Why I am an "Evolutionist"

[CrowCross]

Letherneck031 posted:
Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You replied back with....

Thank you for admitting that opposition to the Theory of Evolution is based in religious faith and not reason and not evidence.

Would you have us believe that "in the beginning" the "stuff" of the Big Bang self created for nothing? To be honest, that sounds like faith.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm looking for a description of a hypothetical fossil record (see the rest of post 7 for further details). So I'm looking for the completion of this sentence:

"The fossil record would have to look like ____________________ .

The fossil record would have to look like it was a result of an increasing flood that became world wide burying biomes in the sediment.......Which it does....or should I say it does because that's what happened.

How would you fill in your _________________________.

 

[CrowCross]

You need a better understanding of science.

So do you. As well as history.

Feathers Flight Bony Tail Teeth
-------- ------ --------- ------
Dinosaurs No No Yes Yes : Stegosaurus

Here is a Stegosaurus....that you say eventually sprouted feathers and became a "bird"


You do know Stegosaurus at one time was depicted as being contemporary with humans?


That's right....here's proof humans and stegosaurus walked the earth together. You'll need to scroll down past the tons of evidence that showed humans and Dino's lived together to get to the reference.

There was no evolution. No Dino------->Bird. Didn't happen.

 

[rossum]

No they are arranged in order of similarities. Show me an actual tail changing from one species to the other?

Show me a living Archaeopteryx and I will.

 

[rossum]

Is it the changes or the differences?

If there is a change, then there are differences. If there are differences then there has been change.

 

[rossum]

Here is a Stegosaurus....that you say eventually sprouted feathers and became a "bird"

No. I say that its great^n-grandchildren grew feathers. Then the great^m-grandchildren of that feathered dinosaur evolved into modern birds. Where n and m are very large numbers.

View attachment 3868

You do know Stegosaurus at one time was depicted as being contemporary with humans?
View attachment 3869

That is not a stegosaur. The head is far too large, compare the Cambodian carving with your own picture; the head is obviously wrong. Also the carving's tail is too small for a stegosaur. The carving looks more like a rhino, or tapir, against a background of large leaves.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The fossil record would have to look like it was a result of an increasing flood that became world wide burying biomes in the sediment.......Which it does....or should I say it does because that's what happened.

I’m asking what the fossil record would look like if evolution were true, according to those who think it isn’t true.

How would you fill in your _________________________.

 

[CrowCross]

That is not a stegosaur. The head is far too large, compare the Cambodian carving with your own picture; the head is obviously wrong. Also the carving's tail is too small for a stegosaur. The carving looks more like a rhino, or tapir, against a background of large leaves.

Would you expect the carving to be exactly like nature? Good thing it wasn't stick figureish.

Who's to say in nature this guy didn't have the head you expect? Sheeze, look at the differences in dog heads.

Then again large leaves don't grow the way the dinosaur depection shows...so, it looks like the upright plates growing on the back of Steggy are accurate.

Would you like to see more depiction?

 

[CrowCross]

I’m asking what the fossil record would look like if evolution were true, according to those who think it isn’t true.

There would be no fossil record if evo-ism was true. Perhaps you might have some fossils or prints here or there but for the most part a quick burial typically associated with water is required.....Just like the flood of Noah.

 

[rossum]

Would you expect the carving to be exactly like nature?

If you are going to use it to identify a particular genus, then yes. The ancients were perfectly capable of making lifelike sculptures of living species, for example, the Gayer-Anderson cat.

Good thing it wasn't stick figureish.

Your argument would even more obviously fail if the sculpture was like that, as you should have realised.

Who's to say in nature this guy didn't have the head you expect? Sheeze, look at the differences in dog heads.

Who? Why that would be the palaeontologist who found a fossil stegosaur head with that relative size and shape. I await your reference to the paper they published about their unusual stegosaur skull.

See Stegosaurus Carving on a Cambodian Temple? for a more detailed overview.

 

[Gus Bovona]

There would be no fossil record if evo-ism was true. Perhaps you might have some fossils or prints here or there but for the most part a quick burial typically associated with water is required.....Just like the flood of Noah.

Are you saying a quick burial by water is necessary to create a fossil? On what basis do you claim that?

 

[CrowCross]

Are you saying a quick burial by water is necessary to create a fossil? On what basis do you claim that?

For the most part yes....Here's a depiction of dinosaurs who modern science says died in a flood.

A herd of centrosaurs (a type of horned dinosaur) drowning in a flood millions of years ago in what is now Alberta, as depicted in this illustration. They left behind what could be the world's largest dinosaur graveyard. (Image credit: Royal Tyrrell Museum.) (article)
I suppose some fossils could have been buried in a mudslide....but if an animal dies in the open wild no fossil will be made as the animal will be scavaged, torn apart and rot away.
So I would say...YES....quick burial by water is pretty much necessary to create a fossil.

 

[CrowCross]

If you are going to use it to identify a particular genus, then yes. The ancients were perfectly capable of making lifelike sculptures of living species, for example, the Gayer-Anderson cat.

