Fossils Continue To Be Amazing Despite Stories

The amazing creatures of the past simply astound and are a joy to learn of their discoveries even though they are shrouded with a very poor evolutionary story. Ichthyosaurs (Greek for “fish lizards”) is an example of this. Labeled as a product of  “convergent evolution” which is often used as a rescue mechanism which claims creatures that occupy the same evolutionary niche tend to adopt roughly the same form, these fossils of these “fish lizards” were discovered in a desert.

New Scientist writes…

“According to Mark McMenamin, a palaeontologist at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, the giant marine ichthyosaurs were caught by an even larger cephalopod. In the absence of any direct fossil evidence that this kraken existed, his hypothesis rests on the idea that cephalopods play with their food, arranging the bones of their prey into intricate and unusual patterns that wouldn’t occur otherwise.”

“Palaeontologists have long been baffled by the oddly arranged skeletons, which settled to the seafloor about 217 million years ago. Ancient currents seem to have aligned the skeletons, but they are preserved in different ways, making it look unlikely that they all died at once. How did so many giants end up in the same place?”

Wow, giant squids the size of blue whales might have also existed! Could this mean the kraken of myth was real? Some skeptics weigh in on this story but there is no denying the ichthyosaur part! How did so many end up in one place? The evidence shows that ichthyosaurs aligned by a massive current produced by a global flood with rapid preservation in order for it to avoid normal decay.

In another story, a fossil tiger skull from China, which is claimed to be 2.5 million years old, the previous oldest one, was claimed to be 1.8 million years old. So what is the difference between this ancient tiger skull and modern tigers of today? Not a whole lot, what is interesting in this story, they (meaning the likes of National Geographic) credit evolution for creating the design and then sticking with it in order to explain the surprise. More like stuff happens. Let’s put it this way, the data is making the predictions in the ‘theory’ which in turn makes it more complex while adding a bad story line to it, the type of complexity that is normally not good in other areas in science.

Firstly it claims it’s a new species, however there is very little difference between the skull with other modern skulls of tigers. In fact, it has more similarities than differences! If you take evolution out of it, the conclusion would not be that this is a new species which was discovered rather the same species which is way more logical conclusion!

Secondly, variants within a kind is predicted in creationism, it’s a fact. The evidence demonstrates this! Since when do you hear creation scientists revamping fossil inferences to fit it into their framework like evolutionists do? Where are the transitional forms from pre-tigers to tigers? Well they say, evolution just got it right the first time. Fossils can only do so much, but they continue to be amazing what great things has God designed which we need to learn more about!

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Fossils Continue To Be Amazing Despite Stories

  1. The evidence shows that ichthyosaurs aligned by a massive current produced by a global flood with rapid preservation in order for it to avoid normal decay.

    And this explains the arrangement of their bones in what way? Remember that the arrangement of their bones is not as it would be if their bodies had simply decayed in situ, otherwise this hypothesis would have never been formulated in the first place. Furthermore, real scientists generally try to avoid appealing to mechanisms that are ruled out by other evidence: namely, the complete absence of geological evidence of a global flood, which, being global, would leave unmistakable evidence all in the same stratum globally.

    Secondly, variants within a kind is predicted in creationism, it’s a fact.

    No it is not. Back in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, creationists believed in the absolute fixity of species. All the major evolutionary writers of the day—Lamarck, Wallace, and Darwin—had to first present evidence of substantial variation within nature to break down the prejudice that all species were fixed and no varieties in the wild type were to be found (the obvious variations in domestic breeds were attributed to the “intelligent design” of human intervention).

    Creationists only came up with this argument about “variations within a kind” when the evidence for the variability of species in nature and the evolution of new species became too obvious to deny. So instead, it’s creationism that is adjusting its stories to stay one step ahead of the evidence. Now they’ve reached the crisis point of having been pushed to the absolute limit of what they’re willing to agree to as “variation within a kind”, while the evidence consistently shows common ancestry even greater than that point.

