fossil question

[jfoldbar]

in my everlasting arguments with a creationist, i thought of something that i wonder and cant find anything using google, so want to ask here.

 

we all know about fossils of dinosaurs ect, but how about fossils of the animals we have now?

 

for example, have we found fossils of kangaroos, koalas, bears,possums,lion beaver elephant, exactly or almost the same as they are today?

 

if there are none, wouldnt that mean creationists have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to have a completely different set of animals now to millions of years ago?

 

if anyone knows either way, please provide link if possible.

[Strange]

in my everlasting arguments with a creationist, i thought of something that i wonder and cant find anything using google, so want to ask here.

 

we all know about fossils of dinosaurs ect, but how about fossils of the animals we have now?

 

for example, have we found fossils of kangaroos, koalas, bears,possums,lion beaver elephant, exactly or almost the same as they are today?

 

 

There are lots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil#Examples

 

 

 

if there are none, wouldnt that mean creationists have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to have a completely different set of animals now to millions of years ago?

 

I think that if there were none, it would be a bigger problem for evolution.

[swansont]

Bones of recently-deceased animals wouldn't generally be fossils, since that process takes time. I think there are a few examples of that happening relatively quickly (which are trotted out by creationists, as if they are representative of the process), but it's usually just bones. IOW, if you dig up something recent, it won't be a fossil.

 

for example, have we found fossils of kangaroos, koalas, bears,possums,lion beaver elephant, exactly or almost the same as they are today?

 

if there are none, wouldnt that mean creationists have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to have a completely different set of animals now to millions of years ago?

 

One of the multitude of problems with creationism is finding the many, many species that are no longer in existence.

[studiot]

I would say the biggest problem creationists have with fossils is that of the ancient atmosphere, which was totally unbreathable by modern life as it was pretty well devoid of oxygen.

 

The earliest forms of life 'created' the modern oxygen rich atmosphere by photosynthesis, and these lifeforms are still with us today.

 

Stromatolites.

 

://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=stromatolites

[Area54]

I would say the biggest problem creationists have with fossils is that of the ancient atmosphere, which was totally unbreathable by modern life as it was pretty well devoid of oxygen.

I hope your reference to modern life is to the life we are generally familiar with and not in the sense that conflates modern with current. Extremophiles in general, many of the archaea and quite a lot of the bacteria are not comfortable in the present atmosphere. I'm pretty certain my gut bacteria don't like it.

[studiot]

I hope your reference to modern life is to the life we are generally familiar with and not in the sense that conflates modern with current. Extremophiles in general, many of the archaea and quite a lot of the bacteria are not comfortable in the present atmosphere. I'm pretty certain my gut bacteria don't like it.

 

 

maybe I didn't put it very well, but you have entirely missed the point.

 

Creationists :- The Earth was created as being entirely suitable, yay perfect, for animals and Man.

 

The truth: For 4 billion years the Earth was uninhabitable, yay deadly, to animals and Man.

[Area54]

 

 

maybe I didn't put it very well, but you have entirely missed the point.

 

Creationists :- The Earth was created as being entirely suitable, yay perfect, for animals and Man.

 

The truth: For 4 billion years the Earth was uninhabitable, yay deadly, to animals and Man.

No, I entirely got your point, but I felt it was worthwhile clarifying the ambiguity it contained, even though that ambiguity was not central to the point. The same creationists whose views you are addressing are also adept at taking an exclusively anthropomorphic view. It is important to remind them and interested bystanders that life is much more varied than they tend to believe it to be.

[at0mic]

If I was god, I would have created a load of fossils and hid them in the earth for somebody to find. When I created the zircon rock and the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite 6,000 years ago, I would have made sure that the radiometric readings make it look like it was 4.543 billion years old. I would have set the galaxies on an outwards trajectory to make it look like a big-bang happened. I would have created a beautiful cmbr to add further evidence of a big-bang. Seriously, why not?

 

I'm a man of science but a creationist can always say that god created it that way. Even if we invented a time-machine, went back 13.772 billion years and filmed the big-bang using a GoPro, creationists can say that god created the past when he created everything else 6,000 years ago. There's never an argument, creationists will keep on believing regardless of scientific proof.

 

Before anybody comments, I know it's not possible to actually film the big-bang.

[StringJunky]

... There's never an argument, creationists will keep on believing regardless of scientific proof.

Belief means you've closed your eyes. That's why science now has 'theories' and not 'laws' because they know they are not absolute. The 'truth' is a moving target.

Edited July 19, 2017 by StringJunky

[Strange]

I'm a man of science but a creationist can always say that god created it that way.

 

 

And, when anyone says, "but why would he do that?" there is always the "mysterious ways" answer. (Or he/she just has a really wacky sense of humour.)

[jfoldbar]

sorry, but i dont get how finding fossils of animals that are not here now, and not being able to able to find fossils of animals that are here is a problem for creationism.

to me, if there is no fossils of todays animals, wouldnt we have to ask "where did todays animals come from if there are no fossils of them"?

please explain

Edited July 23, 2017 by jfoldbar

[Strange]

2 hours ago, jfoldbar said:

sorry, but i dont get how finding fossils of animals that are not here now, and not being able to able to find fossils of animals that are here is a problem for creationism.

Well, it is hard to answer this because, of course, creationists can just make up any answer to explain any observations. That is why it isn't science.

But, there should be fossils of some current organisms if they evolved long enough ago and the environment was stable. If there were none, then I suppose they would just have to say "we haven't found them yet" or "maybe god continued to make things after the 7 days" or ...

And as for fossils of things that no longer exist, well the bible doesn't say anything about that. And they can't all be attributed to a mythical flood.

 

Quote

to me, if there is no fossils of todays animals, wouldnt we have to ask "where did todays animals come from if there are no fossils of them"?

please explain

They came from ancestral organisms (which we do have fossils of in many cases).

[studiot]

Both living and fossil stomatolites are available today.

[at0mic]

On 7/19/2017 at 9:21 AM, jfoldbar said:

in my everlasting arguments with a creationist, i thought of something that i wonder and cant find anything using google, so want to ask here.

we all know about fossils of dinosaurs ect, but how about fossils of the animals we have now?

for example, have we found fossils of kangaroos, koalas, bears,possums,lion beaver elephant, exactly or almost the same as they are today?

if there are none, wouldnt that mean creationists have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to have a completely different set of animals now to millions of years ago?

if anyone knows either way, please provide link if possible.

It's pointless arguing with a creationist, the truth doesn't matter anyway. The only facts we know for sure are that countries focused on science work together. Countries focused on religion kill each other.

Surely god would want us to believe in the big bang, science and evolution if it brings peace? After all, peace is mentioned a lot throughout the bible.