The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

quote:

---

Another fine point, well made.

​

The scientific world - and, as it happens, the majority of the religious world - is convinced. It underpins all of biological science. Virtually none of biology would make sense without it.

​

What is equally convincing is that only those with extreme religious beliefs remain unconvinced. This is not a coincidence. It is not possible to convince you with evidence, you are already convinced that no matter what evidence you see, that it is wrong. It MUST be wrong for you to hold the beliefs that you hold, so you create outragously rediculous scenarios such as fossils hiding in Siberia to explain to yourself, and only yourself, why the theory is wrong.

​

Creationists are the precedents for the current malaise of 'post truth'. Any old crap story can be invented to justify a ludicrous position. Like you, it's not necessary to hold any hard-earned qualifications and have real knowledge to form an opinion - you just create sciency sounding soundbites, pollute real science and distort and cherry pick real findings. It's a corrupt and corrupting practice, and should your imaginary god exist, he'll reserve a very special place for people like you that lie in his name.

---

Please post your proof of evolution. Instead of a pretty picture, a list of actual species over time that show changes beyond a clade.What is outrageously ridiculous is your claim that evolution exists without any proof. The more you guys mock the obvious location of a biome similar to ours in Siberia, the more I mention .... ahem...... the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION.... heheSure we are both missing fossils. You keep digging in the PreCambrian desperately hoping for some evidence that evolution exists, in the meantime I will watch the evidence to come out of the Siberian highlands. Deal?

You seem to dispute flooding at the PT boundary. Kindly refer to my recent post showing evidence for a significant transgressive and regressive event at the PT boundary.

quote:

---

And what about the fossils? Your excuse was that all the fossils that you need to exist were hiding under the Siberian traps where no fossils can be found, and then it was pointed out that we're knee-deep in Paleozoic fossils from that exact area.

---

I seemed to miss your evidence of Paleozoic fossils from specifically the Siberian highland area of the Paleozoic. Kindly post a link. It is that precise area which would have the climatic/atmospheric conditions conducive to modern prevalent lifeforms (angiosperms/mammals/birds)

quote:

---

Please be more specific about the trace fossils. If arthropods existed earlier than expected this could merely be confirmation of earlier trilobites not necessarily confirmation of their PREDECESSOR.

---

If the evidence is insufficient to come to a conclusion - even on a likelihood basis - then it can't be said to support one side or another. We cannot show that trilobites definitely had a predecessor but the evidence is certainly not good enough to say that there was none. In fact even the initial trilobite expansion from (probably) Siberia is not shown in the fossil record. Since we both agree that the trilobites expanded out from a single location we must also agree that the lack of fossils representing that expansion is a defect in the fossil record.In contrast, I remind you that you have absolutely no evidence for Precambrian mammals - or, indeed, any tetrapods. Not even ambiguous evidence. Nor even a good reason to think it plausible that such a diverse range of creatures were all hanging out in a single location, all unnoticed until they happened to pop out.

quote:

---

ie please post more detail about the physiology of the earlier arthropods to make your point relevant.

---

Obviously you have decided to make unreasonable demands after all. That hardly helps your position.

quote:

---

If the evidence is insufficient to come to a conclusion - even on a likelihood basis - then it can't be said to support one side or another. We cannot show that trilobites definitely had a predecessor but the evidence is certainly not good enough to say that there was none. In fact even the initial trilobite expansion from (probably) Siberia is not shown in the fossil record. Since we both agree that the trilobites expanded out from a single location we must also agree that the lack of fossils representing that expansion is a defect in the fossil record.

​

In contrast, I remind you that you have absolutely no evidence for Precambrian mammals - or, indeed, any tetrapods. Not even ambiguous evidence. Nor even a good reason to think it plausible that such a diverse range of creatures were all hanging out in a single location, all unnoticed until they happened to pop out.

---

So in fact you have no evidence for any predecessor to the trilobite. Nothing. Yes sure you can surmise they existed, but that is on the level of fantasy. Reality is they suddenly appeared fully formed as did MANY phyla at that time, the evidence favors creationism.

This sort of garbage is exactly what I mean by 'corrupt'.There are mountains of evidence, millions of papers written on it, several scientific disciplines created from it, whole tranches of medical developments because of it. Instead of asking for single post on a forum to convince you whilst sat at your computer consulting creationist websites and inventing imaginary scenarios of no scientific value, why don't you do some real, honest work yourself? Study it properly, get a valid qualification, do some research - get your arse off the archair and get some real knowledge.Ignorance is true bliss.

quote:

---

So in fact you have no evidence for any predecessor to the trilobite. Nothing. Yes sure you can surmise they existed, but that is on the level of fantasy.

