A simple question for creationists.

[painted wolf]

If the fossil record supports the flood story.... why do we find animals killed by dry fluffy volcanic ash in between layers of sedimentary rock?

Did the flood recede long enough in that place for a particular group of mammals to come together so they could be killed by the volcano instead?
If so, why is the mammal group so particular to a specific epoch of mammal evolution? Where are the dinosaurs, mammoths, trilobites and humans?

Why are only the most primitive animals found at the tops of mountains? Surely clams, ammonites, trilobites and corals are not the best mountain climbers.

wa:do

 

[doppelganger]

Surely clams, ammonites, trilobites and corals are not the best mountain climbers.

wa:do

They are. And don't call me Surely.

 

[waitasec]

I'm probibly not the type of creationist you are looking fpor answers from, but am answering to make sure you are aware that there are creationists like me out here. I am a creationinst who accepts the evolution as a valid and very likely theory. After all as you suggested the evidence is prominent.

To clarify i believe a literal interpritation of Gen. 1, but I do not believe this rules out evolution. These concepts only appear mutully exclusive when we limit God to human understanding.

let me ask you this,
if you believe that evolution was a part of creation and that all those previous species died out due to natural selection, don't you think that would put god in a cruel light? meaning it was intended for these creatures to suffer rather than looking at evolution as an indifferent process whereby suffering was not intended.
btw,
about 98% off all known species ever to have existed are now extinct...
what would be the purpose of such suffering?

 

[fantome profane]

They are. And don't call me Surely.

And here we find a fossilized joke.

 

[SCHIZO]

This is a really simple and probably obvious question to ask creationists (or anybody who doesn't think evolution is correct), but one to which I can not ever recollect obtaining an answer to.

My question is simply, how do you explain fossils?

It may sound like a daft question to ask, but it honestly does baffle me.

Please give your honest opinions

There are different theories of creationism. The ones that include evolution are the ones that include intelligent design. Creationism is the idea that everything was created by a supernatural being. It does not necessarily have to do with the story of Adam and Eve. Even the Catholic church says that things didn't necessarily happen the way they did in Genesis. It's just the basis of the story of creation not it's literal account.

 

[doppelganger]

And here we find a fossilized joke.

The devil made me do it.

 

[outhouse]

To be honest I don't know very much about the subject, so I'm not a very good defender for creationist , but what I'm sure of is that both creations and evolutions have not very strong evidences for their claims, and both use lies to prove their theories , you don't have to be on the edge .

this is from a self admitted stance of ignorance on the subject.


If you spent as much time researching as you did typing you would already know the errors of your ways

 

[Copernicus]

To be honest I don't know very much about the subject, so I'm not a very good defender for creationist , but what I'm sure of is that both creations and evolutions have not very strong evidences for their claims, and both use lies to prove their theories , you don't have to be on the edge .

If you admit that you do not know very much about the subject, then what makes you sure that scientists use lies to support the theory of evolution? Can you give us an example of a lie that scientists have used?

 

[idea]

This is a really simple and probably obvious question to ask creationists (or anybody who doesn't think evolution is correct), but one to which I can not ever recollect obtaining an answer to.

My question is simply, how do you explain fossils?

It may sound like a daft question to ask, but it honestly does baffle me.

Please give your honest opinions

I am a creationist who believes evolution is an intelligently directed process. the fossil record does not really validate the gradualism that Darwin proposed.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection ...
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals..."

This is what we find in the fossil record:
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


here are a few quotes from geologists regarding the fossil record.

[FONT=&quot]"Beyond the latest Precambrian there occurred what has appropriately been called an explosion of life forms, many of which seem to be extraordinary experiments in animal design. For a long time it was supposed that the idea of a sudden rise of complex forms of life in the Cambrian Period (on the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic border) was in fact a fallacy created by the nature of the fossil record, and that it simply represented the time when the first shelled creatures began to appear. Since shells are hard objects, they are much more capable of being preserved than soft-bodied creatures. However, from recent research it really does look as though the Earth presented these early organisms with a "clean sheet" upon which to develop all manner of designs." (Dr. David Norman, Prehistoric Life: The Rise of the Vertebrates, pub. Boxtree limited, 1994, p. 32) Dr. Norman is Director of the Sedgwick Museum and lectures on paleontology and evolution at the University of Cambridge

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." Eldredge, N., 1995, Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families. This is not to say that each higher taxon originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa."
Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. (1988)
"A Comparative Study of Diversification Events"
Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) 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'.
Gould, S.J. (1977)
"Evolution's Erratic Pace"
Natural History, vol. 86, May [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
Kemp, Tom "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record" New Scientist, Vol. 108, No. 1485, December 5, 1985), p. 66
(Dr. Tom Kemp is Curator of Zoological Collections at the Oxford University Museum.) [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]California[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Santa Barbara[/FONT][FONT=&quot], recently put it (Lewin, 1988).
Lewin then asked the all important question:
"Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?"
Lewin, R. Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

[/FONT]

... I actually have a large collection of quotes like the above, let me know if you would like me to post more of them
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[tumbleweed41]

... the fossil record does not really validate the gradualism that Darwin proposed.

