Yet another example of astonishing fossil preservation

[Kev]

Much of your post seems to rest on this. It's a "natural law" that is widely misinterpreted and misused, as it is here.

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

Well, for starters, your original claim stated that it is a universal law that order turns into disorder. If I were to show an example of order coming from disorder, that would hardly disprove your original claim, would it? In order to disprove your original claim I'd have to show a situation where order didn't turn into disorder. Agreed?

Well not really, evolution operates on the basis that order and increasing complexity results from disorder.

But I can't see you producing a satisfactory answer to either statement so feel free to offer up what you will.

[CGM]

Its a universal experience CGM. Please show me a single example from either your own experience or scientific testing where increasing order has resulted from disorder?

Well, for starters, your original claim stated that it is a universal law that order turns into disorder. If I were to show an example of order coming from disorder, that would hardly disprove your original claim, would it? In order to disprove your original claim I'd have to show a situation where order didn't turn into disorder. Agreed?

Well not really, evolution operates on the basis that order and increasing complexity results from disorder.

But I can't see you producing a satisfactory answer to either statement so feel free to offer up what you will.

What you said at first was that order turns into disorder, which is something quite different, and highly debateable I might add.

But anyways, I think I know what you meant. there's two ways of responding to your question, based on what what exactly you mean by this so called law.

I think what you are referring to is the law of statistical entropy, which is a statistical law, not an immutable one. What it says is that in a system where events are happening randomly, that system tends towards disorder. It does not say that it must result in a disordered state.

We can also talk about whether or not the theory of evolution requires that things must have started in a disordered state. I do know that proponents of intelligent design say that the theory of evolution requires it, so that they can turn around and use (misuse) the order disorder argument. But anyways, that ain't a critical argument.

As I see it, the essense of your argument is that an ordered state could not have happened accidently. And that is not an immutable law.

There's also the role played by Newton's 2nd law of thermodaynamics. And no I don't wish to get into a long drawn out discussion about that.

interested parties can start their own research at the following page of particular interest is the section on Entropy and Life.

Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways, I'm really not interested in spending a lot of time digging up examples and writing up explanations that you will not give due consideration anyway. I've been down that road before. Nor am I interested in making a case for evolution. I'm merely trying to show that some of your key arguments are fallacious. People can decide for themselves whether I've done that.

I'll take this opportunity to say again that you completely misinterpreted the report of the British Geological Survey on the case of the fossilized ink.

[Kev]

Well, for starters, your original claim stated that it is a universal law that order turns into disorder. If I were to show an example of order coming from disorder, that would hardly disprove your original claim, would it? In order to disprove your original claim I'd have to show a situation where order didn't turn into disorder. Agreed?

Well not really, evolution operates on the basis that order and increasing complexity results from disorder.

But I can't see you producing a satisfactory answer to either statement so feel free to offer up what you will.

What you said at first was that order turns into disorder, which is something quite different, and highly debateable I might add.

But anyways, I think I know what you meant. there's two ways of responding to your question, based on what what exactly you mean by this so called law.

I think what you are referring to is the law of statistical entropy, which is a statistical law, not an immutable one. What it says is that in a system where events are happening randomly, that system tends towards disorder. It does not say that it must result in a disordered state.

We can also talk about whether or not the theory of evolution requires that things must have started in a disordered state. I do know that proponents of intelligent design say that the theory of evolution requires it, so that they can turn around and use (misuse) the order disorder argument. But anyways, that ain't a critical argument.

As I see it, the essense of your argument is that an ordered state could not have happened accidently. And that is not an immutable law.

There's also the role played by Newton's 2nd law of thermodaynamics. And no I don't wish to get into a long drawn out discussion about that.

interested parties can start their own research at the following page of particular interest is the section on Entropy and Life.

Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyways, I'm really not interested in spending a lot of time digging up examples and writing up explanations that you will not give due consideration anyway. I've been down that road before. Nor am I interested in making a case for evolution. I'm merely trying to show that some of your key arguments are fallacious. People can decide for themselves whether I've done that.

I'll take this opportunity to say again that you completely misinterpreted the report of the British Geological Survey on the case of the fossilized ink.

So no examples then? Just like evolutionists cannot produce any missing link fossils or transitional forms, beyond a bird having some teeth.

So in effect what you are saying is that you know that evolution is true and that it doesn't need any examples because the truth is self evident.

It's an interesting use of logic and science I must say.

As for me misinterperating the Geological Survey regarding the fossilised ink, I think I am interperating it correctly.

You see they KNOW that the squid is 180,000,000 years old, they KNOW that because their evolutionary theories say it is so, based on the rock strata it is found in.

So faced with a preserved ink sac, which the discoverer himself admitted was a greater than 1 in a billion chance, instead of challening the age theory they instead invent a whole new process of fossilisation called the 'Medusa Effect' whereby this fossil must have turned to stone in just a couple of days!

So they now believe that fossils can turn to stone in just days, that's wonderful, but does this not mean that the rest of their uniform approach to geology is under threat? I mean if this can fossilise in just days thanks to a hitherto unknown fossilisation process could not some of the geologic structures that they believe took hundreds of millions of years to form similarly not have been created in a much quicker fashion, requiring just days or weeks rather than entire epochs?

The Grand Canyon for example? Is it really several hundred million years of slow and gradual erosion caused by the Colarado River, or could it have another cause, more catastrophic in nature?

