The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

C'mon mindspawn, roll back the persecution act. No-one is deriding or insulting you. True, I have said that you lack understanding of biology and palaeontology, but that's not an insult. 99.99% of people lack understanding of this subject, simply because it's a vast and complicated subject that's extremely difficult to get a handle on. There's no shame in not knowing these things. I don't pretend to be an expert myself; my palaeontological knowledge is decidedly lacking. But you know what? I'm not the one telling the scientific community that they're all wrong and that I know better! And if any of the "facts" in your posts were actually real facts, you might have a point. In reality, 90% of the "facts" you rely upon are bogus. And yes, everyone but you can see it. And that's how you see yourself is it? The lone voice in the wilderness, surrounded by biased fools who scoff at your genius?Hubristic rubbish.I'm not going to lather you up by offering false flattery; that really would be an insult. I tell it as I see it because it would be patronising to do otherwise. And what I see is someone who is out of his depth and who is wrong about nearly every single claim he makes. Worse, you are insistently wrong, making the same false claims, over and over, ignoring contradictory evidence as if it had never been raised. That is not the path to truth.I applaud you for walking back your error about arthropod diets. That was cool of you. But it's worth nothing if you immediately replace it with another falsehood that you just made up.You need to grow a thicker skin, take responsibility for your own arguments and, above all, fact check. Unless you start to do these things, you'll continue to spout bizarre nonsense forever.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

Yes I acknowledge that the radiation out from rare locations would also fit evolution, the unique advantage of some alleged mutation occurring at a specific location and radiating out from there. It is the sudden appearance of these organisms that points to creationism rather than evolution, not the unique locations themselves

---

Of course it goes well beyond a single mutation. Speciation events will often occur in a limited area, and given the size of the areas you are talking about much more evolution can occur before the population breaks out into the wider world. This is precisely what your own sources suggest happened. It is also the case that we were missing intermediates covering whale evolution, and the return to an aquatic existence until palaeontologists found them in Pakistan.It is also the case that these events can produce "sudden appearances" - thus you are in no position to claim that trilobites, for instance, were created because they "suddenly appeared" - by using them as an example of a "unique location" you have admitted that their history prior to their appearance is unknown.

quote:

---

My problem with evolutionary theory is that other than the "clades" one would expect from creationism, there are not enough intermediates to be sure of the theory

---

Well that is rather obviously not the case, since there are numerous intermediates that we would not expect if creationism were true. Your best example is the Cambrian explosion, but even that is unclear - and there is evidence suggesting that the "sudden appearance" is a limit of the fossil record. Compare with your idea of modern mammals living in Siberia all the way from the Precambrian to the end of the Permian which has no evidence at all - all you can do is point to things that might make it plausible, and even then they do not go nearly far enough. (For instance, do you really have evidence that conditions in Siberia were constant throughout that period ? It isn't something that seems very likely. )If your views were correct we should have far more "sudden appearances" than we do. There are far too many intermediates for your ideas to be considered reasonable.

quote:

---

Those on this site can mock as you will. Deride. Insult. Yet the facts are there for all to see. It would take a unique non-conformist mind-set that searches for truth rather than respect from peers to acknowledge the truth of what I say. I am reasonably sure none such exist on this site, maybe one of the visitors will see the truth of what I say.

---

Anyone who searches for the truth would immediately uncover many of your errors. You may mistake spinning an ignorant fantasy for "undeniable" logic but anyone who searches for the truth would check your claims and find you out. Your behaviour invites - and arguably deserves - ridicule. Especially the ridiculous and arrogant boasts like the above.

Evidence? Evidence?

Mindspawn seems to be ignoring the dating issue I raised in Message 962.That one issue alone sinks his entire scheme.

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.

I'm having a hard time following your reasoning.Are you saying that because angiosperms might have had an isolated 'cradle' for their origin and emanated from there, that all ("pre-boundary") organisms originated in Siberia?

"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.

