Young Earth Flaw

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Young Earth Flaw

I was watching one of my science channels on youtube and a flash of intelligence came to me.

I just realized that of the fossils that we have found are of extinct animals, except for a few of them, such as some fish, reptiles and insects.

Fossils of early elephants are completely different than today's elephants. The same is for dogs, cats, birds and horses.

The logic is that if the Earth is 6,000 years old then the billions of creatures must have been killed off by mankind? or some other event? in a extremely short period of time.

So why do we not have fossils of modern dogs? cats? elephants? ect?

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13175
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I assume you're asking

I assume you're asking rhetorically, but it takes a bare minimum 10,000 years to fossilize.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I assume you're

Vastet wrote:
I assume you're asking rhetorically, but it takes a bare minimum 10,000 years to fossilize.

Yep. Just pointing out that the lack of fossils for animals which exist today.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I assume you're asking rhetorically, but it takes a bare minimum 10,000 years to fossilize.

Yep. Just pointing out that the lack of fossils for animals which exist today.

Unless the life is burned at an extemely high tempurature in a fire or purposely cremated it will get buried under the buildup of time. I don't understand this question. If something dies naturaly, or gets burried it has a greater potential to leave a imprint over long periods. Why would you assume that any life that dies today would not leave an imprint? 

This is nonsensical. We've even discoverd the burned and burried alive dead of the 79ace Mt Vesuvis erruption. They are fossiles too. 

Does every death of every form of life end up becoming a fossil? No. But enough life ends up getting imprinted in the build up of time that we have pleanty that does leave an imprint in the layers of buildup of the land over long periods. 

 

 No different than a fingerprint. Al Capone has been dead for a long time, but we can see his mugshots and have records of his fingerprints. No different than say when cops find tire prints at a murder scene and trace the tire type back to a specific brand. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I assume you're asking rhetorically, but it takes a bare minimum 10,000 years to fossilize.

Yep. Just pointing out that the lack of fossils for animals which exist today.

Unless the life is burned at an extemely high tempurature in a fire or purposely cremated it will get buried under the buildup of time. I don't understand this question. If something dies naturaly, or gets burried it has a greater potential to leave a imprint over long periods. Why would you assume that any life that dies today would not leave an imprint? 

This is nonsensical. We've even discoverd the burned and burried alive dead of the 79ace Mt Vesuvis erruption. They are fossiles too. 

Does every death of every form of life end up becoming a fossil? No. But enough life ends up getting imprinted in the build up of time that we have pleanty that does leave an imprint in the layers of buildup of the land over long periods. 

 

 No different than a fingerprint. Al Capone has been dead for a long time, but we can see his mugshots and have records of his fingerprints. No different than say when cops find tire prints at a murder scene and trace the tire type back to a specific brand. 

You are missing the point and definition. Fossils can be any living tissue which has left a relief/imprint in rock or has petrified in to rock.

While the living tissue found around Mt Vesuvis are preserved, I do not believe they aren't considered fossils in the same sense.

Some of them were incinerated instantly living imprints in the ash, lava and debris. Others left a shell of the body while the interior cooked to dust.

The imprints are pretty close to being fossils.

Did you know that the word fossil comes from the French word "to dig up" and was used to name a fish which the early discoveries of "fossils" thought the fish actually lived in the ground?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13175
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Unless the

Brian37 wrote:
Unless the life is burned at an extemely high tempurature in a fire or purposely cremated it will get buried under the buildup of time.

Oh great more ignorance from Brian. That is pure bs. Fatal temperatures have so little to do with the probability of a fossil forming that it should never even be mentioned. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of all the fossils everywhere that did not form had nothing to do with fire or heat.

Brian37 wrote:

I don't understand this question. If something dies naturaly, or gets burried it has a greater potential to leave a imprint over long periods.

No it doesn't. It takes very specific conditions for fossils to form. Semi-rare specific conditions. If there isn't abundant water or a tar pit, there probably won't be a fossil.

Brian37 wrote:
Why would you assume that any life that dies today would not leave an imprint?

Why would you assume otherwise? The vast vast vast majority of life forms to ever exist left no fossils whatsoever. It is far more likely that nothing alive today will turn into a fossil than that everything alive today will turn into a fossil.

Brian37 wrote:
This is nonsensical. We've even discoverd the burned and burried alive dead of the 79ace Mt Vesuvis erruption. They are fossiles too.

No they aren't retard. It takes at least 10,000 years for a fossil to form in nature.

Brian37 wrote:
Does every death of every form of life end up becoming a fossil? No. But enough life ends up getting imprinted in the build up of time that we have pleanty that does leave an imprint in the layers of buildup of the land over long periods.

No. Fossil history is an even larger black hole than written history. Less than 0.000000000000000000001% of species, individuals, or life in general has ever or will ever fossilise. What we see remaining is like a single picture of a 12 month party, where the majority of the guests haven't arrived or have already left and the picture was taken of 10 people at the punch bowl in a football field where 2 trillion people were in attendance.

Brian37 wrote:
No different than a fingerprint.

Bullshit. A fingerprint must be artificially preserved within weeks of being left even under ideal conditions or it will be lost forever. A fossil takes 10,000 years to form under ideal conditions. Everytime someone with fingerprints and a 'normal' physiology touches a surface with their fingertips a fingerprint is left behind. A fossil forms from a corpse in less than one per million deaths. A fossil is extremely different from a fingerprint. It's actually the opposite in pretty well every conceivable way.

