Fossil Record as the Strongest or most compelling evidence of Macroevolution

quote:

---

Well, picture are all I've ever been shown. Artists interpretations but no facts or fossils. That is why I enjoyed John Mackay's evidence, as he always brings it with him.

---

xenacanthus fossilComplete in the fossil are early shark teeth and scales. We have a complete fossil transition from this creature to modern sharks - want more pictures? Mackay can omit all he wants, but that doesn't change the reality of the fossil record

quote:

---

The human Being. Sorry but the line of monkeys wont cut it.

---

Then where do you draw the line? And what leads you to conclude that there is a line, given the fossils? [quote]

quote:

---

'and we have parts of protosharks as well)'

​

Parts, that speaks volumes.

---

Yes, I know that you expect perfect preservation of a species with no bony skeleton from >400 million years ago. Why don't you just ask for Sauron's Ring while you're at it? Of course, seing as xenacanthus is considered a true shark, that gives you a picture of what it takes to qualify as a protoshark. The parts that we have are scales and teeth.P.S. - Thanks for letting me know who the "scientist" is. I emailed him pretending to be a creationist looking for help in a debate, so hopefully I'll get a response back some time this week. As I stated earlier, it's going to be a megalodon tooth. I can pretty much guarantee it.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

'P.S. - Thanks for letting me know who the "scientist" is. I emailed him pretending to be a creationist looking for help in a debate, so hopefully I'll get a response back some time this week. As I stated earlier, it's going to be a megalodon tooth. I can pretty much guarantee it.'Unfortunately you wont listen to what he is saying though. Which is a shame as he used to be an evolutionist and scientist for years, he is not stupid, he is a very learned man. He always brings recognisable fossils with him aswell. Why not just be honest about who you are? This doesn't bode well for me believing what you say.'Mackay can omit all he wants, but that doesn't change the reality of the fossil record 'Nor does it change the fact that he's the expert on fossils.'Yes, I know that you expect perfect preservation of a species with no bony skeleton from >400 million years ago. Why don't you just ask for Sauron's Ring while you're at it? 'Exactly, why should I jump to evolutionary conclusions, and remember I don't believe in millions of years.I assume your fossil is now extinct? What exactly does it proove by itself?

John Mackay is a "geologist" NOT a paleontologistgeology = The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth.paleontology = The study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

But, Mike, I don't understand how this supports creation. You have yet to explain it to me so I can follow the reasoning.As far as believe others over 'them': This isn't the only piece of evidence. They have a bunch to explain not just one piece.

Another problem Mike. A very short memory. What about the skulls? They are evidence, they are fossils. You take a quick look at the pictures and carry right on pretending you know something about them.There are many, many 1,000's of fossils. What do you need to see? If you can describe that then perhaps we can show you.

Ah, good!
Then you are prepared to demonstrate why the millions of years is wrong? That is an important point of course. Perhaps it is more fundamental than changes in life. Even if you could see the changes if you don't believe they occured over millions of years then we don't need to bother with looking at them.Perhaps you can handle the dating problem then?

quote:

---

'But the fossil record DOES NOT support a one time, young earth creation of all life.'

​

Why can't it?
First there is the ASSUMPTION of millions of years, as can be fully seen in Ned's list. The fact is the rocks indicate sudden catastrophic burial. ......

---

I should have stated that as "But the fossil record DOES NOT support a one time creation of all life."But anyhow, we need you at the YEC Geologic Golumn - Created with apparent age?" topic.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-11-2003]

quote:

---

quote:

---

'P.S. - Thanks for letting me know who the "scientist" is. I emailed him pretending to be a creationist looking for help in a debate, so hopefully I'll get a response back some time this week. As I stated earlier, it's going to be a megalodon tooth. I can pretty much guarantee it.'

---

​

Unfortunately you wont listen to what he is saying though. Which is a shame as he used to be an evolutionist and scientist for years, he is not stupid, he is a very learned man. He always brings recognisable fossils with him aswell. Why not just be honest about who you are? This doesn't bode well for me believing what you say.

---

1) I'd love to be honest with him. Unfortunately, there's one problem: "Creation scientists" have this nasty habit of not responding when evolutionists press them on issues. If I knew that Mackay wouldn't be that way, I'd have been open with him, but I want to do my best to ensure that I get a response. 2) I'm not sure which adjective to use to describe someone who developed The Quote Book, the most erroneous, mis-transcribed, out of context collection of quotes I've ever seen - poor work even by creationist quoting standards. It was so bad that they replaced it with the Revised Quote Book, which itself is a pretty lousy piece of scholastic work. You wouldn't think that the acts of *reading* and *writing* would be that hard

quote:

---

quote:

---

'Mackay can omit all he wants, but that doesn't change the reality of the fossil record '

---

​

Nor does it change the fact that he's the expert on fossils.

