Happy National Fossil Day!

Posted 13 October 2010 by Dave Thomas

Today, October 13th, is the very first National Fossil Day!

The National Park Service and the American Geological Institute are partnering to host the first National Fossil Day on October 13, 2010 during Earth Science Week. National Fossil Day is a celebration organized to promote public awareness and stewardship of fossils, as well as to foster a greater appreciation of their scientific and educational value. This year's Earth Science Week toolkit includes a "Fossils of the National Parks" poster, featuring a map showing more than 230 parks managed by the National Park Service that contain fossils. The poster also includes a "How to be a Paleontologist" classroom activity. Fossils discovered on the nation's public lands preserve ancient life from all major eras of Earth's history, and from every major group of animal or plant. In the national parks, for example, fossils range from primitive algae found high in the mountains of Glacier National Park, Montana, to the remains of ice-age animals found in caves at Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Public lands provide visitors with opportunities to interpret a fossil's ecological context by observing fossils in the same place those animals and plants lived millions of years ago. National Fossil Day activities will also highlight fossil fuels to correlate with this year's Earth Science Week theme, "Exploring Energy" (http://www.earthsciweek.org/). National Fossil Day is being promoted through partnerships with professional organizations, government agencies, and other groups. Representatives from National Earth Science Teachers Association and Paleontological Research Institution are assisting with planning for National Fossil Day. On October 13, paleontologists and park rangers will share fossil discoveries at special events nationwide and explain the importance of preserving fossils where they are found, so that everyone can share a sense of discovery! Join in the celebration of National Fossil Day today!

83 Comments

Paul Burnett · 13 October 2010

Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?

Frank J · 13 October 2010

Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?

If/when they do, everyone feel free to cut and paste my reply: "That's nice, now go convince that evolution-denier Steve P. of your conclusions, or stop pretending that your objection is over the science." If Steve P. shows up first, just change the name to FL and Byers.

Mike Elzinga · 13 October 2010

We old fossils enjoy being celebrated now and then. :-)

Wheels · 13 October 2010

SPEAKING OF FOSSILS how about retiring that old fossil, Darwinism? After all, it is a 19th century idea! Obviously a product of its time and also the father of racism!
Also, I heard that fossils are the preserved, mineralized remains bones. Hmmm, what sort of Satanic celebration takes place in October and involves skeletons...? I smell an pagan atheist plot to indoctrinate our children into Baal worship and human sacrifice! Just more proof that our Christian government has been hijacked by infidels!

Also send me money plz.

Sharon Hill · 13 October 2010

More on the interesting story of fossils and changing worldviews in honor of National Fossil Day...
http://shethought.com/2010/10/13/traces-of-former-life/

Henry J · 13 October 2010

Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?

Yeah, they'll probably have a bone to pick.

DS · 13 October 2010

Wheels said: SPEAKING OF FOSSILS how about retiring that old fossil, Darwinism? After all, it is a 19th century idea! Obviously a product of its time and also the father of racism! Also, I heard that fossils are the preserved, mineralized remains bones. Hmmm, what sort of Satanic celebration takes place in October and involves skeletons...? I smell an pagan atheist plot to indoctrinate our children into Baal worship and human sacrifice! Just more proof that our Christian government has been hijacked by infidels! Also send me money plz.

I could not agree more. It's been over one hundred and fifty years. Why refer to it as Darwinism. We have come so much farther that Darwin could have ever dreamed. The theory still rests on his shoulders, but it has grown to be so much more that he could have ever imagined. And besides, it's not a belief system, it is a body of evidence, it is a time tested theory, it is real science, not just someone's opinion.

robert van bakel · 13 October 2010

I believe the ever youthful, and lovely Ann Coulter coined the term 'darwiniacs'. I don't want to be churlish but the terms 'chritianism', and 'christiniacs', could cause the thin skins of these religionist persons to be knicked. Childish I know, but then dealing with persons whom deny their senses one should speak as if to a child; no?

Rolf Aalberg · 14 October 2010

The use of "Darwinism" reveals the user as both ignorant and at a loss of arguments. Even if "ID creationism" might be the proper reference, I use just ID. Most people know that ID is some kind of creationism anyway. Whereas Big Tent Creationists to a large extent doesn't know better than to use "Darwinism."

Leszek · 14 October 2010

Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?

