What about the Fossil Record Themselves?

[d.n.irvin]

I know this requires quite a paradigm shift in thinking and I'm not asking you to switch thinking as much as I'm asking you to look at the evidence and make an overall assessment.

Fossil Record
The "Principle of Fossil Correlation", in short, states that if we find two of the same kinds fossils -in two different locations we are to assume they are the same age.

" If covered by moist sediment, weathering is prevented. For those reasons quick burial is perhaps the most important condition favouring fossilization.
]"Water borne sediments are so much widely distributed than all other agents of burial that they include the great majority of fossils." Dunbar, .O.C 1957; Historical Geology, John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York

How then is it possible to date "sedimentary rock"?

" Time and again wind water and ice have cut and destroyed rocks that have been elevated to form continents. That there is a fossil record at all seems rather remarkable." Evolution of Life E.C. Olsonp.21,35 1966
" Historical Geology is a record of events most of which never took place, in a time much of which never existed."

How do we have a fossil record at all, since erosion should have eroded the earth many times over in millions, or even billions of years?

Upon recent discoveries, Stephen J. Gould and other popular Neo-Darwinist now believe in an "Explosion of Life" theory, of which the "Cambrian Explosion" contains Chordates! In short the Fossil Record shows that every single phylum including the one we belong to, was there from "the beginning". More recent discoveries of soft bodied Cambrian organisms has proven that full diversity was reached with in the explosion.

If science has proven that everything was there from "the beginning" doesn't that sound like "Creation"?

"Charles Darwin faced this challenge to his gradualistic preferences- with characteristic honesty, in his first edition of the "Origin of Species", [The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."] "Nature- Palaeontology, 'Of it, not above it' Stephen Jay Gould, p377 Oct.26, 1995

So is this a new idea?, or did Darwin already know it?
Note: part of the reason I cited older works is to show this is not new information

"If Everything was there from "the beginning", then the textbooks that teach you life evolved over millions or even billions of years, Is not based on fossil record, but the mind set of the scientist" D.N.Irvin ReligiousForums

There are many other points of interest to explore when we examine Fossil Records.

Why do Fossil Records show that animals were much bigger then, than they are today?

When Evolution Law says that animals evolve from small to large.

Why is it that Fossil Record indicates that when you enter a dinosaur field they all lay the same direction?

Two possible choices are; When dinosaurs died they all fell over in the same position or Something put them in the same direction. (like the flow of water perhaps)

Why do all dinosaur footprints found indicate that the animal was moving upgrade?

(to escape water perhaps)

**These and many other questions regarding the validity of evolution process deserve at least attention-and should require investigation.

 

[Booko]

First off, Irvin, a literal understanding of Genesis has creation in 6 days, not 7.

I know this requires quite a paradigm shift in thinking and I'm not asking you to switch thinking as much as I'm asking you to look at the evidence and make an overall assessment.

Fossil Record
The "Principle of Fossil Correlation", in short, states that if we find two of the same kinds fossils -in two different locations we are to assume they are the same age.
How then is it possible to date "sedimentary rock"?

K-Ar dating maybe. Though being sedimentary Ar-Ar dating may yield more accurate results. Though the rocks can't be recent for those methods. They'd need to be at least 100K years old, but for dinosaur strata at >65 million, that's no issue.

Done it in the lab myself. Analytical Chem...booyah!

No don't ask me for a description of the technique and its scientific basis. If you want to know that, you can take years of Chemistry like I had to. At that point, you will understand it. At that point, you will at least have a Bachelor's in Chemistry, and possibly a M.S.

Next question.

If science has proven that everything was there from "the beginning" doesn't that sound like "Creation"?

Huh? What are you talking about? What beginning of what? Life? The Universe? Everything?

Evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis, if that's what you're getting at.

Why do Fossil Records show that animals were much bigger then, than they are today?

Uurnt! Some of them were bigger at some times, and some were smaller. Which "then" did you mean, and which animals?

Why is it that Fossil Record indicates that when you enter a dinosaur field they all lay the same direction?

Why do all dinosaur footprints found indicate that the animal was moving upgrade?**These and many other questions regarding the validity of evolution process deserve at least attention-and should require investigation.

Cite source please.

 

[Jaymes]

Two of your quotes are from 1957 and 1966. When is the other one from?

 

[d.n.irvin]

Two of your quotes are from 1957 and 1966. When is the other one from?

"Nature- Palaeontology, 'Of it, not above it' Stephen Jay Gould, p377 Oct.26, 1995

 

[Zeno]

Here is a easily navigable site about the fossil record.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_01.htm

 

[d.n.irvin]

First off, Irvin, a literal understanding of Genesis has creation in 6 days, not 7. Corrected thx

K-Ar dating maybe. Though being sedimentary Ar-Ar dating may yield more accurate results. Though the rocks can't be recent for those methods. They'd need to be at least 100K years old, but for dinosaur strata at >65 million, that's no issue.