Fortunately, Evolutionary Biology, like all branches of science, does not dogmatically stick to 150 year old proposals.

 

[idea]

Can you give us an example of a lie that scientists have used?

random google..

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+2]"Another Evolution Fraud Exposed"[/SIZE][/FONT]
Stephen Caesar's Articles

"To "prove" the greater myth of evolution, Haeckel invented the lesser myth known as "ontology recapitulates phylogeny." In a nutshell, he claimed that evolution was proved by the fact that, from its conception to its birth (or hatching), every animal passes through an evolutionary "climb" identical to the worldwide process of evolution from one-celled animals to advanced life-forms over eons of time. In other words, every animal embryo "evolves" from a microscopic mass of cells to a fish, then to an amphibian, then to a reptile, and so on. To prove his claim, Haeckel created numerous drawings of embryonic fish, salamanders, tortoises, chickens, pigs, dogs, and humans, all placed side by side. His drawings showed each species starting its fetal existence looking exactly like all the others, and then undergoing an individual evolutionary ascent identical to that which Darwin had proposed for the entire animal kingdom. The problem with Haeckel’s "proof" of evolution was that his drawings were a hoax. Even Dr. Gould admitted that
Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start (p. 44)."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
here's another famous one:
Archaeopteryx Fossil Forgery

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

why does everyone think the scientists are somehow different from politicians or business men? Scientists are like everyone else, willing to lie / cheat / steal / to push out agendas / gain power etc. etc. they are not angels. anyone who has worked in the field understand the politics behind it....

 

[EarthAlive]

random google..

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+2]"Another Evolution Fraud Exposed"[/SIZE][/FONT]
Stephen Caesar's Articles

"To "prove" the greater myth of evolution, Haeckel invented the lesser myth known as "ontology recapitulates phylogeny." In a nutshell, he claimed that evolution was proved by the fact that, from its conception to its birth (or hatching), every animal passes through an evolutionary "climb" identical to the worldwide process of evolution from one-celled animals to advanced life-forms over eons of time. In other words, every animal embryo "evolves" from a microscopic mass of cells to a fish, then to an amphibian, then to a reptile, and so on. To prove his claim, Haeckel created numerous drawings of embryonic fish, salamanders, tortoises, chickens, pigs, dogs, and humans, all placed side by side. His drawings showed each species starting its fetal existence looking exactly like all the others, and then undergoing an individual evolutionary ascent identical to that which Darwin had proposed for the entire animal kingdom. The problem with Haeckel’s "proof" of evolution was that his drawings were a hoax. Even Dr. Gould admitted that
Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start (p. 44)."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
here's another famous one:
Archaeopteryx Fossil Forgery

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

why does everyone think the scientists are somehow different from politicians or business men? Scientists are like everyone else, willing to lie / cheat / steal / to push out agendas / gain power etc. etc. they are not angels. anyone who has worked in the field understand the politics behind it....

They have also been teaching the single "tree of life" idea of evolution for many years, but it does not actually exist, it never existed:

Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph


Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist


Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, issue 2692.


"Now, scientists admit that “the tree-of-life concept…absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection…lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence”


Graham Lawton admitted, “The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination” Lawton also interviewed evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste of Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, who exclaimed, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality”


Though Darwin’s tree of life has been taught as fact for decades, the truth is, “we have no evidence at all” for it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

random google..

