Biblical Creation vs Evolution- The Fossil Record

I did a thread on the age of the earth it seems you are avoiding. I would be happy to talk over on it related to the age of not just the earth, but fossils the geological column etc
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ion-vs-evolution-the-age-of-the-earth.538070/


I never claimed science was wrong that is the realm of the evolutionist. I have only exposed lies evolutionist use and show what leading authorities say on the subject.


I agree, that Is why i have post after post showing what i am saying is true, while you continue to look.....well...ill leave that up to others.

 

the leading authorities say Creationism is a silly fairy tale pimped out by the Church and their Priesthood of Brainwashers.

 

because you are being challenged here, not there. The age of the earth is directly relevant to fossilization.

but you haven't though, and you know you haven't. All you've done is say "nuh uh". That isn't an argument, or in any way scientific. You need to actually present your evidence, showing current theory to be incorrect. You won't do this, because you know that you can't.

No, you do not. You have word salad after word salad of you making baseless claims, with no evidence to support them.

 

Just the reason you should bring your "challenge" to a thread on the age of the earth.


I am not sure if you understand how this works. I made multiple posts at the begging of the thread they are hard to miss. They are related to the fossil record. They show how evolutionist lie and distort to try and convince you and i to put our faith in their religion. Further they show how even leading evolutionist will admit the fossil record does not confirm evolution and is constant with creation. You call these many large post "nuh uh" so I am not sure if you are lost or what i can do to help show you the massive material you have missed.


This a conclusion from someone who has not read them, interesting. Otherwise by all means show you conclusion true of my posts. Take a section or topic and show unsupported claims. Meanwhile what have you done to support evolution from the fossil record or show creation false by the fossil record?

 

One last time

This Thread is on the Fossil Record


I will be responding only to post relevant to the thread topic. I am glad to see such interest outside of the fossil record and no one is to worry, I will be hear for awhile and i will be doing multiple threads on topics brought up and more. thanks for posting. And again, anything related to topic is welcome.

 

This discussion is absurd and we do science a great disservice by even entertaining it, and feeding the troll of Creationism.

Blind, ideologically-based ignorance is better ignored.

 

no, as it is relevant here.

no, you intentionally posted a bunch of word salad, knowing that nobody is going to read it all. When you get challenged on your moronic claims, your argument amounts to "nuh uh" as I keep pointing out. You need to provide actual scientific evidence in support of your claims. You won't do that, because you know that you can't do that.

I did. I gave you scientific evidence showing fossils support evolution, and I gave you scientific evidence showing the earth is WAY older than 10,000. Your rebuttal is "nuh uh". That won't work. Your points stand entirely refuted, unless you can provide scientific evidence to support them. You won't, because you know you can't.

 

also, this should be moved to the religion forum, as it has no basis in science.

 

This post is absurd and we do science a great disservice by even entertaining it, and feeding the troll of evolutionism.

Blind, ideologically-based ignorance is better ignored

 

Well if you wont read my posts how can you claim i ignore you when it has already been addressed?

So lets take this one at a time because I am starting to think you are being serious and want a discussion instead of just ignoring. So here we go, anything related to the fossil record belong on this thread and will be discussed.


Lets start with one claim each. You said you have provided evidence showing fossils support evolution. Lets start with that. You provide that information and I will respond. Than I will support my claims one at a time and we will go back and fourth does that sound good? so lets focus in on each topic and claim one at a time. So please provide your evidence fossils support evolution.

 

because your posts don't contain any scientific evidence. They are long winded word salads, you intentionally posted knowing nobody is going to read it.

ok. then refute the evidence I gave you, with scientific evidence of your own. "nuh uh" isn't an argument.

it's on the first page.

But here is an excellent summary of fossilation proving evolution https://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf

Please provide a peer reviewed scientific paper that proves it wrong.

 

You linked me to a small book. Just what in this are you saying shows evolution true through the fossil record? do you have a page number and something in mind? if you cannot provide a specific example than I must assume you cannot [dont worry leading evolutionist agree with you] and i will start to support my claims for you from my material you ignore but in much smaller sections. But i will wait a few minutes at least and allow you the chance to support evolution from the fossil record and let me know what you are referring to that makes you think it supports evolution.

 

Always like to see someone else employ one of my usual rhetorical tactics. Unfortunately in this instance you are not exposing hypocrisy or double think, its just a witty retort.

But just a couple of things you obviously are unaware of.

Calling actual science pseudo science is intellectually dishonest and normal course for "creationists".

But most importantly, the discussion over human evolution doesn't revolve around the question of if there is a creator of the universe or not. This will no doubt come as a complete shock to you but BOTH the Catholic and Protestant Churches endorse the theory of evolution and even the big bang.

the only thing science is "anti" against is bullshit and fake science like the kind found in your serial OP.

 

I was showing what a meaningless and baseless post was made by just changing who it was directed at see post 81 for what i was responding to. So for example to take from yours

the only thing science is "anti" against is bullshit and fake science like the kind found put out by evolutionist.

 

Tell us about your education.

 

rahl I found your "scientific Proof" of evolution from post 1 with my responce





I'm afraid you've got quite a task ahead of you, if you want to challenge the current scientific consensus. I wish you good luck.

Ok fair enough. However I will tell you the age of the earth on the proper thread. The Fossil record provides more than enough to talk about.


