Quote mines and straw man arguments won't make transitional fossils disappear. None of the articles you cite disqualify these fossils as you claim and in fact, they support them—which is why I have provided links to them. I sincerely hope that readers will take the time to read the articles in their entirety. And while I'm a big fan of both National Geographic and Newsweek, I am curious as to why you would use popular magazines as opposed to peer-reviewed works as "proof." You supplement these quote mines and false inferences with the usual "transitional species X must have evolved specifically from transitional species Y in order for the transition to be true" fallacy. But this is not how Evolution works.
These transitional fossils all appear in the fossil record above and below the fossils they unite. What make them transitional are their transitional features between the two types of animals (ie. reptiles and birds). Evolution works like a tree, not a ladder, and different species of the same order will evolve differently if at all depending on ecological factors. Paleontologists have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to. Fossilization is rare so while we can certainly research and understand the fauna that existed at a certain point in time, we can't expect to recover every single species.
Since you agree that Archaeopteryx is a bird, let's talk about a handful (word limit) of its reptilian features, not found in modern birds; a reptilian mouth (teeth, and no bill or a beak), trunk region and vertebrae region are free (fused in modern birds), and its neck attaches to the skull from the rear (not the middle). Like other birds with reptilian features (such as Confucius-ornis), Archaeopteryx is found in the layers below fully modern birds but well above the first therapod dinosaurs. If a 1998 article mistakenly suggested that a certain therapod was ancestral to Archaeopteryx, it does not make either of their transitional features go away, nor does it change the fact that we find in them in the expected intermediate layers. The two transitions share a common ancestor, and Archaeopteryx simply had more modern avian features.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/98/dinosaurs/interview.html
Biologists don't create new orders like "dino-birds" for transitional forms. It's either classified as a dinosaur or a bird, and birds are generally considered "avian dinosaurs." Hence, "it's just a bird" is not a rebuttal, and nor does your Alan Feduccia (The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill) quote mine. Feduccia believes that birds (which you agree includes Archaeopteryx) evolved from non-therapod reptiles. The conclusion is still the same; Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil for the reasons I gave above. You also leave out the fact that other bird experts disagree with Feduccia, and also support the therapod-bird connection.
Whale Evolution
Tapirs in fact lead a semi-aquatic lifestyle (so its not a disqualifier). Whale expert Phillip Gingerich (who you yourself quote) says;
"Pakicetus has long been known to have cranial characteristics of both land and aquatic mammals"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200307/ai_n9246707/pg_13
Unfortunately the Nature article you quote costs $30 to view. However, in your search for truth, perhaps you'd be kind of enough to use your donated funds (that's what they're for, correct?) to pay for the rights to reprint the article in its entirety.
Your Ambulocetus comment is wholly unsupported, and I am in fact familiar with the source of your faulty claim. Below is a picture of a single Ambulocetus find, which was corss-referenced with other Ambulocetus finds. This is what Paleontologists DO.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/thewissen.jpg
Blow Hole Evolution is accounted for. The fossil record of the early cetaceans displays obvious nasal drift; Pakicetus (at the snout, like most land mammals), Rodhocetus (nasal passage above canine teeth), Basliosaurus (nasal passage along middle of snout).
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm
The reason there's no model for how a nasal passage made its way through a whale's brain is because it never happened. The blowhole is not "behind" the brain. This is an internet urban legend that refuses to go away. These diagrams/pictures should clear up some confusion.
http://www2.cruzio.com/~jaroyan/gfx/ex5b.gif http://digimorph.org/specimens/Tursiops_truncatus/
The length difference between Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus is irrelevant as they are 15 million years apart (more than enough time for this kind of growth). Phrases like "next link" are part of the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument I mentioned above. Furthermore, you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulocetus' length as reference point for refuting whale evolution.
You have misquoted me here in regards to Basilosaurus legs, and in doing so, have admitted that we have find fully aquatic whales with legs in the layers preceding modern whales
"EIAF says they were "useless" vestiges from when whales used to walk on land."
The transition from fish-to-amphibians is a transition from fins to feet, not water-to-land. Acanthostega and Icthyostega do indeed show such characteristics (more than 5 digts, but less than what we find on fins). No one says they were supposed to be land-dwellers, so your response is again, another straw man argument. This is the conclusion of the article you quote mined.
"So fingers, toes, and other elements of a vertebrate limb evolved before tetrapods spent any quality time on land."
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/5_22_99/bob1.htm
Not much of a disqualifier. The water-to-land transition can be seen with Dendrerpeton acadianum (more of a transition from ancient to modern amphibian).
Both mammals and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, so there is nothing contradictory about finding an ancient dog-sized mammal that could eat small dinosaurs (in an era where much larger dinosaurs existed). You have to explain why we don't find Elephants, Bears, Tigers or even any of the extinct megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, or Smilodons) in the same layers as dinosaurs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html
The temporary disappearance of land animals weighing over 10 Kg from the fossil record between the Creataceous and Paleogence transition (upon which, we begin to gradually find larger and larger mammals and birds as we move up the layers) can be accounted by Faunal Succession and a meteor crashing into the earth wiping everything out except small animals, which would over time, produce larger animals to fulfill recently vacated niches. A global flood wiping out life that supposedly existed in tact all of these years cannot account for such.
Turbidity currents leave obvious traces: large and small clasts mixed together, flow marks, and hardly any fossils. Your ad hoc use of Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states in the center of the country. There is simply no evidence of such an event being the cause of the extinction of Cambrian sea life (which is why it's not taught). In addition to this most of the world's fossils are partial and disarticulated, which contradicts the idea of a quick burial (making it the exception, not the rule).
Furthermore, the lowest vertebrates we find in the fossil record, the Ostracoderms, are in fact, mostly found in freshwater deposits (meaning they weren't dwelling in ocean depths). There is also the problem of Teleost fish. This diverse class of fish dwells in multiple environments, including the ocean floor. If the flood destroyed bottom-dwellers first and buried them in the bottom layers, we should find them in the Cambrian. Yet we don't find them until the Triassic (6 Geological eras later).
So you are left with having to explain how the flood buried fresh water fish towards the bottom layers of sediment, bottom-dwelling sea creatures above, amphibians, and a myriad of land dwelling reptiles and mammals, all below whales. Archaeopteryx, and plenty other "perching birds" who according you, floated to the top, are also found below whales, and other semi-modern-to-modern mammals, including semi-aquatic mammals (like Ambulocetus and Seals) who in turn, don't show up until well above the first crocodilian and other ancient semi-aquatic reptiles (semi-aquatic creatures should have been buried uniformly right?). It also doesn't explain the huge gap between dinosaurs and megafauna (Mammoths, Megatherium, Indricotherium, etc), nor why we only find remnants of human civilization (ie. buildings and agriculture) in the top layers.