It is clear to me now that religious idiots who attempt to argue on fossil history first read Brian37's completely flawed views on fossils before making their counter arguments. It explains so much.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Unless the life is burned at an extemely high tempurature in a fire or purposely cremated it will get buried under the buildup of time.
Oh great more ignorance from Brian. That is pure bs. Fatal temperatures have so little to do with the probability of a fossil forming that it should never even be mentioned. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of all the fossils everywhere that did not form had nothing to do with fire or heat.
Brian37 wrote:
I don't understand this question. If something dies naturaly, or gets burried it has a greater potential to leave a imprint over long periods.
No it doesn't. It takes very specific conditions for fossils to form. Semi-rare specific conditions. If there isn't abundant water or a tar pit, there probably won't be a fossil.
Brian37 wrote:
Why would you assume that any life that dies today would not leave an imprint?
Why would you assume otherwise? The vast vast vast majority of life forms to ever exist left no fossils whatsoever. It is far more likely that nothing alive today will turn into a fossil than that everything alive today will turn into a fossil.
Brian37 wrote:
This is nonsensical. We've even discoverd the burned and burried alive dead of the 79ace Mt Vesuvis erruption. They are fossiles too.
No they aren't retard. It takes at least 10,000 years for a fossil to form in nature.
Brian37 wrote:
Does every death of every form of life end up becoming a fossil? No. But enough life ends up getting imprinted in the build up of time that we have pleanty that does leave an imprint in the layers of buildup of the land over long periods.
No. Fossil history is an even larger black hole than written history. Less than 0.000000000000000000001% of species, individuals, or life in general has ever or will ever fossilise. What we see remaining is like a single picture of a 12 month party, where the majority of the guests haven't arrived or have already left and the picture was taken of 10 people at the punch bowl in a football field where 2 trillion people were in attendance.
Brian37 wrote:
No different than a fingerprint.
Bullshit. A fingerprint must be artificially preserved within weeks of being left even under ideal conditions or it will be lost forever. A fossil takes 10,000 years to form under ideal conditions. Everytime someone with fingerprints and a 'normal' physiology touches a surface with their fingertips a fingerprint is left behind. A fossil forms from a corpse in less than one per million deaths. A fossil is extremely different from a fingerprint. It's actually the opposite in pretty well every conceivable way. It is clear to me now that religious idiots who attempt to argue on fossil history first read Brian37's completely flawed views on fossils before making their counter arguments. It explains so much.

ditto from me. fossils are a specific result of a lot of time and the environment. there must be specific conditions presented in order to fossilize bone.

this why my original post is about there being no fossils of modern dogs, dodo birds or modern elephants.

So here is another point. The Dodo bird has a relative which died out 35,000,000 years ago. There are fossils of that ancestor. There are NO FOSSILS for the Dodo bird. Science classifies the remains of Dodo birds which are recent as "SUB-FOSSILS" meaning they have not fully fossilized the bones.

A subfossil (as opposed to a fossil) is a bone or other part of an organism that has not fully fossilized. This may be because not enough time has elapsed since the animal died, or because the conditions in which the remains were deposited were not optimal for fossilization.

For remains such as molluscan seashells, which frequently do not change their chemical composition over geological time, and may occasionally even retain such features as the original color markings for millions of years, the label "sub-fossil" is applied to shells that are understood to be thousands of years old, but are of Holocene age, and therefore are not old enough to be from the Pleistocene epoch.

Unfossilized or partially fossilized remains can include bones, exoskeletons, nests, skin imprints, or fecal deposits. Sub-fossils of vertebrates are often found in caves or other shelters, where the remains have been preserved for thousands of years. The main importance of these vertebrate sub-fossil (versus fully fossilized) remains is that they contain organic material, which can be used for radiocarbon dating or the extraction and sequencing of DNA, protein, or other bio-molecules.

Additionally, isotope ratios can provide information about the ecological conditions under which extinct animals lived. Sub-fossils are useful for studying the evolutionary history of an environment and can be important to studies in paleoclimatology. Sub-fossils are also often found in depositionary environments, such as lake sediments, oceanic sediments, and soils. Once deposited, physical and chemical weathering may alter the state of preservation, and small sub-fossils can also be ingested by living organisms. Sub-fossil remains that date from the Mesozoic are exceptionally rare, are usually in an advanced state of decay, and are consequently much disputed.

The vast bulk of sub-fossil material comes from Quaternary sediments, including many sub-fossilized chironomid head capsules, ostracod carapaces, diatoms, and foraminifera.

 

ALSO

In relation to LIVING FOSSILS, which is not a scientific term but a layman term used to describe species which had little change in their structure over vast spans of time, has for example the coelacanth which is a fish considered to be a living fossil.

This relates back to my original post that there are no fossils of animals living today including mollusks. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 What the fuck?I agree

 What the fuck?

I agree fossiles are imprints and time is the cause based on conditions.

 

"Conditions" is the key and not every individual life will become a fossil. But it is just like a fingerprint in any case. 

 

I think you are being pedantic with this thread. Of course something that dies today isn't going to be called a fossil. But it still has the potential if conditions are right to meet the time requirements and survives for that time as a fingerprint. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13175
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: What the

Brian37 wrote:

 What the fuck?

I agree fossiles are imprints and time is the cause based on conditions.

 

"Conditions" is the key and not every individual life will become a fossil. But it is just like a fingerprint in any case. 

 

I think you are being pedantic with this thread. Of course something that dies today isn't going to be called a fossil. But it still has the potential if conditions are right to meet the time requirements and survives for that time as a fingerprint. 

Brian the fucking scum shitbag pretends he knows what he's talking about despite the fact he literally just proved he doesn't know what he's talking about. And doubled down on the stupid by claiming again that a fingerprint is like a fossil when it is nothing whatsoever like a fossil. The penultimate retard right here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian if you are wrong, just

Brian if you are wrong, just say, "yep you are right, I was wrong".

You'll feel a lot better about yourself when you admit your mistakes