YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:52 pm

https://creation.com/the-fossil-record- ... an-rabbits

YECs know that the chances of a rabbit fossil being found in pre-Cambrian rocks are extremely remote. The enquirer who contacted CMI asks: "Creationists interpret the fossil record through the lens of the Flood, do they not? How do you explain the ordering of fossils? How did they get so neatly stacked up?" Despite requesting otherwise, all Tas Walker does in reply to this point is link to past CMI articles - the main one of which certainly does NOT explain the ordering of fossils. The enquirer adds: "Why can people predict where fossils will be found if they are operating under false assumptions? Why is the fossil record so neatly organized? Why don't we find Precambrian rabbits?" All the CMI response to this does is state that "Contrary to the impression you have, people are not able to predict precisely where the fossils will be found, although there is a general order to the fossil record". And he tries to claim: "The absence of such a rabbit does not falsify biblical creation". But in a biblical scenario (biblical not the contortions of YEC 'Flood' rescuing devices) there is no reason not to expect at least one rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian layers (or - this time in those YEC rescuing devices - a dinosaur fossil in the huge exposed sedimentary rock layers at the Grand Canyon). Real science can explain this absence. YECs cannot realistically account for it. Something that would be troubling for evolutionary theory - YECs would leap upon it - has simply never been discovered. "However, it is worth pointing out that the absence of a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian is entirely consistent with the fossil succession expected from Noah’s Flood." That's a made-up, far-fetched, hypothesis - found nowhere in the Bible but concocted to try and 'defend' Bible 'historicity' against inconvenient scientific evidence/missing evidence (according to Genesis the floodwaters came from below as well as from above so low lying continental areas could have been inundated quickly during the 'Flood' event with eg rabbits being buried early on and at least some of them fossilised).

The enquirer doesn't need to swallow all this to become a Christian of course - except that SOME Christians make a very big deal of it, and none of them has, for obvious reasons, yet persuaded him.

However, Walker avoids the insulting nonsense that Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis put forth concerning the pattern of the fossil record (if it wasn't insulting nonsense Walker would probably repeat it):
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... ong-place/

I suppose some Christians lap up nonsense like this because it tells them what they want to hear and reinforces their prejudices.

"Evolutionists are looking at the rock strata and the age of the earth incorrectly because humans were around long before that rock was ever laid down!” Oh no they were not. Because their fossils are NEVER found within the the earlier rock layers in question.

IMHO it is evil to churn out this kind of anti-knowledge garbage. And they KNOW they are simply wrong and promoting fake ‘facts’. As I wrote (elsewhere) when I first read this article, they KNOW that rabbits will never be found in the pre-Cambrian (or dinosaur fossils in the VERY old Grand Canyon exposed rock layers). AiG and other young earth creationists were also in a panic over Homo naledi – they could not agree a single position on what they thought the species must be (some falsely claimed a mix of ape species and human bones) and AiG, despite the evidence, claimed ‘ape’.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:22 am

As I have ALSO just pointed out to CMI under the article (my comments will be censored 100% for certain):

As the enquirer also stated in the (edited) comments:
"Creationists interpret the fossil record through the lens of the Flood, do they not? How do you explain the ordering of fossils? How did they get so neatly stacked up?
I have yet to find a resource that addresses this. Why can people predict where fossils will be found if they are operating under false assumptions? Why is the fossil record so neatly organized? Why don't we find Precambrian rabbits? I believe CMI is misrepresenting the data when it comes to this regard. I believe creationist models are oversimplified and cannot explain the geologic data".
Which strongly implies that he is already familiar with the articles linked to by Walker - and was unconvinced by them. I can't prove this - but it looks very plausible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:37 pm

https://creation.com/the-fossil-record- ... an-rabbits
Plenty of arrogant or smug responses that successfully manage to miss the point - the vertical PATTERN of the fossil record not explainable by a violent 'recent' flood - HAVE been published. One respondent even declares: "It's easier to lie to someone than it is to convince them that they're believing a lie." It's even easier when any contrary viewpoints, however politely expressed, are CENSORED and IGNORED. YECs, with the odd exception (which does not include any staff at CMI) aren't interested in truth - just dogma.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:00 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://creation.com/the-fossil-record-and-precambrian-rabbits
Plenty of arrogant or smug responses that successfully manage to miss the point - the vertical PATTERN of the fossil record not explainable by a violent 'recent' flood - HAVE been published. One respondent even declares: "It's easier to lie to someone than it is to convince them that they're believing a lie." It's even easier when any contrary viewpoints, however politely expressed, are CENSORED and IGNORED. YECs, with the odd exception (which does not include any staff at CMI) aren't interested in truth - just dogma.