You have to explain why/how Kangaroos, Koalas, Thylacines (and the other marsupials limited to Australia), all uniformly up and left, solely to Australia, Dodo Birds (flightless and completely helpless against common predators) to the Mauritius islands (where such predators didn't exist until man brought them) and why/how Armadillos, Rattlesnakes, and Poison Dart Frogs scurried, slithered, and hopped solely to the new world after the flood. What prevented camels, elephants, rhinoceroses, and other strictly Old World animals capable of faster travel from doing the same if such a bridge was so recently available?
There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck. Erosion can cause sediment to be re-deposited. Geology 101.
You have also misquoted me with this comment;
"EIAF says our coccyx is a useless "tail" vestige."
Vestigial Organs (as defined by the Medical Dictionary) - an undeveloped organ that, in the embryo or in some ancestor, was well developed and functional.
"Completely useless" is not the meaning of vestigial, but rather the straw man definition creationists use. Aside from the medical definition of vestigial, here is the description Darwin gave.
"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other." - Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chap 14.
Python Spurs
1-These spurs are accompanied by a pelvic girdle (coincidently, so are legs).
2-Only males use them for mating yet females have them as well.
3-Like other snakes, python embryos have legs which they reabsorb (though pythons only reabsorb them to a point—at which point creationists believe they become spurs and not legs at all).
4-Other snakes apparently mate just fine without spurs.
5-Male pythons that have lost their spurs, apparently still mate
6-The anatomy of Pachyrhachis Problematicus (ancient fossilized snakes with limbs which we find in the same overall part of the world where we find Pythons) suggests close relationship to Pythons/Boas.
7-The tiny leg stubs we find in Pachyrhachis Problematicus wouldn't have allowed them to walk upright (therefore this doesn't validate the Genesis story).
Coccyx
Apparently we don't need a coccyx, given the existence of a Coccygectomy (the surgical removal of the Coccyx). Coccydynia is the inflammation of the bony area (tailbone or coccyx) located between the buttocks is referred to as coccydynia. Coccydynia is associated with pain and tenderness at the tip of the tailbone between the buttocks. The pain is often worsened by sitting. The coccyx manifests itself as a TAIL in our embryonic stage, during which time it becomes reabsorbed to the point of becoming a coccyx. Evolution is stuck to "modifying what's there" whereas a Creator can create anything he/she wants. Think about it.
Wisdom Teeth
Interesting take on wisdom teeth. Now you have to explain why we're required to lose other teeth in order for these 3rd molars to become useful, and why suffering from them results from having the hygiene that allows you to keep all of our teeth.
The fossil record shows faunal succession, including transitional forms, and the creationist response to this is full of dishonest quote mining and straw man arguments.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Dr. Jackson's Rebuttal
EIAF chose the topic "Geology Shows Fauna Succession." So, let’s stick to that only. It took two sentences for EIAF to argue the geologic Law of Superposition. That’s easy. Sediments do settle into rock layers from bottom to top. It took 1800 words for him to argue the “law” of faunal succession (evolution of animals). EIAF claims “there is evidence” a lot, but just saying it isn’t enough. Even his few examples are only opinion and interpretation, as we will see.
Worm to fish to amphibian, chordates live at different depths -- in the same order as the fossils left from Noah’s Flood – simple to understand. Turbidity currents (undersea mudslides) today do bury and kill all bottom sea life in its path, next the deep fish, then shallow fish. EIAF denies this observation by scientists. The global turbidity current of the Flood, made fossilization and extinction of many ocean species a must – not an impossibility, as EIAF tries to say.
Read EIAF’s geology discussions. You will see that everything he gives as proof of evolution really comes from this – he does not believe in a global flood on Earth. So why does he believe in a global flood on Mars? (And if he does not, then he’s against those he says he trusts.) 100% of Mars is a desert. 75% of Earth is two miles deep in water. Figure it out. Earth looks like it just had a Flood. EIAF’s denial of the obvious Flood is the foundation for his arguments. His emperor has no clothes.
What proof did EIAF actually give?
He says, “it's clear birds evolved from reptiles” because he thinks Archaeoptryx is the dino-bird missing link. But every “link fossil” that supposedly led up to Archaeoptryx is from the layers above it -- out of sync with evolution theory order (National Geographic, 7/98, p91 & whole article). The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill says it is not a link. “It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” (Science, 2/5/93). Dead birds float, so that’s why their fossils are only in upper sediments – not because they took eons to evolve. Geology disqualifies Archaeoptryx as the bird missing link and confirms the mud layers coordinate with the sequence of events during Noah’s Flood.
EIAF names three missing links between land mammals and whales. Pakicetus was disqualified in 2001 when new fossils showed it was "no more amphibious than a tapir" (Nature, 9/20/01, p277-81). Certain bones that made Ambulocetus look like the missing link were actually in rock 16 feet above the fossil, so they’re not even part of it. Basilosaurus was ten times longer than Ambulocetus – way too big for the next link. Whale expert Phillip Gingerich says the rear “legs” of Basilosaurus were used in mating (The Press Enterprise, 7/1/90, A-15). EIAF says they were “useless” vestiges from when whales used to walk on land. And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it.
EIAF hints snake fossils with legs go against creation theory. But the Bible says snakes did once walk on legs (unlike whales) – no problem. “Legs” on boas and pythons mentioned by EIAF are really only spurs, which are used in mating. Ask someone with a pet boa if they have legs.
EIAF names five ape-man links. Four of those were disqualified as of this year (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). Evolution theorists no longer use them. Some say erectus and ergaster are the same thing (National Geographic, 2/97, p78-91). So, this leaves only antecessor … which will likely soon join Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and EIAF’s other four links – as disqualified.
Only out of date textbooks say there are missing links for birds, whales, or humans. Don’t stand on opinion or theory. Real science uses facts, evidence, and data. Evolution uses urban myths, uncertainties, and outdated models like the ones EIAF has put in print as true and I have documented as false. Let’s continue.
EIAF says our coccyx is a useless “tail” vestige. Muscles for childbirth, rectum control, lower back, and rear abdomen are anchored there. And we sit on it. You’re using yours now. That’s not useless. His textbook is out of date.
He says “vestigial” 18-year molars prove evolution. Until modern dental care, wisdom teeth were needed to replace the ones lost by age 18. That’s not useless. All “vestigial” arguments are out of date, uninformed, and shamefully unprofessional. Let’s continue.
EIAF says a mammal fossil out of sync would disprove evolution. They say only small mouse-sized mammals evolved in the dino days. So how about one big enough to eat small dinosaurs? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html (“Discovery contradicts evolution theory,” Longview News-Journal, 1/13/05) How bad does it have to get to convince an evolutionist? I call out EIAF to surrender to the data.
