Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing I say would convince you anyways. I'm not trying to convince you. Just anyone else that reads this thread.

Hah! I am not convinced. Nice pictures. Do you have any more?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I see my Gods everyday. No Messiah necessary.

What r u seeing?

 

[Eddi]

Wow, this thread is still going, I'd taken my eyes off it for a few months

I love this thread

The stupidity and ignorance of creationism is unfailingly entertaining and I will probably never get bored of it

Keep at it guys, this is comedy gold

 

[The Hammer]

What r u seeing?

My... Gods... ? Looking for something more specific, you're gonna need to move threads or PM me.

 

[F1fan]

I just looked at the pictures in the link you sent, and didn't see anything looking like fossilized eyes to me. Do you see them?

That's why we rely on experts, and not lay people, especially those biased by religious extremism.

God is an invisible spirit, so of course you couldn't see him.

How do you know? Where are the facts of an invisible spirit that are available to objective minds?

Until he took on a body (The Messiah) to dwell in, that you could see.

Only according to a myth. And an implausible myth at that.

 

[joelr]

You don't know what had eyes 544 million years ago. No matter what you claim.

No, you mean you will use denial no matter what the evidence is.
Here are actual pictures of the fossilizes lenses of the early trilobite eye:

Trilobite Eyes | AMNH

Few morphological features in the entire fossil record are as singularly significant as trilobite eyes. By the time the initial members of the trilobite line appeared early in...

www.amnh.org

What made the eagle be able to see from so far away? I know because one eagle gave birth to a baby that could see 1mm farther, so it was more successful in catching it's prey so it passed that improvement on.

Genetic mutation is only part of evolution, genetic mutation is seen in experiments and in nature,

Our knowledge of DMEs has come from laboratory experiments like that of Trindade et al. (2010) and from population genetics approaches as used by Keightley & Eyre-Walker (2010), both of which are reported in this issue. Experimental approaches for inferring DMEs are based on mutation accumulation experiments pioneered by Mukai in Drosophila (Mukai et al. 1972; Keightley & Eyre-Walker 1999; Lynch et al. 1999), and one of the most extensive experiments of this type was completed by Charlesworth et al. (2004). Their strength is in the direct observation of the consequences of mutations that have relatively large effects of around 1 per cent, but they require great care to control for potential confounding factors and mutations of small effects cannot be detected. Trilobite Eyes | AMNH


All you are really doing is pleading that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it because a story implies it. Astronomy may have squashed that one but evolution has squashed another.

Your critique isn't even making a point? It's like an anti-germ person saying, "why did I get sick? I know, because I breathed in a small invisible lifeform called a "germ" and it made me catch the flu. How stupid".
Yes, that is the general idea.

 

[joelr]

I just looked at the pictures in the link you sent, and didn't see anything looking like fossilized eyes to me. Do you see them?

God is an invisible spirit, so of course you couldn't see him. Until he took on a body (The Messiah) to dwell in, that you could see.

Francesca S. has a peer-reviewed book covering all of the mentions of Yahwehs body parts in detail. God:An Anatomy.
You are talking about a post-biblical deity, made up from Greek Platonic ideas.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Professor Hebrew Bible

the Bible draws on much older traditions and deities. The God of Judaism and Christianity is a post-Biblical deity. The deity we find reflected in the biblical text is a deity who is very much part and parcel of a polytheistic system. He was not this solitary deity, he was networked into a much broader household of deities.

"
“In Genesis, Adam and Eve hear Yahweh’s footsteps approaching as he walks in the Garden of Eden,” she points out. “[L]ater in the same book, Abraham sees Yahweh standing with two other divine beings beneath a group of sacred trees, and subsequently goes for a walk with him.” Nor are God’s feet merely a matter of happenstance: “In the Bible, God’s feet are crucial to his social existence – fundamental to his very being – and so they are the bodily features by which he often renders himself evident in the world.”

The author’s use of the male pronoun in reference to God is not merely a grammatical convention. “[T]he Biblical writers (and their later translators) have done their best to sanitizing the story by diluting Yahweh’s corporeal sexuality,” she points out. “Essentially, genitals were to be considered an aspect of the human condition, not the divine. And yet the body of the God of the Bible suggests otherwise.” When Ezekiel describes his glimpse of God, for example, he describes “God’s motnayim, a Hebrew word term traditionally (and politely) rendered ‘loins’ or ‘waist,’ but which more accurately refers to the groin and its genitals.” Nor is Ezekiel “the only biblical figure to acknowledge God’s genitals,” writes Stavrakopoulou."


