The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

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.

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.

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.

"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

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??

I don't proclaim to be an expert. I am not an expert. Therefore I am open to learning. At the same time I like a good point and a logical argument. As such evolution appears to be the weaker theory. Enlighten me if I am wrong. There are more missing fossils and weaker explanations for evolution and abiogenesis than creationism.

I will consider all scientific evidence, and always try to adjust my view to fit the evidence. I do try and be open minded to the evidence. Yes I do take the bible as evidence as well, something that you may find strange, but using the bible I may just be able to interpret the science in some cases.ie scientists debate about whether the PT boundary had a major transgression or a major regression. I am confident in the flood story and so I can tell you the transgression was first. Followed by the regression.Scientists may wonder at the rapid Cambrian Explosion and look for earlier fossil transitions. I say it points to creation, and so you are unlikely to find earlier fossil transitions.Scientists may wonder why a wide variety of the earliest mammals would congregate in Turkey and then spread. I have the advantage of the bible, it says the ark settled in Turkey, which explains the congregation of early mammals.Haplogroup studies point to a spread of humans from the Middle East. Some scientists still support the "out of Africa hypothesis". The bible supports the haplogroup studies rather than the "out of Africa" interpretation of them. The bible implies a spreading from the ark, and describes a spreading from the tower of Babel. Once again I am at an advantage through taking the bible literally.

The bible actually describes 14 of every kind. Most people miss that. There are only two of the unclean ones, the rest have 14.

The overlap between humans and dinosaurs was just for a short early period of Middle Eastern history. Before that humans were in small numbers, not enough to reflect in archaeology or fossils. A litle later, when humans started cities and grew in numbes we signs of this overlap, other than the Sumerian seals, the Egyptian Narmer Tablets , we also have a Cynogathus represented in the temple of Gobleki Tepe.Just as early Egypt reached its peak, it appears the Old Kingdom was wiped out. Weather patterns changed. Sumeria went through a disaster as did the Indus civilisation. When these civilisations recovered they were never as strong as the original ones. The overlap between humans and dinosaurs as reflected in artifacts was only during those early advanced civilisations, just for a short period.

Look I do understand why they assume they come from Africa because certain African groups are without certain ancient mutations that every other group has.However this could also mean these groups migrated out the Middle East earlier than the rest. ie the assumption of location during earlier times could be the wrong assumption, especially when the rest of the groups expanded out from the Middle East.

Research into mammal evolution focuses on pivotal Eocene interval in Turkey | The University of KansasYou are correct, the scientists are more concerned why these unique fossils gathered there , than reference to their spreading. My bad for emphasizing subsequent spreading , I'm interpreting the evidence through my own paradigm which isn't the logical thing to do. But even so, its easy to explain the mystery expressed in the link via the ark story. They gathered there through the ark, then later some surviving species subsequently spread out.

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)

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.