EIAF agrees floods cause “rapid sedimentation”. And the bigger the Flood, the more rapid. But fossils can’t crosscut as EIAF claims. Only magma, quakes, intrusions, or erosion can crosscut rock layers. So polystrate tree and animal fossils disqualify evolution theory geology.
Australia-limited marsupials (like kangaroos) are a mystery to all scientists. Marsupial fossils are common except in Southeast Asia, where evolutionists and creationists agree they had to migrate to cross the old land bridge to Australia. Migration from Noah’s Ark to Australia followed that same path.
Dino extinction is also not just a creationist problem. Why do other reptiles survive today, but none from Order Dinosauria? Nobody has solved this yet. EIAF surely hasn't.
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are not “excellent examples” of fish-amphibian missing links. They had eight and seven bones in their fins “instead of having five digits – which was assumed to be the ancestral pattern among tetrapods” and “could not have managed to do much more than flop around on land … The limbs are pretty much paddles” (Science News, 5/22/90, p328). They are disqualified by the data.
All land animals survived the Flood (including reptiles and scorpions, to answer EIAF’s question) by getting onto the Ark – simple. EIAF has failed to prove even one “discrepancy” or “contradiction” in creation geology. They should be straightforward, easily understood, and easy to prove.
Does geology show animal evolution? EIAF can believe it does if he wants … but not for any of the reasons he gave on this forum. Perhaps he knows more and will tell us. If not, then I call for EIAF to concede there is no proof that “geology shows faunal succession.” The question has been called. Dr J
Worm to fish to amphibian, chordates live at different depths -- in the same order as the fossils left from Noah’s Flood – simple to understand. Turbidity currents (undersea mudslides) today do bury and kill all bottom sea life in its path, next the deep fish, then shallow fish. EIAF denies this observation by scientists. The global turbidity current of the Flood, made fossilization and extinction of many ocean species a must – not an impossibility, as EIAF tries to say.
Read EIAF’s geology discussions. You will see that everything he gives as proof of evolution really comes from this – he does not believe in a global flood on Earth. So why does he believe in a global flood on Mars? (And if he does not, then he’s against those he says he trusts.) 100% of Mars is a desert. 75% of Earth is two miles deep in water. Figure it out. Earth looks like it just had a Flood. EIAF’s denial of the obvious Flood is the foundation for his arguments. His emperor has no clothes.
What proof did EIAF actually give?
He says, “it's clear birds evolved from reptiles” because he thinks Archaeoptryx is the dino-bird missing link. But every “link fossil” that supposedly led up to Archaeoptryx is from the layers above it -- out of sync with evolution theory order (National Geographic, 7/98, p91 & whole article). The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill says it is not a link. “It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” (Science, 2/5/93). Dead birds float, so that’s why their fossils are only in upper sediments – not because they took eons to evolve. Geology disqualifies Archaeoptryx as the bird missing link and confirms the mud layers coordinate with the sequence of events during Noah’s Flood.
EIAF names three missing links between land mammals and whales. Pakicetus was disqualified in 2001 when new fossils showed it was "no more amphibious than a tapir" (Nature, 9/20/01, p277-81). Certain bones that made Ambulocetus look like the missing link were actually in rock 16 feet above the fossil, so they’re not even part of it. Basilosaurus was ten times longer than Ambulocetus – way too big for the next link. Whale expert Phillip Gingerich says the rear “legs” of Basilosaurus were used in mating (The Press Enterprise, 7/1/90, A-15). EIAF says they were “useless” vestiges from when whales used to walk on land. And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it.
EIAF hints snake fossils with legs go against creation theory. But the Bible says snakes did once walk on legs (unlike whales) – no problem. “Legs” on boas and pythons mentioned by EIAF are really only spurs, which are used in mating. Ask someone with a pet boa if they have legs.
EIAF names five ape-man links. Four of those were disqualified as of this year (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). Evolution theorists no longer use them. Some say erectus and ergaster are the same thing (National Geographic, 2/97, p78-91). So, this leaves only antecessor … which will likely soon join Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and EIAF’s other four links – as disqualified.
Only out of date textbooks say there are missing links for birds, whales, or humans. Don’t stand on opinion or theory. Real science uses facts, evidence, and data. Evolution uses urban myths, uncertainties, and outdated models like the ones EIAF has put in print as true and I have documented as false. Let’s continue.
EIAF says our coccyx is a useless “tail” vestige. Muscles for childbirth, rectum control, lower back, and rear abdomen are anchored there. And we sit on it. You’re using yours now. That’s not useless. His textbook is out of date.
He says “vestigial” 18-year molars prove evolution. Until modern dental care, wisdom teeth were needed to replace the ones lost by age 18. That’s not useless. All “vestigial” arguments are out of date, uninformed, and shamefully unprofessional. Let’s continue.
EIAF says a mammal fossil out of sync would disprove evolution. They say only small mouse-sized mammals evolved in the dino days. So how about one big enough to eat small dinosaurs? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html (“Discovery contradicts evolution theory,” Longview News-Journal, 1/13/05) How bad does it have to get to convince an evolutionist? I call out EIAF to surrender to the data.
EIAF agrees floods cause “rapid sedimentation”. And the bigger the Flood, the more rapid. But fossils can’t crosscut as EIAF claims. Only magma, quakes, intrusions, or erosion can crosscut rock layers. So polystrate tree and animal fossils disqualify evolution theory geology.
Australia-limited marsupials (like kangaroos) are a mystery to all scientists. Marsupial fossils are common except in Southeast Asia, where evolutionists and creationists agree they had to migrate to cross the old land bridge to Australia. Migration from Noah’s Ark to Australia followed that same path.
Dino extinction is also not just a creationist problem. Why do other reptiles survive today, but none from Order Dinosauria? Nobody has solved this yet. EIAF surely hasn't.
Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are not “excellent examples” of fish-amphibian missing links. They had eight and seven bones in their fins “instead of having five digits – which was assumed to be the ancestral pattern among tetrapods” and “could not have managed to do much more than flop around on land … The limbs are pretty much paddles” (Science News, 5/22/90, p328). They are disqualified by the data.
All land animals survived the Flood (including reptiles and scorpions, to answer EIAF’s question) by getting onto the Ark – simple. EIAF has failed to prove even one “discrepancy” or “contradiction” in creation geology. They should be straightforward, easily understood, and easy to prove.
Does geology show animal evolution? EIAF can believe it does if he wants … but not for any of the reasons he gave on this forum. Perhaps he knows more and will tell us. If not, then I call for EIAF to concede there is no proof that “geology shows faunal succession.” The question has been called. Dr J
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Evolution is a Fact's Rebuttal
How did Noah get Kangaroos to Australia?
