Abnormal fossils

[Traveler]

Now here is something that the science buffs are no doubt going to explain away through the standard ridicule.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-9/60546.html

No doubt there will be the idea that the science back in the 1800's must have been floored.

People did not understand what they were looking at.

It was all a hoax

The creationists are fitting square pegs in round holes again

[evilwill]

I don't see how this could be some kind of Creationist conspiracy anyway. If this stuff is legit, it certainly blows a big hole through our understanding of human origin and the timeline of evolution, but it certainly doesn't support anything Creationist.

Don't the hardcore Christians claim Earth is roughly ten thousand years old and humans not far behind? If so, this article does nothing but support the idea that they are horribly wrong.

[Ningishiddza]

It was believed that the coelacanth had been extinct for millions of years, until someone caught one fishing. And then another was caught, and another and another.

It isn't impossible, it's more than likely that the entire trilobite population did not become extinct overnight as claimed. There's millions of scenarios in which small trilobite populations could have survived well beyond the alleged period of their demise.

If you want to see a trilobite, just look at the embryo of a horseshoe crab. Horseshoe crabs still exist, and since their embryos are trilobites, any number of possibilities exist to explain how a trilobite could exist in more recent times.

[Demonskates]

Damn. I thought this was a post about Shortround......................:dunno:

[TC]

Damn. I thought this was a post about Shortround......................:dunno:

Ya see! I told ya I was a survivor...... :cool03:

[Demonskates]

Ya see! I told ya I was a survivor...... :cool03:

HAHAH! Just Kidding Shorty.

[Traveler]

It's the booze I tell ya

He up and pickled himself Haha

[jeffweeder]

There's millions of scenarios in which small trilobite populations could have survived well beyond the alleged period of their demise.

The only problem is the alleged period. They were wrong....way offf...looking at it all wrong werent they.

[Traveler]

The interesting thing about the fossil record is that we seem to start off with a huge selection of life forms that then seem to dwindle as time goes on.

From the look of it the real evolutionary model is to see which species actually survive to wind up as the last species standing at the end of the game.

[Darwin]

I think this game has been going on for a while. Then it starts over again.

Try and explain this
http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/2007-1-14-prehist-06.jpg

[Cartesiantheater]

The only problem is the alleged period. They were wrong....way offf...looking at it all wrong werent they.

They assumed they were extinct because there were none there to see (of the other species Ning mentioned). What's your point? (I assume you are responding to Ning, right?)

Now, response to the original claim about the trilobite (not a response to any one poster: DO NOT TAKE PERSONAL OFFENSE).

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4008_issue_06_volume_2_number_4__3_4_2003.asp#Trip ping%20Over%20a%20Trilobite:%20A%20Study%20of%20th e%20Meister%20Tracks

An actual expert (Meister is not)


I unhesitatingly assert that this is not a footprint. I have observed and collected a number of types of footprints that meet all the critical requirements, and I have had no qualms about describing these in print even though some were totally new. The Meister specimen is the result of a natural break, which happens to resemble a footprint. This type of fracture is called spalling and the part which breaks out or is detached is called a spall.

The specimen was in no sense faked, and I am sure it was found exactly as reported. But I, along with my geologist friends, are equally sincere in my belief that it is an accidental natural product and not a footprint.

One might think a difference of opinion such as this could be solved by appeal to impartial judges or by a more thorough investigation of the field of evidence. But from the time of discovery, the specimen has taken on a religious significance that makes a friendly solution almost impossible.

Excerpt below from here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html).



The specimen does contain several real trilobites, but the "print" itself is questionable on several accounts. Upon closer inspection the overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor evidence that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation nor foot movement at its margin. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs across the entire slab, beyond the boundary of the supposed print. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986). [...]


In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself is dubious. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), most creationists quietly and wisely ceased promoting this specimen. However, a few individuals continue to advocate it as an out-of-order fossil.


In other words, the "evidence" is not exactly what your side claims it to be. Apparently, once again creationists are far too eager to get behind anything that seems to support their conclusion, rather than scrutinizing the piece of evidence to death first like actual scientists do.

Why is such shaky evidence jumped upon so quickly (and rashly, I might add)


The willingness of creationists to accept such shakey evidence in defense of their model has long historical roots. For example, in 1725 Dr. Johann Jacob Scheuchzer of Zurich seized upon some fossil bones of approximately human dimensions that were discovered at Oeningen and were sent to him for an opinion.