I think for you this becomes just a matter of debate and you are not really thinking with your own mind.

It's a fascinating subject and you should test the evidence.

The whole theory of evolution totters on shaky foundations and a little digging of your own can topple the entire structure.

[Kev]

Actually Richard Dawkins is poised to release his latest book entitled' Why evolution is True' where he presumably will cram all of the biggest evidences to prove evolution beyond doubt.

I've preordered my copy, I love reading his stuff even though I disagree with all of it. His last book, The Dawkins Delusion was embarrasingly poor imo using the kind of tactics you'd expect from a snake oil salesman.

But as the most highly devoted atheist in the world, his books are surely the place to go to get the proof for evolution so I recommend everyone who is interested in buying his books, to see for yourself all this 'evidence' then go out and do some real learning and you'll see how quickly all of the evidence can be refuted and dismissed.

It's Dawkins books on evolution (and in times past Stephen Jay Goulds) that first convinced me of creationsim.

[Youngblood]

lol really Bilbo c'mon.

The whole is your arguements always boil down to the same theme. Interpretation. 2nd law of Thermodynamics. You interpret this way. The rest of the science world interprets it another. Understanding the fossil record. Same thing. And now Dawkins to?

It is one of the reasons I rarely ever jump into the debates here on the subject. There is simply no point.

I'd rather go debate with the neighbors kid who is 5 and get into a "I know you are but what am I" because atleast then we can go get ice cream later.

[Kev]

lol really Bilbo c'mon.

The whole is your arguements always boil down to the same theme. Interpretation. 2nd law of Thermodynamics. You interpret this way. The rest of the science world interprets it another. Understanding the fossil record. Same thing. And now Dawkins to?

It is one of the reasons I rarely ever jump into the debates here on the subject. There is simply no point.

I'd rather go debate with the neighbors kid who is 5 and get into a "I know you are but what am I" because atleast then we can go get ice cream later.

No problem Youngblood my man, when I was your age I laughed at those who challenged evolution too.

It was only in my late teens and early twenties when I actually wanted to study paleontology that I really started to study evolution and to my shock and dismay found out it was a complete bust.

Continue to scoff now but hopefully sometime in the future you will find the time and inclination to look into this fascinating subject more closely, you may be suprised at what you find.

[CGM]

...
So no examples then? Just like evolutionists cannot produce any missing link fossils or transitional forms, beyond a bird having some teeth.

So in effect what you are saying is that you know that evolution is true and that it doesn't need any examples because the truth is self evident.

It's an interesting use of logic and science I must say.

You completely misrepresented my post. Maybe you didn't read it. Surprise surprise. That's why debating with you is a waste of time. I said very clearly that I was not attempting to prove evolution, nor was I attempting to disprove intelligent design. I repeat, my only goal was to point the falseness of one of your arguments. I repeat, you misstated, misinterpreted, and misapplied the order/ disorder thing. Not that I expect you to acknowlege that.

As for me misinterperating the Geological Survey regarding the fossilised ink, I think I am interperating it correctly.

You see they KNOW that the squid is 180,000,000 years old, they KNOW that because their evolutionary theories say it is so, based on the rock strata it is found in.

So faced with a preserved ink sac, which the discoverer himself admitted was a greater than 1 in a billion chance, instead of challening the age theory they instead invent a whole new process of fossilisation called the 'Medusa Effect' whereby this fossil must have turned to stone in just a couple of days!

So they now believe that fossils can turn to stone in just days, that's wonderful, but does this not mean that the rest of their uniform approach to geology is under threat? I mean if this can fossilise in just days thanks to a hitherto unknown fossilisation process could not some of the geologic structures that they believe took hundreds of millions of years to form similarly not have been created in a much quicker fashion, requiring just days or weeks rather than entire epochs?

The Grand Canyon for example? Is it really several hundred million years of slow and gradual erosion caused by the Colarado River, or could it have another cause, more catastrophic in nature?

I think for you this becomes just a matter of debate and you are not really thinking with your own mind.

It's a fascinating subject and you should test the evidence.

The whole theory of evolution totters on shaky foundations and a little digging of your own can topple the entire structure.

You've changed your story a lot from the first two posts. Surprise surprise. I won't attempt to debate what you have said above. I'll just quote the first two posts, and bold the obvious misrepresentations...

Rather incredibly the BBC news website reports today how palaeontologists have actually drawn using ink from a 150 million year old squid.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Wiltshire | Ink found in Jurassic-era squid


So not only is this squid unevolved in over 150 million years of evolution it's ink sac full of ink has remained nice and wet for of all that time, no small achievement considering the nozzles on my last printer clogged and went dry after just a few months

Am I the only person here who is sceptical that ink can remain in a liquid form for over 150 million years? That's one hell of a fucking shelf life I'd like to see Epson manage that

Ha the Daily Mail version says 155 Million years!

Apparently the odds of finding something like an ink sac unfossilised according to the evolutionary scientists is a billion to one, a nice find then.

Best of all it includes a photo of the drawing of the squid made using the actual ink from the sac.

If anyone thinks that ink is 155 million years old........seriously.........

The 150million-year-old squid fossil so perfectly preserved that scientists can make ink from its ink sac | Mail Online

I'll repeat the the article clearly stated that the ink was fossilized and had to be ground up and mixed with ammonia before they could draw with it.