|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I'm not an expert in that area, neither in this thread.
But I'm just here to show you that the fossil record does fit in with creationism. I wouldn't say it fits evolution, just not enough transitional fossils, especially preceding the Cambrian Explosion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I don't buy the arrows. I need more evidence than that.
The arrows merely reflect the earlier "out of Africa" hypothesis based on fossils , not on DNA. The actual DNA variety in the Middle east tells a different story. Please explain why they pointed the Africa arrows up, it makes more sense to point them down from the Middle East.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
They used to write off Troy as a myth until it was found. Are you referring to the Egyptian Narmer Tablets?
Certainly the existence of those dinosaur depictions in Egyptian artifacts is enough to make many think twice about schoolbook history. It takes a free thinker to do so, obviously most of you are emotionally invested in your side of this debate to really free your minds to alternative possibilities. But always the academic mind should consider the alternatives and truly weigh up the core evidence for a view.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I already explained that the concentration of humans would naturally be where the bible described them, which is a pre-flood highland area. And to find mammals we would have to look in an area with similar eco-system to today, an area of pre-flood angiosperms. This area is in Siberia.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Massive Genetic Study Supports "Out of Africa" Theory
John Roach for National Geographic News February 21, 2008 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...21-human-genetics.html A massive new study of human genetic diversity reveals surprising insights into our species' evolution and migrationsincluding support for the theory that the first modern humans originated in Africascientists said today. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Like I explained in my previous post, pre-flood mammals would be found in a rare pre-flood environment conducive to mammals. One would look in the same place one finds pre-flood angiosperm fossils. ie Siberia.
Obviously mammals would not be found in those wet flood vulnerable areas suited to amphibians. The theory of evolution is missing a lot more fossils than just mammals. You are missing nearly EVERY fossil. The ones found are only a tiny tip of the iceberg of fossils that should exist because you should be able to show a transition for EVERY creature that exists. Yet you just have the occasional sequence ..... and sometimes dubious sequences. So the lack of mammal fossils in creationism is nothing compared to the evolutionary lack.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You say: "And yet another totally unsupported assertion. There is no evidence of an Ark or any reason that the Ark story explains what was found unless as usually you just make stuff up"
Actually an unusual gathering of a wide variety of earliest mammals in Turkey, would be EXACTLY what one would expect from the ark. Yet the article acts confused why they gathered there in Turkey.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
mindspawn writes: I already explained that the concentration of humans would naturally be where the bible described them, which is a pre-flood highland area. And to find mammals we would have to look in an area with similar eco-system to today, an area of pre-flood angiosperms. This area is in Siberia. Well no, you have not explained anything. The Bible flood myths do not say that the concentration of humans was in some pre-flood (or even post flood) highland area or why we should look in Siberia or that pre and post flood highland areas were different. BUT guess what, the Bible flood stories say that there were humans right there in the middle east, that the imaginary flood covered the mountains, that there were mammals right there in River City yet no evidence of any mammals including humans has ever been found below the P/T boundary. But wait...there's more. The Siberian Traps cover only part of Siberia. And much of Siberia has been searched and while lots of evidence of pre-P/T boundary life has been found there, no evidence of any pre-P/T boundary mammals has ever been found. Stupid God; sending a flood when all the bad humans and other mammals that got his panties in a wad were already buried by lava flows. Stupid God.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Like I explained in my previous post, pre-flood mammals would be found in a rare pre-flood environment conducive to mammals. One would look in the same place one finds pre-flood angiosperm fossils. ie Siberia. And one would not find any.
Obviously mammals would not be found in those wet flood vulnerable areas suited to amphibians. And nor apparently would crocodiles, because jeez, whoever heard of a crocodile living in a swamp?
The theory of evolution is missing a lot more fossils than just mammals. You are missing nearly EVERY fossil. The ones found are only a tiny tip of the iceberg of fossils that should exist because you should be able to show a transition for EVERY creature that exists. Only if every species had been (a) fossilized and (b) discovered by us by 2016.
Yet you just have the occasional sequence ..... and sometimes dubious sequences. So the lack of mammal fossils in creationism is nothing compared to the evolutionary lack. Well, given that we have lots of intermediate forms and that you have no Paleozoic mammals ...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
"You get less and less variation the further you go from Africa," said Marcus Feldman, an evolutionary biologist at Stanford University in California and a study co-author.
This Marcus Feldman obviously has not looked at the haplogroup map. You actually get less and less variety the more you go out from the Middle East. That is the fact of the haplogroup map. So he is incorrect. As usual scientists have all the evidence at their fingertips and then interpret it incorrectly. http://www.madsci.org/...rchives/2007-03/1174412643.Ge.1.jpg
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
You keep up bringing up OOPARTS but present nothing to back your claims. Just assertion after assertion.
You claim that scientists ignore them because they don't want to be ostracized. But scientists have looked at them and have found the evidence lacking. Present evidence to back your claim about why scientists don't support you. Some scientist must have told you this or else you would just be pulling arguments out of your ass. You wouldn't do that would you? Present your artifacts and we will review them. Look at the evidence and determine where the evidence leads. I hope they are a higher class than your claim the Narmer tablet represents actual dinosaurs. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
mindspawn writes: Actually an unusual gathering of a wide variety of earliest mammals in Turkey, would be EXACTLY what one would expect from the ark. Yet the article acts confused why they gathered there in Turkey. Have you ever read the Bible? I know most Biblical Christians don't seem to have read any of it but I always hope.
Genesis 6 writes: 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. According to the Bible myth TWO of every kind would come, not whole herds of critters. But maybe God did not know how to count?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I did edit my post as I studied more on stromatolites
You are presenting arguments on the formation of stromatolites and you are just studying up on them now? Maybe you should acknowledge that you are a bit put of your field of expertise. The hubris is astounding.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2660 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You say: "Only if every species had been (a) fossilized and (b) discovered by us by 2016."
lol.... not very strong supporting evidence. Do you know how many fossils you are missing?? You need transitions to explain the sudden appearance of nearly every major phyla in the Cambrian Explosion. Which obviously points to creation. Not only that..... at least creationism has a valid theory of origin. Yet abiogenesis is a theoretical impossibility because of the need for multiple opposing environments in the same spot at the same time to create life. There is not even a hypothesis that is fitting for such a situation, yet many evolutionists would rather embrace the mythical impossibility of abiogenesis than admit to the Cambrian Explosion's obvious evidence for creation. And yet you attempt to discredit creationism for some missing fossils??
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
It takes a free thinker
You present yourself as a freethinker? You really should learn what the word means. I do love your gish gallop and how you hand wave away all arguments.
But always the academic mind should consider the alternatives and truly weigh up the core evidence for a view.
An academic mind should follow the evidence where ever it goes. You sir are incapable of that. Everything for you leads to the bible. All data is used to construct evidence for a biblical view. You will consider nothing else. That defines a closed mind. Do not insult others by claiming an open mind or assuming the mantle of a freethinker.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024