?
Evolutionists believe in uniformitarianism, even though proven incorrect, and so believe the fossilization process takes at least ten thousand years, and is not particularly easy to study.
If you would join us in reality for a moment and get up to speed with a fact, scientists can make a fossil in just "days", not "ten thousand years". I think the Smithsonian made one in 24 hrs.
As we are all now taught by the atheist/humanist school curriculum, everyone knows that the fossils we find all over the world took millions of years to form—scientists proved that years ago, right? At least, that's what is taught in school, merely speaking from experience. Simple common sense tells us this is wrong. When something dies, scavengers, fungi (like mushrooms), and/or bacteria normally consume it. This process of decomposition leaves nothing behind to fossilize.
In actuality, even secular geologists recognize that fossils form rapidly. If they didn’t, the organism would decay so quickly there would be almost nothing left to fossilize! The key is the right chemical conditions, not time. The millions/billions of years idea is an evolutionary/uniformitarian concept of unfounded opinion.
The fossil record does not show the continuous development of one kind of creature into another, but it shows different kinds of creatures that are fully functional with no ancestors or descendants which are different kinds of creatures.
There are many places in the fossil record where it is expected that plenty of intermediate forms should be found—yet they are not there. All the evolutionists ever point to is a handful of highly debatable transitional forms (e.g., horses), whereas they should be able to show us thousands if not billions of incontestable examples. This is very noticeable when looking at the fossil record of some of the more peculiar kinds of animals such as the cetacean (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), the sirenia (manatees, dugongs, and sea cows), the pinnipedia (sea lions, seals, and walruses), kangaroos, bats, dragonflies, and spiders. Their supposed evolutionary origins and descent are represented by missing links and speculations rather than factual evidence.
Even alleged transitional forms in supposed human evolution fall short. In fact, most so-called missing links fall into three categories: extinct ape, living ape, or human.
It is obvious that the evolutionists have “faith” in the original existence of the missing transitional forms. Generally the claim of a transitional fossil is predicated on the assumption of common descent is not something that has been validated as being transitional by any objective means or secondary lines of evidence.
Given the very small number of registered species found in the fossil record (about 250,000 total) and the tremendous amount of diversity that can result from artificial selection (200 + breeds of dogs from a single wolf population) there is a valid argument that these are just variations of the same species, or species that just went extinct. The wide variation seen in domesticated animals subject to selective breeding as a secondary line of evidence supporting that claim.
Another line of evidence challenging the Common Descent interpretation is about 4000 'living fossils' which are species that appear in the fossil record, are assumed extinct because they disappear from fossil record yet are found to be living today..
Another line of evidence challenging common descent is permanence of kind found in species living today that did not disappear from the fossil record yet are identical morphological to versions living today.
Another line of evidence challenging common Descent is the Cambrian explosion whereby 50 distinct body plans (as opposed to only about 38 still existing today) appear suddenly in the fossil record in no evidence whatsoever of any predecessors.
Add all this with the number of known frauds, clear errors related to the fossil record and the of the last places any intelligent person would point to for evidence of common descent is the fossil record.
Atheists tell us that evolution still goes on today, and we can observe it by looking at older species and comparing them to modern species.
Really, how do you objectively validate those "older species" are not just extinct and have no relationship whatsoever with "modern species"?
Without a secondary line of evidence that is testable the assertion of 'older species' being related to 'modern species' is nothing more than an assumption based on the presupposition of Darwinian evolution.. Circular Reasoning.
Do you have DNA Comparisons? - Generally no because the process of fossilization destroys DNA.
Do you have a clear lines of succession in the fossil record? - No, the fossil record only represents 250,000 species all of them appearing fully formed with no identifiable intermediaries and a continually growing list of creatures that are morphological indistinguishable from living counterparts today.
Seems to me Darwinian Evolution suffers from the same problem as Creation - It has never been observed.
The only difference is, We have seen creation of non-organic systems and we can test the mechanisms of creation experimentally on non-organic systems. Experiments have been conducted to do so for Darwinian Evolution and so far - failed.
