Author Topic: The Fossil Record  (Read 828 times)

Fletch_smf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
The Fossil Record
« on: January 26, 2013, 04:21:23 PM »
Shows the evolution of species and that a long time has past (Had to post something in the body of this first post that was not actually said in our PMs).

Fletch_smf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Fossil Record
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2013, 04:29:51 PM »
Wapatango via PM:

This is getting long, so I want to move on to the fossil record. You say that it shows that the earth is old. How does it show the earth is old? I would say exactly the opposite. The fossil record is excellent evidence that the earth is young. If there had been a global flood, what would you expect to find? In the words of Ken Ham, ďBillions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.Ē And that is exactly what the fossil record is. It shows a huge, watery cataclysm. Iím going to link four cartoon images to illustrate. The first link: what evolutionists say happened: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030117_155.asp. The second link: what really happens: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030117_156.asp. The third and fourth link shows the only way to make a fossil. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030124_158.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030124_157.asp

This is only one reason I say the fossil record demonstrates the earth is young, there are many others, but this is getting long, so Iíll let you tell me why you think it shows the earth is old, and I can share more of my reasons another time.

Before I end this message, though, I will point out the fossil record is also excellent evidence for how a personís starting assumptions affect what they see. Are you familiar with Mary Schweitzer and her discoveries? Here is a short article that talks very briefly about what she found and some of the implications. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/soft-tissue-in-fossils. It is part of a series of articles and does contain links if you want to see some other evidences of a young earth. Mary Schweitzerís discovery pretty much goes against everything she ever believed to be true about fossils, and yet she did not reject her starting assumptions, because evidence will not change worldviews. Instead, our worldviews change how we see evidence. Therefore, to determine which worldview is correct, we have to examine the underlying presuppositions, but we can get into that another day. In the meantime, I will look forward to your response when you get a chance.

Fletch_smf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Fossil Record
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2013, 04:48:54 AM »
The thing about the fossil record though, is that it's so ordered. The further back you go through the layers of rock, you can see certain species of life starting and ending. If there were a catastrophic flood then you wouldn't find that certain fossils were only found in certain layers of the rock. They would be all messed around with newer species found in all layers of the fossil record. If you believe the flood is the only time fossils were ever made then you believe fossils were only a snap shot of life at that time.

wapatango

  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: The Fossil Record
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2013, 11:06:45 PM »
That the orderliness of the fossil record demonstrates evolution is a common misconception.  Actually, it is also a logical fallacy (fallacy of false cause).  As per the name this fallacy is concluding an incorrect cause-and-effect relationship.  Just because things are connected doesn't mean one caused the other.  A book I've been reading that deals with logic gives this example.  Someone does a research experiment and discovers that there are more heart attacks on days when tar is sticky than on other days.  He concludes that sticky tar causes heart attacks.  Of course, it is the higher temperature on those days that caused both the sticky tar and the heart attack.  He came to a wrong conclusion about the cause-and-effect relationship. 

In the same way, just because fossils are somewhat ordered does not prove that the fossils found in the bottom rock layers caused the fossils found in higher rock layers.  Just because something can be lined up doesn't mean they are descended from a common ancestor.  Different models of today's vehicles could be arranged in sequence, but that doesn't mean they are biologically descended from a common ancestor.  There are other explanations.  Here is a link to an article with more information about that.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/order-fossil-record 

Since your evidence is fallacious, it cannot prove evolution.  Since there are other reasons that the fossil record could be ordered, the order we find does is not a valid proof for evolution.  It also is not proof that a long time has past as the link I posted pointed out.  There are other explanations for that too.  So, do you have any other reasons why you believe the fossil record proves evolution besides fossil order? 

Fletch_smf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Fossil Record
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2013, 08:05:32 AM »
I will address the rest of you argument later, after I have had a chance to read the link you posted (again, thanks for supplying all these), but the main point I was making in my response above was that the order is the same all over the world. If the fossils were all caused at the time of the flood, by animals that were alive on earth, then at different parts of the world you would find different fossils above and below other ones. There would be no age of the Dinosaurs followed by an age of birds then an age of Mammals. Sometimes you would find mammals below the dinosaurs, because of the cataclysm of the flood.

Fletch_smf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Fossil Record
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2013, 02:12:57 AM »
Just read the link above, and it explains the order of creatures found in the fossil record because of where they live on earth at the time of the Flood is incorrect. Because there are mammals that live with fish. Why is there no record of whales, dolphins or seals found amongst the fish? Why are there no Penguins, for that matter? The reason is they didn't exist at the time the earlier fossils were made.

And again I will reiterate, that during something as cataclysmic as a world flood would mix up the creatures and the order they would be found in the fossil record.

wapatango

  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: The Fossil Record
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2013, 09:28:29 PM »
First, of all, we haven't dug up all the fossils in the world yet.  In fact, we've barely scratched the surface.  (no pun intended)  The Redwall Limestone fossil bed in the Grand Canyon covers 10.5 million square miles by itself.  So, it is possible that we will discover aquatic mammals buried with fish at some point.  The fact that we haven't found any yet is no proof that we won't find some in the future.  Since scientists still make new discoveries within the fossil record, it is not at all illogical to suppose that one day they might find aquatic mammals and fish buried together. 