---

More accurately we have sufficient evidence that an ancestor for trilobites is a reasonable possibility. Which is more than can be said for your Precambrian mammals.

quote:

---

Reality is they suddenly appeared fully formed as did MANY phyla at that time, the evidence favors creationism.

---

The reality is that the "sudden appearance" of trilobites is an artifact of the fossil record - even if your views are true. So that evidence favours neither side.

This is an evidence based website. I posted my evidence about an earlier "boreal cradle" of life showing traces of angiosperms, ie an environment like today in the Paleozoic. I admitted my lack of mammal/bird fossils but pointed to where they will be found, giving my reasons. I posted my evidence that most phyla appear fully formed in the Cambrian without any intermediates. I posted my evidence of flooding at the PT boundary.I have done my research. I have even admitted where I lack. All you can do is appeal to the fact that evolution is widely accepted. Yet no-one has the guts to post anything to support it. If the evidence is so widespread, where is it? You guys are posting pictures of so-called transitionals without detailed explanations. Hmmm pretty damning to evolution if you guys represent the theory.

quote:

---

All of the evidence you asked for, and you still deny it.

---

Thank you for the graph in post 1054. Yes that is what I am looking for. I missed this post earlier. Give me a day or two to look into it. I appreciate the attempt to give evidence for your position. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You simply continue to post falsehood after falsehood.That is NOT what anyone has posted and to claim that is what others do is simply another lie.What has been posted is twofold, first the fact that we got the fossils and you don't and the fact that what is described in the creation myths in the Bible is shown to be false by ALL of the external evidence as well as the fact that the order of creation, the method of creation and the descriptions of the God in the two creation myths in the Bible are mutually exclusive.

quote:

---

You simply continue to post falsehood after falsehood.

​

That is NOT what anyone has posted and to claim that is what others do is simply another lie.

​

What has been posted is twofold, first the fact that we got the fossils and you don't and the fact that what is described in the creation myths in the Bible is shown to be false by ALL of the external evidence as well as the fact that the order of creation, the method of creation and the descriptions of the God in the two creation myths in the Bible are mutually exclusive.

---

You needn't take this so personally. I was speaking to Tangle. My comments applied to him."we got the fossils" Since when is evidence owned by evolutionists. The fossil record is general evidence. The fact that most organisms appear fully formed supports creationism. But I wont claim the fossil record as MINE. The evidence belongs to everyone. I support the geological column. It is not evidence of evolution, it is evidence of changing prevalent conditions over time. This is why the prevalent organisms keep changing, because the conditions change. To assume evolving is occurring on the scale required by evolutionists is mere assumption with no evidence.

quote:

---

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?

---

The difference with the Australian marsupials is that they are genetically proven to have a recent common ancestor. Additionally even though they have rapidly diversified, there are obvious common features. One does not need to be an expert to see the similarities between the Australian possum, the "marsupial mouse", the kangaroo and the wallaby. There are significant differences but all these marsupials have a similar look.This Possum looks like a wallaby. It also looks like the marsupial mouse:
Pictures: Cute Animal Magic Sept. 2012 | Metro UK

And we find abundant well-preserved Paleozoic fossils in that very place, but none of them are mammals or birds, so would you like to think of another excuse? No, we appeal to the fossil record, genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography and behavioral ecology. Please do not lie to us about our own arguments; this does not deceive us, it merely exposes your profound dishonesty and the weakness of your case. It lies in the fossil record, genetics, morphology, embryology, biogeography and behavioral ecology. But with the names of the species. Do you need someone to teach you how to use google? How far do you think we are required to indulge you in your desperate cowardly attempts to evade the actual topic?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Bullshit. Sorry but that is sim0ply bullshit. First, any organism that lives long enough to die and get fossilized will be fully formed. The fact that we find fully formed fossils certainly does not support Creationism but the fact that not one of the critters the Biblical creation myths claim as being created sure and hell refutes Creationism. Yet more utter bullshit.Evolution is change over time and even you admit that the record shows change over time.Why do you and every other Creationist keep providing support to show that Creationism is simply a really poorly done joke?

Y'mean, like chimps and humans?And then when we look at extinct hominids, if the difference between them is less than that that exists between marsupials, you can't say that they're too different to be related. If you did, you would be using a criterion for detecting unrelatedness which you know to be false and worthless, since you know of a case in which it fails. There are also obvious common features between hominids, you great buffoon. That's why scientists identify them all as hominids, rather than saying "This one's a hominid, this one's a hedgehog, and this is probably some sort of duck."Even you, mindspawn, even you should be able to see some of the common features. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as "changes beyond a clade". In your determination to speak of things of which you are totally ignorant, you are now using words the meaning of which you do not know. We have given you proof, you goddamned liar. And the more we show you both pre-Cambrian bilaterian fossils, and the more we show you Paleozoic Siberian fossils, proving that everything you're saying about the fossil record is dumber than a sack of hammers.