Show Me the Fossils!

[Seymour Flops]

That's not my admission. What elements of the fossil record have been manufactured? Be specific and provide the data you have examined.

Take a look at the fossil evidence for T-Rex, as an example. While you want to insist that fossil evidence is fake, the rendering of what the flesh and blood animal looked like is an obvious analog to the bone structure.

I get it, you're frantically trying to make a case that fossil evidence is all a part of some grand conspiracy. Why not email the Museum of Natural History and advise that they are wrong about depictions of ancient dinosaurs... you know... the ones that sailed on the Ark. I'm sure they appreciate the corrections you could offer based on your knowledge and expertise.

Don't forget to cc us on your email.

That's not my admission. What elements of the fossil record have been manufactured? Be specific and provide the data you have examined.

Take a look at the fossil evidence for T-Rex, as an example. While you want to insist that fossil evidence is fake, the rendering of what the flesh and blood animal looked like is an obvious analog to the bone structure.

I get it, you're frantically trying to make a case that fossil evidence is all a part of some grand conspiracy. Why not email the Museum of Natural History and advise that they are wrong about depictions of ancient dinosaurs... you know... the ones that sailed on the Ark. I'm sure they appreciate the corrections you could offer based on your knowledge and expertise.

Don't forget to cc us on your email.

It was you who said that t-rex fossils in museums are not the real bone fossils. First you said because they are too heavy and then because they are too expensive.

Do you deny that fossils are commonly filled out with modelling material in order to depict what the paleontologist is going for?

 

[Hollie]

It was you who said that t-rex fossils in museums are not the real bone fossils. First you said because they are too heavy and then because they are too expensive.

Do you deny that fossils are commonly filled out with modelling material in order to depict what the paleontologist is going for?

What I wrote was that not all exhibits are of the actual fossilized bones. I never claimed the exhibits were not always the actual fossil evidence because they were too expensive.

I suggest you use the "quote" function when you respond to posts to avoid manufacturing what you respond to.

Identify specific examples of molding material being used to depict what the paleontologist is going for.

 

[westwall]

The evolution of humanity from more ape like hominids is a proven fact.

No, it isn't. But there is a preponderance of evidence that supports the theory. The most compelling to me is the genetic commonality between homo sapians and chimpanzees.

 

[westwall]

It was you who said that t-rex fossils in museums are not the real bone fossils. First you said because they are too heavy and then because they are too expensive.

Do you deny that fossils are commonly filled out with modelling material in order to depict what the paleontologist is going for?

Fossils, for the most part, are stone. Over millions of years the original bone material is eroded away and replaced by mineral deposits. That's why they are so rare.

Museums use replicas because they use the originals for research, and that way the chance of damage is removed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What I wrote was that not all exhibits are of the actual fossilized bones. I never claimed the exhibits were not always the actual fossil evidence because they were too expensive.

I suggest you use the "quote" function when you respond to posts to avoid manufacturing what you respond to.

Identify specific examples of molding material being used to depict what the paleontologist is going for.

I'll give your quote back to you when I can get to a desktop.

I didn't realize you didn't know about the fill in the gap modelling material. I'll show you that also later.

 

[abu afak]

The evolution of (Hominid) skull sizes in order to now​

https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

`

Seymour Flops Flops

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Oh thanks, Abu! Right on time.

Hollie see the picture Abu posted above?

The 4th skull from the left on the top two rows has areas of bright blue. That is modelling material. The artist was more honest than most by using bright blue color.

Most fossil sculptors use "natural" looking material. It's pretty obvious in the third, fourth, and fifth skulls on the bottom two rows, as well as the fourth and fifth on the top two rows.

All that's fine as long as it's clearly stated as a mock up. It's when they just present it as factual in hopes that gullible people will swallow it whole *ahem* that they show how completely they have abandoned integrity.

 

[Hollie]

I'll give your quote back to you when I can get to a desktop.

I didn't realize you didn't know about the fill in the gap modelling material. I'll show you that also later.

That's not going to help your case for the global conspiracy you believe is being perpetrated among evilutionist atheist scientists.

You might want to consider searching for examples of facial recognition software used, for example, to superimpose muscles, tendons, etc over bone mass to create a more complete image.

That still doesn't support your conspiracy theory that actual fossil artifacts are fake.

 

[Hollie]

Oh thanks, Abu! Right on time.

Hollie see the picture Abu posted above?

The 4th skull from the left on the top two rows has areas of bright blue. That is modelling material. The artist was more honest than most by using bright blue color.