Done it in the lab myself. Analytical Chem...booyah!

No don't ask me for a description of the technique and its scientific basis. If you want to know that, you can take years of Chemistry like I had to. At that point, you will understand it. At that point, you will at least have a Bachelor's in Chemistry, and possibly a M.S.
With all due respect to your degrees of higher education there are still problems fundamentally with your assumptions

Fundamental Flaws

" In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. Gen. 1:1

, In the beginning of what? -time? - if so the Earth is approx.6000 yrs old.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

How many years was the Earth without form, and void and darkness upon the face of the deep~ before the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters?- 600 million - 50 billion - 10 trillion! ~

In other words who knows how long the Earth was a just a mass out in space before God says I'm going to make a world out of it?.

Especially since the Bible tells the concept of "Time" was made just for us.
Too much to assume
The Bible tells us time itself was created just for us.
Next question.

Huh? What are you talking about? What beginning of what? Life? The Universe? Everything?
Evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis, if that's what you're getting at.

Uurnt! Some of them were bigger at some times, and some were smaller. Which "then" did you mean, and which animals? Read the post again -updated source

Cite source please.

I'm I making any since

 

[Booko]

I'm I making any since

No, you're not making any sense.

I await your reply to my answer regarding rock dating techniques. No doubt you will tell me why Ar-Ar dating would be invalid in this case.

Please be complete and detailed in your technical response, Irvin.

I assure you I'm fully able to follow any scientific argument you put forth about methodologies in analytical chemistry (or Anal Chem, as we jokingly call it in the biz).

Just make sure it's your argument and not some cheap cut&paste job you post here that you don't understand yourself.

 

[astarath]

why does this matter????

 

[Booko]

Here is a easily navigable site about the fossil record.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_01.htm

Cool site, Zeno. Eminently readable for the non-biologist too.

 

[d.n.irvin]

why does this matter????

Truth always matters to God- Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15

 

[Draka]

Is it just me or does someone just smell the odor of "answersingenesis" around here? *sniff sniff* Yep, it's that undeniable smell of..."answersingenesis". Sorry, must leave for now and go lie down for bed. Appears I'm allergic to AIG.

(that and I'm sick and have to get some sleep, will check in tomorrow if remember)

 

[painted wolf]

How then is it possible to date "sedimentary rock"?

radiometric dating of long lasting radio-isotopes. Not short lasting ones like Carbon mind you, but long term ones like Argon.

How do we have a fossil record at all, since erosion should have eroded the earth many times over in millions, or even billions of years?

um, yeah... actually the origional crust of the earth is just about all gone.. most of the crust we have today is "new". Just a few chunks in Greenland and Australia remain of the oldest crust.

Upon recent discoveries, Stephen J. Gould and other popular Neo-Darwinist now believe in an "Explosion of Life" theory, of which the "Cambrian Explosion" contains Chordates! In short the Fossil Record shows that every single phylum including the one we belong to, was there from "the beginning". More recent discoveries of soft bodied Cambrian organisms has proven that full diversity was reached with in the explosion.

If science has proven that everything was there from "the beginning" doesn't that sound like "Creation"?

you havent actually read any of Gould's work have you?
The cambrian explosion was at the time of his writing it, his best evidence for the theory of "punctuated equilibrium".
We know now that the Cambrian "explosion" wasn't as dramatic as all that. It was an important period of history but it wasn't a "something from nothing" sort of event.
Also, you don't seem to understand the term Phyla.... it just means that out of all the critters found from the Cambrian, One... just one, had the beginings of a notochord... the precursor to the spinal cord. Our Phyla is all animals with a notochord/spinal cord. It was a very specal almost worm-like creature.

Why do Fossil Records show that animals were much bigger then, than they are today?

bias... larg animals preserve better, and they make better press. Most dinosaurs for instance were the size of sheep or smaller. You don't hear much about them, they arn't big. Anyone who actually studies the fossil reccord knows that most animals are small ones, with a few big ones stealing the show.

Why is it that Fossil Record indicates that when you enter a dinosaur field they all lay the same direction?

No they don't. Anyone who has actually been in a dinosaur field or even seen pictures of one knows better than this. Infact the few times this happined (with ichyosaurs not dinosaurs) it was taken as evidence that a pod of the aquatic reptiles had beached themselves like whales do today.

Why do all dinosaur footprints found indicate that the animal was moving upgrade?

Again, no they don't. Most dinosaur footprints are isolated and show no such movement at all. Those few that do show a long line of movement show that the animals are milling about, going to a watering hole to drink, or followoing a course of water like it was a road. A few very specal ones seem to show instances of attack.

**These and many other questions regarding the validity of evolution process deserve at least attention-and should require investigation.

this is true, they do deserve attention and investigation... but that investigation shows these clames to be fake... misrepresantions at best, outright lies at worst.