Short of calling the entire Geology and Paleontology communities a group of liars, you'll be hard-pressed to make the case that we find the same fauna throughout these superpositioned layers. Furthermore, your use of the word Phylum leaves your argument a bit vague and overbroad and may confuse readers, as they may not be aware that "Phylum" is an extremely generic classification system, since everything from humans to the most primitive fish (along with every other vertebrate; like birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc) belong to the Phylum of Chordata. So technically your statement is true, since the primitive fish of the Cambrian fall into the same exact Phylum as we do. However, this does nothing to change the fact that we find a gradation of different Chordates as we move up the layers. Readers who are not familiar with the meaning of "Phylum" may think you are making the argument that we indeed find modern mammals and reptiles in Cambrian, Ordivivian, Silaurian and all the other ancient layers where the only vertebrates we find are still primitive fish.
Within the Pre-Cambrian, the Vendian layers clearly contain a limited number of primitive animals. So far, Profiera (sponges) have been discovered in this layer, as well as a number of other primitive orders. Dickinsonia, Cyclomedusa, Eoporpita, Arkarua, Kimberella are a few examples of Vendian layer creatures with semblance to modern day counterparts, yet sometimes difficult to categorize due to anatomical differences. It is clear that we find more than just microbes in the layers preceding Chordates.
I am unaware that anyone has ever proposed the idea that flying squirrels were ancestral to bats. There is no reason modern flying squirrels should possess the exact characteristics between bats and their ancestors as they are contemporaneous to one another. Generally when Creationists refer to transitional forms they are referring to fossils that "should" contain the intermediate steps between two types of animals. Such transitions have indeed been recovered. In addition to the examples I gave in my opening statement, I would also like to refer to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, as they provide excellent examples of the transition from fish to amphibians. They are found in the upper Devonian; well 'above' the layers we first start finding fish and well before the layers we start finding amphibians and reptiles.
There are a number of Paleontological facts that disqualify a worldwide flood as the cause of fossil placement. First there is no reason that a flood should bury marine animals as they should be most likely to survive a flood given that they are already suited for living in water and it seems unlikely that the existence of more water would not only cause their deaths, but do so before animals not suited for an aquatic life.
There is also the task of explaining how and why Noah's ark would have been able to leave the animals in the various continents. Because we only find Kangaroos (and their fossils) and other large Marsupials in Australia, one would have a hard time explaining how and why this is the case in the context of a worldwide flood and an ark that preserved a few animals. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if these animals share a common ancestry with their placental relatives whom they were isolated from due to the shifting of continents, and fulfilled parallel niches within Australia via speciation. Unlike the flood/ark conjecture, faunal succession/common ancestry along with continental drift explains why we find fossilized lions (even larger than contemporary African lions) here in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, there is no reason why Komodo Dragons, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Tigers, Seals, and Peacocks should have survived the flood, while Mosasaurs, Mammoths, Tricerotops, Velociraptors, Ambulecetus, and Archaeopteryxes didn't. Not only is there no reason for a flood to wipe our sea dwelling creatures, but they themselves should not exist in the sequence they do. If a flood is somehow responsible for the destruction of sea life, there is no reason whales should only exist in the upper layers (starting with the Palogene), when we find rudimentary variations of fish (as opposed to modern fish) as low as the Cambrian. In addition to the wide berth between whales and ancient fish, we find plenty of land dwelling vertebrates in between the two, in addition to animal burrows (meaning the deposits must have happened over time).
If the flood is responsible for the extinction of certain birds, then you have to explain how flightless birds like Dodos and Ostriches survived the same.If a flood happened today, it would not bury life in the same order as Evolutionary Theory. Furthermore, we would find remnants of human civilization buried and mixed along the same layers as everything else, not merely in the upper layers. Given that reptiles and amphibians tend to be well-adapted to water, we would find them in layers above many if not most of the mammals, since many mammals are simply not accustomed to water. Fish would be the most successful given the fact that their environment would only becoming larger. Arthropods not suited for water, such as Scorpions and Praying Mantises would not survive such a flood.
The flood and ark explanation provides nothing more than a series of ad hoc explanations for the placement of fossils, and requires even more ad hoc explanations for the various discrepancies and contradictions it creates.
Short of calling the entire Geology and Paleontology communities a group of liars, you'll be hard-pressed to make the case that we find the same fauna throughout these superpositioned layers. Furthermore, your use of the word Phylum leaves your argument a bit vague and overbroad and may confuse readers, as they may not be aware that "Phylum" is an extremely generic classification system, since everything from humans to the most primitive fish (along with every other vertebrate; like birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc) belong to the Phylum of Chordata. So technically your statement is true, since the primitive fish of the Cambrian fall into the same exact Phylum as we do. However, this does nothing to change the fact that we find a gradation of different Chordates as we move up the layers. Readers who are not familiar with the meaning of "Phylum" may think you are making the argument that we indeed find modern mammals and reptiles in Cambrian, Ordivivian, Silaurian and all the other ancient layers where the only vertebrates we find are still primitive fish.
Within the Pre-Cambrian, the Vendian layers clearly contain a limited number of primitive animals. So far, Profiera (sponges) have been discovered in this layer, as well as a number of other primitive orders. Dickinsonia, Cyclomedusa, Eoporpita, Arkarua, Kimberella are a few examples of Vendian layer creatures with semblance to modern day counterparts, yet sometimes difficult to categorize due to anatomical differences. It is clear that we find more than just microbes in the layers preceding Chordates.
I am unaware that anyone has ever proposed the idea that flying squirrels were ancestral to bats. There is no reason modern flying squirrels should possess the exact characteristics between bats and their ancestors as they are contemporaneous to one another. Generally when Creationists refer to transitional forms they are referring to fossils that "should" contain the intermediate steps between two types of animals. Such transitions have indeed been recovered. In addition to the examples I gave in my opening statement, I would also like to refer to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, as they provide excellent examples of the transition from fish to amphibians. They are found in the upper Devonian; well 'above' the layers we first start finding fish and well before the layers we start finding amphibians and reptiles.
There are a number of Paleontological facts that disqualify a worldwide flood as the cause of fossil placement. First there is no reason that a flood should bury marine animals as they should be most likely to survive a flood given that they are already suited for living in water and it seems unlikely that the existence of more water would not only cause their deaths, but do so before animals not suited for an aquatic life.