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+2]"Another Evolution Fraud Exposed"[/SIZE][/FONT]
Stephen Caesar's Articles

"To "prove" the greater myth of evolution, Haeckel invented the lesser myth known as "ontology recapitulates phylogeny." In a nutshell, he claimed that evolution was proved by the fact that, from its conception to its birth (or hatching), every animal passes through an evolutionary "climb" identical to the worldwide process of evolution from one-celled animals to advanced life-forms over eons of time. In other words, every animal embryo "evolves" from a microscopic mass of cells to a fish, then to an amphibian, then to a reptile, and so on. To prove his claim, Haeckel created numerous drawings of embryonic fish, salamanders, tortoises, chickens, pigs, dogs, and humans, all placed side by side. His drawings showed each species starting its fetal existence looking exactly like all the others, and then undergoing an individual evolutionary ascent identical to that which Darwin had proposed for the entire animal kingdom. The problem with Haeckel’s "proof" of evolution was that his drawings were a hoax. Even Dr. Gould admitted that
Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start (p. 44)."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
here's another famous one:
Archaeopteryx Fossil Forgery

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

why does everyone think the scientists are somehow different from politicians or business men? Scientists are like everyone else, willing to lie / cheat / steal / to push out agendas / gain power etc. etc. they are not angels. anyone who has worked in the field understand the politics behind it....

Haeckel, a pseudo-Lamarkian polygenist in the 1800's? That's your "Evolution Fraud Exposed"?

Really?

 

[idea]

They have also been teaching the single "tree of life" idea of evolution for many years, but it does not actually exist, it never existed.

yes, that's another big one.

this article is good, and references a lot of papers:
The Tree of Life. by Brig Klyce

 

[outhouse]

I am a creationist who believes evolution is an intelligently directed process. the fossil record does not really validate the gradualism that Darwin proposed.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection ...
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals..."

This is what we find in the fossil record:
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


here are a few quotes from geologists regarding the fossil record.

[FONT=&quot]"Beyond the latest Precambrian there occurred what has appropriately been called an explosion of life forms, many of which seem to be extraordinary experiments in animal design. For a long time it was supposed that the idea of a sudden rise of complex forms of life in the Cambrian Period (on the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic border) was in fact a fallacy created by the nature of the fossil record, and that it simply represented the time when the first shelled creatures began to appear. Since shells are hard objects, they are much more capable of being preserved than soft-bodied creatures. However, from recent research it really does look as though the Earth presented these early organisms with a "clean sheet" upon which to develop all manner of designs." (Dr. David Norman, Prehistoric Life: The Rise of the Vertebrates, pub. Boxtree limited, 1994, p. 32) Dr. Norman is Director of the Sedgwick Museum and lectures on paleontology and evolution at the University of Cambridge[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." Eldredge, N., 1995, Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families. This is not to say that each higher taxon originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. (1988) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"A Comparative Study of Diversification Events" [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183 [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]"The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) 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'. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gould, S.J. (1977) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Evolution's Erratic Pace" [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Natural History, vol. 86, May [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kemp, Tom "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record" New Scientist, Vol. 108, No. 1485, December 5, 1985), p. 66 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Dr. Tom Kemp is Curator of Zoological Collections at the Oxford University Museum.) [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]California[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Santa Barbara[/FONT][FONT=&quot], recently put it (Lewin, 1988). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lewin then asked the all important question: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?" [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lewin, R. Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291 [/FONT]



... I actually have a large collection of quotes like the above, let me know if you would like me to post more of them

next time try posting real science NOT known pseudoscience :slap:

 

[idea]

Haeckel, a pseudo-Lamarkian polygenist in the 1800's? That's your "Evolution Fraud Exposed"?

Really?

a lie that started in the 1800's and is STILL in evolutionary textbooks despite being complete non-sense. Why do they still print this garbage?

 

[tumbleweed41]

They have also been teaching the single "tree of life" idea of evolution for many years, but it does not actually exist, it never existed:

Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph


Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist


Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, issue 2692.


"Now, scientists admit that “the tree-of-life concept…absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection…lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence”


Graham Lawton admitted, “The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination” Lawton also interviewed evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste of Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, who exclaimed, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality”


Though Darwin’s tree of life has been taught as fact for decades, the truth is, “we have no evidence at all” for it.

I swear, some people are seem to be stuck on our understanding of biology from 150 years ago and completely ignore progress in Evolutionary Biology since then....

Modern highly resolved Tree Of Life, based on completely sequenced genomes.

 

[idea]

next time try posting real science NOT known psuedoscience :slap:

you think the Cambrain explosoin is psuedoscienc? ... you need to get out a little more...

 

[outhouse]

yes, that's another big one.

this article is good, and references a lot of papers:
The Tree of Life. by Brig Klyce

MORE Pseudoscience from invalid sources

 

[tumbleweed41]

a lie that started in the 1800's and is STILL in evolutionary textbooks despite being complete non-sense. Why do they still print this garbage?

I challenge you to provide one modern textbook on biology that uses the Haeckel diagrams.

Just one.