Fossil Record as the Strongest or most compelling evidence of Macroevolution

'But the fossil record DOES NOT support a one time, young earth creation of all life.'Why can't it?
First there is the ASSUMPTION of millions of years, as can be fully seen in Ned's list. The fact is the rocks indicate sudden catastrophic burial. Proven through incredible preservation.(and why not?)
Secondly, we have these 'living fossils' which have not evolved in millions of years. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the 'living fossil' hasn't evolved in millions and millions of years, it simply is never going to. Add the lack of transitionals,(or rather none) and animals going from 'bigger' to 'smaller' and hey presto - all of a sudden it looks like creation. So, rid all these facts and THEN the evolution theory can have exclusive rights to the fossils. But ofcourse These are the FACTS. Are you going to deny 'living fossils'? Or 'preservation'?
If these facts cannot be rid, then your statement is not correct. Maybe neither evolution or Creation can be fully proven by fossils, which doesn't mean we have to assume evolution.

quote:

---

'Please explain where the supposed gaps are.'

---

Well, we already know about the 'so called' transitionals of humans. So you can tick them off my list. As for the other nice complicated names, that's all very well but no actual and definate transitionals have been found. Even those blokes down at Cambridge who where evolutionist told me that. So naturally I agree with Darwin, that the fossils are indeed the worst part of his theory.

quote:

---

'1) Such creatures are few and far between.'

---

What? - Frogs, starfish, fish, white sharks, all the known species of today that are found fossilized.

quote:

---

'You do realize that that is complete nonsense, right?

---

That's funny because only last week was a scientist showing me a sharks tooth as big as my hand which now is thumbnail size. The same with dragon flies. The same with croc's the same with insects, the same with beasts. Everything lives shorter and smaller than it did. Do you wnat me to ignore the evidence placed in front of my eyes?

quote:

---

2) Such creatures *have* evolved, just not as dramatically as their neighbors.

---

So your telling me a creature I recognise (how do I recognise it?) has evolved even though it hasn't - LOL

'If it is not the same speicies it hasn't evolved?'My point is a 'living fossil' is called just that because it has been found in the fossils and then found alive. And apparantly unevolved. So my question is, if it hasn't evolved, who says it ever did or ever will?'It seems you got a bit to much for you to absorb all at once.'Ofcourse, as you say Nosyned complications don't necessarily prove much. So parts of extinct animals and living animals have fancy names - Big deal it wont change the facts.'Which *spieces* are still around?'I have seen fossils of huge insects that are recognisable (recognisable?) huge - yes evolved - no.

Hasn't the 'line of skulls' been done already. Note the promonent forehead dissapears and reappears. The last three I admitt look similar, the rest could be apes.'Flat-out utterly incorrect. Do some reading before you post such things.'I admitt I don't know this million years or that million years, or those million years.
You say do some reading, but it was a geologist telling me these things. You still havent got rid of the living fossils. You can know every species on earth but you wont be able to change simple facts. Even the 'cambridge report' on fossils was more honest and they were evolutionist.'The tooth that you saw was probably from a Carchardon megalodon - which are from under 25 mya'The man that you saw was probably an elephant and was 2 million years old.'Also, how do you get lifespans from the fossil record?'the bigger they are the longer their lifespan. Noticed how simple it can be.'The earliest proto-frogs are salamander-like creatures from about 260mya.'My mum is 400 my old.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-10-2003]

Do me a favour, take out millions of years to prove to me your looking at the facts without presumption. One year at the museum it said this that and the other was 300 million years old. The next year it said this that and the other was 350 million years old. I obviously didn't realise I hadn't been the museum for 50 million years.

The fact is I can be the world's biggest nitwit. But the facts wont change. It's not that I don't get it, it's the fact that no evolutionist can explain in a simple way how the facts are wrong. You admitt living fossils - bingo, the facts, that CAN indicate creation rather than evolution whether I am Einstein or an ape.

Wrong,If big Crocs are found in the fossils, and huge insects e.t.c. How can't that mean they lived longer in a better climate?

'I'll bet you 20$ that if you go ask, the scientist will say that it's a megalodon. Want to take me up on that bet?'Sorry to dissapoint you, but the scientist showing me the tooth compared it to a recent shark, and yes it was the same.'Show me the multiple dating methods which all agree that she is 400.'It's easy , I'll ask that museum I went to.'And you also need to stop the nonsense about fossils being "size sorted", which 'My main points are, preservation and living fossils. Do you deny these facts? Answer without an animal name or m.y.

'1) You didn't address where I showed you that, in fact, these species have changed *dramatically* over the course of their history; 'Forgive me , but look at my comebacks. A gentle visit to the e.v.c to mention 2 facts was my actual intentions. The fossils I was shown 'living fossils' were recognisable. Now ask yourself this, if they havent evolved, or changed slightly within their kind why havent they changed over M>Y , could this 'not' support evolution and M>Y - if your reasonable you will admitt, this with the quick sudden preservation of fossils can indicate Creation. This is what Creation Scientists are saying, if your reasonable you'll agree they've stuck to the facts.The 'size' issue is not really my debating intentios, the evo's however have taken it and ran, my knowledge of this is limited. And Ned meeds to smile and lighten up.

Ned,
My main point is that living fossils do indicate Creation, or 'can'. To not admitt this simple truth is silly, as Creationists DO use this line of reasoning, they are also scientists and geologists. You have explained that a species doesn't, or might 'not' need to evolve, I accept your stance but I still think it can favour Creation - that's my objective, not to bash evolution completely but to say what creation scientists say can indicate Creation. And why should I believe you over them?

'Give me the scientist's name, and where they work.'John Mackay - Geologist. Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied Am I hiding?'one example of a species that hasn't changed dramatically over the course of Earth's history,'Any living fossil, a big Dragonfly

Well, picture are all I've ever been shown. Artists interpretations but no facts or fossils. That is why I enjoyed John Mackay's evidence, as he always brings it with him.'one example of a species that hasn't changed dramatically over the course of Earth's history,'The human Being. Sorry but the line of monkeys wont cut it.'and we have parts of protosharks as well)'Parts, that speaks volumes.

'P.S. - Thanks for letting me know who the "scientist" is. I emailed him pretending to be a creationist looking for help in a debate, so hopefully I'll get a response back some time this week. As I stated earlier, it's going to be a megalodon tooth. I can pretty much guarantee it.'Unfortunately you wont listen to what he is saying though. Which is a shame as he used to be an evolutionist and scientist for years, he is not stupid, he is a very learned man. He always brings recognisable fossils with him aswell. Why not just be honest about who you are? This doesn't bode well for me believing what you say.'Mackay can omit all he wants, but that doesn't change the reality of the fossil record 'Nor does it change the fact that he's the expert on fossils.'Yes, I know that you expect perfect preservation of a species with no bony skeleton from >400 million years ago. Why don't you just ask for Sauron's Ring while you're at it? 'Exactly, why should I jump to evolutionary conclusions, and remember I don't believe in millions of years.I assume your fossil is now extinct? What exactly does it proove by itself?