In fact, various Sumerian and Akkadian literary genres favor head-to-toe organization for systematic descriptions of the body, both divine and human.9 The best-known examples from biblical literature occur in the Song of Songs, whereas other lists of body parts can be found in the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.10 Thus Song 5 describes the male lover’s body, starting with his head and its various features:

His head is like the most-pure gold.
His hair is curly-black like a raven.
His eyes are like doves by streams of water,
washed in milk, mounted like jewels.
His cheeks are like garden beds full of balsam trees yielding perfume.
His lips are like lilies dripping with drops of myrrh.
His arms are like rods of gold set with chrysolite.
His abdomen is like polished ivory inlaid with sapphires.
His legs are like pillars of marble set on bases of pure gold (vv. 11–14).

Thus in v. 16, we learn that the “strength” of the beast is in its “loins.” Here the noun motnayim refers to the “loins,” the part of the body between the ribs and hip bones. It can therefore be used euphemistically to refer to the region of the sexual organs.12 Roland Boer (2011: 43) suggests that, since motnayim is a dual form, it specifically refers to the testicles.





…This interpretation might at first seem surprising to those brought up in a Western tradition that emphasizes God’s transcendence and incorporeality. Yet as critical readers of the Hebrew Bible are well aware, references to God’s body are found throughout biblical literature.41 The God of the Hebrew Bible has a body with hands, fingers, arms, and feet.42 His body therefore requires regulation through dress, diet, and rest.43 He has a face with eyes, ears, lips, and a nose.44 Consequently, this God is one who can touch, see, taste, smell, and hear.45 And one implication of God’s embodiment is his related sexuality

Francesca on Yahweh as fertility god

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, you mean you will use denial no matter what the evidence is.
Here are actual pictures of the fossilizes lenses of the early trilobite eye:

Trilobite Eyes | AMNH

Few morphological features in the entire fossil record are as singularly significant as trilobite eyes. By the time the initial members of the trilobite line appeared early in...

www.amnh.org

All you are really doing is pleading that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it because a story implies it. Astronomy may have squashed that one but evolution has squashed another.

So you had a picture. That doesn't mean that it was actually from something 544 million years ago.

Your last part is just a strawman.

No one can explain thru science where things came from. They have to skip over that part. We don't see dead matter turning into something alive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you had a picture. That doesn't mean that it was actually from something 544 million years ago.

Your last part is just a strawman.

No one can explain thru science where things came from. They have to skip over that part. We don't see dead matter turning into something alive.

No the picture does not explain how we know that it came from 544 million years ago. If you did not understand how we know that then you should ask questions. If anything his error was in assuming that you were not totally ignorant of all of the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Francesca S. has a peer-reviewed book covering all of the mentions of Yahwehs body parts in detail. God:An Anatomy.
You are talking about a post-biblical deity, made up from Greek Platonic ideas.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Professor Hebrew Bible

the Bible draws on much older traditions and deities. The God of Judaism and Christianity is a post-Biblical deity. The deity we find reflected in the biblical text is a deity who is very much part and parcel of a polytheistic system. He was not this solitary deity, he was networked into a much broader household of deities.

"
“In Genesis, Adam and Eve hear Yahweh’s footsteps approaching as he walks in the Garden of Eden,” she points out. “[L]ater in the same book, Abraham sees Yahweh standing with two other divine beings beneath a group of sacred trees, and subsequently goes for a walk with him.” Nor are God’s feet merely a matter of happenstance: “In the Bible, God’s feet are crucial to his social existence – fundamental to his very being – and so they are the bodily features by which he often renders himself evident in the world.”

The author’s use of the male pronoun in reference to God is not merely a grammatical convention. “[T]he Biblical writers (and their later translators) have done their best to sanitizing the story by diluting Yahweh’s corporeal sexuality,” she points out. “Essentially, genitals were to be considered an aspect of the human condition, not the divine. And yet the body of the God of the Bible suggests otherwise.” When Ezekiel describes his glimpse of God, for example, he describes “God’s motnayim, a Hebrew word term traditionally (and politely) rendered ‘loins’ or ‘waist,’ but which more accurately refers to the groin and its genitals.” Nor is Ezekiel “the only biblical figure to acknowledge God’s genitals,” writes Stavrakopoulou."


