River Jordan
Active Member
- Dec 26, 2024
- 369
- 128
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Good to know. Next time I'll take the time to look beyond the headlines.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sea lilies- 280 million years ago.
- Thread starter dlamberth
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,854,142
- 52,239
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Starfish and sea lilies are wonderfully unique creatures, but over the years they have caused many problems for evolutionists.
Scientists the world over have had difficulty proving the two groups belong in the same major biological division called a phylum (both starfish and sea lilies are echinoderms). Why? Because there is no common ancestor from which the creatures could have evolved. In fact there is no proof starfish and sea lilies evolved at all.
In evolutionary terms, fossils dated as ‘Cambrian’ (supposedly 500 million years ago) indicate that echinoderms were already complex creatures. They had features present today.
If a starfish limb is severed, it grows back!
Scientists speculate that the lack of even earlier fossils indicates that early echinoderms may have possessed water-vascular systems, but lacked a calcite skeleton and thus did not fossilize. However, there is no evidence to prove this, and there are millions of soft-bodied creatures, such as jellyfish, which have fossilized.
The names for both animals are misleading: a starfish is not a fish, and a sea lily is not a plant.
SOURCE
Scientists the world over have had difficulty proving the two groups belong in the same major biological division called a phylum (both starfish and sea lilies are echinoderms). Why? Because there is no common ancestor from which the creatures could have evolved. In fact there is no proof starfish and sea lilies evolved at all.
In evolutionary terms, fossils dated as ‘Cambrian’ (supposedly 500 million years ago) indicate that echinoderms were already complex creatures. They had features present today.
If a starfish limb is severed, it grows back!
Scientists speculate that the lack of even earlier fossils indicates that early echinoderms may have possessed water-vascular systems, but lacked a calcite skeleton and thus did not fossilize. However, there is no evidence to prove this, and there are millions of soft-bodied creatures, such as jellyfish, which have fossilized.
The names for both animals are misleading: a starfish is not a fish, and a sea lily is not a plant.
SOURCE
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 14,231
- 7,077
- 30
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
However, there may be evidence of them evolving though. It just isn’t evident in the photo provided.
These 280 million year old animals look and function like the living animals in the same Phylum: Echinodermata, Subphylum: Crinozoa: and Class Crinoidea that flourish today — hardly a poster child for evolution.
The sedimentary layers that would have fossilized them aren’t there. They appear to have been fossilized in their exposed state with mineralized water, mud or sand. — hardly strong evidence for being encapsulated in sediment for 280 million years.
Upvote
0
Aaron112
Well-Known Member
- Dec 19, 2022
- 4,678
- 1,155
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Or anything else for that matter. Nothing. Zilch. Nada..... oh well..... it makes a lot of money making stories up and jobs and so forth about that which cannot have happened,
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
One nation indivisible
- Mar 11, 2017
- 18,986
- 14,663
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
What do you think that rock they are embedded in is? (Hint: it is the sedimentary layer you claim is missing.)
If you look closely at the photograph (and the similar one in the article) it is obvious that the matrix of the rock embedding the fossils has been partially removed to show them. They were not exposed for all this time.
Upvote
0
No, I don’t think that’s the missing sedimentary layer. Look at the images that come up with a Google search of Class Crinoidea fossil to see what being embedded in rock looks like.
I think the rock the fossils are laying on top of is from the bottom of the sea to which they were (and some still are) attached. I think that rock base may give a 208 million year reading from an isotope ratio analysis (not that reading isotope ratios is any more accurate than ready tea leaves when trying to nail down dates) but the "missing sedimentary layers" that would give more meaningful isotope ratios are still missing.
I think that I can see gaps between some of the stalks in the photo. The coils in some of the ambulacral grooves show too much detail to have been embedded in rock. So it is obvious to me the matrix of the rock embedding the fossils was NOT partially removed to show them. I think they did not go through the trouble or risk of removing any of what was covering them, unless they could just wash it off. But then that’s just my opinion.
Upvote
0
River Jordan
Active Member
- Dec 26, 2024
- 369
- 128
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Are you kidding? Are you actually saying nothing has ever evolved, ever?
Upvote
0
River Jordan
Active Member
- Dec 26, 2024
- 369
- 128
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Are you really trying to get all of that just from a pic? Did you read the published paper describing the finds?
EDIT: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03115518.2024.2323461
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 14,231
- 7,077
- 30
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,854,142
- 52,239
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I believe he is referring to macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution is a violation of Genesis 1.
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 14,231
- 7,077
- 30
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
River Jordan
Active Member
- Dec 26, 2024
- 369
- 128
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,854,142
- 52,239
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 14,231
- 7,077
- 30
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Once again: don't quit your day job to become a comedian. You're not really cut out for it.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
One nation indivisible
- Mar 11, 2017
- 18,986
- 14,663
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
We're not talking about images of similar things, we are talking about these fossils.
Do you think rocks form without something above to compress them, or fossils get stuck in rock that is already on the ocean bottom?
What you are saying is you don't know anything useful about isotopic dating methods.
I think you are seeing things.
Is this based on your expertise on fossilization, or just a "feeling"?
Obvious you say, what about in this similar group of fossils from the same layer and area? (Image in post linked in OP.)
The removal is even more obvious here.
Have you no knowledge of how delicate fossils are exposed and examined when embedded in rock. Partial removal of the matrix is a standard method.
Not even worth the cash value of 1/20th of a cent.
Upvote
0
no I didn't. I did just read their abstract, though. Thanks. I can't get to their whole paper.
In the abstract they wrote:
I had to get some help interpreting the big words. Here's what I learned:
Sounds like more evidence of a global flood to me, now that I have more than a picture to go by. Certainly not strong evidence of being buried 208 million years.
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 14,231
- 7,077
- 30
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
And that's also no evidence at all of a global flood occurring. Correlation does not equal causation.
Upvote
0
River Jordan
Active Member
- Dec 26, 2024
- 369
- 128
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
You're welcome.
I don't see how any of that leads to "therefore the entire earth was flooded".
How? And if you really think you're correct, will you be writing a letter to the journal letting them and the authors know of your objections?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