Most fossil sculptors use "natural" looking material. It's pretty obvious in the third, fourth, and fifth skulls on the bottom two rows, as well as the fourth and fifth on the top two rows.

All that's fine as long as it's clearly stated as a mock up. It's when they just present it as factual in hopes that gullible people will swallow it whole *ahem* that they show how completely they have abandoned integrity.

The bright blue color doesn't suggest the evilutionist atheist scientists are faking anything. Are you suggesting the fossil artifacts are fake?

 

[alang1216]

Seems to me that the how matters. Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. So arguing the how doesn't matter is equivalent of saying science doesn't matter.

FWIW.... punctuated equilibrium is the explanation of the how that best fits the observed data.

You are right and wrong. I agree the how matters but what I said was that the time does not matter. I was discussing relative dating with progressive hunter and didn't think absolute dating was important.

 

[alang1216]

thats assuming the fossil record is a record over a long period of time,,

see we are back to assumptions based on opinions with absolutely no facts to back it up,,

Geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years. Are you a YEC or do you accept that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?

Why does if matter if the layers were put down a million years apart or a thousand years apart or a month apart? You're the one assuming it is relevant. The fact remains that animals found in younger layers are not found in older layers. Where did they come from if they didn't evolve?

 

[progressive hunter]

You are right and wrong. I agree the how matters but what I said was that the time does not matter. I was discussing relative dating with progressive hunter and didn't think absolute dating was important.

its not important to you because it debunks your whole narrative,,

without millions of yrs evolution falls flat on its face as the biggest joke ever played on humanity,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years. Are you a YEC or do you accept that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?

Why does if matter if the layers were put down a million years apart or a thousand years apart or a month apart? You're the one assuming it is relevant. The fact remains that animals found in younger layers are not found in older layers. Where did they come from if they didn't evolve?

do you have any proof its billions of yrs old??

I didnt think so,,

 

[ding]

You are right and wrong. I agree the how matters but what I said was that the time does not matter. I was discussing relative dating with progressive hunter and didn't think absolute dating was important.

ah. I see. I agree. Thanks for straightening that out for me.

 

[abu afak]

do you have any proof its billions of yrs old??

I didnt think so,,

The problem being you are an Indoctrinated Moron... Like the stealth Creationist OP, Seymour Flops.
Unable and Unwilling to even look for info.
Willfully Ignorant.

How Did Scientists Calculate the Age of Earth?​

The examination and analysis of rocks on Earth’s surface, and of extraterrestrial rocks, have enabled scientists to determine the approximate age of the planet.
National Geographic

GRADES
3 - 12+

How Did Scientists Calculate the Age of Earth?

The examination and analysis of rocks on Earth’s surface, and of extraterrestrial rocks, have enabled scientists to determine the approximate age of the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

And a Bonus for you as a science ILLITERATE.
Science doesn't deal in "Proof," it deals in theories affirmed over time and ever increasing EVIDENCE. IN Evo's case, OVERWHELMING Evidence.
Not only do god/godS have no proof, unlike Evo, they have NO EVIDENCE.

`

 

[westwall]

Geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years. Are you a YEC or do you accept that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?

Why does if matter if the layers were put down a million years apart or a thousand years apart or a month apart? You're the one assuming it is relevant. The fact remains that animals found in younger layers are not found in older layers. Where did they come from if they didn't evolve?

Actually, it is measured in eras based on the fossil record.

Me thinks your claim to being a geologist are a fib.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The bright blue color doesn't suggest the evilutionist atheist scientists are faking anything. Are you suggesting the fossil artifacts are fake?

That's what I said about the blue modelling material.

The fossils filled in with modelling material of a similar color clearly suggest the creators are faking something.

They're faking complete skulls in the examples provided by Abu.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You might want to consider searching for examples of facial recognition software used, for example, to superimpose muscles, tendons, etc over bone mass to create a more complete image.

Exactly. They create the "fossils" and then ask us to pretend that they discovered the fossils.

 

[westwall]

That's what I said about the blue modelling material.

The fossils filled in with modelling material of a similar color clearly suggest the creators are faking something.

They're faking complete skulls in the examples provided by Abu.

When paleontologists reconstruct substantially complete skulls that have been crushed, I have no problem. A skull is a physical structure. It follows the laws of physics. Thus the angles of the fragments are consistent. They are not altering anything.

Where I have a problem is when they have a single fragment and create a whole model from that.

 

[westwall]

Exactly. They create the "fossils" and then ask us to pretend that they discovered the fossils.

No, they don’t. A skull, found crushed in a sedimentary rock can be reconstructed to a high degree of accuracy.

They are creating nothing.