Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Never the less evolution cannot explain creation

It doesn't try to do so. Did you also not know that? Geesh. Electromagnetic theory cannot explain creation, either. So what? Irrelevant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong

Maybe a good time to pause and note:

This quack is not a paleontologist. He does not publish research and was let go from his last job at a museum, because he doesn't belong in a setting that celebrates and defers to scientific knowledge. Now, all he does is write for creationism websites and embarrass himself on YouTube.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Never the less evolution cannot explain creation

Which is fine, since it isn't a theory that attempts to explain creation.

Which should be a relief to you. All of this bad information you have ... all the silly, false things you say about evolution...you can stop embarrassing yourself now, because evolution does not attempt to explain creation and does not conflict with the idea that gods created everything.

Isn't that a relief?

 

[Mac-7]

It doesn't try to do so. Did you also not know that? Geesh. Electromagnetic theory cannot explain creation, either. So what? Irrelevant.

If not then you cant reject intelligent design by a Devine Creator

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If not then you cant reject intelligent design by a Devine Creator

More accurately, I cannot know with certainty that there is no creator or design. I am fine with that.

What did you expect?

 

[Mac-7]

More accurately, I cannot know with certainty that there is no creator or design. I am fine with that.

What did you expect?

So am I

We are just two ships passing in the night

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So am I

We are just two ships passing in the night

Right. Believe anything you like. I don't think lesser of you for it.

 

[alang1216]

A trillion years is not enough time for what libs claim has happened

First off science is not politics, no matter how much you want it to be.

Second, you have no idea if a trillion years or a million years is enough, since you are clueless as to the science. Just because you don't understand something, you shouldn't assume no one else does either.

 

[Mushroom]

Where are the slight changes? That is what we are debating, right?

Feathers evolved from scales. This we know mostly because they are actually made of the exact same thing. Beta-Keratin sheets that are hydrogen bonded into crosslinked strands. We know they evolved several different times, not unlike "sabre teeth" did. Most likely originally as simply larger scales to help trap more heat, then becoming longer and more elaborate as for a warm blooded animal the extra insulation was a benefit.

But chemically and structurally, there is no difference between feathers and scales, and each of them form in the exact same way, with the exact same patterning and bias. And the remaining scales on birds (predominantly on the feet) are no different.

 

[Mushroom]

If not then you cant reject intelligent design by a Devine Creator

But those that do believe in Intelligent Design and also follow the science do not have the crazy beliefs that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old, and that humans lived with dinosaurs.

One group is trying to make the science and their faith match. The other are just crazy fundamentalists who reject any science they do not like and make everything else up as they go along. Even getting fooled by fake reports and evidence, and even when that is pointed out still insisting they are right.

 

[Mushroom]

First, there is evidence such as dinosaur fossils with soft tissue and C14 still remaining. With prehistoric art and others, it shows prehistoric humans weren't underdeveloped Neanderthals as atheist scientists claim. Creationists do not believe in millions of year old humans nor of them living in caves (I've been to Pinnacles and Carlsbad Caverns and wouldn't want to live there. Have you visited any caves?). The Neanderthal skeletons are representations of today's humans. The art shows that prehistoric humans were more advanced than what atheist scientists think.

As for dino and human art, there are others found all over the world and it just supplements the soft tissue/C14 evidence.

And once again, you are believing a lie. With fake evidence.

Want to know what that rock really looks like? Because that is not it.

And chemical and structural analysis has shown that what you are seeing is a petroglyph of a snake, partially on top of an older one, with some chemical contaminants. Just like the last "proof" you provided, this is fake and a lie because the "original" does not look like the image you are trying to show us.

In fact, the person that "discovered" it also does not believe it is of a dinosaur. It was discovered in 2006 by Phil Senter, from Fayetteville State University. He passed it along to Sally Cole, a Petroglyph Archaeologist with the Natural History Museum of Utah. Who examined it in more detail (including under various forms of light and microscopically) and came to that conclusion.

Notice once again, real scientists who work for real legitimate institutions. Who then release real and original photographs, not faked up ones that claim they are original. When somebody uses an obviously faked and doctored photograph and claims it is "original", the entire report should be dismissed. If they are lying about the photograph, odds are that the entire article is a lie.

 

[Mac-7]

But those that do believe in Intelligent Design and also follow the science do not have the crazy beliefs that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old, and that humans lived with dinosaurs.

Very few people believe the earth is only 6000 years old

If you are basing your case against the Bible on that you ate doing yourself a disservice

 

[Mushroom]

If you are basing your case against the Bible on that you ate doing yourself a disservice

*laugh*

And once again, you are making some huge freaking assumptions here. And laughingly, very wrong.

Actually, I very much consider myself a "Christian", and do not "ate" the Bible. You are making the classic mistake of so many in here. That anybody not in 100% complete agreement with you must be the "enemy", therefore must reject everything you believe in.

Most Christians (and Jews, and others) who are religious have no problem meshing in scientific theory with our faiths. We do not see a problem with that, and in fact I think George Burns put it great in a movie. Where in "Oh, God!" when he was asked if he created the Universe in seven days, he answered that he did. But a day for him was many times longer than a day for a human.

 

[Mac-7]

*laugh*

And once again, you are making some huge freaking assumptions here. And laughingly, very wrong.

Actually, I very much consider myself a "Christian", and do not "ate" the Bible.

I see we have a typing nazi here

Oh well

As for the rest of your post I dont essentially disagree

You rail against Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old

But you are beating a dead horse because thats not a common belief

 

[Mushroom]

As for the rest of your post I dont essentially disagree

You rail against Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old

Yes, because those are fundamentalist lunatics. And I have little use for any fundamentalists.