Scheuchzer was intensely interested in anything that would help prove his theory that fossils originated largely through the work of Noah's flood. These bones seemed to help, so he declared that they belonged to Homo Diluvii Testis (Man Who Witnessed the Flood). However, nearly a hundred years later, the bones were found to be those of a large salamander. It was Cuvier, the famous French paleontologist, who offered the conclusive proof. Two petrified vertebrae, which Scheuchzer had found near Altdorf, Franconia, Germany, and believed to be further remnants of this "flood man," turned out to belong to the marine reptile ichthyosaur.

It remains to be seen how long certain modern creationists will cling to their own updated versions of Homo Diluvii Testis.

Look, the bottom line is that these sorts of evidence do not stand up to the scrutiny of peer reviewed science. You act like scientists have no reason for believing the world is several billions of years old, and then assume in your ignorance that such weak evidence will overturn the countless amounts of previous evidence that led the the current understanding of the age of the Earth. There are MANY VERY GOOD reasons for believing the world is much older than 6 000 years. The ONLY reason ANY of you believe otherwise is because your Bible implies such. You don't even CONSIDER the possibility that you have been misled. How can you expect to compete with a institution that THRIVES upon changing the theory to match the evidence? (once again note that the "footprint" does NOT contain the same factors that the many other fossilized footprints do- there is NO reason to believe that it must be a footprint. None at all, other than ignorance)

Here is some advice that none of you will take: Either base your religion upon faith and faith alone (as I believe you are commanded by your Bible), or wait until your creationist "science" survives peer review and is published and not recanted in a peer reviewed journal. Every other scientific claim must do this, and none of these are considered legitimate until then. If there is no real grounds upon which to question the evidence, it WILL eventually make it through gauntlet of peer review. If it does NOT, it is because it is not strong enough evidence to warrant the conclusion made by the discoverer.


On more thing: science is based upon models that predict things about the physical world. These models are subject to change. However, they cannot be completely overturned unless, for the most part, all of science is as well (because of the interconnectedness of today's science and it's uncanny accuracy). Small changes are made, but by and large science does a very good job of matching up with our universe. Claiming the world is 6 000 years old wouldn't just overturn evolution or geology- chemistry and physics (especially radioactivity and studies of the nature of light) would be completely overthrown as well. In other words, you're going to have to face the OBSERVED PREDICTIONS of all of these disciplines and refute them all. That's what creationism in essence would do if it was right.
Do you not see how this is a pipe dream? Although not perfect, our models are very very good and it's really kind of pointless to challenge the whole shebang, because even though they are not perfectly right, you'd have to replace them with physical models that are even more accurate in their predictions than the ones we use to shoot rockets up into space, or to genetically engineer sheep, or to transplant hearts, etc. Contrary to what you guys might think, all of this science is connected in some very meaningful ways. Destroying one model will drastically affect the others. You can't have genetic biology without evolution. You certainly can't have rocket science without the physics of relativity (the precision required for a safe launch would require Einstein's model, I believe).


Either follow the scientific method (including peer review) or please stop annoying the scientific world with these small, irrelevant pieces of incredibly unwarranted assumption based upon such small evidence.

Some given references:

Booth, Ernest S. 1982 (Dec. 30). Personal correspondence to Glen Kuban.

Cook, Melvin A. 1970. "William J. Meister Discovery of Human Footprints with Trilobites in a Cambrian Formation of Western Utah." In Why Not Creation? ed. by Walter E. Lammerts. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. pp. 186-193.

Baker, Sylvia. 1976. Bone of Contention. Grand Rapids, MI: Evangelical Press. pp. 8-9.

Conrad, Ernest C. 1981. "Tripping Over a Trilobite," Creation/Evolution Issue VI, pp. 30-33.

Huse, Scott M. 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. p. 17.

Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves. 1975. The Creation Explanation. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers. p. 54.

Petersen, Dennis R. 1987. Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation El Cajon, Ca.: Master Books. p. 93.

Stokes, William Lee. 1986. "Alleged Human Footprint from the Middle Cambrian Strata, Millard County, Utah." Journal of Geologic Education Vol. 34, pp. 187-90.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. pp. 459-461.

Voss, Jr. Charles H. 1993. Did God Direct Evolution? Baton Rouge, LA: Radio Bible Course.

[Doomer]

Trying to reason with a Christian is like pissing in the wind. It makes you look stupid.