Evos: The geographic and rock layers of the earth support a gradual development of life. Darwin expected that if fossils were found in Precambrian rocks they would show a gradual development.
Not true. Stephen Jay Gould states, "the Precambrian fossils that actually were found after Darwin’s death." Also, evos are basing their "religion" on old books such as Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (1830) and Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859).
Evos: The fossil record proves evolution is true. For example,the fact that primate or ape-like fossils are not found in Devonian layers proves that apes had not evolved yet.
False. If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos (anything that contradicts evolution is ignored) or say it was planted. Creationists say that the layers are based on geography, not time.
Let's look at the layers. Even their names are based on geography, not time.
Geologic Strata - The distinctive characteristic of a layer might be the kind of minerals found in it, or the kind of. There is something unique about the layer that geologists recognize and think is significant.
Geologists, like biologists, like to classify similar things by giving a name to a group of similar things. This makes it easier to study the rocks, and talk to other geologists about the rocks.
Devonian Layer - It is named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied.There are lots of fish fossils in this layer, but noprimate fossils, as evolutionists love to point out. Why is this? Is it because primates did not exist anywhere in the world when the Devonian rocks were formed? Or was it because apes don’t live where fish live?
To find fossils of extinct primates, paleontologists go to Tanzania or Kenya; but they don’t find fish fossils there. Is that because fish did not exist when
Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived? Or is it because fish don’t live on dry land where Homo habilis or Australopithecus Afarensis lived?
Fossils are formed when things get buried rapidly by a landslide, sandstorm, tsunami, flood, or any other disaster that might bury things. The things that get buried are the things that happened to be at the place that got buried.
On rare occasions, things get buried out of place. Someone might have caught a fish and brought it back to camp just before a rockslide buried the camp, causing a fish fossil to be foundmysteriously out of place. But that’s a rare anomaly. Fossil-bearing strata overwhelmingly tend to contain fossils associated with a particular habitat. In fact, that’s how paleontologists determine what the habitat was like.
Geographic Names
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, strata have geographic names. For example,
The Jurassic is named after the Jura Mountains within the European Alps, where limestone strata from the period was first identified.
The Mississippian is so named because rocks with this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.
The Pennsylvanian is named after the American state of Pennsylvania, where rocks with this age are widespread.
Notice that each layer is associated with an age. Why is that? Mississippian rocks are supposedly older than Pennsylvanian rocks; but Pennsylvania was a state before Mississippi was. Chronologically, the two names make no sense. That’s because the names are based on geography, not time.
More, as I get time.
I'll make a couple of points here.
1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
2. "
Even their names are based on geography, not time." , think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
4. The fact that you admit to these layers, proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.
Just how fast can a fossil form?
April 5, 2012 by
Ian Juby
So last week I mentioned (and showed a picture of) my fossil teddy bear. I intended to discuss this in a later post, but I didn’t expect the attention it would get and people asking me “Well….what about that teddy bear???”
A fossilized Hadrosaur egg, a modern ostrich egg, and... a fossilized teddy bear
Of course a fossil teddy bear demonstrates that either:
a) T. rex was a sissy whose teddy bear got fossilized with him, OR
b) Fossils can form rapidly.
So just how long does it take a fossil to form? Doesn’t it take thousands or millions of years? Nope. The fossilized teddy bear above only took about 3 months to make. It’s the same process (called permineralization) that occurs with dinosaur bones. In fact this is significant for a number of reasons. If we were to cut into the bear, we would find that the bear
is still there. It’s the same with fossil dinosaur bones – the bone is still there. The bone has been coated with, and permeated by rock, but the bone is still there.
This process has led to remarkable findings such as soft T. rex meat, blood vessels and blood cells found inside a fossil T. rex leg bone in Montana a few years back. This also allows carbon dating to be done on the fossil bone, which has been done. I’ll leave you hanging on what the results were and why it matters.
Alright, so we can make fossils quickly now, but what about the fossils in the fossil record? Didn’t they take millions of years? Perhaps, but the fossils don’t come with dates stamped on them. However, there are many fossils that we know fossilized very quickly. In fact, Dr. Phillip Curie (former curator of the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta) wrote in his book “101 Questions About Dinosaurs”:
“Fossilization is a process that can take anything from a few hours to millions of years.”
Wait – a
few hours?!?!??? Yup, you heard straight from the horse’s mouth – and he’s right. It can happen remarkably fast. In fact the fossil fish in the Santana formation of Brazil were declared by one evolutionary researcher to have fossilized in
minutes. It was suggested that perhaps fossilization is actually what killed the fish!
Fossil fish from the Solnhofen formation. Fish like this found in Brazil were probably fossilized in minutes.
Not only do we find fast fossils, we find
unfossilized dinosaur bones. Curie mentions the Hadrosaur bone beds of Alaska in his book:
“In Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, dinosaur bones were sometimes encased in ironstone nodules shortly after they were buried 75 million years ago. The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot he distinguished from modern bone. A more spectacular example was found on the North Slope of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.”
So we find fossils that were formed incredibly fast (it did not take thousands or millions of years), we also find dinosaur remains that
should have fossilized, and have not. So are those dinosaur bones millions of years old? Probably not. In fact forensic science would contend that soft tissue and red blood cells should simply not be found in dinosaur bones alleged to be millions of years old, end of discussion. This could be found, however, in bones that are only a few thousand years old – like the dinosaur bones we would contend were from dinosaurs killed in Noah’s flood.