In fact, various Sumerian and Akkadian literary genres favor head-to-toe organization for systematic descriptions of the body, both divine and human.9 The best-known examples from biblical literature occur in the Song of Songs, whereas other lists of body parts can be found in the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.10 Thus Song 5 describes the male lover’s body, starting with his head and its various features:




Thus in v. 16, we learn that the “strength” of the beast is in its “loins.” Here the noun motnayim refers to the “loins,” the part of the body between the ribs and hip bones. It can therefore be used euphemistically to refer to the region of the sexual organs.12 Roland Boer (2011: 43) suggests that, since motnayim is a dual form, it specifically refers to the testicles.





…This interpretation might at first seem surprising to those brought up in a Western tradition that emphasizes God’s transcendence and incorporeality. Yet as critical readers of the Hebrew Bible are well aware, references to God’s body are found throughout biblical literature.41 The God of the Hebrew Bible has a body with hands, fingers, arms, and feet.42 His body therefore requires regulation through dress, diet, and rest.43 He has a face with eyes, ears, lips, and a nose.44 Consequently, this God is one who can touch, see, taste, smell, and hear.45 And one implication of God’s embodiment is his related sexuality

Francesca on Yahweh as fertility god

LOL! The YouTube red "Play" button is in a very strategic location.

 

[joelr]

So you had a picture. That doesn't mean that it was actually from something 544 million years ago.

"Now researchers from Estonia, Germany, and Scotland have described a truly exceptional find - a 530-million-year-old trilobite so well preserved, they were able to discern its compound eye at a cellular level."

This 530-Million-Year-Old Fossil Could Be The Oldest Eye Ever Discovered

Not much has changed since then.

www.sciencealert.com

Several dating methods are compared to make sure they match. Two main methods determining a fossils age, relative dating and absolute dating. Relative dating is used to determine a fossils approximate age by comparing it to similar rocks and fossils of known ages. Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of a fossil by using radiometric dating to measure the decay of isotopes, either within the fossil or more often the rocks associated with it.
Potassium-40 is used, not carbon dating.

Your last part is just a strawman.

It isn't. I'm dealing with this silly argument directly. That was just a comparison to demonstrate you are doing the same thing Christians did with the solar system. They fought and fought until they couldn't and the evidence was too much. Every year there is more and more evidence for evolutionary biology but the evolution part has been demonstrated far beyond what you seem to realize.

No one can explain thru science where things came from. They have to skip over that part.

They don't skip it? Here is them not skipping it .

Origins of Trilobites

So where did trilobites come from?
The likely scenario is that trilobites arose from Precambrian bilaterians, arguably arthropods, that gave rise to Cambrian arachnomorphs, among them trilobites. The evidence is neither clear nor unambiguous. The fossil record is spotty, but suggestive, and only some remarkable sites such as Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale reveal the rich diversity of non-calcified arachnomorph arthropods. The fossils of the Precambrian reveal some bilaterian diversity, among them a few species that might be candidates for trilobite ancestors. Perhaps it is the simple, dorsally unsegmented Precambrian fossil, Parvancorina, that offers the most reasonable link to arachnomorphs. Lin et al, 2006 strongly linked Parvancorina to an unambiguously arthropodan Cambrian creature, Skania sundbergi, closely related to Primicaris larvaformis. Similar taxa have been documented in Australia, Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale (see image of Skania fragilis, left). If neither Skania nor the protaspid stage of trilobites were preserved, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to make the link between Parvancorina and trilobites. As it is, both Parvancorina and Skania/Primicaris can be placed in a relationship that might look something like the sequence below.


Of course creationists try to make this a huge mystery but precambrian forms do exist, just not enough to give a full picture. As usual creationist talking points just lead you to make false statements. Some fossil gaps are going to happen, in the early 1900s the "missing link" was all the rage with fundamentalists. Now we have most hominid species. Even still some creationists only read creation media and actually think the "missing link" is still a thing.

Not finding fossils for some periods doesn't equal they popped up by magic.


One of my last post also was talking about trilobite ancestors -


"EYE Evolution


-Trilobite ancestors from 544 million years ago don’t have eyes........"