Truth always matters to God- Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim 2:15

the truth is that this repeated use of falce evidence is doing more harm to religion than any uncomfortable truth that science demonstrates.
Those willing to lie to uphold 'biblical truth' (as they see it) are doing more to make people leary of the actual religious truths. People see this sort of thing and think of the religious as a joke, or as fools.

wa:do

 

[d.n.irvin]

Fossils Support Creationism

The Mystery of the Empty Strata

Uniformity or The Flood

 

[Willamena]

Ten times in the book of Genesis we read God's decree concerning the reproduction of His creatures - "after its kind." The word "kind" refers to species, or families. Each created family was to produce only its own kind. This forever precludes the drifting, changing process required by organic evolution where one species turns into another... But please keep it straight in your mind that cats have always remained cats, dogs are still dogs, and men are still men. Mutation has only been responsible for producing a new variety of the same species, but never originating another new kind.

This does not represent evolution. Evolution is about species, not about individuals giving birth. The dog, even the one that introduces a mutation in its off-spring, will always ever only produce a dog. Speciation happens when mutations are passed on to more off-spring and eventually those off-spring with sufficient mutations cannot mate with the off-spring that don't have the mutations. Then you have a "new family," regardless that they might still look like dogs (for instance, coyotes).

 

[d.n.irvin]

This does not represent evolution. Evolution is about species, not about individuals giving birth. The dog, even the one that introduces a mutation in its off-spring, will always ever only produce a dog. Speciation happens when mutations are passed on to more off-spring and eventually those off-spring with sufficient mutations cannot mate with the off-spring that don't have the mutations. Then you have a "new family," regardless that they might still look like dogs (for instance, coyotes).

Hi Willamena

I don't understand your point?

 

[Willamena]

Hi Willamena

I don't understand your point?

The point is that the statement about the fossil record not being supported is not supported.

 

[camanintx]

The subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question as to how these layers were formed, and why the evolutionists have guesstimated their age in the billions of years. The dating of those layers has been done on the basis of the theory of uniformity. This theory assumes that all the natural processes at work in the past have operated exactly as they do today. In other words, we can only explain the creation of those strata on the basis of what we see happening in the world now. How long does it require now for a foot-deep stratum? Then that age is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no matter how deeply located within the earth.

Whoever wrote this doesn't understand stratigraphy. The strata only tell us relative age, or what events occurred before or after other events. Determining the age of a specific event is done through other methods which have nothing to do with the thickness of any specific strata.

 

[painted wolf]

what "kind" am I?

The flood also doesn't explain why most of the good fossils arn't found in flood sediments but volcanic ash, sand slides, and other dry formations of rocks.
Not all the rocks formed on earth are the result of water sedimentation... this is one big flaw in "flood theory".

There is no "mystery of the empty stratum" anyone who actually pays attention to fossils and paleontology knows that precambrian fossils are being found and they are magnificent.
Precambrian Fossils
Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life -- Schopf 97 (13): 6947 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
The Precambrian Fossil Record

again, the problem is that people are using the same arguments from at the earliest the 1920's and at worst the arguments that were put forth in the 1800's.
If you are going to debate science, please at least have some understanding of science to begin with.
If you just want to learn science and have questios, there are lots of resources out there.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

The Mystery of the Empty Strata[/B]] Now here is the perplexity for evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layers is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures.

Paleontologists are finding lots of large fossils in the Precambrian strata, they're called Vendian Fossils. These were mostly soft bodied animals making them very difficult to detect, unlike the hard bodied animals of the later Cambrian era.

 

[d.n.irvin]

Mutations -
How Big the Changes?

Now let's look at a second basic evolutionary teaching which is contrary to scientific law. One of the most necessary parts of evolution, which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba into a man, is mutation. This refers to abnormal changes in the organism which are assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes are the hereditary factors within the chromosomes of each species. Every species has its own particular number of chromosomes which contain the genes. Within every human being are 46 chromosomes containing an estimated 100,000 genes, each one of which is able to affect in some way the size, color, texture, or quality of the individual. The assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors, occasionally become affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences, causing them to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to as a mutation. Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else - with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.
Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists. Most people would give up and change their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow, but not the evolutionist! He still searches for that illusive missing link which could at least prove that he hasn't been 100 percent wrong.
But let's look at the vehicle which the evolutionists have depended upon to provide the possibility of the drastic changes required by their theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution, said this:
"Mutation provides the raw material of evolution." Again he said, "Mutation is the ultimate sources of all...heritable variation." Evolution in Action, p. 38.
Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made this statement:
"Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on." Animal Species and Evolution, p. 170.
Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT - the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand, is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism worse instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism." Ibid. p. 39.
Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:
"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.
Does this sound sort of confusing to you! They say mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is scientifically impossible for multiple mutations to make the changes. This is too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our evolutionist friends in their efforts to uphold an exploded theory. So the second point of contradiction with true science has been established.
Mutations, of course, do effect minor changes within the basic kinds, but those changes are limited, never producing a new family. They can explain many of the varieties of both plant and animals but can never explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.BU Creation