I've always thought it interesting how YECs can take something that we (theoretically) don't know (like what's beneath the traps), and turn it into a 'fact' that underpins a theory for all of life.Contrarily, the ToE takes what we do know and then explains all of the facts.

Actually I have argued that the closest we can get on the evolutionary side to creationism concept of "kinds" is clades ... all descendants are still members of the kinds\clades, and we just disagree on how far back the clades go, where the original common ancestors began.Enjoy

Well said. Yes the observance of clades would be a natural assumption of both theories. Creationists often acknowledge the diversification of dogs, and humans and cats and some examples like the finch. So there is that implicit agreement in creationism to the concept of clades even if not always clearly admitted.

Umm the same finger points back at evolutionists. We observe the sudden appearance of most organisms fully formed with no ancestral trace back to the LUCA. No evidence exists.And so the same comment applies to evolutionists who take something we do not observe (evolution from a LUCA) and turn it into fact that underpins a theory for ALL LIFE. There is no evidence, yet the theory of evolution is widely accepted. ahem .... hehehe it would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. Why was it so READILY accepted without evidence.For two reasons:
1) Darwin's book was actually very well written and convincing, even though not conclusive.
2) The world was looking for an excuse to deny God. They found it. Until then creationism was a common/natural concept because God was a natural concept. Now the concept of God is regularly mocked.

There are libraries and museums and laboratories stuffed full of evidence. Waving you hands around doesn't magic it all away. Millions of scientists and 150 years of research and mindspawn alone knows the truth. You creationists sure have some ego. That's actually even more rediculous. Apart from the fact that evolution in no way denies god, the world was very happy with its gods. Gods solved all the problems of life, death and suffering for them. Nope religion is in decline in the West because it's being shown to be in error. It was and is a belief system. Belief systems change as real information about the world is discovered. We don't count angels on pinheads anymore and only the dreadfully deluded believe in the literal truth of their holy books. Religious belief changes along with our new understandings - that's going to annoy those with dogma, but that's just tough. Mostly it's the concept of silly religious beliefs and practices that are mocked. And quite rightly, most are objectively barking mad.

What is increasingly observed is that the spread of individual species throughout the geological column is wider than expected. The coelecanth, angiosperms, etc etc. Most phyla existed fully formed during the Cambrian Explosion and still exist today. This observance of early fossils surprisingly found alive today, and also of modern organisms surprisingly found fully formed in the Cambrian will continue until the current geological column is seen for what it is. The current geological column is a mere reflection of common widespread conditions. More and more niche environments will be uncovered over time. I am stating the obvious, obviously we will discover more niche environments the more we dig.Looking at the pre-flood world (the world before the known transgression/regression of the PT boundary) the most likely location of niche environments reflecting today's more common fauna/flora is the Siberian Plateau. This is where the lower oxygen levels and a non-aquatic environment were more conducive to the flourishing of mammals/humans/birds/angiosperms. The only reason they have not been found is because no one is looking in the only place they logically would be found. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You say "there are libraries and museums and laboratories stuffed full of evidence."This is where you are incorrect. The fossil evidence shows a variety of species, most appearing fully formed. The evidence shows that the dominant classes of chordata changed according to suitability of conditions, this does not prove evolution, it proves that a class of chordata will dominate when conditions are suitable (that's obvious). The evidence shows occasional adaptation of some organisms into "clades". The evidence shows a shocking number of organisms appearing fully formed with no intermediates.Sure the museums are stuffed full of evidence. But the evidence does nothing to conclude evolution, the theory of evolution remains an unlikely explanation for that evidence.

When you refer to Siberian Paleozoic fossils are you referring to marine or low elevation fossils? My obvious emphasis is the terrestrial Paleozoic fossils from the Siberian highlands, a large part of Siberia being terrestrial during the Paleozoic. Can you name some of the copious Paleozoic terrestrial organisms from the Siberian highlands of that time? My focus is those highlands.