There is also the task of explaining how and why Noah's ark would have been able to leave the animals in the various continents. Because we only find Kangaroos (and their fossils) and other large Marsupials in Australia, one would have a hard time explaining how and why this is the case in the context of a worldwide flood and an ark that preserved a few animals. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if these animals share a common ancestry with their placental relatives whom they were isolated from due to the shifting of continents, and fulfilled parallel niches within Australia via speciation. Unlike the flood/ark conjecture, faunal succession/common ancestry along with continental drift explains why we find fossilized lions (even larger than contemporary African lions) here in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, there is no reason why Komodo Dragons, Elephants, Rhinoceroses, Tigers, Seals, and Peacocks should have survived the flood, while Mosasaurs, Mammoths, Tricerotops, Velociraptors, Ambulecetus, and Archaeopteryxes didn't. Not only is there no reason for a flood to wipe our sea dwelling creatures, but they themselves should not exist in the sequence they do. If a flood is somehow responsible for the destruction of sea life, there is no reason whales should only exist in the upper layers (starting with the Palogene), when we find rudimentary variations of fish (as opposed to modern fish) as low as the Cambrian. In addition to the wide berth between whales and ancient fish, we find plenty of land dwelling vertebrates in between the two, in addition to animal burrows (meaning the deposits must have happened over time).
If the flood is responsible for the extinction of certain birds, then you have to explain how flightless birds like Dodos and Ostriches survived the same.If a flood happened today, it would not bury life in the same order as Evolutionary Theory. Furthermore, we would find remnants of human civilization buried and mixed along the same layers as everything else, not merely in the upper layers. Given that reptiles and amphibians tend to be well-adapted to water, we would find them in layers above many if not most of the mammals, since many mammals are simply not accustomed to water. Fish would be the most successful given the fact that their environment would only becoming larger. Arthropods not suited for water, such as Scorpions and Praying Mantises would not survive such a flood.
The flood and ark explanation provides nothing more than a series of ad hoc explanations for the placement of fossils, and requires even more ad hoc explanations for the various discrepancies and contradictions it creates.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Creation vs Evolution Debate Intro.
We have all, at one point in our lives, wondered "How did we all get here?". This is a reasonable question and it has been asked for thousands for years! Through science, men and women have set out to answer that very question. Using different fields of science, these individuals have gathered information and evidence in the search for this answer (among many others).
Today, ELIE is very excited to announce that we will be hosting a debate that will feature 2 rival views of the Origin of Species!! Our 2 debators are:
1) Dr. G. Charles Jackson, who will be defending the view of Creation.
2) Evolution is a Fact, who will be defending the view of Evolution.
The topic of this debate will be "Does Geologic Record Show Faunal Succession?"
Here are the rules of the debate:
Opening Statements will be made by both parties on Friday, June 8th (as to avoid the possiblity of one party making their opening statement merely a 'first rebuttal' of the other party's opening statement) and will be a maxium of 2,000 words (quotes included)
The first 'first rebuttal' will be made by 'Evolution is a Fact' no later than Monday, June 11th and the second 'first rebuttal' will be made by Dr. Jackson no later Thursday, June 14th.. There will be a maxium of 1,750 words (quotes included)
The first 'second rebuttal' will be made by 'Evolution is a Fact' no later than Monday, June 18th and the second 'second rebuttal' will be made by Dr. Jackson no later than Friday, June 22nd.. There will be a maxium of 1,300 words (quotes included)
The closing statements will be made by both parties on Monday, June 25th.. There will be a maxium of 1,000 words (quotes included)
After the closing statements are made, each party will be allowed to ask the opposing party 3 questions (This will make up our 'Open Discussion' part of the debate)
These questions will be posted by Wednesday, June 27th.
Each party will have until Sunday, June 30th days to give a 1,000 word response to each question..
Then the debate will be over, and there will be a discussion of the debate going on on our myspace page.. www.myspace.com/lies_exposed
*Things that must be remembered.. The word limits are more guide-lines than LIMITS.. if thoughts need to be finished after the word limit has been exceeded that is fine.. but no new thoughts are to made after the word limit has been exceeded.. this is only fair..
Dr. Jackson's Opening Statement
"Does geology show faunal succession?" -- only in the minds of evolution-believers.
World-wide deposits of sandstone, limestone, ash, etc ... contain fossil bones, shells, and teeth of animals that were buried in sediments too quick for them to rot. Hard parts, mud-tracks, and few soft parts are all the evidence geology gives on the history of animals.
Fossils exist in all the layers of sediment-rock from every Phylum of Kingdom Animalia we see alive today (except the pre-Cambrian bottom layer which contains only microbes). This does not show a history of animals having once been all the same type, as evolution theory says. It does show a history of animals having always been different types, as creation theory says.
Groups of animals today have great differences in body plan. We see these same differences in the groups of fossil animals. Evolution-believers look for fossils that might show how these differences didn't exist between animals in the past, as they do now. Such fossils are called "missing-links" ... for a reason.
Sometimes a fossil might look like it has features that could show it is a missing-link. But each candidate is disqualified by features it also has that show it is clearly not. The flying squirrel might look like it has features that could show it is the missing-link between mice and bats, but it is disqualified by features it also has that show it is clearly not. This is the pattern of differences among living animals. This is the pattern of differences among fossil animals. There are living mice and bats. There are fossil mice and fossil bats. There are no mouse-bat fossils. Geology does not show that there used to be just only one type of animal. Geology shows that there have always been many types of animals.
If the Flood of Noah happened today, it would bury fossils in sediment deposits (from the deepest to the top layer) in an order that would go along with evolution theory. It would bury animals of Subphylum Vertebrata (animals with a backbone) in the order ... fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds & mammals. This would be the same order as the elevation of where they live ... which by sheer coincidence would go along with evolution theory. All other animals (Phylum Arthropoda and Phylum Mollusca, including all insects and snails) would also be buried in order of the elevation of where they live. But that order that would be out of sync with evolution theory.
What does geology show today about animals of the past? It shows all animal fossils were buried in an order that was out of sync with evolution theory ... except for the order of fossils that evolution-believers wish to see for vertebrates transitioning from water to land. But the Flood of Noah buried those fossils in water-to-land order anyway, without evolution having anything to do with it. Geology shows creation theory is right on all points of animal history. Geology shows evolution theory is wrong on all but one. Even on that one point, the suggested link-fossils are all in the same sediment layer (Devonian), and are disqualified by features that show that they are clearly not the missing-links needed for evolution to be true.
World-wide deposits of sandstone, limestone, ash, etc ... contain fossil bones, shells, and teeth of animals that were buried in sediments too quick for them to rot. Hard parts, mud-tracks, and few soft parts are all the evidence geology gives on the history of animals.
Fossils exist in all the layers of sediment-rock from every Phylum of Kingdom Animalia we see alive today (except the pre-Cambrian bottom layer which contains only microbes). This does not show a history of animals having once been all the same type, as evolution theory says. It does show a history of animals having always been different types, as creation theory says.
Groups of animals today have great differences in body plan. We see these same differences in the groups of fossil animals. Evolution-believers look for fossils that might show how these differences didn't exist between animals in the past, as they do now. Such fossils are called "missing-links" ... for a reason.