The best one I ever heard was on FSTDT.com several months back. Someone was revealing their suspicions that Darwinists aren't finding fossils but carving them out of the stone! When I was in cubscouts, we camped at an area near lake Huron. I must have found hundreds of fossils on that beach. I still got a bunch of them. They are just clams of somesort. But its very obvious to anyone who has at least that much experience how claims of Satan, or carving or whatever just aren't that convincing. Having a chance to show more people fossils sounds like a good idea to me. Besides making creationists harder to believe....it was very interesting.

Amadan · 14 October 2010

If dinosaurs are extinct, why are fossils still alive?

Dumb evilooshunists...

Henry J · 14 October 2010

Amadan said: If dinosaurs are extinct, why are fossils still alive? Dumb evilooshunists...

Yeah, they must have rocks in their heads... (The fossils' heads, that is.)

MememicBottleneck · 14 October 2010

Leszek said:
Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?
The best one I ever heard was on FSTDT.com several months back. Someone was revealing their suspicions that Darwinists aren't finding fossils but carving them out of the stone! When I was in cubscouts, we camped at an area near lake Huron. I must have found hundreds of fossils on that beach. I still got a bunch of them. They are just clams of somesort. But its very obvious to anyone who has at least that much experience how claims of Satan, or carving or whatever just aren't that convincing. Having a chance to show more people fossils sounds like a good idea to me. Besides making creationists harder to believe....it was very interesting.

Where on Lake Huron?, if I may ask. I grew up two miles from the lake near Port Austin MI. There used to be a railroad that went into town. The tie bed was gravel from some local quarry. I could find a fossil on it every few feet. Only bothered with the ones that were fist sized or larger. The ones I found on the tracks were mostly resembled giant snails with the standard spiral shell, or the twisted conical shell. Gave my collection to my high school biology teacher. As an adult I went back and wanted to collect more and study them, but the railroad had long since been torn up and the bed overgrown.

Leszek · 14 October 2010

MememicBottleneck said:
Leszek said:
Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?
The best one I ever heard was on FSTDT.com several months back. Someone was revealing their suspicions that Darwinists aren't finding fossils but carving them out of the stone! When I was in cubscouts, we camped at an area near lake Huron. I must have found hundreds of fossils on that beach. I still got a bunch of them. They are just clams of somesort. But its very obvious to anyone who has at least that much experience how claims of Satan, or carving or whatever just aren't that convincing. Having a chance to show more people fossils sounds like a good idea to me. Besides making creationists harder to believe....it was very interesting.
Where on Lake Huron?, if I may ask. I grew up two miles from the lake near Port Austin MI. There used to be a railroad that went into town. The tie bed was gravel from some local quarry. I could find a fossil on it every few feet. Only bothered with the ones that were fist sized or larger. The ones I found on the tracks were mostly resembled giant snails with the standard spiral shell, or the twisted conical shell. Gave my collection to my high school biology teacher. As an adult I went back and wanted to collect more and study them, but the railroad had long since been torn up and the bed overgrown.

It was the Pinary. Its on the Canadian side. The fossils I got are all smaller. On the order of an inch or so. They look like clams that more or less are shaped like Napolians hat. They are very common, at least in the area.

Leszek · 14 October 2010

Leszek said:
MememicBottleneck said:
Leszek said:
Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?
The best one I ever heard was on FSTDT.com several months back. Someone was revealing their suspicions that Darwinists aren't finding fossils but carving them out of the stone! When I was in cubscouts, we camped at an area near lake Huron. I must have found hundreds of fossils on that beach. I still got a bunch of them. They are just clams of somesort. But its very obvious to anyone who has at least that much experience how claims of Satan, or carving or whatever just aren't that convincing. Having a chance to show more people fossils sounds like a good idea to me. Besides making creationists harder to believe....it was very interesting.
Where on Lake Huron?, if I may ask. I grew up two miles from the lake near Port Austin MI. There used to be a railroad that went into town. The tie bed was gravel from some local quarry. I could find a fossil on it every few feet. Only bothered with the ones that were fist sized or larger. The ones I found on the tracks were mostly resembled giant snails with the standard spiral shell, or the twisted conical shell. Gave my collection to my high school biology teacher. As an adult I went back and wanted to collect more and study them, but the railroad had long since been torn up and the bed overgrown.
It was the Pinary. Its on the Canadian side. The fossils I got are all smaller. On the order of an inch or so. They look like clams that more or less are shaped like Napolians hat. They are very common, at least in the area.

