• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

49 million-year-old beetle looks like it was squashed yesterday

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What's needed for fossilization?
Three physical items: Sediment, cement, water.
Three processes: Deposition, drainage, drying.

Notice "time" is not a relevant consideration, as there can be billions of years, but one of those six missing and nothing would be fossilized, or you can achieve fossilization in a few minutes with all six.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
It would not look like that if it was squashed "yesterday" you'd still have the exoskeleton intact (and fully colored) rather than fused into the rock. Stuff I find in my pool trap does not look like that fossil. Perhaps you all were confused by the digital reconstruction?

Also, in the grand scheme of things 49 million years is not that long ago. And if it happened yesterday, why aren't there *identical* beetles alive today?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
  • There is no such thing as "49 million years ago".
  • Yes, there are the identical beetles after all of that supposedly long time.
Show me the identical beetles when this one was given its own name.

Stating "there's no such thing as" doesn't make it true.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
By identical, I really meant close enough. It's funny when evolutionists are so surprised when some creatures remain the same for "100's of millions of years".

Saying that there is doesn't make it true.
"Close enough", what according to you? What's funny is that creationists seem to think that a couple exceptionally preserved fossils = evolution is wrong. 😆 Some organisms visually change more than others. 100s of millions of years "the same" isn't really the same in the sense that a species remains the same. But there are plenty of genera that have stayed the same for a few dozen million years.
 

Right Divider

Body part
"Close enough", what according to you? What's funny is that creationists seem to think that a couple exceptionally preserved fossils = evolution is wrong. 😆 Some organisms visually change more than others. 100s of millions of years "the same" isn't really the same in the sense that a species remains the same. But there are plenty of genera that have stayed the same for a few dozen million years.
Millions of years is a fantasy that helps you support your false evolutionary paradigm.
Fossils are not a picture of "millions of years of evolution", they are picture of a massively catastrophic event that buried massive amounts of plant and animal life. That is how fossils form. They do not form by any slow, long, gradual process.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Millions of years is a fantasy that helps you support your false evolutionary paradigm.
Fossils are not a picture of "millions of years of evolution", they are picture of a massively catastrophic event that buried massive amounts of plant and animal life. That is how fossils form. They do not form by any slow, long, gradual process.
It's reality, sorry you don't like it. Some fossils do form catastrophically but we're looking at many separate catastrophes over a long period of time, not one single one. Fossils show patterns of older ones looking less like organisms alive today while younger ones look more like organisms alive today. Some fossils show evidence of decay and scattering. Relatively few are so beautifully preserved as the beetle in the OP. Some appear to have been deposited in oceans, others by volcanic ash, still others in river systems or deserts. There's no one catastrophe that explains them all. Early geologists figured this out over a century ago. They gave up on the idea of a global flood forming all of the geology on earth because it simply doesn't work as an explanation.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
Depends, some organisms have long generation times or slow mutation rates.
That's backwards thinking - you're assuming it from the data you think you're reading. On a molecular level, why would generation times or mutation rates be independent of environmental stressors?
And how likely is it that you would have a uniform environment for a few dozen million years?

Darwin's finches differentiated in a matter of several generations, yes?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
That's backwards thinking - you're assuming it from the data you think you're reading. On a molecular level, why would generation times or mutation rates be independent of environmental stressors?
And how likely is it that you would have a uniform environment for a few dozen million years?

Darwin's finches differentiated in a matter of several generations,
Not backwards thinking. You're speaking from ignorance. For example: Ginkgoes seem to have changed very little, but they can have generation times on the order of hundreds to thousands of years. That's quite a different situation vs finches that might have at least 1 maybe two generations per year. It's also well known that some organisms have better DNA repair mechanisms than others.
 

Right Divider

Body part
It's reality, sorry you don't like it.
Nope
Some fossils do form catastrophically but we're looking at many separate catastrophes over a long period of time, not one single one.
Your false paradigm does not allow you to come to a more reasonable solution.
Fossils show patterns of older ones looking less like organisms alive today while younger ones look more like organisms alive today.
This is called confirmation bias.
Some fossils show evidence of decay and scattering. Relatively few are so beautifully preserved as the beetle in the OP. Some appear to have been deposited in oceans, others by volcanic ash, still others in river systems or deserts. There's no one catastrophe that explains them all.
Of course there is. You just prefer your false paradigm.
Early geologists figured this out over a century ago. They gave up on the idea of a global flood forming all of the geology on earth because it simply doesn't work as an explanation.
You are a true believer.
The hydroplate theory is real science.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
This is called confirmation bias.
Hmm no. You can line up the fossils based on age/depth of burial and different organisms appear and disappear in a particular pattern.
See Dickinsonia below.
447BFDD700000578-4900142-image-a-16_1505842581370.jpg
The ediacaran fauna (Pre 500 MYA) are creatures that look like nothing alive today. Science doesn't even know what they're related to. Though they did finally show that they are animals, based on chemistry!

Then you look at more recent fossils, and subfossils and you find things that ... look like stuff still walking around.


Gee I wonder why we never find mummified dinosaurs like those lion cubs or mammoths etc. Those organisms can contain actual preserved soft tissue because they simply aren't that old. You can get rare preservation of dinosaur soft tissue - via mineral replacement, but those aren't true mummies.

And strangely you don't find Fish fossilized alongside Dickinsonia above.

You are a true believer.
The hydroplate theory is real science.
Hydroplate "theory" is almost as ridiculous as flat earth-ism.
 
Top