We don't see dead matter turning into something alive.

Like this for example, one of the most common creationist and anti-materialist points.

What is "dead matter"?
The building blocks for life, things that make biological organisms occur in nature. Proteins (amino acids), lipids (fatty acids), carbohydrates (sugars), nucleic acids (Nitrogenous bases ).
All nitrogenous bases are found in space as are the other 3 substances. Amino acids self assemble.

We see these becoming more complex self replicating compounds. There is no magic point where you can say it's "living".
Is a virus living?
Creationists have to compare people to sticks and stones. But they know full well that we can trace most of the steps, the compounds are already in space and there are enough locations and time for probability to have allowed for the assembly of "life" at least once. Probably many more times as well.


We don't "see" many things in science. Show me a lecture or paper where the scientist reveals a new discovery and says the evidence is "we saw it".


And Yahweh is not invisible according to many many passages in scripture.
…This interpretation might at first seem surprising to those brought up in a Western tradition that emphasizes God’s transcendence and incorporeality. Yet as critical readers of the Hebrew Bible are well aware, references to God’s body are found throughout biblical literature.41 The God of the Hebrew Bible has a body with hands, fingers, arms, and feet.42 His body therefore requires regulation through dress, diet, and rest.43 He has a face with eyes, ears, lips, and a nose.44 Consequently, this God is one who can touch, see, taste, smell, and hear.45 And one implication of God’s embodiment is his related sexuality...


Fransesca gives many examples from the Hebrew version of scripture, not sanitized by English writers who wanted god to be a spirit.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

They don't skip it? Here is them not skipping it .

Origins of Trilobites

So where did trilobites come from?
The likely scenario is that trilobites arose from Precambrian bilaterians, arguably arthropods, that gave rise to Cambrian arachnomorphs, among them trilobites. The evidence is neither clear nor unambiguous. The fossil record is spotty, but suggestive, and only some remarkable sites such as Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale reveal the rich diversity of non-calcified arachnomorph arthropods. The fossils of the Precambrian reveal some bilaterian diversity, among them a few species that might be candidates for trilobite ancestors. Perhaps it is the simple, dorsally unsegmented Precambrian fossil, Parvancorina, that offers the most reasonable link to arachnomorphs. Lin et al, 2006 strongly linked Parvancorina to an unambiguously arthropodan Cambrian creature, Skania sundbergi, closely related to Primicaris larvaformis. Similar taxa have been documented in Australia, Chengjiang, Kaili, and the Burgess Shale (see image of Skania fragilis, left). If neither Skania nor the protaspid stage of trilobites were preserved, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to make the link between Parvancorina and trilobites. As it is, both Parvancorina and Skania/Primicaris can be placed in a relationship that might look something like the sequence below.

The likely scenario. The evidence is neither clear nor ... The fossil record is spotty. A few species might be candidates. Perhaps it is the simple... offers the most reasonable link... a relationship that might look something like the sequence below.

And that was skipping over how we got the life to begin with.

 

[metis]

And that was skipping over how we got the life to begin with.

We don't know, so what's your point? If you make an assertion, then please post the scientific evidence for what you post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't know, so what's your point? If you make an assertion, then please post the scientific evidence for what you post.

More "They do not know what the accused had for breakfast the day of the murder so you must find him innocent" arguing.

 

[joelr]

The likely scenario. The evidence is neither clear nor ... The fossil record is spotty. A few species might be candidates. Perhaps it is the simple... offers the most reasonable link... a relationship that might look something like the sequence below.

And that was skipping over how we got the life to begin with.

This is a big red herring. What you are skipping over is the massive amounts of evidence for evolution of different species, especially a tree dwelling chimp-like creature to modern humans. We already have many lines of fossil evidence.
It's just what trilobites formed from isn't clear. Those fossils are 600 million years old.
You don't acknowledge obvious fossil records like hominid evolution, BUT when a 500 million year old Bug has questions about its ancestors suddenly the fossil record is really important and a lack of it is really meaningful to you.
Yet the fossil evidence we DO HAVE you ignore or find excuses as to why it's wrong. Excuses that no scientists acknowledges.

As usual it ends up being apologetics jumping all over the map, moving the goalpost, inconsistent and you haven't raised any actual arguments against any of the evolutionary science.