This is why I wanted to make threads, the indoctrination is that bad it needs it. You believe both that all scientist believe in evolution [thousands believe in creation ] and they all think the fossil record supports evolution [even more false] my posts are full of leading evolutionist authorities admitting the fossil record goes against evolution and is for creation. As for showing thousands of scientist believe in creation that is a future thread.


So your thread says the fossil record supports 3 main claims. Of course I have provided dozens of leading evolutionist who would object to it. But point 1

a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks,

I agree this is generally true. However not what many think at all see my cambrian explosion section. Further it assumes the "geological column" see my age of the earth for that. Further it does not show the transitions from in complex to complex proving evolution, thus we should look for another explanation to the patterns observed. There is another, better explanation, that is an upcoming thread.

Point 2

that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and

Agreed. Once more a great explanation is in a future thread. Further how is this suppose to show one organism evolved into another?

point 3

• that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.

Right just what my op said. This is the creation prediction. So your own source confirms the fossil record and leaves out the only thing that could prove evolution [because its not found in reality] the thousands and really millions of transitional forms between the major phyla.



I'm afraid you've got quite a task ahead of you, if you want to claim the current scientific consensus agrees with you.. I wish you good luck

 

No, I linked you to a plethora of scientific evidence.

everything.

yes, it's between pages 1 and 36.

The entire body of the paper shows the evidence for evolution via the fossil record. This is the problem with you creationists. You think this can be debated on an anonymous internet forum. There are MOUNTAINS upon MOUNTAINS of evidence that supports evolution, and it can't be posted and debated on a chat forum. It takes people dozens of years and proper schooling to really understand the complexity. the paper I gave you is good for the layman to understand, but it still has hundreds of cited references in it.

You will need to provide a peer reviewed scientific paper, which shows evolution is false, in order to be taken seriously. You won't do this of course, because you know that you can't.

 

yes, we've already established that your "nuh uh" isn't an argument, or rebuttal to the scientific evidence you've been given.

 

It is impossible to get around the fossil record.

Even more exciting is knowing that all bears, all cats, all dogs, hyenas, monkeys, apes, and humans evolved from a common cat-like creature that lived in the trees.

The cats and monkeys stayed in the trees.

All the others moved to the ground and have been living there ever since.

So we humans are not only related to the apes, we are also related to the kitties !!!

 

I agree it is impossible to get around the fossil record, it is their and the evolutionist must accept it. Many leading authorities have. I will give some examples [below] many more are given in my op's I hope you as well one day accept the fossil record. But what an amazing claim you have got yourself into, "all bears, all cats, all dogs, hyenas, monkeys, apes, and humans evolved from a common cat-like creature that lived in the trees." Please support this from the fossil record.


"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."
—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.


"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "
-Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.

“in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
-Davis Raup education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."
-*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."
—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.”
-Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History


"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—
Dr. David Raup,


‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
-Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

“ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?
-Ernst Mayr 2001

“but it it gets worse. Stephen Jay Gould noted that the fossil sequence shows the most disparate (most different) biological designs tend to show up first! Followed by the slightly less-disparate designs.Followed by the still less different designs. Until, lastly, the last slight bits of interspecies biological diversity are filled-in at the very end of the process. The general trend in the fossil sequence is: the various phyla show up first, later various Linnaean classes are filled in, and still later various Linnaean orders are filled in … and so forth. Gould called this pattern ‘disparity precedes diversity’. And evolutionists cannot blame this sequence on an ‘incomplete fossil record’, as they often try to do.That contradicts the expectations of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which expects slow change that, over time, will gradually accumulate to large differences. In short, Darwinism expects the most disparate designs to show up last, not first. This is contradicted by the fossil record. (To be honest, to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies the Darwinism.) Something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory”.
-A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010 reviewed by Walter J. ReMine


“the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless ... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types ... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” -Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated: Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, 26 November

“If the transitional forms had been found, they would be paraded for all to see. Creation evolution discussions would be welcomed in the since classrooms, rather than current censorship of any criticism directed against evolution”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

“... there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.”
- Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—* George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.


"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint." —*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
-Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

 

The creation story in Genesis is just a bronze age story that explains origins and identity of the Jews.. They are descended from Adam.. The rest of us aren't.

 

Great, prove it is just a story and false, use the fossil record please. Because as of know, this bronze age story fits the fossil record much better than evolution.

 

If you choose to reject science and education, that's your right.. but, you shouldn't try to sell that to American youth.

 

Okay...which one of these was Adam?
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species

 

Yes I am well aware of how the tactic works. Perhaps you aren't aware of the many rhetorical tactics available and how to employ them, but what you did in that post was to use one of them, consciously or not. (it appears not).

But thanks for the simple explanation of why.

Unfortunately for you, evolution isn't fake science. Have there been frauds, missteps, mistakes etc, during the 150 years or so since Darwin first posited the theory? YEP. Have these frauds etc, been uncovered by SCIENCE? of course or you would have nothing to proffer to support you argument that evolution is "anti-science".

I get that your opinion is driven by your religious faith and as such is impervious to facts. One cannot argue with stupid, crazy and those of adamantine faith in their God and its surrounding dogma.

Its funny, sometimes religions contribute to science (Vatican Observatory for instance) and accept prevailing scientific theories like the big bang and evolution and sometimes religion stifles both the acceptance and advancement of scientific knowledge (the muslim empire from around 1000 to the mid 1700's).

What next? Noah's ark was real ?