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

[one.opinion]

27 minutes ago, Sparks said:

His own university called him a fraud, but his 'discoveries' are still taught today.

His figures were indeed used by textbook for far too long. However, Michael Richardson's work in embryology pointed this out very clearly and there are precisely zero modern textbooks that still use Haeckel's drawings.

Edited April 28, 2021 by one.opinion

[BeyondET]

15 minutes ago, Sparks said:

No, I mentioned drawings can be faked, and that's what the two have in common.

Go back in your time machine, and bring back Satellite photos of Pangaea.  Do that, and we'll certify that the photos are not faked by an independent peer reviewed panel (also with time machines), and you'll have provided rock solid evidence for Pangaea.  

Tail?  We have a tail bone, but do you mean a spinal cord?

 yes i see it now, my apologize you said similar problem in 1860.

Is there rock solid evidence that a one land mass has never been. If you have rock solid evidence that there has never been a one land mass in the past i might consider it.

Edited April 28, 2021 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

His figures were indeed used by textbook for far too long. However, Michael Richardson's work in embryology pointed this out very clearly and there area precisely zero modern textbooks that still use Haeckel's drawings.

There is a lot of text books out there to make that claim, but it would be good if Haekle's lies were put to rest.  I hope Richardson is right.

[one.opinion]

Just now, Sparks said:

There is a lot of text books out there to make that claim, but it would be good if Haeckel's lies were put to rest.  I hope Richardson is right.

No, there were textbooks that used his drawings. Like I said, there are precisely zero current textbooks that still use these. Richardson's work did confirm several of Haeckel's assertions.

On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms (4)

Richardson, et al., 1998."Haeckel, Embryos and Evolution." Science, 280, p. 983

[Guest kingdombrat]

What baffles me about Pangea is the fact we have volcanic activity all over the ocean floor bed.   And to think the positioning of mass lava would ultimately create a single giant Continent is a rather shaky argument.   The ocean floor bed would have to be slanted towards the center for the mass lava to flow towards the center to create a massive land mass.   And Mathematically speaking here, the percentage of that is slim to none.

[teddyv]

6 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

What baffles me about Pangea is the fact we have volcanic activity all over the ocean floor bed.   And to think the positioning of mass lava would ultimately create a single giant Continent is a rather shaky argument.   The ocean floor bed would have to be slanted towards the center for the mass lava to flow towards the center to create a massive land mass.   And Mathematically speaking here, the percentage of that is slim to none.

This has me a bit confused as to what you are trying to say here.

Pangaea represented the continental crust, which is, on the whole, less dense than the oceanic crust. The continental cores are very old and only ended up together as Pangaea for a period of time - with the breakup around 200Ma.

Certainly ocean floor material is currently being created at the ridge centres. 

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 minute ago, teddyv said:

This has me a bit confused as to what you are trying to say here.

Pangaea represented the continental crust, which is, on the whole, less dense than the oceanic crust. The continental cores are very old and only ended up together as Pangaea for a period of time - with the breakup around 200Ma.

Certainly ocean floor material is currently being created at the ridge centres. 

Pangea is basically our current Earth with 7 Continents formed into one single massive Continent.   We both know the visible portion above sea level is considered land mass.   Which means the greater mass is unseen.   But how the Pangea Map is laid out, it reveals inward lava flow.   

[Sparks]

42 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

ahh yes i see. my apologize you said similar problem in 1860.

is there rock solid evidence that a one land mass has never been. if you have rock solid evidence that there was not one land mass in the past i might consider it.

Plate tectonics are real, and things have moved a bit, but it's ever so slight.  If we have not been here for 'billions of years' as some people have suggested, then that theory is over, anyway.  I have already covered why dating methods abjectly fail. 

But let's say for a moment that hypothetically, Pangaea existed before Noah's flood. You have to imagine, if God flooded the world entirely and waters crashed about violently in Noah's time, the surface of the Earth is just not going to look the same when the flood waters recede, over a year later.   Scripture itself says that God pushed the mountains of today into existence, made the valleys, and set boundaries so that the water would never cover the world again.  I posted that scripture, a few posts back.

If you look today at the Mt Saint Helen's area, the area called the 'Little Grand Canyon' formed in hours when that volcano erupted.  Like 3 or 4 hours it had mud slides, and flooding, etc.  Compare that relatively small incident to a world-wide flood.  If the whole Earth was under water for over a year with God's intention of killing everything, but fish, what would the place look like when it was over? 

It would not be recognizable, and whatever our hypothetical Pangaea looked like, it sure would not look like it once had.

Scientists pretend that the world is just as it was before the flood, and then draw their maps.

[Sparks]

25 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No, there were textbooks that used his drawings. Like I said, there are precisely zero current textbooks that still use these. Richardson's work did confirm several of Haeckel's assertions.

On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms (4)

Richardson, et al., 1998."Haeckel, Embryos and Evolution." Science, 280, p. 983

Yes, I read that.

Like I said, there are a lot of text books today.  I am  sure Richardson didn't go over to India, and check, or Asia or England, or Germany where Haeckel was from. 

Richardson's own conclusions about evolution are, once again, due to a common author, and maker, God.  Not because we are related to a single common ancestor.

[teddyv]

6 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Pangea is basically our current Earth with 7 Continents formed into one single massive Continent.   We both know the visible portion above sea level is considered land mass.   Which means the greater mass is unseen.   But how the Pangea Map is laid out, it reveals inward lava flow.   

Yes, but the continents were separated prior to Pangaea. Tectonics just pushed them all together for a time.

Everything else would be oceanic crust, which is generally under the sea. I don't see why lava flow would not be inward.