'How Life Began'

[IRQ Conflict]

Here is some interesting stuff. Still researching....

Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there's only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!

I reason that there would have been way more horsies than humans at the time (mabey not). But if that were true and they only have 1 tooth for multiple species of horse, what does that say about the lack of human fosils?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Here is some interesting stuff. Still researching....

Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there's only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!

I reason that there would have been way more horsies than humans at the time (mabey not). But if that were true and they only have 1 tooth for multiple species of horse, what does that say about the lack of human fosils?

I could tell you this is disinformation, but the best thing to do is go visit the sites youself and recover your own fossil!
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpal ... atmap1.htm
Many of the sites are in the U.S. in Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, and Florida to name a few.

[IRQ Conflict]

but I don't see any 'fosil evidence' just drawings depicting various horse forms speculated through the various strata. What am I missing?

I found some more interesting stuff on evolution in general, not pertaining to the lack of fosilized human remains though.

At that moment, when the RNA/DNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

but I don't see any 'fosil evidence' just drawings depicting various horse forms speculated through the various strata. What am I missing?

Click on the pictures, they will take you to the fossils. Also as I stated clearly it is best to visit the sites yourself. If you ever get the chance take a trip to Wyoming or Nebraska. Then you can see for yourself that there are more fossils than a single tooth.

I found some more interesting stuff on evolution in general, not pertaining to the lack of fosilized human remains though.

At that moment, when the RNA/DNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt.

I hope you can appreciate that this is just a statement, with no empirical support to show how this is true. Also one can note there is a reference to an authority and along with the fact that the quote agrees with your personal beleifs you then take it to be fact. But it is just a quote of someone's opinion, nothing more.

Here's a quote from the exact same website.

How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not.

But what they are missing is how come kangaroos made it to Australia but rabbits did not?
And why are kangaroos not found in the intermediate ranges when clearly the rabbit now inhabits every corner of Australia?

You see, the difference here is that these are facts.
There were no rabbits in Australia prior to colonization.

[Jbuza]

So you are admiting that there is a contextual basis to this segregation. You are saying that there are layers of just dinosaurs and layers of just mammals.

The whole idea of layers is a drawing on a chart in some of your beloved texts. I am saying there are some formations that are predominantly made of the animals that may have lived in that particular area. The idea that the crust is made out of layers tied to a specific time period is silly. So there may have been a group of some particular animals trapped here or there, the rest is part of your silly theory and you are confusing what evolution wants and what the observations actually are.

I am not asking you to dispute this. I am asking you to explain the evidence.

What evidence is that. Something you actually observed or your empty claim that some pile of bones here that is made of different animals than a pile of bones somewhere else. OK fine some group of animals was trapped here while a group of different animals was trapped somewhere else.

What is your point?

What is the mechanism, and on what evidence do you base this mechanism on?

The flood, the massive loads of sediment even on mountians, the ditribultion of fossils.

I would expect to find hippos, fish, various species of birds and a few terrestrial animals who happened to be taking a drink in this formation. Should't all the life in a particular area be found together if a massive sedimentation ocurred? Why only crocodiles, that seems counter to common sense.

I would expect to see fossilization not very different than we see animals living. Usually animals of a feather flock together, so to speak. Your claims that there are no issues with your silly interpretation ignored scores and scores of what are called anomolies. I care little if you base evolution on your idealized vision of what observations could be, perhaps you should look to see what they actually are.

Again you have not described a single mechanisms to show how the fossil distribution could have occurred.

What caused all the dinosaurs to be burried in one layer of sediment and then not be found at all in another layer?

Take a visit to Iowa to the Coralville Lake Emergency Spillway. You tell me why there are no modern fish in this formation?

I have I told you it was the flood, you would have me believe that the animals fell where it lived and was covered by eons of time creating layers in the earth. Youe silly drawing of layers doesn't match with observations, it is pieced together into something that isn't even observed.

Tell me why there are no fish in my backyard.

This is silly. Animals are not a hofgepodge of all types everywhere.

Shall I refute you empty claims with evidence. Perhaps if you can actually demonstrate one of your claims, I will have a place to start.

[IRQ Conflict]

I hope you can appreciate that this is just a statement,

Most certainly.

with no empirical support to show how this is true.

This was in respect to the tests performed by . Stanley Miller and Sidney Fox to reproduce life in a test tube. Which failed miserably. read falsified. proven to not work.

Furthermore math speaks out against the theory as well...

One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (1067:1) against even a small protein forming — by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:1050) have a zero probability of ever happening ("and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!").

Evolutionist Michael Denton:

"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

So, what we seem to have hear is 'empirical proof' that mathmaticly and chemically evolution (in light of origin) is false.

[IRQ Conflict]

Here's a quote from the exact same website.

How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not.

But what they are missing is how come kangaroos made it to Australia but rabbits did not?
And why are kangaroos not found in the intermediate ranges when clearly the rabbit now inhabits every corner of Australia?

