Honestly, I respect Creationism in some ways. Christianity/Judaism/Islam all claim that we are basically the most important thing in the universe, since God made us and watches over us, etc etc. When you take into account the sheer size and age of the universe, it makes a lot less sense to claim that we're really all that important, and not just evolved primates on a huge rock orbiting around a star. At least with the argument that everything started at the same time as us, the claim that the world was created for us certainly holds more water. I mean, there are trees older than Creationists say the Earth is, but... at least that one part is logical.

(June 26, 2018 at 12:53 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 12:16 pm)Jehanne Wrote: That's a "Yes," then?

It's neither. It's acknowledgement that such a theory exists, but I do call into question the accelerated evolutionary timeline needed for the next period to be on time. Meaning more animals survived the Kt event that what was estimated. which means animals thought lost at a moment in time may have carried on 100's of thousands of years longer than predicted.

I am also saying that there are other theories scientific in nature that do a lot better job explaining the fossil record than darwinism.

Can you point to any scientific papers and/or textbooks that support your POV?

Quote:I am also saying that there are other theories scientific in nature that do a lot better job explaining the fossil record than darwinism

No there are not their are religiously motivated loon who try and force the record to fit their agenda .

---

(June 26, 2018 at 1:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 12:53 pm)Drich Wrote: It's neither. It's acknowledgement that such a theory exists, but I do call into question the accelerated evolutionary timeline needed for the next period to be on time. Meaning more animals survived the Kt event that what was estimated. which means animals thought lost at a moment in time may have carried on 100's of thousands of years longer than predicted.

I am also saying that there are other theories scientific in nature that do a lot better job explaining the fossil record than darwinism.

Can you point to any scientific papers and/or textbooks that support your POV?

Oh there is whole litany of creationist and cryptozoologist stuff trying to force the fossil record to fit their views .

(June 26, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 8:40 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Do you accept the K-T event from 65M BCE:

Wikipedia -- Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event

K–T extinction, abbreviation of Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction, also called K–Pg extinction or Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction, a global extinction event responsible for eliminating approximately 80 percent of all species of animals at or very close to the boundary between the Cretaceous and , about 66 million years ago.

Why not 79% or 75% or even 50%? and who says they had to all go in an instant? Rather why not have the K-T be it's own era? a 100,000,000 year event that see the end of paleogene periods and the introduction of a few others..

Because if the period ends with a meteor or some quick flash done event, and everythng but a small few survive, that would mean evolution had to work overtime to introduce the next era. OR let say the dominant creatures who were kings after the k-t extinction actually existed durning the paleogene periods?

Again we have example who lived through those periods and are alive now!

The iridium layer marks the boundary. No "dino" fossils above it. Very clear demarcation.

(June 26, 2018 at 1:51 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: K–T extinction, abbreviation of Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction, also called K–Pg extinction or Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction, a global extinction event responsible for eliminating approximately 80 percent of all species of animals at or very close to the boundary between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods, about 66 million years ago.

Why not 79% or 75% or even 50%? and who says they had to all go in an instant? Rather why not have the K-T be it's own era? a 100,000,000 year event that see the end of paleogene periods and the introduction of a few others..

Because if the period ends with a meteor or some quick flash done event, and everythng but a small few survive, that would mean evolution had to work overtime to introduce the next era. OR let say the dominant creatures who were kings after the k-t extinction actually existed durning the paleogene periods?

Again we have example who lived through those periods and are alive now!

The iridium layer marks the boundary. No "dino" fossils above it. Very clear demarcation.

Not really. drich knows what he is talking about because he is the lingering survivor of the Mesozoic with walnut sized nerve tumor located in his ass that he calls his brain.

"Get thee to a pre-Cambrian!"

(June 26, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: K–T extinction, abbreviation of Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction, also called K–Pg extinction or Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction, a global extinction event responsible for eliminating approximately 80 percent of all species of animals at or very close to the boundary between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods, about 66 million years ago.

Why not 79% or 75% or even 50%? and who says they had to all go in an instant? Rather why not have the K-T be it's own era? a 100,000,000 year event that see the end of paleogene periods and the introduction of a few others..

Because if the period ends with a meteor or some quick flash done event, and everythng but a small few survive, that would mean evolution had to work overtime to introduce the next era. OR let say the dominant creatures who were kings after the k-t extinction actually existed durning the paleogene periods?

Again we have example who lived through those periods and are alive now!

Huge randomly bolded, randomly coloured font plus irrelevant links.
Yet another mind in terminal decline courtesy of the mind virus, religion.

Quote:Because if the period ends with a meteor or some quick flash done event, and everythng but a small few survive, that would mean evolution had to work overtime to introduce the next era.

Overtime? No, just over time. 65 million years of it.

(June 26, 2018 at 1:38 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:I am also saying that there are other theories scientific in nature that do a lot better job explaining the fossil record than darwinism

No there are not their are religiously motivated loon who try and force the record to fit their agenda .

---

(June 26, 2018 at 1:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Can you point to any scientific papers and/or textbooks that support your POV?

Oh there is whole litany of creationist and cryptozoologist stuff trying to force the fossil record to fit their views .

I am looking for citations, say, any undergraduate or graduate level textbook.  Of course, there are plenty to choose from!

(June 26, 2018 at 5:28 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 1:38 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: No there are not their are religiously motivated loon who try and force the record to fit their agenda .

---

Oh there is whole litany of creationist and cryptozoologist stuff trying to force the fossil record to fit their views .

I am looking for citations, say, any undergraduate or graduate level textbook.  Of course, there are plenty to choose from!

Now those your unlikely to find .Accept maybe at a fundie college

(June 26, 2018 at 5:31 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 5:28 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I am looking for citations, say, any undergraduate or graduate level textbook.  Of course, there are plenty to choose from!

Now those your unlikely to find .Accept maybe at a fundie college

You can get used copies of those, but they're most likely already colored in.