There are gaps in physics also. We cannot quantize gravity and do not understand time. Does that invalidate the 3 forces that we can quantize and the standard model? No.

So what? That doesn't invalidate other evidence, it means we don't know yet what trilobites evolved from. But we do know many other species that the fossil records is much clearer on.

We shouldn't have every possible fossil.

How we got to life is a different question. As I stated the building blocks are found everywhere, including in space.
Things that make biological organisms occur in nature. Proteins (amino acids), lipids (fatty acids), carbohydrates (sugars), nucleic acids (Nitrogenous bases ).

These formed nucleotides which are capable of forming hydrogen-bonded base pairs similar to the Watson-Crick base pairs formed by modern nucleic acids.

There are many steps in the chain that have been demonstrated in a lab. Nucleobases have formed and if you add a ribose and a phosphate you get to a nucleotide.
Simple RNA is the key, a different discussion. There are a few routes to forming RNA but ALL OF THE BUILDING BLOCKS EXIST IN NATURE.
The universe is probabilistic, meaning given enough time and chances anything possible will happen.
Turns out we have billions of years and trillions of planets that we know of, there could be an infinite amount, which makes the start of life inevitable if that is the case.
But the staggering size of the known universe means life does not defy any probability at all.





But any gaps in fossils don't disprove all of the instances where we have good fossil records. Why would you even think to bring that up?

The evidence for mutations and natural selection is far past the point of demonstrating it happens.

But the story you are using to believe evolution couldn't have happened is a re-working of several older stories. This is confirmed through intertextuality that Genesis is dependent on the older stories, not just inspired by the plot.

Even if evolution was false it does not make ancient stories true. But natural selection and gene mutation is real. Evolution is just a larger consequence of these realities.

And Yahweh has a body, body parts, In Hebrew he fathered a child with Eve and is seen by many. He also wrestled with Jacob.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This is a big red herring. What you are skipping over is the massive amounts of evidence for evolution of different species, especially a tree dwelling chimp-like creature to modern humans. We already have many lines of fossil evidence.
It's just what trilobites formed from isn't clear. Those fossils are 600 million years old.
You don't acknowledge obvious fossil records like hominid evolution, BUT when a 500 million year old Bug has questions about its ancestors suddenly the fossil record is really important and a lack of it is really meaningful to you.
Yet the fossil evidence we DO HAVE you ignore or find excuses as to why it's wrong. Excuses that no scientists acknowledges.

As usual it ends up being apologetics jumping all over the map, moving the goalpost, inconsistent and you haven't raised any actual arguments against any of the evolutionary science.

There are gaps in physics also. We cannot quantize gravity and do not understand time. Does that invalidate the 3 forces that we can quantize and the standard model? No.

So what? That doesn't invalidate other evidence, it means we don't know yet what trilobites evolved from. But we do know many other species that the fossil records is much clearer on.

We shouldn't have every possible fossil.

How we got to life is a different question. As I stated the building blocks are found everywhere, including in space.
Things that make biological organisms occur in nature. Proteins (amino acids), lipids (fatty acids), carbohydrates (sugars), nucleic acids (Nitrogenous bases ).

These formed nucleotides which are capable of forming hydrogen-bonded base pairs similar to the Watson-Crick base pairs formed by modern nucleic acids.

There are many steps in the chain that have been demonstrated in a lab. Nucleobases have formed and if you add a ribose and a phosphate you get to a nucleotide.
Simple RNA is the key, a different discussion. There are a few routes to forming RNA but ALL OF THE BUILDING BLOCKS EXIST IN NATURE.
The universe is probabilistic, meaning given enough time and chances anything possible will happen.
Turns out we have billions of years and trillions of planets that we know of, there could be an infinite amount, which makes the start of life inevitable if that is the case.
But the staggering size of the known universe means life does not defy any probability at all.





But any gaps in fossils don't disprove all of the instances where we have good fossil records. Why would you even think to bring that up?

The evidence for mutations and natural selection is far past the point of demonstrating it happens.

But the story you are using to believe evolution couldn't have happened is a re-working of several older stories. This is confirmed through intertextuality that Genesis is dependent on the older stories, not just inspired by the plot.

Even if evolution was false it does not make ancient stories true. But natural selection and gene mutation is real. Evolution is just a larger consequence of these realities.