Both SJ Gould and Dick Dawkins outlined what type of observation in the fossil record would disprove evolution - Fauna from a later geological period appearing in fossil containing strata from an earlier geological period. This however has been observed several times and they back-peddled that this would not disprove evolution but discredit the fossil record as evidence for evolution, then they switched views again and argued - based on no actual evidence - the layer containing the errant fossils was contaminated. End of the day, no intelligent evolutionist points to the fossil record as evidence for evolution, too many issues have been found.
Because none of the issues involved in the fossil record creates no problem for the creation model, the fossil record is more supportive of creation than evolution other than the question of age.
Rather than requiring long ages, the order of fossils in the rock record can be accounted for by the year-long Flood, as a result of the pre-Flood biogeography and ecological zonation, the early burial of marine creatures, the hydrodynamic selectivity of moving water, and the behavior and higher mobility of the vertebrates. Thus, the order of the fossils in the rock record doesn’t favor long ages, but is consistent with the global, catastrophic, year-long Genesis flood cataclysm, followed by localized residual catastrophism.
While there are underlying thick strata sequences which are devoid of fossils and were therefore formed during creation week and the pre-Flood era, most of the fossil record is a record of death and burial of animals and plants during the Flood, as described in the biblical account, rather than being the order of a living succession that suffered the occasional mass extinction.
There are thousands of examples where a species is found in the fossil record in an early strata, is completely absent in all subsequent strata, yet is still very much alive today. That means, just because a creature is not found in a particular strata does not mean that creature does not exist in the biosphere at the time that strata was formed.
There are thousands of instances of strata appearing in the wrong order, fossil found in the wrong strata, and other inconsistencies. Couple that with the general absence of more than two or three strata at any given point, the fossil record cannot be said to be consistent or strongly probative of anything.
If you are interested in fossils, check out the polystrate fossils. Polystrate means “many layers,” and refers to fossils that cut through at least two sedimentary-rock layers. Probably the most widely recognized of the polystrate fossils are tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, or more sections of rock that supposedly were laid down in epochs covering millions of years. However, organic material (such as wood) that is exposed to the elements will rot, not fossilize.
N.A. Rupke was the scientist who first coined the term “polystrate fossils.” After citing numerous examples of such fossils, he wrote: “Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts”.
Contradicted by plain facts indeed! Truth be told, polystrate fossils testify loudly to a young Earth whose layers formed rapidly—and not very long ago! Trees, reeds, catfish, whales, and the many other organisms with which the fossil record abounds did not die and lie around for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years while slowly being turned into polystrate fossils. Such fossils provide clear and compelling evidence that the Earth is quite young, not ancient as evolutionists insist.
"How do you explain a century and a half of fossil evidence?" Reality in facts of evidence of the fossils scream Young Earth, as depicted in Genesis by Creation and Noah's Flood in technicolor, exactly the same timeline of humans, an explosion of fossils in the Cretaceous Period (Noah's Flood) about 6000 years of accumulating living creatures. Over 500 independent civilizations on every continent records a Great Flood as part of their history. What part of truth can you not hear?
Eight Evidences for a Young Earth (outside the Bible )
/question/index?qid=20160509181037AAyjILD&page=2
Five Evidences of Noah’s Flood
/question/index?qid=20160814075627AAsoUM9&page=2
?
They probably will tell you that they also are gods creations!.. lol .. Unless they deny they exist..
?
Casualties of the flood. The flood is the only logical mechanism to rapidly bury animals throughout the world, preserving them as fossils. Otherwise, dead animals would simply disappear, both flesh and bone.
Space Wasp
You mean "the fossil evidence covering millions of years that has been mostly been discovery in the last century and a half".
Creationists don't explain anything, then simply make stories up and ignore reality.
Edit:
'OceanOfLove' is a perfect example of what I said. I posted a comment pointing out that they don't think 'evidence' means what Corvus thinks it means because THEY don't understand what evidence means.
Result? They've blocked me because they don't want their belief challenged, even when they are false.
John
God put the fossils in the ground to test our faith, of course.