Sometimes a fossil might look like it has features that could show it is a missing-link. But each candidate is disqualified by features it also has that show it is clearly not. The flying squirrel might look like it has features that could show it is the missing-link between mice and bats, but it is disqualified by features it also has that show it is clearly not. This is the pattern of differences among living animals. This is the pattern of differences among fossil animals. There are living mice and bats. There are fossil mice and fossil bats. There are no mouse-bat fossils. Geology does not show that there used to be just only one type of animal. Geology shows that there have always been many types of animals.
If the Flood of Noah happened today, it would bury fossils in sediment deposits (from the deepest to the top layer) in an order that would go along with evolution theory. It would bury animals of Subphylum Vertebrata (animals with a backbone) in the order ... fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds & mammals. This would be the same order as the elevation of where they live ... which by sheer coincidence would go along with evolution theory. All other animals (Phylum Arthropoda and Phylum Mollusca, including all insects and snails) would also be buried in order of the elevation of where they live. But that order that would be out of sync with evolution theory.
What does geology show today about animals of the past? It shows all animal fossils were buried in an order that was out of sync with evolution theory ... except for the order of fossils that evolution-believers wish to see for vertebrates transitioning from water to land. But the Flood of Noah buried those fossils in water-to-land order anyway, without evolution having anything to do with it. Geology shows creation theory is right on all points of animal history. Geology shows evolution theory is wrong on all but one. Even on that one point, the suggested link-fossils are all in the same sediment layer (Devonian), and are disqualified by features that show that they are clearly not the missing-links needed for evolution to be true.
Evolution Is A Fact's Opening Statement
A simple Geology principle known as superpositioning describes how lower strata tend to be older than the strata above them. The existence superpositioned layers is caused by the deposition that takes place over the different Geological eras. Erosion takes away from these sediment layers. So while the order of successive layers are consistent, the layers for each Geological era do not exist in uniform sediment thickness, because desposition and erosion do not happen uniformly throughout the world, nor at the same time.
Simple physics (ie. gravity) and common sense makes it apparent that the lower strata are older as they have to be formed in order for more sediment to be deposited above them. There are a few exceptions to this of course; thrust faults and folds for examples can cause contortions in the layers. The existence of folds and thrust folds have are well understood and can be checked for, and they are by and far the exception to the rule.
The Geophysics principles mentioned above were actually known before Darwin's voyage on the Beagle, and were therefore not created for the sake of arguing evolution. Rather Evolution is in fact, largely born of the Geological history and the order of the fauna within. The men who founded modern Geology were in fact Christian, which is why Old Earth Creationism (known today as Progressive Creationism, and is sometimes mixed and matched with Theistic Evolution) predates the theory of Evolution. The geologic column and the law of faunal succession show us that the Earth's fauna have appeared in a certain order, and Evolution simply explains the cause of this reality.
To oversimplify what we find in these successive layers; we find fish before we find amphibians, which we find before we find reptiles, which we find before we find birds. A similar succession of fauna can be applied to the faunal succession leading to humans and whales. Furthermore, we find representations of transitional fossils ("in betweens") in the layers we'd expect them to if certain orders of animals evolved from others.
So for example, we find Archaeopteryx (a bird with reptilian features not found in modern day birds) in the layers of the Jurassic while we don't find modern birds until the upper layers. Conversely, we don't find birds in the strata below Archaeopteryx. It's clear that birds evolved from reptiles. Whether they did so from therapod dinosaurs (as most Paleontologists claim) or from non-dinosaur archosaurs (still a reptile) as a smaller minority claim, the point is still the same; reptiles with bird-like features and birds with reptilian features both appear during the Jurassic period (before modern birds but well after the first reptiles).
Whales are another example of faunal succession. We don't find whales in the same strata as any of the ancient Devonian fish. Rather, we only find them in the strata well above Devonian period. This would not be the case if they "appeared" at the same time as the first fish. Furthermore, there exist a few examples of fossilized transitions between land mammals and whales. Between fossilized mammals such as Pakicetus, Ambulecetus Natans, and Basiliosaurus, who show up in the fossil record well after the first mammals appear but well before modern whales do, it's clear that whales evolved from land mammals with physical characteristics similar to sea lions. The transition in pelvis, blow hole, and legs to flippers are accounted for in this sequence of animals with semi-aquatic features.
Given the succession of fossils we find in the strata, its clear that the first animals were sea dwelling creatures. Land dwelling creatures show up later (higher) in the strata. In between these two we find fossils that are clearly transitional between fish and amphibians. The succession of these creatures all follow the same basic body pattern, which tells us that the Earth's fauna share common ancestry. Furthermore, the fauna found in the upper layers become more and more diverse. At some point the only tetrapods we find are fish-amphibians. But as we move 'higher' in the strata, we find more and more diversity as we begin to find different types of reptiles in greater numbers and diversity, and eventually mammals and birds as well, also in greater numbers and diversity within each off these groups as we move higher in the strata. Furthermore, the fauna we find in the upper layers closer resemble their contemporary counterparts than what we find in the layers below.
These Paleontological discoveries can and are also cross-referenced by Geographic location of fossils, in addition to the homological and vestigial structures in modern day fauna (since the Geological record showcases faunal succession that leads to what we have now).
Both ape and early-to-mid hominid fossils are only found in Africa and Asia which, consequently happens to be the only place where modern day apes exist. Again, there is no reason why this should be the case, unless they evolved more recently than say, monkeys, which do inhabit other parts of the world. Again, primates such as monkeys show up well before later primates.
Speaking of apes and hominids; Paleoanthropology reveals a group of hominids that demonstrate the intermediate steps between ape and humans. From Australopithecus Afarensis and Africanus, Homo Rudolfensis, Habilis, Ergaster, Antecessor, and Archaic Homo Sapien to modern Homo Sapien, we see a gradual increase in brain size; from 410 CC (about the size of a Chimpanzee) to modern homo sapiens (1300 CC). Not only this, but we find that the gradual increase in brain size is accompanied by other features that become less and less ape-like, and more and more human. Brow Ridges, Sagittal Crests, Jaw sizes, and the spine becomes better adapted for bipedalism. Hominid fossils provide such a clear gradient that Creation scientists can't seem to agree which are ape and which are human.
Faunal succession shows us that tails have been common in all tetrapods that lead to apes, who, like us, contain a vestigial tail (coccyx). The fossil record also shows that our ancestors, much like today's great apes, had large powerful molars for which to chew thick vegetation. In humans, this results in wisdom teeth; vestigial teeth whose poor structure cause pain in one third of adults and in some cases, can even cause death. Coincidentally, hominid fossils show a succession towards smaller and smaller jaws which would indeed result in this crammed nature of the human jaw.
In regards to snakes, fossils like Pachyrhachis problematicus make it clear that snakes evolved from legged reptiles. Not only do we find fossilized snakes with small but pronounced legs, we find them in the East, where modern day Pythons exist. Coincidentally some Pythons have leg remnants.