And Yahweh has a body, body parts, In Hebrew he fathered a child with Eve and is seen by many. He also wrestled with Jacob.

Why aren't there fossil records of the gradual transition to develop the giraffe's long neck for instance? If it's as long a period needed as you say and happens extremely slowly over time. They should have found some fossils showing that continuing change of neck length throughout the millions of years it supposedly evolved.

Also what is it in natural selection that would have inclined it towards developing such a long neck in just one particular creature? Or you could use an ostrich as an example since it has a long neck also. (Although they are clearly not related to each other.)

If it's advantageous why wouldn't the horse have developed that way also? Why just the giraffe?

 

[McBell]

Why aren't there fossil records of the gradual transition to develop the giraffe's long neck for instance? If it's as long a period needed as you say and happens extremely slowly over time. They should have found some fossils showing that continuing change of neck length throughout the millions of years it supposedly evolved.

Also what is it in natural selection that would have inclined it towards developing such a long neck in just one particular creature? Or you could use an ostrich as an example since it has a long neck also. (Although they are clearly not related to each other.)

If it's advantageous why wouldn't the horse have developed that way also? Why just the giraffe?

Are you familiar with the conditions needed for fossilization to happen?

Conditions for Fossilization​

Following the death of an organism, several forces contribute to the dissolution of its remains. Decay, predators, or scavengers will typically rapidly remove the flesh. The hard parts, if they are separable at all, can be dispersed by predators, scavengers, or currents. The individual hard parts are subject to chemical weathering and erosion, as well as to splintering by predators or scavengers, which will crunch up bones for marrow and shells to extract the flesh inside. Also, an animal swallowed whole by a predator, such as a mouse swallowed by a snake, will have not just its flesh but some, and perhaps all, its bones destroyed by the gastric juices of the predator.​

​

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the typical vertebrate fossil consists of a single bone, or tooth, or fish scale. The preservation of an intact skeleton with the bones in the relative positions they had in life requires a remarkable circumstances, such as burial in volcanic ash, burial in aeolian sand due to the sudden slumping of a sand dune, burial in a mudslide, burial by a turbidity current, and so forth. The mineralization of soft parts is even less common and is seen only in exceptionally rare chemical and biological conditions.​

​

18.5B: Fossil Formation

bio.libretexts.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why aren't there fossil records of the gradual transition to develop the giraffe's long neck for instance? If it's as long a period needed as you say and happens extremely slowly over time. They should have found some fossils showing that continuing change of neck length throughout the millions of years it supposedly evolved.

Also what is it in natural selection that would have inclined it towards developing such a long neck in just one particular creature? Or you could use an ostrich as an example since it has a long neck also. (Although they are clearly not related to each other.)

If it's advantageous why wouldn't the horse have developed that way also? Why just the giraffe?

Because terrestrial fossils are exceedingly rare. Most terrestrial species do not leave any fossil evidence behind.

Why do you think that we need a fossil for every generation?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Are you familiar with the conditions needed for fossilization to happen?

Conditions for Fossilization​

Following the death of an organism, several forces contribute to the dissolution of its remains. Decay, predators, or scavengers will typically rapidly remove the flesh. The hard parts, if they are separable at all, can be dispersed by predators, scavengers, or currents. The individual hard parts are subject to chemical weathering and erosion, as well as to splintering by predators or scavengers, which will crunch up bones for marrow and shells to extract the flesh inside. Also, an animal swallowed whole by a predator, such as a mouse swallowed by a snake, will have not just its flesh but some, and perhaps all, its bones destroyed by the gastric juices of the predator.​

​

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the typical vertebrate fossil consists of a single bone, or tooth, or fish scale. The preservation of an intact skeleton with the bones in the relative positions they had in life requires a remarkable circumstances, such as burial in volcanic ash, burial in aeolian sand due to the sudden slumping of a sand dune, burial in a mudslide, burial by a turbidity current, and so forth. The mineralization of soft parts is even less common and is seen only in exceptionally rare chemical and biological conditions.​

​

18.5B: Fossil Formation

bio.libretexts.org

But yet some are wanting me to believe they have actual fossils of eyes from millions of years ago.

 

[McBell]

But yet some are wanting me to believe they have actual fossils of eyes from millions of years ago.

What reason do you have to doubt the age of the fossil?