    Since when do you hear creation scientists revamping fossil inferences to fit it into their framework like evolutionists do?

    I’ve never met a “creation scientist” who knew anything worth knowing about fossil specimens. Not a single one of them ever examines fossils in light of their comparative anatomy, even though this is a “creationist” discipline that predates Darwin and was perfected by Richard Owen and Georges Cuvier. They’re too afraid of what they might find.

    As to the new fossil, the absence of significant change is hardly surprising. Consider what the ancestor of all the big cats would have been: a large, feline predatory carnivore. That already imposes a range of features that are substantially similar to those found in the big cats today. If they were substantially different, then the morphology of present-day big cats would also be substantially different. Only fools think that transitional fossils should look like a jackelope.

  2. The evidence shows that ichthyosaurs aligned by a massive current produced by a global flood with rapid preservation in order for it to avoid normal decay.

    And Michael chides scientists for making up just-so stories!

    Ancient currents may have arranged the skeletons–yet other causes are also supported by evidence. But Michael assumes that currents were in fact the cause. Then he assumes that the currents were massive. Then he assumes that a global flood would produce massive currents. (Michael, please substantiate this claim. I thought not.) Next, Michael assumes that a flood would cause rapid preservation. Any competent paleontologist would laugh.

    We don’t have to go as far as Nullifidian’s stricture against invoking supernatural causes.[1] Michael’s rickety tower of unsupported ad-hoc assumptions collapses all by itself.

    .

    In another story, a fossil tiger skull from China, which is claimed to be 2.5 million years old, the previous oldest one, was claimed to be 1.8 million years old. So what is the difference between this ancient tiger skull and modern tigers of today? Not a whole lot. . . .

    Yet again, large numbers confuse creationists. In his post of Sept. 16, Michael had more thanmillion-year old Home erectus mating with modern humans 35,000 years ago.[2] Yet he is amazed that large successful felines had changed little in 700,000 years.

    When it is convenient, creationists see a 1,000,000 years as an instant. When it is not convenient, they claim that 700,000 years is an eon.

    .

    Secondly, variants within a kind is predicted in creationism, it’s a fact. The evidence demonstrates this! Since when do you hear creation scientists revamping fossil inferences to fit it into their framework like evolutionists do?

    Michaerl misunderstands the nature of “prediction.” Predictions by definition must precede their experimental verification. As Nullifidian notes, creationists predicted absolute fixity of species until the laughter grew overwhelming. Only then did they retreat into variability as a prediction after the fact.

    But let us see how Michael would predict variability of kinds from creationist principles. Such as Genesis—

    1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

    1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

    6:20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

    Go ahead, Michael. Show the basis for variability of kinds. Or invoke any other biblical reference or creationist canard of your choice. I dare you.

    .

    Michael evinces in this post two characteristics that cause scientists to laugh at creationists.
    (a) He will say anything, whether supported by evidence or made up of whole cloth, that supports his position. This is apologetics, not science.
    (b) He has absolutely zero qualifications to discuss science in general or any specific branch thereof. For almost three years, we have challenged him to produce any such qualifications, with no response whatever.[3]

    Here, Michael sets himself up an knowledgeable in paleontology and geology, pontificating on causes for arrangement of fossil skeletons. And then, with no observation or field work whatever, he informs nationally respected researchers about the number and meaning of differences between a fossil skull and modern tigers.

    We cal this chutzpah. Or desperation.

    ==================

    [1] Which has remained firmly emplaced ever since Abelard of Bath in the 12th Century.

    [2] See Olorin comment, Sept. 24 at 11:49 a.am.

    [3] Except that he once peered through a microscope as a child.

  3. The amazing creatures of the past simply astound and are a joy to learn of their discoveries even though they are shrouded with a very poor evolutionary story.

    I’m still trying to make some kind of sense of this sentence. can anyone help? What does Michael intend to convey here?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s