You see, the difference here is that these are facts.
There were no rabbits in Australia prior to colonization.

Are you saying they are saying there were rabbits prior to colonization?

Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia.

[Jbuza]

First, fossils are rare. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried quickly in just the right place. Consider all the bison that were slaughtered and left to rot on the prairies of the Old West. In those days, you could buy a seat on a train, pull up to a herd of bison, and keep shooting out of the window until you were either out of bullets or your barrel overheated. When everyone had enough, the train would move on, leaving the dead and dying animals behind. By 1885, millions of bison had been reduced to just 500 (Jones, n.d.). What happened to all of their remains? We do not see them on the prairies today. Why? Because their bones and flesh were scavenged by birds, insects, worms, and other animals. The smallest pieces were dissolved by bacteria, fungi, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains were gone. Even oxygen plays a part in breaking down the chemicals that make up the living body.

Evolutionary scientist James Powell described another situation where a large population of animals died. He wrote:

n the winter after the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, thousands of elk perished from extreme cold coupled with lack of food. Late the following spring, their carcasses were strewn everywhere. Yet only a few years later, bones from the great elk kill are scarce. The odds that a single one will be preserved so that it can be found 65 million years from now approach zero. At best we can expect to find fossil evidence of only a tiny fraction of the animals that once lived. The earth's normal processes destroy or hide most of the clues (1998, p. xv).

Normally, as Powell indicated, living things do not fossilize. Under normal conditions, living things decay and rot. It is atypical for plants and animals to fossilize, because they must avoid even the smallest of scavengers, bacteria, fungi, etc. For bones to fossilize, they must be buried—the deeper and sooner the better. Fine sediments, like mud and silt, are good because they block out oxygen. In this “protected” environment, bones and teeth may last long enough to mineralize. But, normally carcasses do not find themselves in such environments.

Second, although dinosaur graveyards have been discovered in various places throughout the world (e.g., Tanzania, Africa; Jenson, Utah) where thousands of dinosaur bones are jumbled together (obviously due to some sort of catastrophe—e.g., a flood), most people are unaware of the fact that, “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life) have ever been found” (Powell, 1998, p. xv; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). Furthermore, in an article that appeared in the October 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania reported that almost half (45.3%) of all dinosaur genera are based on a single specimen, and 74% are represented by five specimens or less (p. 7608). Even some of the most famous dinosaurs are based on a fraction of what they were originally. For example, the 120-foot-long Argentinosaurus replica housed in the Fernbank Museum of Natural History is based on only 10 percent of its remains (a dozen backbone vertebrae, a few limb bones and part of the hips) [Meyer, 2002]. Truthfully, although dinosaurs have captured the attention of scientists for more than 150 years, their fossilized remains are not as prevalent as many would think.

Third, humans make up an infinitesimal part of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that “hominoid” and/or human fossils were ubiquitous. But, such is not the case. More than two decades ago, in an article that appeared in New Scientist, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table (1981, 89:802). One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin (1982, 90:44, emp. added). In a conversation in 1996 with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in search for hominid or human fossils as she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added). Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?,” by saying: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few human fossils have been found.

As you can see, the question “Why don't we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” is extremely misleading. The truth is, fossils are rare. And, of those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals ) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a giant haystack. The real question then, is not, “Why don't we find dinosaur and human fossils together?,” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?”

Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Think about it. Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.

Fourth, considering that sedimentary rocks (the sort of rocks where fossils are most likely to be found) cover two-thirds of the continents and are over a mile thick on average, even if there are dinosaur and human remains fossilized in the same rock, the chance of them being exposed, discovered, recognized, and reported together is very improbable. They might be exposed somewhere in the world today (like in a mine, road cutting, or a cliff), but unless they are discovered before the wind, Sun, and rain reduce them to dust, such exposure is useless to scientists.

Furthermore, it may very well be that these bones have been discovered together in times past, but for at least two reasons they were never reported. First, someone who might have found these bones in a quarry, may react by saying, “Hey look guys, it's a bunch of old bones. But quick, pass me another stick of dynamite so we can get the next ton of coal out of here.” The proof that man and dinosaurs were fossilized together may have gone up in smoke years ago. Second, it may be possible that human bones have been found by scientists alongside dinosaur fossils, yet simply have not been reported widely. By saying this, we do not mean to accuse evolutionary researchers of dishonesty. We simply believe they are afflicted with presuppositions that have affected their judgment. It is evolutionary geologists and paleontologists who are doing most of the research in this area. If they did happen upon human fossils and dinosaur fossils in the same strata, is it not possible that they would think to themselves, “Oh, these human fossils are an anomaly; they cannot have actually existed in this time period because evolution is true”? If evolutionists can “confuse” a dolphin's rib for a human collarbone (Anderson, 1983, p. 199), or an extinct pig's tooth for a human tooth (e.g., Nebraska Man; see Harrub and Thompson, 2004, pp. 88-89), then similar mistakes could easily be made concerning human and dinosaur fossils. If one ever has been found with another, scientists could have misinterpreted the “anomaly.” Because (from an evolutionary perspective) human fossils “shouldn't be where they are,” they may very well not get reported as being where they are!