---

No, he's not. He's a geologist. And if he's showing you megalodon teeth, they're going to be from miocene sediments, because that's where they're found - *new* on the geological time scale, not old. Miocene sediments, apart from overthrusts (which are obvious geological formations, because there's the clear cutoff line and the border areas are crushed), dramatic folding (also patently obvious, because the sedimentary lines and even the fossils in them get folded as well), and things like concreted rubble beds (also quite obvious), will only ever be covered by pliocene, pleistocene, and holocene sediments. Ever. No exceptions. If he were to show you sharks from devonian sediments, say, you'd find that they're actually *small*. Xenacanthus (which I showed you - the earliest skeletal shark, found in devonian sediments) is only about three feet long. When sharks made it to the open seas, they were anything but the top predator - they're found with Dunkleosteus, a 20 foot long placodem that resembles the creature from the Aliens movies, with fins, and much larger.Again, apart from the above cases (which are quite obvious formations), devonian fossils will always be found below (typically *way* below) miocene formations. Always. And, of course, the dating of these fossils always matches up IFF a reliable dating method (or multiple ones) can be composed from the surrounding rocks (of course, not every rock has suitable radioisotopes, and depending on the method, there can be situations that make using a certain radioisotope invalid).What causes the ordering, Mike?

quote:

---

quote:

---

'Yes, I know that you expect perfect preservation of a species with no bony skeleton from >400 million years ago. Why don't you just ask for Sauron's Ring while you're at it? '

---

​

Exactly, why should I jump to evolutionary conclusions, and remember I don't believe in millions of years.

---

But evolutionists do. Thus, the fact that we don't find many fossils before then is *expected* by the ToE, and thus, is anything *but* evidence against it. It's as if your spouse was at the grocery store, you knew they were at the grocery store, and someone came up to you and tried to use the fact that they're not at home as evidence that you don't have a spouse. A more appropriate analogy to this situation would be if you don't expect God to be tangible or physically detectable, and a scientist came up to you and said, "look, we can't detect God, so God isn't there.".

quote:

---

I assume your fossil is now extinct? What exactly does it proove by itself?

---

There is a complete smooth, completely gradualistic transition from that eel-like creature to modern sharks in the fossil record (want pictures of its decendants?). Modern sharks are not ever found with that ancient eel-like creature, but you find a steady, completely smooth (gradualistic, not PE) transition from it to modern sharks the further up you go - each species, unrelated by size (only by structural morphometry), confined to its own layer in a smooth transition line. Also there are some very interesting offshoots in the permian, including Heliopricon - a shark with teeth that form a closed spiral, and Edestus giganteus - the "scissor toothed shark", a shark whose old teeth didn't fall off, but stuck further and further out in front of its face. And, as is the case with *every fossil*, apart from overthrust, folding, etc, they are all confined to their particular layers - regardless of where in the world they are at.P.S.: Do these look like the tooth that you saw? As I said, every collector of shark fossils has to have at least one.... Modern shark teeth like megalodon are very different from ancient shark teeth (early devonian, mid devonian, etc). Again, I need to ask: What is "sorting" the shark teeth?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-11-2003]

Ah, I love this. I just checked my email.------------------------------------------
Dear Karen,Thank you for your email. The cast is from a White Shark - picture is
attached.Are you interested in receiving free regular email updates? These are
sent out approximately every two weeks - a copy of our most recent one
follows.The Creation Research Team
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
------------------------------------------Now tell me, is *this* the tooth that you saw? Because if so, compare it to the teeth you saw on the link that I posted from ebay. Notice something?It's the same species tooth!This is a megalodon tooth. They're only found in miocene sediments. What he showed you is a very recent (geologically) tooth, found only in upper strata. Here's a random one from the ebay link.Look familiar? Megalodon (Carcharodon megalodon or Carcharocles megalodon) is a huge white shark species, either a direct ancestor of the great white shark or a close sister species; thus, there is debate over whether it should be in the same genus or not. Regardless, they are very close relatives. And, they're very close in the sediments to each other. The further back you go, the more eel-shaped they begin to look, and they lose many of their advanced features.I'm thankful that, while sharks fossilize poorly (because of cartiligenous skeletons), at least their teeth and scales preserve well (very well, in fact) ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."