The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

But let me quote you this again. "The Cambrian of the Siberian Craton is famous for the variety and preservation of its fossils". But none of them are mammals. Well, we do find that where corals can live, lobsters can live. So, let me get this straight, some dinosaurs were descended from sea-crocodiles, others from birds. By convergent evolution. And yet there is no sign of either crocodiles or birds in the Pre-Triassic, and no sign of the family Crocodylidae until after the extinction of all the dinosaurs, and no sign of birds until after the evolution of such major groups of dinosaurs as ankylosaurids and stegosaurids, and no sign of modern birds such as ravens and doves (supposedly on the ark) until after the evolution and extinction of all the dinosaurs.Do you see why we think you have a problem? There is no scientific debate as to whether there was a global flood. That is settled. You are ignoring this.

Well, it's not like we're completely without candidates for the ancestors of trilobites.Origins of TrilobitesBut you, mindspawn, are completely without candidates for pre-Triassic mammals, birds, crocodiles, lobsters, flowering plants, teleost fish, scleratinian corals ... do we have to go through this again? I think I'll just repeat what I said in post #765.---Don't you think there's a bit of a double standard here? Look, in the world according to mindspawn:(1) The Earth a mere 5000 years ago was inhabited by great big organisms with hard parts: elephants, rhinos, whales, ichthyosaurs, etc.
(2) And yet not one, none, zero of these has been discovered in fossil form in the present day.
(3) But this is not a big problem for your "theory", tralalala, no big deal.And yet when we come and tell you that we've only found a few dozen or hundred species (WHICH IS STILL MORE THAN ZERO, MINDSPAWN) of the small, soft-bodied creatures from 540,000,000 years ago, you act like it's a major problem.Could you not try to apply a single standard for your expectation of the preservation and discovery of fossils?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How many times do I need to quote: "the Cambrian of the Siberian Craton is famous for the variety and preservation of its fossils"?The remoteness and the flood basalts have not prevented us from finding so many Paleozoic fossils in Siberia that the region is famous, mindspawn, famous for the copious variety of well-preserved Paleozoic fossils found there. So there must be some other reason why we don't find Mesozoic and Cenozoic organisms in the Paleozoic rocks. The excuses you have been using do not work. Think of another one. (Or you could face reality, that would work.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"One" would? But no creationist ever has before you. So, yeah, one. Just one. Whoever else in the whole world has read the Bible, decided to fight for a literal interpretation and Young Earth Creationism, and also decided that all marsupials evolved from a common ancestor? I thought that according to you the facts are all hiding under the Siberian Traps, explaining why we can't see any of them.

That's a lie that creationists have made up.This is consistent with the theory of evolution, which predicts that creationists will have to lie in order to go on arguing. No, they claim that WE HAVE THE FOSSILS, WE WIN.And you know this, mindspawn, because I said so clearly and distinctly in post #654, which you must have noticed because you replied to it.So, mindspawn, you are deliberately lying, to us, about what we claim.How can you possibly hope to deceive us?

"The Wright Brothers were mature enough to admit that they couldn't fly across the Atlantic, no-one here has admitted that there is such a problem with transatlantic flight."

This concept that all change is hidden is merely a lie that you have made up in your head because you are unable to rebut what we actually say.

It is a picture of many intermediate forms, and I interpret it as a picture of many intermediate forms because it is a picture of many intermediate forms.

That would be the fossil record, genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography, behavioral ecology, etc.Do you have any evidence for organisms being poofed into existence by a psychopathic invisible wizard who lives in the sky?

Just like if my father is significantly taller than me and my grandfather, he must be eliminated from the transitional sequence to me; he is an irrelevant person unrelated to the others.Creationist logic, it's so delicious.

My point is that there were many intermediate species, which is why we have all these fossils of intermediate species.

Yes you did. No.

And proved false, and ridiculed. So if you want to give up, that's fine. Gather up the tattered remnants of your dignity (your integrity, alas, is past salvaging) and by all means leave. All the intermediates we find support our view. And your complete failure to find a single one of the fossils which would be there if your daydreams bore any resemblance to reality invalidates yours.We have the fossils. We win.

So, just to be clear about this, in your world possums, kangaroos, koalas and wombats all diverged from a common ancestor within a few thousand years, but hominids with different-sized pelvises can't be related to each other?

Well, the differences between a kangaroo and a wombat apparently don't "indicate a unique species", but their similarities do indicate common descent. So let's agree that any "jump" that size or smaller doesn't "indicate a unique species".Unless you would like a criterion based on your prejudices rather than actual morphology?