. . . . . there is more evidence here, but you wouldn't be interested, Would you?


http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973



Also the larger scale can be hypothesized through flood geology.
http://www.s8int.com/mega1.html

[IRQ Conflict]

WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION

Of the scientists attending that meeting, some in desperation decided that the only solution was to join *Gould and *Stanley in viewing hopeful monsters as the means by which species change occurred! To coin a phrase that might be worthy of Shakespeare: "Ah, desperation, thou hast made men mad."

[Brigham]

Hey, are there any good books on the lacks of fossils and how scientists make up so much of what isnt there? God bless.


-Brigham

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Here's a quote from the exact same website.

How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not.

But what they are missing is how come kangaroos made it to Australia but rabbits did not?
And why are kangaroos not found in the intermediate ranges when clearly the rabbit now inhabits every corner of Australia?

You see, the difference here is that these are facts.
There were no rabbits in Australia prior to colonization.

Are you saying they are saying there were rabbits prior to colonization?

Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia.

???How did you reach this conclusion???
I beleive I stated it clearly.
=(
No I am saying there were no rabbits prior to colonization.

The point being how did kangaroos make it back and why didn't rabbits make the same trip?
And why are there no kangaroos or evidence of them along the way.

[Zenith]

Hey, are there any good books on the lacks of fossils and how scientists make up so much of what isnt there? God bless.


-Brigham

try some [deceitful] creationist or ID 'studies'.

there is quite a lack of fossils, but fossil evidence is only used as a confiming evidence in evolution, it is not what the theory hinges on. scientists generally use fossils to confirm predictions (in the study of evolution). the theory of evolution was developed without the use of fossil evidence. fossils were used later in the development of the theory.

and scientists don't 'make up so much of what isn't there'. they find out so much from what is there that is almost seems as if they are pulling facts out of thin air. but i can tell you, from personal experience, that the information they find is (usually, i can't speak for the morality of all scientists) legitimate.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

there is quite a lack of fossils, but fossil evidence is only used as a confiming evidence in evolution, it is not what the theory hinges on. scientists generally use fossils to confirm predictions (in the study of evolution). the theory of evolution was developed without the use of fossil evidence. fossils were used later in the development of the theory.

How...does the fossil record work as evidence for evolution? Without first interpreting the evidence assuming evolution to be true? Without ignoring such anomolies as the Cambrian Explosion and the lack of any unquestioned transitional fossils?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

No matter how you say "no, don't stick your finger into the hot light socket" they just keep on goin'...fossil record is evidence against evolution, if anything...yet guys like zenith have run out of ideas and are now quoting themselves for the THIRD time...

[Zenith]

there is quite a lack of fossils, but fossil evidence is only used as a confiming evidence in evolution, it is not what the theory hinges on. scientists generally use fossils to confirm predictions (in the study of evolution). the theory of evolution was developed without the use of fossil evidence. fossils were used later in the development of the theory.

How...does the fossil record work as evidence for evolution? Without first interpreting the evidence assuming evolution to be true? Without ignoring such anomolies as the Cambrian Explosion and the lack of any unquestioned transitional fossils?

by itself the fossil record is hardly enough as evidence for anything except the wide variety of organisms that have lived and died on this planet. but evolutionists are able to make hypotheses and theories which are supported by fossils.

i would not put my money on any theories evidenced only by the fossil record. it is a record that is nowhere near complete, nor ever will be. we can only use what is actually there, though i know many scientists will postulate well beyond their ability because they have been taught that evolution is true.

we cannot really call the cambrian explosion an anomoly because the only evidence of it is the fossil record, which is vastly incomplete. its like assuming to know the picture of a 1000 piece puzzle with only 3 pieces.

what we can know is the characteristics of those 3 pieces and how they fit with data from other relating sciences, such as the surrounding geology or the biological structure of the bones.

you complain that evolutionists are biased by assuming firsthand that evolution is true. i say that this is a misunderstanding. much of what evolution is based on is not evolution science. it is based on sciences like geology and biology and other sciences which have figured things out from a non-evolutionist position. that is to say, much of the data that evolutionists use to develop theories is done by scientists who are not evolutionists; who are merely making observations of the physical world without any idea of what that data is to be used to determine.

also, christian scientists, creationists, and ID proponents more than often (and definately more than other scientists) assume that everything was created firsthand, and did not evolve. this is certainly just as tainting to the data collected by them as to those who assume that evolution was the cause.

by the way, i don't know where you get the idea that i am running out of ideas. im not making this stuff up as i go. the only reason i would repeat myself is if you didn't understand me the first time.