And the latest comment about YEC 'peer review', just seen, is beyond belief. Another example of how YECs are bigots.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:09 am

https://creation.com/dinosaurs-almost-certainly-extinct 'Dinosaurs are almost certainly extinct.'

The article admits the following:
"Dragon legends most likely derived from post-Flood interactions of humans and dinosaurs, and biblically we know that they must have been on the Ark. But one cannot discount the slight chance some of the stories may have come from pre-Flood legends, dreams, or just people’s imaginations. Coupled with the fact that no unequivocal dinosaur remains have been found in layers most biblical creationists would call ‘post Flood’, this is a real sticking point. The ‘latest’ dinosaur remains are from Mesozoic layers. While it is true that any layer with dinosaurs in it would automatically be labeled “Mesozoic”, this is not really a circular argument. An entire suite of plant and animal fossils are found together in the “dinosaur” layers, which most of us believe are Flood deposits.
Case in point, we do not find T. rex bones with mastodons, and most creationists place mastodons after the Flood. These later layers are simply absent of dinosaurs...".

The article neither explains how Genesis 8:17* applies (or fails to apply) to these (invisible from the fossil record) 'post-flood' dinosaurs, nor how, why and when every single dinosaur species apparently went 'recently' extinct.


* "Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:19 pm

Comment as sent to CMI (perhaps they will read it before they censor it):

https://creation.com/dinosaur-and-mamma ... d-together

" ... The BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Surfaces) hypothesis has been proposed to explain this. It is discussed in a number of articles on this site (found by searching) including A stampede of swimming dinosaurs." [See comments underneath: this is Tas Walker responding to a totally understandable question from a CMI follower who doesn't sound totally convinced by the latest Michael Oard effort on the CMI website.]

The BEDS 'model' being that a track surface represents "a brief exposure of freshly-laid Flood sediments due to a local fall in the surface of the Flood water that was quickly covered by rising Flood water".

But Michael Oard is a fantasist (and tries to make Genesis 7 say things it does not say):
https://sites.google.com/site/respondin ... -2011/beds
"This would mean under this YEC scenario that the often thick Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that underlie the dinosaur-bearing Mesozoic rocks are “very early” rocks that formed during the first 40 days of the Flood.
The presence of bones, eggs, nests, tracks, and other dinosaur remains in the middle of the sedimentary rock record creates serious problems for YECs. YECs must explain how dinosaurs could have been walking around, laying eggs, feeding and engaging in other life activities in the middle of a worldwide Flood and why we have not been able to find any evidence of dinosaur remains in the often thick, underlying Paleozoic sedimentary rocks."
"...By attempting to squeeze the diversity of the sedimentary rock record into one Flood year, Oard (2011 p. 114) has created a contradictory mess where the Flood would have to have been both violent and non-violent at the same time and at the same locations..."

It didn't read it all but that's a very thorough article by geologist Kevin Henke.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:44 pm

This YEC bigot appears to be blocking me from commenting (after previously censoring me as noted on this forum*) ie the comment box is no longer visible on my screen:
http://creationclues.org/2018/03/03/wha ... -basics-5/
Why are there no dinosaur fossils at the Grand Canyon if what she and others push is real science/history? Real science can explain it. Young earth creationism is confused.

I have sent her the following message - under one of her other recent blog posts where several attempted comments by myself STILL 'await moderation' despite reminders.

"I am exposing your deceit here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3859 (post dated 4 March)
Your article is full of dogma (no wonder you censor all polite criticism from me and perhaps others instead of addressing it). You people think you know better than professional geologists 'because the Bible'. Arrogant. And you twist the Bible - it is impossible that Leviathan could be a 'dinosaur'. Find us a dinosaur fossil that was obviously 'killed by humans'. Archaeopteryx has been reclassified as a dinosaur by the way. And your statement - presumably cribbed from that fraud Ken Ham - that "fossil parrots, loons, and other birds have been found buried in the same rock layers that we find dinosaurs in" is highly misleading (see the Naturalis Historia blog written by a Christian who is not anti-science). "In conclusion, dinosaurs are marvelous creatures created by God just a few thousand years ago. We don’t see dinosaurs around anymore because of the global flood, changing climate after the flood, and humans fighting these dragons. No, those birds you see in your back yard are not descendants of a dinosaur." You cannot back that up scientifically. The asteroid was the main culprit - many millions of years ago."