Creationists have indeed raised objections to the fossil record. But they are based on a general misunderstanding of the Geologic Column. A few examples;
The Geologic Column doesn't exist/is mostly missing/only exists in text books, etc.
This stems from a common misunderstanding of what the geologic column is. Some creationists think of it a place, like Mount Rushmore and sarcastically ask "where is it then?" Others believe that a certain level of sediment must exist for the layers for the column to be real and tend to come up with interesting numbers in regards to the miles of sediment that "should" exist for the column to be real. What they appear to do is take the maximum height of sediment found for specific eras in different parts of the world, and create hypothetical "height requirement" for superpositioned layers and sometimes argue that should all exist in the same parts of the world.
This however, is a gross misunderstanding of Geophysics as there is no reason to believe that sedimentation (which creates the layers) nor erosion (which chips away from them), should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.
What makes the column and faunal succession a reality is the fact that we find the same sets of fauna in the same layers throughout the world. The Geologic Column therefore represents a series of sedimentary layers that can be cross-referenced and validated or falsified. 200 years of Geology has only served to solidify the reality of faunal succession.
There are certain theoretical findings that would indeed falsify faunal succession; like finding spear points in a Triceratops (as we do in mammoths). A fossil (or even a living animal) that fell outside of the same pattern of animal would also provide falsification. Whether contemporary or solely in the fossil record, a 6-legged mammal, a bird with wings plus 4 appendages, or a spider with wings would not be explainable within the confines of the evolutionary tree, yet "explicable" by "separate creation." Instead, we find fauna that not only existence in sequence, but do so in a limited pattern. Adaptation explains why the world's fauna would appear in this manner, whereas a conscious creator would have no pattern or timeline to have to adhere to.
Polystrate trees and fossils.
Creationists often assert that fossils or objects such as trees that penetrate a certain amount of sediment and therefore existing in a "polystrate" manner, disprove the Geological consensus that these layers represent different Geological eras. However, the problem with this argument is that it ignores 2 basic geological principles; rapid sedimentation, and cross-cutting.
Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Often times this provides for the best preservation of fossils as it causes for a quick burial that allows the creature to be preserved intact as it avoids being torn to pieces by predators or scavengers, and the carcass is shielded from erosion (assuming is doesn't become unearthed by other occurrences, thereby being exposed to such). Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find "polystrate trees" from time to time.
Then there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through (this is common sense as an object can't cut through sediment that doesn't exist yet). It's a known Geological fact that layers of strata can be penetrated by newer objects. One example of this would be a water logged tree being dragged down into mud, which can take centuries to harden. Creationists often use these instances as 'proof' that the Earth's sediment must be young.
Folds and thrust faults can also cause the layers to overlap and overturn. Again, these are Geological occurrences that have been known and checked for. They are nothing new, but Creationists tend to ignore them and instead look for discrepancies wherever they think they can find them.
The Geological record clearly shows a succession of species that appear from simple to complex, form sparse in diversity to more abundant. It is clear that over time, different creatures 'appeared' to fill more and more specific niches, and the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna. Evolution explains this fact.
Simple physics (ie. gravity) and common sense makes it apparent that the lower strata are older as they have to be formed in order for more sediment to be deposited above them. There are a few exceptions to this of course; thrust faults and folds for examples can cause contortions in the layers. The existence of folds and thrust folds have are well understood and can be checked for, and they are by and far the exception to the rule.
The Geophysics principles mentioned above were actually known before Darwin's voyage on the Beagle, and were therefore not created for the sake of arguing evolution. Rather Evolution is in fact, largely born of the Geological history and the order of the fauna within. The men who founded modern Geology were in fact Christian, which is why Old Earth Creationism (known today as Progressive Creationism, and is sometimes mixed and matched with Theistic Evolution) predates the theory of Evolution. The geologic column and the law of faunal succession show us that the Earth's fauna have appeared in a certain order, and Evolution simply explains the cause of this reality.
To oversimplify what we find in these successive layers; we find fish before we find amphibians, which we find before we find reptiles, which we find before we find birds. A similar succession of fauna can be applied to the faunal succession leading to humans and whales. Furthermore, we find representations of transitional fossils ("in betweens") in the layers we'd expect them to if certain orders of animals evolved from others.
So for example, we find Archaeopteryx (a bird with reptilian features not found in modern day birds) in the layers of the Jurassic while we don't find modern birds until the upper layers. Conversely, we don't find birds in the strata below Archaeopteryx. It's clear that birds evolved from reptiles. Whether they did so from therapod dinosaurs (as most Paleontologists claim) or from non-dinosaur archosaurs (still a reptile) as a smaller minority claim, the point is still the same; reptiles with bird-like features and birds with reptilian features both appear during the Jurassic period (before modern birds but well after the first reptiles).
Whales are another example of faunal succession. We don't find whales in the same strata as any of the ancient Devonian fish. Rather, we only find them in the strata well above Devonian period. This would not be the case if they "appeared" at the same time as the first fish. Furthermore, there exist a few examples of fossilized transitions between land mammals and whales. Between fossilized mammals such as Pakicetus, Ambulecetus Natans, and Basiliosaurus, who show up in the fossil record well after the first mammals appear but well before modern whales do, it's clear that whales evolved from land mammals with physical characteristics similar to sea lions. The transition in pelvis, blow hole, and legs to flippers are accounted for in this sequence of animals with semi-aquatic features.
Given the succession of fossils we find in the strata, its clear that the first animals were sea dwelling creatures. Land dwelling creatures show up later (higher) in the strata. In between these two we find fossils that are clearly transitional between fish and amphibians. The succession of these creatures all follow the same basic body pattern, which tells us that the Earth's fauna share common ancestry. Furthermore, the fauna found in the upper layers become more and more diverse. At some point the only tetrapods we find are fish-amphibians. But as we move 'higher' in the strata, we find more and more diversity as we begin to find different types of reptiles in greater numbers and diversity, and eventually mammals and birds as well, also in greater numbers and diversity within each off these groups as we move higher in the strata. Furthermore, the fauna we find in the upper layers closer resemble their contemporary counterparts than what we find in the layers below.
These Paleontological discoveries can and are also cross-referenced by Geographic location of fossils, in addition to the homological and vestigial structures in modern day fauna (since the Geological record showcases faunal succession that leads to what we have now).
Both ape and early-to-mid hominid fossils are only found in Africa and Asia which, consequently happens to be the only place where modern day apes exist. Again, there is no reason why this should be the case, unless they evolved more recently than say, monkeys, which do inhabit other parts of the world. Again, primates such as monkeys show up well before later primates.
Speaking of apes and hominids; Paleoanthropology reveals a group of hominids that demonstrate the intermediate steps between ape and humans. From Australopithecus Afarensis and Africanus, Homo Rudolfensis, Habilis, Ergaster, Antecessor, and Archaic Homo Sapien to modern Homo Sapien, we see a gradual increase in brain size; from 410 CC (about the size of a Chimpanzee) to modern homo sapiens (1300 CC). Not only this, but we find that the gradual increase in brain size is accompanied by other features that become less and less ape-like, and more and more human. Brow Ridges, Sagittal Crests, Jaw sizes, and the spine becomes better adapted for bipedalism. Hominid fossils provide such a clear gradient that Creation scientists can't seem to agree which are ape and which are human.
Faunal succession shows us that tails have been common in all tetrapods that lead to apes, who, like us, contain a vestigial tail (coccyx). The fossil record also shows that our ancestors, much like today's great apes, had large powerful molars for which to chew thick vegetation. In humans, this results in wisdom teeth; vestigial teeth whose poor structure cause pain in one third of adults and in some cases, can even cause death. Coincidentally, hominid fossils show a succession towards smaller and smaller jaws which would indeed result in this crammed nature of the human jaw.
In regards to snakes, fossils like Pachyrhachis problematicus make it clear that snakes evolved from legged reptiles. Not only do we find fossilized snakes with small but pronounced legs, we find them in the East, where modern day Pythons exist. Coincidentally some Pythons have leg remnants.
Creationists have indeed raised objections to the fossil record. But they are based on a general misunderstanding of the Geologic Column. A few examples;
The Geologic Column doesn't exist/is mostly missing/only exists in text books, etc.
This stems from a common misunderstanding of what the geologic column is. Some creationists think of it a place, like Mount Rushmore and sarcastically ask "where is it then?" Others believe that a certain level of sediment must exist for the layers for the column to be real and tend to come up with interesting numbers in regards to the miles of sediment that "should" exist for the column to be real. What they appear to do is take the maximum height of sediment found for specific eras in different parts of the world, and create hypothetical "height requirement" for superpositioned layers and sometimes argue that should all exist in the same parts of the world.
This however, is a gross misunderstanding of Geophysics as there is no reason to believe that sedimentation (which creates the layers) nor erosion (which chips away from them), should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.
What makes the column and faunal succession a reality is the fact that we find the same sets of fauna in the same layers throughout the world. The Geologic Column therefore represents a series of sedimentary layers that can be cross-referenced and validated or falsified. 200 years of Geology has only served to solidify the reality of faunal succession.
There are certain theoretical findings that would indeed falsify faunal succession; like finding spear points in a Triceratops (as we do in mammoths). A fossil (or even a living animal) that fell outside of the same pattern of animal would also provide falsification. Whether contemporary or solely in the fossil record, a 6-legged mammal, a bird with wings plus 4 appendages, or a spider with wings would not be explainable within the confines of the evolutionary tree, yet "explicable" by "separate creation." Instead, we find fauna that not only existence in sequence, but do so in a limited pattern. Adaptation explains why the world's fauna would appear in this manner, whereas a conscious creator would have no pattern or timeline to have to adhere to.
Polystrate trees and fossils.
Creationists often assert that fossils or objects such as trees that penetrate a certain amount of sediment and therefore existing in a "polystrate" manner, disprove the Geological consensus that these layers represent different Geological eras. However, the problem with this argument is that it ignores 2 basic geological principles; rapid sedimentation, and cross-cutting.
Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Often times this provides for the best preservation of fossils as it causes for a quick burial that allows the creature to be preserved intact as it avoids being torn to pieces by predators or scavengers, and the carcass is shielded from erosion (assuming is doesn't become unearthed by other occurrences, thereby being exposed to such). Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find "polystrate trees" from time to time.
Then there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through (this is common sense as an object can't cut through sediment that doesn't exist yet). It's a known Geological fact that layers of strata can be penetrated by newer objects. One example of this would be a water logged tree being dragged down into mud, which can take centuries to harden. Creationists often use these instances as 'proof' that the Earth's sediment must be young.
Folds and thrust faults can also cause the layers to overlap and overturn. Again, these are Geological occurrences that have been known and checked for. They are nothing new, but Creationists tend to ignore them and instead look for discrepancies wherever they think they can find them.
The Geological record clearly shows a succession of species that appear from simple to complex, form sparse in diversity to more abundant. It is clear that over time, different creatures 'appeared' to fill more and more specific niches, and the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna. Evolution explains this fact.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Atheists
Atheists
The reason Atheists can't find God is the same reason thiefs can't find police.
I have come to the conclusion that God doesn't believe in Athiests but He still loves them and is more than willing to forgive anyone's sin if they accept Christ's ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
I belong in hell! And I'm a Christian!
I'll be the first one to say it, I have done nothing worthy of God's love. But I've accepted His sacrifice on the cross that replaced my sin with His grace. God hates sin but loves sinners. Just like a mother may love her son but does not love his misbehavior.
I've also come to the conclusion that everyone dies...duh. And everyone will be dead much longer than they've lived. Atheists better be absolutely sure God doesn't exist cause when we all face Him that day we'll be without excuse.
I'm not trying to start another dialogue. I just want to see people in heaven just like God does. There are 2 things to keep in mind:
#1. If I'm wrong about the afterlife then fine, no problem, we'll all return the earth and become trees.
#2. If atheists are wrong then.... We'll all face God and have tell Him why we didn't accept His free gift of salvation.
So to anyone reading this blog site, realize its about much more than what's being done in the classroom. It's about what happens when we die. I want you in heaven, God wants you there too. Accept His grace and forgiveness and build your relationship with Him.
-Joey, co-founder of ELIE
The reason Atheists can't find God is the same reason thiefs can't find police.
I have come to the conclusion that God doesn't believe in Athiests but He still loves them and is more than willing to forgive anyone's sin if they accept Christ's ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
I belong in hell! And I'm a Christian!
I'll be the first one to say it, I have done nothing worthy of God's love. But I've accepted His sacrifice on the cross that replaced my sin with His grace. God hates sin but loves sinners. Just like a mother may love her son but does not love his misbehavior.
I've also come to the conclusion that everyone dies...duh. And everyone will be dead much longer than they've lived. Atheists better be absolutely sure God doesn't exist cause when we all face Him that day we'll be without excuse.
I'm not trying to start another dialogue. I just want to see people in heaven just like God does. There are 2 things to keep in mind:
#1. If I'm wrong about the afterlife then fine, no problem, we'll all return the earth and become trees.
#2. If atheists are wrong then.... We'll all face God and have tell Him why we didn't accept His free gift of salvation.
So to anyone reading this blog site, realize its about much more than what's being done in the classroom. It's about what happens when we die. I want you in heaven, God wants you there too. Accept His grace and forgiveness and build your relationship with Him.
-Joey, co-founder of ELIE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)