I'm not saying the couldn't. But often they didn't. Here are MANY examples of petroglyphs that present representations of animals that are not 100% correct like your kitty cat portrayed.

Who? Why that would be the palaeontologist who found a fossil stegosaur head with that relative size and shape. I await your reference to the paper they published about their unusual stegosaur skull.

Here's the reference pape you asked for:
Bas-relief artwork at Cambodia’s Angkor Wat temple, Ta Prohm, appears to depict a dinosaur (Fig. 1). Though the engraving is readily recognizable as “stegosaur-like,” this dinosaurian interpretation of the engraving has been criticized because of the unrealistically large head and the absence of tail spikes. Moreover, it has been suggested that the “plates” are merely decorative flourishes or background foliage. I personally examined the Ta Prohm artwork, took depth measurements and compared the dinosaurian depiction to the many other temple engravings. I came away satisfied that the objections can be adequately answered. Moreover, I believe there is a second stegosaurus carving in the portico of the temple. My hypothesis is that the ancient artists were seeking to model domesticated stegosaurids, dinosaurs that were still living and known at the time of the temple construction. (peer reviewed reference paper)

Your welcome.

 

[rossum]

Here's the reference pape(r) you asked for:

No it is not. I asked for a paper about a fossil stegosaur skull with that unusual shape (for a stegosaur). The shape is not unusual for a rhinoceros.

If you can find a reference to a matching fossil, then you have something. Otherwise, all you have is a carving, which may well be of a rhinoceros.

Does a pegasus exist because there are statues of it?

 

[Gus Bovona]

For the most part yes....Here's a depiction of dinosaurs who modern science says died in a flood.

A herd of centrosaurs (a type of horned dinosaur) drowning in a flood millions of years ago in what is now Alberta, as depicted in this illustration. They left behind what could be the world's largest dinosaur graveyard. (Image credit: Royal Tyrrell Museum.) (article)
I suppose some fossils could have been buried in a mudslide....but if an animal dies in the open wild no fossil will be made as the animal will be scavaged, torn apart and rot away.
So I would say...YES....quick burial by water is pretty much necessary to create a fossil.

1. What about being covered up in a tar pit, or by sediment?

2. And what about plant fossils, like a tree, that wouldn't be scavenged?

3. What calculation - even an estimate, but with actual numbers - was made that shows that the number of fossils we have today is greater than what would be expected if evolution were true?

 

[CrowCross]

Does a pegasus exist because there are statues of it?

Does Buddah exist because there are statues of him?

 

[CrowCross]

1. What about being covered up in a tar pit, or by sediment?

2. And what about plant fossils, like a tree, that wouldn't be scavenged?

3. What calculation - even an estimate, but with actual numbers - was made that shows that the number of fossils we have today is greater than what would be expected if evolution were true?

Do you not understand the concept?

There are what is commonly called "polystrate" trees that contain several strata surrounding the trunks....which show they were buried quickly rather than rotting away over several millions of years as the strate slowly accumulated like the evo-minded proclaim.

.....everything ISN'T as you evo-minded demand it to be

 

[Gus Bovona]

Do you not understand the concept?

There are what is commonly called "polystrate" trees that contain several strata surrounding the trunks....which show they were buried quickly rather than rotting away over several millions of years as the strate slowly accumulated like the evo-minded proclaim.

.....everything ISN'T as you evo-minded demand it to be

Can't you just answer my questions plainly and directly?

Are you saying that a fossil can or can not be created when the organism is covered up in a tar pit?

Are you saying that a fossil can or can not be created when the organism is covered up by sediment?

If submerging in water is necessary in fossilization to protect the organism from being scavenged, are you saying that an organism that doesn't get scavenged, like a tree, still has to be submerged in water? If so, why?

Do you have estimates of how many fossils we should expect if evolution were true (and that number would be significantly less than the number of fossils we have today)? Can we see what those calculations are based on?

 

[CrowCross]

Can't you just answer my questions plainly and directly?

Are you saying that a fossil can or can not be created when the organism is covered up in a tar pit?

Are you saying that a fossil can or can not be created when the organism is covered up by sediment?

If submerging in water is necessary in fossilization to protect the organism from being scavenged, are you saying that an organism that doesn't get scavenged, like a tree, still has to be submerged in water? If so, why?

Do you have estimates of how many fossils we should expect if evolution were true (and that number would be significantly less than the number of fossils we have today)? Can we see what those calculations are based on?

Do you NOT know how fossils are made?

I'm not going to teach you.

 

[rossum]

Does Buddah exist because there are statues of him?View attachment 3875

Yes he did, though the statues are not necessary. There is contemporary independent evidence that he existed. The Buddha is mentioned in the contemporary Jain scriptures, just as the Jain Mahavira is mentioned in Buddhist scriptures.

Your image is of Hotei, a form of the Maitreya Buddha, not Shakyamuni Buddha. You need to learn more about the subject, CC.