* post dated 13 Feb here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3862
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YECs cannot cope with the pattern of the fossil record

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:22 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Comment as sent to CMI (perhaps they will read it before they censor it):

https://creation.com/dinosaur-and-mamma ... d-together

" ... The BEDS (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Surfaces) hypothesis has been proposed to explain this. It is discussed in a number of articles on this site (found by searching) including A stampede of swimming dinosaurs." [See comments underneath: this is Tas Walker responding to a totally understandable question from a CMI follower who doesn't sound totally convinced by the latest Michael Oard effort on the CMI website.]

The BEDS 'model' being that a track surface represents "a brief exposure of freshly-laid Flood sediments due to a local fall in the surface of the Flood water that was quickly covered by rising Flood water".

But Michael Oard is a fantasist (and tries to make Genesis 7 say things it does not say):
https://sites.google.com/site/respondin ... -2011/beds
"This would mean under this YEC scenario that the often thick Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that underlie the dinosaur-bearing Mesozoic rocks are “very early” rocks that formed during the first 40 days of the Flood.
The presence of bones, eggs, nests, tracks, and other dinosaur remains in the middle of the sedimentary rock record creates serious problems for YECs. YECs must explain how dinosaurs could have been walking around, laying eggs, feeding and engaging in other life activities in the middle of a worldwide Flood and why we have not been able to find any evidence of dinosaur remains in the often thick, underlying Paleozoic sedimentary rocks."
"...By attempting to squeeze the diversity of the sedimentary rock record into one Flood year, Oard (2011 p. 114) has created a contradictory mess where the Flood would have to have been both violent and non-violent at the same time and at the same locations..."

It didn't read it all but that's a very thorough article by geologist Kevin Henke.



So they LIE ...

I just took a look at the further - very interesting - comments, mostly dated 27 February, under this Oard fake propaganda article; comments that I somehow 'missed' originally*. The comments - by CMI supporters - led to a NECESSARY correction that pretty much destroys the central (false) premise of the article!
https://creation.com/dinosaur-and-mamma ... d-together
The liar/fool Oard originally claimed: "The fact that dinosaur and mammal prints are found on the same slab goes against the evolutionary idea that mammals evolved after the dinosaurs. Rather it shows that mammals and dinosaurs lived at the same time."
This has now been corrected to: "The fact that dinosaur and mammal prints are found on the same slab goes against the evolutionary idea that mammals largely diversified after the dinosaurs. Rather it shows that mammals and dinosaurs lived at the same time." (As real scientists already knew was not always untrue.)
It SHOULD have been corrected to: "The fact that dinosaur and mammal prints are found on the same slab on this occasion agrees with the evolutionary hypothesis that although mammals largely evolved and diversified after the dinosaurs went extinct, some early mammals were around at the same time as some dinosaurs, particularly in the Cretaceous (third) dinosaur era".

Also, most of the dinosaurs described from this site (via tracks not bones) are thought to have been herbivores. Yet Oard tried to tell his readers "It is fascinating that mammals and dinosaurs that would eat mammals are found so close together." Ooh, they were all fleeing a 'global flood' eh Michael?

In addition, it's thought that those mammals were sitting not running ... Hence 'Sederipes goddardensis'. (Yes I read the Abstract of the 2017 paper with the title quoted at Oard's footnote 1 - something readers are not 'supposed' to do - CMI HATE outside links because they often go against their lies.)

And there were OTHER errors in the article too. As pointed out in other comments (which unlike mine were not censored).

An appalling desperate article.

And, now corrected, not in the least any evidence for Genesis 1 or for young earth creationism or for a 'global' flood (certainly not as the Bible appears to describe - as my previous post highlighted).

These people are liars. End of story.


* In fact I think CMI probably ONLY showed those comments of 27 Feb sometime LATER - since I DID see (and indirectly referred to viz the 'answer' Tas Walker gave him) the comment by Philip S made on 27 Feb when I made my preceding post here, so I find it inconceivable that I could have missed other highly significant comments made on the same date if they too were visible at the time. There was a 'firestorm' of comments made on this date which I swear I never saw when making my previous post. Several point out that 'evolutionists' believe some early mammals already had appeared by the end of the Triassic - the FIRST of the three dinosaur eras and hardly "after the dinosaurs" (ie the K-T extinction event which CMI also deny occurred). (But this find is dated to the Cretaceous era.) Almost the ONLY true comment in this propaganda article is its title. Oard is a fraud. And the replies to the requested corrections by Doyle don't cut it.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron