|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, Genesis 6 says two fowl while Genesis 7 says 7 pairs of some fowl. Sorry but yes, 2 and 7 and 14 are still not the same number.
But again, the Bible story of the flood is irrelevant to the topic or your claim that the Flood is seen at the P/T boundary. Stop trying to palm the pea, con the kids and show us evidence of mammals including humans below the P/T boundary. Absolutely nothing else is relevant as support for your assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I dealt with your query. I said that there are OOPARTS. Other than that, the most likely place to find pre-flood humans and mammals is the pre-flood Siberian highlands. It's difficult to find them under the flood basalts. But that is the likely location of a pre-flood biome similar to the modern biome. This is where one finds traces of a "boreal cradle"and traces of pre-boundary angiosperms.
I have a clear answer. What is your answer to the lack of transitional fossils to explain the sudden appearance of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but you do not have a clear answer just nonsense totally refuted by reality and the Bible.
The Bible says there were humans and mammals in the Middle East (the setting for the myths) before the flood. You claim that the Biblical Flood was at the P/T boundary yet you have presented no evidence and in fact NO ONE has ever found a single piece of evidence if any mammals or humans below the P/T boundary. As to your question the so called Cambrian Explosion was simply a term based on ignorance. Science has learned since that term was created that there was no Cambrian explosion, only a lack of sample of Pre Cambrian fossils found. Fortunately science, unlike dogma, learns from it's errors and today we know that what seemed an explosion was just normal evolution. While Creationists cling to refuted concepts Science moves ahead. But of course it is also really stupid to try to use anything from the Cambrian period as evidence for Creation since once again, it is just more proof that the Bible is factually wrong. The Bible lists what was created and even when it was created and golly gee, no one single critter mentioned in the Bible existed during the Cambrian Period. The fossils that do exist from the Cambrian and Pre Cambrian period (also known as reality) simply refute what is claimed in the Bible creation myths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Mindspawn,
Been a while since we last talked about the Validity of Radiometric Dating or about ID (and the definition of life).
I have a clear answer. ... 2 + 2 = 5 Well golly gosh, I have a clear answer. What is your answer to explain the end number?
... What is your answer to the lack of transitional fossils to explain the sudden appearance of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion. Curiously, there are transitional fossils, it wasn't sudden, and they weren't phyla (a human construct) at the time. There, I have a clear answer. Has it really been 3 years since you dropped out on the Great debate on radiocarbon dating? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
you say evolution has been proved it, but there exists no core evidence for the theory of evolution. Wrong. Remember all those fossils we have? We win. (If you want to be wrong about genetics, start a new thread.)
Transitional sequences sometimes do exist, but even this merely proves rapid outward adaptation. By "outwards adaptation" you mean "evolution", yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Other than that, the most likely place to find pre-flood humans and mammals is the pre-flood Siberian highlands. Why? Is that also where we'd find all the dinosaurs and the teleost fish and the lobsters and the scleratinian corals?
What is your answer to the lack of transitional fossils to explain the sudden appearance of most phyla in the Cambrian Explosion. As something you made up. We have the primitive soft-bodied bilaterians, and we have the cataphract-armored intermediates between them and the full-on Cambrian explosion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You say: "As soft-bodied bilaterians, things like, say, Dickinsonia do seem like plausible precursors to bilaterians with exoskeletons, with species with cataphract armor as an intermediate stage." Please post your evidence. what are your sources? You could start here ... Just a moment...Just a moment... Major Events in the History of Life - Google Books
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
you say evolution has been proved it, but there exists no core evidence for the theory of evolution. But I see that you have not answered my question. Let me repeat it. You admit, apparently, that koalas, kangaroos, possums and wombats evolved from a common ancestor. Good. But what do you hope to gain by doing so? When confronted with this question, you started talking about how there's no evidence for evolution. Well, according to your own claims, there is for the evolution of koalas, kangaroos, possums and wombats AND ALL THE DINOSAURS. Apparently all that divides us now is that you overestimate how powerful evolution is and so underestimate how long it takes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mindspawn writes:
One also has to be careful when assuming a translated book thousands of years old has no inconsistencies.
So then one has to be careful when criticising a translated book thousands of years old without looking up the Hebrew. mindspawn writes:
The inconsistency that I originally pointed out is the inconsistency in the numbers. The Hebrew word used in Leviticus 11 is "owph" which means flying creatures and even includes insects. But yes, that is off topic. The topic is about how creationism doesn't agree with the fossil record. I was just pointing out that creationism doesn't agree with the Bible either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
So you admit there is a contradiction.
No it is not a legal document, but you want it to be more. Do you not see the cognitive dissonance in your argument? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Still waiting for your evidence for OOPARTS.
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 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually much of the Bible most certainly was a legal document and if you ignored those parts or tried to claim it was not a legal document you still got stoned or burned or had all of your belongings taken and told to get the hell outta Dodge.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Fair question. I was hoping the research into the similarities and differences of the possum, kangaroo, koala and wombats of Australia would have enough information to compare their genomes precisely with the American possum with which they share common ancestry. Under creationist theory, we would expect a near exact match between the genomes. The DNA structure of coding genes would be the same between all five genomes apart from a few point mutations and inactive genes since their separation from their American counterparts about 4000 years ago. Thus we have "Kinds" and then some breeds, much like dogs are related.
Under evolutionist assumptions, these organisms had a net gain of about 19000 unique coding genes since the original prokaryote, and so one would expect this process to continue over the last 30-80 million years of separation with their American counterpart. One would then expect the American possum to have a significantly different genome with approximately one new unique gene introduced in each lineage for every 30 000 years. ie one would expect about 1000 new unique coding genes in the American marsupial and the same in the Australian marsupials if evolution is a continuing process as claimed by evolutionists. However I cannot find any clearcut genome comparison between the two lineages. I suspect they are too amazingly similar for evolutionary theory, but the information I have does not confirm or deny this. Australia's marsupials 'have American roots' - BBC News In conclusion, the fact that Australian marsupials share a common ancestor with an American possum does not help nor harm my view of rapid outward adaptation. It does help me in my discussions with other creationists but that is irrelevant in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I have no evidence that would be accepted on this site. So why post my information when I know beforehand my sources are unsatisfactory to you? It is one of those subjective situations like when you hear someone testify in trial. Some will believe, some wont. If anyone reads up about these OOPARTS, some will be very convinced, some wont. It's too subjective to be acceptable scientific evidence. Nevertheless these OOPARTS exist, and many including myself believe the eyewitness reports and other information presented in OOPARTS websites. Some ooparts are merely hoaxes, some ring true.
Some of those that ring true to me are the Sumerian seals which depict dinosaurs. The Egypt Narmer tablets which depict dinosaurs. And the so-called "lion" of Gobekli Tepe which looks more like a cynogathus. But there are many , many more of these Out Of Place Artifacts which are not studied by mainstream science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I can see how some would read a contradiction into Genesis 6 and 7 because there is some ambiguity there. Legal documents are often written in such a way to as to avoid all ambiguity. The bible was not written like that. There is a lot of ambiguity if one isn't really interested in the prima facie meaning in verses in the bible. If you want to object to the bible you will always find the ammunition to do so. Those that truly want to seek out the truth will also find it in the bible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024