Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Don't worry, it didn't take millions of years to make the fossils. 

No scientist ever claimed it takes millions of years to make fossils. This is a strawman argument. Yes, we know fossils can be formed VERY quickly in some cases. What scientists claim is that fossilization events (although they may be quick) have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years.

Irreducible complexity is a completely separate argument that has nothing to do with paleontology.

[Sparks]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No scientist ever claimed it takes millions of years to make fossils. This is a strawman argument. Yes, we know fossils can be formed VERY quickly in some cases. What scientists claim is that fossilization events (although they may be quick) have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years.

Irreducible complexity is a completely separate argument that has nothing to do with paleontology.

It's not a straw man.  I am not the one who claims it takes millions of years.  It just take a little mud, and a dead thing under the right conditions.  You know, like a great flood.

Irreducible Complexity makes fossils irrelevant for the case of evolution.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It's not a straw man.  I am not the one who claims it takes millions of years.  It just take a little mud, and a dead thing under the right conditions.  You know, like a great flood.

A strawman argues against an argument that was not made in the first place. Your argument here is a perfect example. Again, no one stated that fossilization required millions of years.

A global flood would certainly cause the type of conditions required for fossil formation. But as I'm sure you are aware, many floods happen around the world each year. Many of these floods are potentially sufficient to meet the conditions needed to form new fossils.

Irreducible complexity is not related to the topic of fossils. If you want to argue the claim that irreducible complex structures cannot evolve, you can make your own thread and argue there. I'll even offer to join you.

[Sparks]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

A strawman argues against an argument that was not made in the first place. Your argument here is a perfect example. Again, no one stated that fossilization required millions of years.

You did, too.  Twice.  You said, "What scientists claim is that fossilization events (although they may be quick) have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years."

I say none have formed over millions of years (also in this thread, I have posted why dating methods don't work). 

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

A global flood would certainly cause the type of conditions required for fossil formation. But as I'm sure you are aware, many floods happen around the world each year. Many of these floods are potentially sufficient to meet the conditions needed to form new fossils.

Yep, they sure are, and do.  I would say it's happening right now, in many places.  Modern fossils.

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Irreducible complexity is not related to the topic of fossils. If you want to argue the claim that irreducible complex structures cannot evolve, you can make your own thread and argue there. I'll even offer to join you.

You may be misunderstanding why it makes fossils irrelevant, but that does not make it off topic.

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You did, too.  Twice.  You said, "What scientists claim is that fossilization events (although they may be quick) have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years."

Incorrect. I am apparently not explaining well. Let me try again. Events that make fossils can occur very quickly (see? I'm NOT saying that they require millions of years). Scientists claim that these relatively quick events have been taking place over and over and over for millions of years. 

Let me use an analogy to help illustrate. People have been putting on pants for thousands of years. That does not mean that it takes thousands of years to put on pants.

11 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yep, they sure are, and do.  I would say it's happening right now, in many places.  Modern fossils.

Agreed. But that does not require that all fossils have been formed recently, or even within the last 6000 years.

11 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You may be misunderstanding why it makes fossils irrelevant, but that does not make it off topic.

It is a completely separate topic that has nothing to do with fossils. That would be like me arguing that the evidence supplied by molecular genetics is relevant to a discussion of fossils. It just isn't, and insisting that it is relevant does not change the fact.

Edited March 29, 2021 by one.opinion

[Sparks]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Incorrect. I am apparently not explaining well. Let me try again. Events that make fossils can occur very quickly (see? I'm NOT saying that they require millions of years). Scientists claim that these relatively quick events have been taking place over and over and over for millions of years.

This is better, no analogy needed.   No proof of hundreds of millions of years, though.  None.

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Agreed. But that does not require that all fossils have been formed recently, or even within the last 6000 years.

We agree.

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is a completely separate topic that has nothing to do with evolution. That would be like me arguing that the evidence supplied by molecular genetics is relevant to a discussion of fossils. It just isn't, and insisting that it is relevant does not change the fact.