Including what I call "Fundamentalist Atheists". A "true atheist" would not care what others believe in. It is the fundamentalists that try to shove their belief of "no God" and trying to force everybody to share their belief that I find repulsive.

Any that try to claim the earth is six thousand years old or some other crazy small age has already rejected all science, and should never be taken serious in a scientific discussion.

Oh, they are more than welcome to move over to the Religion area, and then flagellate themselves and each other all they want. But such prater does not belong in a scientific discussion.

 

[james bond]

The only problem is that is all bullshit.

Tell us, where can we find this "carbonate mud" that would be required? And then, how much of it is there?

You are aware are you not that during the processes to turn that "carbonate mud" into limestone, you are going to only end up with a fraction of the final result, because of subsurface compression. Most estimate that such strata are only 1/10 the size they were before such compression (or even smaller). Where we see coal seams a few dozen meters thick, was once hundreds of meters of plant material piled on top of more plant material for millions of years. We see a hundred meters or so of limestone, that was tens or millions of years of deposits. It is only when you get closer to the time of origin that the compression largely goes away.

However, it is still there. Go to any of the fossil beds left behind by the many eruptions of the Yellowstone Caldera, and you can see this in action. A layer maybe a meter or two thick, normally dating to the last million or so years of volcanic ash. However, this was up to tens of meters thick originally, but like can be seen after any ashfall this is a light material and compresses.

So what you said, it is all bullshit. And anybody experienced with geology can tell it is bullshit in a moment. That is why we all laugh at the very idea of a "creationist geologist". That is somebody that ignores science and proof, and just makes up crazy garbage that they think makes sense. But in reality, is all bullshit.

The creation geologist backs me up. All you have is evolutionist opinion, so no need for me to agree with your bullshit. You can't prove millions or so years as my radiocarbon dating disproved it.

And once again, you are believing a lie. With fake evidence.

Want to know what that rock really looks like? Because that is not it.

And chemical and structural analysis has shown that what you are seeing is a petroglyph of a snake, partially on top of an older one, with some chemical contaminants. Just like the last "proof" you provided, this is fake and a lie because the "original" does not look like the image you are trying to show us.

In fact, the person that "discovered" it also does not believe it is of a dinosaur. It was discovered in 2006 by Phil Senter, from Fayetteville State University. He passed it along to Sally Cole, a Petroglyph Archaeologist with the Natural History Museum of Utah. Who examined it in more detail (including under various forms of light and microscopically) and came to that conclusion.

Notice once again, real scientists who work for real legitimate institutions. Who then release real and original photographs, not faked up ones that claim they are original. When somebody uses an obviously faked and doctored photograph and claims it is "original", the entire report should be dismissed. If they are lying about the photograph, odds are that the entire article is a lie.

Man, your assertions are just colossal bullshit lmao. I don't believe your scientists as evidence of humans and dinosaurs hurts evolution. All they have is papers biased atheist scientists wrote. That isn't evidence. Moreover, you have nothing to show millions of years while creationists have dino fossils with soft tissue and C14 remaining.

 

[Mushroom]

The creation geologist backs me up. All you have is evolutionist opinion

Once again, that is a contradiction.

And when I talk about geology, I talk about geology. You see, geology does not give a damn about evolution, or the Bible, or anything else. It only cares about the planet, the rocks, and how the two of them developed. You are trying to mash them together, and that is a fail. Like trying to compare ERA stats in baseball, and saying a player is better or worse than a football quarterback because of their yards passed stats.

This is why you keep failing, because I am actually talking very little about evolution itself. I am discussing geology, and slightly into anthropology and paleontology. I am dismissing your claims based on the science of that alone, and not even going into biology, or actual evolution.

But please tell me, where are all these lime volcanos? Or these massive "lime floods", because there is no evidence of either of those events happening ever.

That is the difference. I use actual hard observation and science, you are believing fairy stories that are completely made up and have no basis in reality.

And you reject my assertations as "bullshit", yet ignore the fact once again that your reference lied to you. When faced with the fact they lied, you still believe them and what they say, and reject actual hard evidence that you were lied to.

As I said, take this claim down to the religion area. It does not belong here.

 

[ding]

"Slight" like "gradual" are relative terms so you should take care in throwing them around.

Which the fossil record does not support.

Darwin's understanding of inheritance was flawed and he built his theory on that flaw.

“It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7).

 

[ding]

That's your standard for "slight changes". Not mine. And obviously we're talking about different timeframe, here. Not just athe few years that Darwin observe finches

. So you see, "slight changes" gets pretty subjective.

Maybe you need to read what Darwin actually wrote. Because his theory was built upon a flawed understanding of how inheritance works.

“It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7).

 

[ding]

Feathers evolved from scales. This we know mostly because they are actually made of the exact same thing. Beta-Keratin sheets that are hydrogen bonded into crosslinked strands. We know they evolved several different times, not unlike "sabre teeth" did. Most likely originally as simply larger scales to help trap more heat, then becoming longer and more elaborate as for a warm blooded animal the extra insulation was a benefit.

But chemically and structurally, there is no difference between feathers and scales, and each of them form in the exact same way, with the exact same patterning and bias. And the remaining scales on birds (predominantly on the feet) are no different.

So how long did this "slight" change from scales to feathers occur and where is the fossil record of that change to show the gradual changes from scales to feathers.

You do realize I am arguing for punctuated equilibrium driven by genetic mutations, right? I'm not arguing against evolution. I am arguing about how evolution occurs. Darwin's beliefs on inheritance were wrong and he built his theory on that flaw. Which is why the fossil record does not support evolution being a gradual event. His theory works great for the beaks of finches but not for new species like birds.

“It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7).