety of
life, covering the major ecological niches required, and then deluge
it rapidly how does the OBSERVED sequence occur ?"
--I don't fully understand what you mean by 'how does the OBSERVED sequence occur', but I believe the answer would be to attribute and consider characteristics and any factor that would contribute to its order of deposition.

---

Fair enough ... what characteristics and factors could contribute
to the CONSISTENT sequence found in the fossil record.Evolutionary theory claims that remains found in lower levels
were deposited long before those in higher strata. That
fits the data. If the lower remains lived and died before
the births of those in higher layers (regardless of the actual
time period) we would expect to see the progression which can
be OBSERVED in the fossil record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"It's a difficult one to explain, because you are putting up the
kind of suppositions and scenario reasoning that you discount
when put forward as evolutionary explanations."
--Not really, many attributions of Flood explination not only is evidence of the Flood, but as you see throughout these debates very frequently, your going to consider 'interepretation'.

---

Interpratation of data ... true.Suppose you hadn't read anything about creationist claims about
how the fossil record originated.What about the fossil record would lead you to suppose that all
the remains had co-existed, and that some cataclism had burried
them in a sequence such that some forms appeared to precede others
in time AND in form ?The hypothesis that the fossil record indicated an order of existence
from long ago to more recent times was made based upon the data
BEFORE evolutionary theory existed. It was later used as additional
evidence to support evolutionary concepts put forward in the
origin of species.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"In the flood scenario, strong intelligent animals would survive
longer than weaker, less intelligent animals."
--Right.

​

"Many dinosaurs are thought to have been able to swim ... duck-billed
varieties spring to mind, and even T.Rex might have
been able to, and these animals are big and strong. Sure they
would starve to death eventually, but if they had metabolisms similar
to modern day crocodiles that could take over a year (big if
but there are prescedents for SOME animals to be able to survive
without ANY food for extended periods)."
--I don't think they have the same anatomical structure and functions as crocodiles and alligators, being dinosaurs in contrast. My explination of Dinosaur 'extinction', is placing it at the rise of the ice age, thereby annialating dinosaurs over a period of time. This also would include other's that arent exactly 'dinosaurs' such as pterosaurs.

---

Again, that's fair enough. We do not have sufficient knowledge
of dinosaur metabolisms to know how often they required food.The point I was trying to make is that there is NO logical reason
why ALL of one kind of animal could have died and been burried
before ANY of another kind, when all co-existed, and survivability
is individual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
You are free to disagree. If purely natural processes are shown to be enough to account for everything, the Creation account would fall just as sure as a house of cards would fall when struck by the wind of a fan. IOW, it would be falsified. There is no doubt about that in the minds of learned Creationists.

​

Origins is a historical science, as such is highly speculative and based upon one's worldview as much as it is upon evidence. No one has been able to give me a logical reason why origins matters at all. Go figure.

---

I guess you didn't realise what I was disagreeing on. The Theory of Evolution is the study and belief that life came about over time. How would proving that dissaprove a creator? Maybe immediate creation like you believe, but that is all. No matter what science finds out (unless they work out how energy comes from a non existant source, which would go against a well demonstrated law), than God can always sit on top of it all.What you have to realise is working out how the wheels go around will never prove a God didn't put those wheels in motion in the first place.RC

may i ask a very simple question?why aren't humans or any other modern animal for that matter found fossilized?no lionsno humansno ratsno slothsno koalasno kangaroosno primates (modern)no cat-like speciesno human tools (a hammer)no childrenno cattleno cropsno horsesall we see are primitive animals in a neat geological order. the more primitive, the lower in the strata.and why do we find fossils of the following (keep in mind that the following would be fossilized in a downpour that covered the entire planet in water.)?fossilized dinosaur nests
ant nests
termite nests
bird nests (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming)
fragile wasp nests
complex rodent burrows
animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground
trackways of land animals
raindrop imprints
fossilized mudcracks
fragile things preserved as fossils, such as bird feathers (Confuciusornis)
ferns (adjacent to coal beds)
insects (Oligocene lake beds near Florrisant, CO),All these fragile features are found deep in the geological record. A catastrophic flood would have destroyed them. I would especially like you to consider how raindrop imprints and mudcracks could have become fossilized in a sudden, massive flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
You are free to disagree. If purely natural processes are shown to be enough to account for everything, the Creation account would fall just as sure as a house of cards would fall when struck by the wind of a fan. IOW, it would be falsified. There is no doubt about that in the minds of learned Creationists.
Origins is a historical science, as such is highly speculative and based upon one's worldview as much as it is upon evidence. No one has been able to give me a logical reason why origins matters at all. Go figure.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I guess you didn't realise what I was disagreeing on. The Theory of Evolution is the study and belief that life came about over time. How would proving that dissaprove a creator? Maybe immediate creation like you believe, but that is all. No matter what science finds out (unless they work out how energy comes from a non existant source, which would go against a well demonstrated law), than God can always sit on top of it all.
What you have to realise is working out how the wheels go around will never prove a God didn't put those wheels in motion in the first place.

---

Science isn't around to explain the meaning of life. that's up to theology, philosophy, and religion.but you assume that god is infinite, no? if he is infinite, why can't the universe (or cosmos) be infinite as well? if it is, it would not require a creator...but again- this is not science, this is speculation.science doesn't touch on the final origins of the universe. It simply proposes theories regarding the physical nature of the universe. it can tell you that time is relative, it can explain to you why this is possible, but in the end, it can't tell you why time is relative in the first place.

Sorry about the split in this reply ... babies!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"The sequence of burrial evident in the fossil record shows increasing
complexity of form. In some layers there are a mixture of animals
which fit ecological niche concepts, some small, some large."
--Right.

​

"This does not fit with what can be expected from a flood scenario."
--See above.

---

Nothing in the above goes very far to explain the consistency
within the fossil record ... see my previous posts!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"I'm not saying it's the only explanation that fits, I'm saying
that evolution fits the fossil record data."
--See above on my response on this specific.

---

Are you referring to evolution being able to exaplain anything ?If you are, isn't that an indication that it might be right.
The consistency with which evidence can be interpreted should
be quite compelling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"This IS NOT a conclusion."
--Whew, I'm glad to hear that.

​

"I am exploring the flood scenario with you at the moment, in an
attempt to see how the Great Flood could have lead to the burrial
sequence evident in the fossil record."
--See above.

​

"So far I cannot find a convincing explanation for that sequence
which is explainable by the flood scenario."
--I wouldn't expect you to think otherwize, otherwize, you most likely wouldn't be an Evolutionist now would you?

---

Give me some sound, logical and/or physically credible explanation
of the sequence in the fossil record other than that given
by evolutionists and you might shake my foundations

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Hopefully I have made clear my objections to the sequencing suggestions you have made."
--Discussion continues, and yes we are making nice progress, I am enjoying exchangment of examples, objections, and ideas.

---

Indeed.

moving this to the topyecs- see my questions above...

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
-----------
I guess you didn't realise what I was disagreeing on. The Theory of Evolution is the study and belief that life came about over time. How would proving that dissaprove a creator? Maybe immediate creation like you believe, but that is all. No matter what science finds out (unless they work out how energy comes from a non existant source, which would go against a well demonstrated law), than God can always sit on top of it all.

​

What you have to realise is working out how the wheels go around will never prove a God didn't put those wheels in motion in the first place. RC

---

Excellent point, Retro. Science has no interest in disproving the existence of God or gods. In fact, science has no capability of doing so. The question has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory, or any of the other realms upon which science - based on examination of natural phenomena - has jurisdiction.