Maybe you should ask why instead of insisting it's irrelevant? 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

No proof of hundreds of millions of years, though.  None.

Radiometric dating is pretty solid evidence.

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Maybe you should ask why instead of insisting it's irrelevant? 

If you have a point, go ahead and make it. Irreducible complexity deals with structures or systems in which interrelated parts are required to make the system or structure function properly - in living things. Thus, irrelevant to fossils.

[Riverwalker]

Why do we assume that God made everything new?

Why could he not have create a 4billion year old earth (suitable for lie) 6000 years ago.

When Jesus turned water into wine it was not NEW wine, but it was aged and made fine, AS IF it was aged, when it surely was not.

Making God fit within narrow limits of our understanding, is just foolishness, the definition of a miracle is that which transcends natural law.  Walking on water, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, cleansing the leopard, feeding 5000 with a boys lunch,  all the way back to parting the Red Sea....and Creation

God did not have to obey the physical laws he created to govern his creation. He says very plainly that He spoke and it was,  and that it took six days.  Why would we take man's word otherwise.  All the so called evidence of evolution can be explained by God creating a 4 billion year old universe, 6000 years ago.  All the dating would show a long time, the fossils were in the ground where he created them as part of the history of the earth

And if you are looking for a gap theory, Jesus put an end to it in Mark 10: 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

Bottom line, God said how and when He did it, and God does not lie. To try and make the "wisdom" of man (origin/evolution) fit into the creation of God (Creation), is pure folly.

[Sparks]

27 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Radiometric dating is pretty solid evidence.

I spent quite some time on this thread showing it fails.  See the burning Candle problem in this thread.

27 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

If you have a point, go ahead and make it. Irreducible complexity deals with structures or systems in which interrelated parts are required to make the system or structure function properly - in living things. Thus, irrelevant to fossils.

... and fossils were once, you guessed it, living!

The short answer is that the idea that animals slowly, mutation by mutation, changed over trillions of years (maybe even zillions), is stopped dead in it's tracks by Irreducible Complexity.

You might already know that a mouse trap is Irreducibly Complex, as you cannot remove ANY part without it failing.  You will find it's the same way with living things.

Which came first, the termite, or the flagella in its intestines that make it possible for the termite to digest food?  Neither can live without the other.  They are Irreducibly Complex.  In effect, they would have to 'evolve' at the same moment, or both would quickly die and neither would survive.

Which came first in us?  Was it our stomach, or our appetite, our stomach acids to digest foods, our protective stomach lining so our stomach acids don't digest our own body, or the food to eat?   Answer, all appeared at once.

Can you imagine, for absolutely no reason at all, a dinosaur allegedly evolved into a bird?  So, it's heart chambers changed for no reason.  It's blood went from cold, to hot, for no reason.  And then over 'millions of years' it dragged around worthless wings, and a few feathers, for no reason.   Then it shrank down for flight, for no reason.  Then one day, when it was finally ready, it took flight, for no reason (no intelligent designer).

The truth is, all parts must show up at once, or you will have a failure.  So, an animal, let's say a house cat, would have to give birth to a fully functional bird (even though Mendel's Law of Genetics would have to be broken to do this).   A cow would give birth to the first horse, but the horse would die off unless the cow gave birth to it's mate, too.

But you cannot evolve over time, or failures creep up quickly.  Thus, fossils which once lived, had the same problems.  To think the fossil record has meaning, is silly.

 

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

That's generally correct, but I'm a biologist and not a paleontologist, so not an expert in this area. I found a good article explaining fossil formation (here). If evolution really did take place over hundreds of millions of years, there have been very many events that could have met the requirements for fossilization. A global flood would certainly be one of those, but evidence suggests that fossilization has occurred repeatedly and periodically over very long periods of time.

 

thanks for the link interesting, I’ve read more on the topic the word fossil seems to be just a general word for something that is basically over 10,000 yrs old etc. the two words evolution and fossil as you mentioned in another post has nothing in common I agree. thus the latter part of the thread title is true just evidence of fossils.