The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Its not an unlikely "what if". That's just conjecture on your part. If you find people with a certain DNA in one area, to assume they have always been for thousands of years is not the most likely assumption. Humans move long distances over thousands of years. Especially when everyone else spread out from the Middle east. So to find an early unique haplogroup that exists in Africa now, just means they isolated themselves early on. They could have isolated themselves a small distance away from the rest. Then migrated a long distance. We do not know at this stage. so the out of Africa hypothesis is merely based on the assumption of early man in Africa.Fossil teeth place humans in Asia '20,000 years early' - BBC NewsScience seems to be all over the place now, Israel, China, Africa ? What next?

Thanks for the suggestion. but I am currently stuck in quick response mode, wanting to reply to everyone but not exactly having the time to do so.So I'm going off in multiple directions as each conversation develops. I'm sure the others would prefer to keep up current discussions?My original assertion is that fossil evidence reflects creation, followed by the flood at the PT boundary and rapid post-boundary adaptation.

Obviously they are all ark animals or rapidly adapted ark animals.I believe dinosaurs went through a period of rapid adaptation over a few hundred years , and so did the most mammals (that is why elephants, rhinos, giraffes etc changed their shape from the early Egyptian and Turkish types)The first marsupials are found in fossil graveyards in Egypt, reflecting an expanded population from the ark. Then some (maybe all) Australian marsupials are rapid adaptations from one South American marsupial. A possum. (opossum? I'm not sure)

Perhaps if you were to speak less authoritatively about subjects you do not know well, you would gain more respect. What I will note is that I provided you with all of the evidence you asked about nuclear reactions, neutron flux measurements etc, and that you had no response. It is easy to use other posts as an excuse not to respond to legitimate points being made.

Too funny. Yes, we know that there are two mutually exclusive flood myths in the Bible story but regadless, all the strange new animals whether the 2 of each kind or the other story end up on the ARK. BUT again, this is just yet more proof that the Bible story is just fantasy. Only one of the stories says that the animals will come, which animals not common to the area would need to do, and it says they will come by twos, a male and a female.We understand that the Bible is filled with factual errors, contradictions and logical fallacies but the fact remains that not one single example of a mammal including humans has ever been found below the P/T boundary and the Bible DOES claim there were humans and mammals in the area before the flood.Until you can present strong evidence of mammals and humans below the P/T boundary your position is simply another example of utterly sill Creationist fantasies.

The nice thing about DNA is the mutations that crop up periodically. Based on those, you can determine ancient population movements with a high degree of accuracy. And, though perhaps not quite as accurate, you can estimate ages between divergences.This is real evidence, not something you can hand-wave away with your belief about the Middle East.And that naked link you posted--perhaps you could explain it in your own words, as forum guidelines require?

The link suggests there were earlier humans in China. As well as mentioning early fossils in Israel. ie it gives alternatives to the straightforward out of Africa hypothesis.Other than the unique early haplogroup of for example the pygmy, what evidence have you got for these population movements out of Africa that you so confidently support? I have been explaining the evidence to you , I was the one who interpreted your evidence and explained the unique early haplogroups of certain groups in Africa. It is time for you to support and interpret your own evidence that you present.

I could say the same. Until you present strong evidence for the origins of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, this is just another example of silly evolutionist fantasies. Obviously if most major phyla suddenly appear this points to creation.Reveal your evidence of evolution........ I await in anticipation............ explain the Cambrian Explosion.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

The bible is not mutually exclusive2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.Seven pairs (14) of the clean animals
One pair (2) of the unclean animalsJust an interesting bible fact some of you may not know

Ah, the multi-regional hypothesis. I learned about that in grad school some decades back. There is more and more evidence being found to support it, but that doesn't help the case you are trying to make. The evidence is all over the place. By analyzing mtDNA patterns a clear picture can be drawn of relationships. Here is one such: The ancestral mtDNA is Haplogroup L, and that is located in Africa. You can trace the changes over time in this chart.

But not all birds are clean:

quote:

---

Leviticus 11:13-19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

---

And of course the Bible is also wrong about bats being birds.

The exact numbers cited in Genesis, including the fact that there are two sets of numbers that may or may not be reconcilable has been discussed at length here. You are so full of yourself.

You say the bible is wrong about bats being birds. Does the Hebrew word for birds in Leviticus refer to flying creatures generally, or does it specifically refer to the biological classification of ornithurae?Maybe you didn't think it through when you criticised the bible unfairly?Also who knows if the classification of clean and unclean kinds regarding ark numbers was the same as the classification system centuries later when referring to clean and unclean kinds from a dietary perspective. Have you a biblical perspective on this?

I think some people still may not know that the bible refers to 14 animals for some kinds.I don't see the need to throw around personal insults. If you have an unkind personality it must be unpleasant to live with yourself. No harm in kindness and manners.

Ok, just remember that I warned you when you disapear in a huff in a few days just like last time.