Second, has every type of fossilized aquatic creature been found with all other types of fossilized aquatic creature that supposedly evolved at the same time?  If not, then your argument would hold no weight.  I have no idea how many different types of aquatic fish were supposed to have evolved at the same time.  But if they aren't all found together, then not finding a whale with a fish means nothing, for within your own worldview there would be creatures who evolved at the same time who were not buried together. 

Third, even in the ocean there are different environments.  Not all aquatic creatures prefer the same environment.  Some creatures prefer living on the ocean floor in shallow water.  Others prefer the ocean floor in deep water.  Others want to live near the surface of the water, and still others in the mid-ocean depths.  Plus, even without these environment differences some creatures aren't normally found together.  For instance, sharks and dolphins inhabit many of the same areas in the ocean, but they usually aren't found together.  These differences would also account for the rarity of certain creatures' fossils being found together. 

Fourth, in a box of cereal and a bag of chips, small pieces get sifted down to the bottom.  With the flood waters moving sediments around, the small fish would tend to settle to the bottom while the larger aquatic mammals would tend to be clogged at the top.  Thus, it should not surprise us to find lots of small fish fossils in layers lower than larger marine mammal fossils. 

As a final reason, fish and aquatic mammals breathe completely differently.  Fish breathe through gills, so if the water became toxic because of volcanic eruptions or the release of water previously trapped under the crust that contained a high concentration of chemicals, many of the fish would die before any of the mammals since the mammals rise to the surface to breathe air.  This would mean that dead fish would almost always be buried below aquatic mammals, since the living creatures can continue to swim trying to escape danger while the dead ones can't. 

Taking all five of these reasons together, it is not surprising that we have not found aquatic mammals buried with fish in those lower layers which is what I believe you were referring to.  (As one of the articles Iíve linked has pointed out, we have found a whale buried with nautiloids, clams, and gastropods as well as a possum.  This find was at fossil bluff in Tasmania.  I donít think it was in the bottom layer, so Iím assuming that is not what you are referring to.)    However, it is still entirely possible that we will find these two types of creatures buried together at some point.  The reasons I have given show why aquatic mammals would tend not to be buried with fish, however, they do not preclude that event from happening. 

I was just about to send this when the power went out.  I'm glad it came back on so that I could begin to answer your many posts and show that I haven't forgotten you or abandoned the discussion.  :) 


Fletch_smf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: The Fossil Record
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2013, 07:59:27 AM »
I was just about to send this when the power went out.  I'm glad it came back on so that I could begin to answer your many posts and show that I haven't forgotten you or abandoned the discussion.  :)

It's totally fine. I know how busy you are. I feel pretty happy about answering all the threads so far, but I was just making hay whilst the sun was shining. No pressure on you to respond.

First Point: 100s of millions, probably billions of fossils have been found. It is possible that the evolutionary contradiction we are looking for is still buried somewhere, but the law of large numbers would suggest that it's simply not there to be found.

Second Point: I don't understand this point. You're suggesting the reason the fossil records are the way they are is because of the flood. Sea creatures were buried first. I'm asking why no sea mammals are found buried at the same time? I'm not sure what you're saying here

Third Point: All that is negated by the upheaval of the flood, I think. Big huge upheaval and animals (and people) being thrown about all over the place. I still find it absurd to believe that no land mammal/bird could be found amongst the marine animals, and the layers of fossils are so neatly organised by evolutionary complexity.

Fourth Point: So small mammals should be found amongst the bottom layers? But they aren't. And there are some truly tremendous fish found fossilised. Way bigger than fish alive today. So that argument doesn't work either.

Fifth point: The Oceans are huge. There is no way they entirety of them could become toxic. And if they did, it would be absolutely catastrophic for the planet and would not be changed back in any time soon.

GregDarcy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: The Fossil Record
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2013, 12:30:34 AM »
1. The links in the first post do not work so I have been unable to study the information in them.

2 the link "Order in the fossil record does work, but contains so many internal contradictions that even my very rusty knowledge of palaeontology can spot them"
From the article:
Quote
The best way to do that is to see a list of the fossils found in each of the main layers, as in Figure 3.7 A careful examination of this list reveals the order in which creatures were buried
  • Pre-Flood Single-Cell Fossils.
  • Shallow Marine Invertebrates of the Seafloor
  • Fish
  • Land Plants and Reptile Footprints
  • Fossils of Land Vertebrates
(My numbering)
This accords pretty much with the order of creatures as predicted by evolution. Yet the author then goes on to say:
Quote
the fossil recordís ďorderĒ can best be described as random
Which it clearly is not.

And later:
Quote
Indeed, the pattern of first appearances doesnít fit the expected evolutionary order but instead is consistent with the rising Flood waters, as they inundated the continents. Furthermore, even the pattern of finding tracks before bodies is consistent with creatures surviving in the initial Flood waters before eventually perishing.
I'm sorry, but but it does fit the evolutionary order. What it DOESN'T do is be "consistent with the rising Flood waters". Lower layers contain sea creatures. Higher layers contain land creatures. Yet the area must have been sea as the lower layers attest. Why are there land creatures here too? This is easily explained by Old Earth geology, but is not explained by Young-Earth geology.
In Old Earth geology, a few hundred million years is more than enough to allow for uplift of the terrain so that what was once below the sea is now above it.