Too bad you can't edit a post. I got curious. Turns out they are :mucrospirifer mucronatus and they are from the devonian. http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=mucrospirifer+mucronatus&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= (google images)

GvlGeologist, FCD · 14 October 2010

My MS and PhD research primarily used Foraminifera, single celled planktonic and benthic critters that make shells of calcite (CaCO₃). Most of them are well under 1 mm in size. Amazingly complex and often beautiful, and present by the billions in sediments from the ocean floor. Coccolithophorids, Radiolaria, and Diatoms are similarly sized and equally abundant (although the diatom and radiolaria shells are opal rather than calcite). Can't remember how far back they go, but it's at least 100 million years. I'd love to ask that jackass who said that they were carved, "who did it, when, and how?"

Leszek said:
Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?
The best one I ever heard was on FSTDT.com several months back. Someone was revealing their suspicions that Darwinists aren't finding fossils but carving them out of the stone! When I was in cubscouts, we camped at an area near lake Huron. I must have found hundreds of fossils on that beach. I still got a bunch of them. They are just clams of somesort. But its very obvious to anyone who has at least that much experience how claims of Satan, or carving or whatever just aren't that convincing. Having a chance to show more people fossils sounds like a good idea to me. Besides making creationists harder to believe....it was very interesting.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 14 October 2010

Also, for many of the calcite fossils, not only from microfossils but from molluscs and other critters such as your brachiopods (mucrospirifer), the fine crystalline structure of the shells are often preserved. LOVE to ask the jackass how that was carved.

Mike Elzinga · 14 October 2010

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Also, for many of the calcite fossils, not only from microfossils but from molluscs and other critters such as your brachiopods (mucrospirifer), the fine crystalline structure of the shells are often preserved. LOVE to ask the jackass how that was carved.

The “science” of making the carving tools falls into the category of Honey, I shrunk the kids.

Leszek · 14 October 2010

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Also, for many of the calcite fossils, not only from microfossils but from molluscs and other critters such as your brachiopods (mucrospirifer), the fine crystalline structure of the shells are often preserved. LOVE to ask the jackass how that was carved.

I went and found the quote. Interesting enough I didn't find it on FSTDT but I managed to find it here http://www.christianforums.com/t7287190/ (Christian Forums)

Fossils are fake Did anyone ever think of this? Why do you think it takes so long to dig up fossils? They seriously spend years chipping away rock to get one piece of bone. Maybe it's because they're ACTUALLY CARVING THE FOSSILS OUT OF STONE. Fossils are just carved stone. They were not already there. The scientists created them out of nothing. If you just leave bones lying on the ground, which is how they are left when something dies, they do not fossilize. After years they get broken and smashed, water washes away all the calcium, and nothing is left. Fossils are just another myth to promote evolution and deny the reality of God's work.

The tag shows this creationist specimen is an 18 year old female. Its obvious she just has no idea. Like I said if she had found them on the beach or been exposed to them via fossil day activities, she would realize just how hopeless this idea actually is.

Mike in Ontario, NY · 15 October 2010

The hilarious part of the "fossils are carved" argument is that there ARE a few fake fossils out there. Created, of course, by lying creationists.

Roger · 15 October 2010

Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?

When they use Devil's Toenails as evidence the fossils were created by Satan, please don't headbutt your keyboard in fustration. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/earth/fossils/fossil-folklore/fossil_types/bivalves.htm

Frank J · 15 October 2010

Rolf Aalberg said: The use of "Darwinism" reveals the user as both ignorant and at a loss of arguments. Even if "ID creationism" might be the proper reference, I use just ID. Most people know that ID is some kind of creationism anyway. Whereas Big Tent Creationists to a large extent doesn't know better than to use "Darwinism."

Thanks! I stopped using "Darwinism" in 1999, except in quotes to mock anti-evolution activists. Unfortunately, as you know, many critics of ID/creationism insist on using it, even though they know that the actvists use it in a very different sense (as an "ism", which evolution is anything but). We simply can't afford that.

Henry J · 15 October 2010

Yeah, Darwin was after all just one guy, even if more successful than most. If he hadn't published when he did, somebody else would have done so within a few years of that. Plus, even if nobody figured it out before genetics was developed, that would have generated the current theory, simply because current knowledge of how genetics works would predict evolution even if it hadn't already been known. (That BTW was one of the confirmations of the theory - if it were wrong, genetics would probably have shown that, instead.)

Robert Byers · 16 October 2010

First its not about the fossils but the interpretations from the fossils that is being celebrated.
Second. The fossils don't preserve ancient life. they preserve casts of former life.
The ancient is not based on the casts but on a different subject called geology.
This subject makes the claims about the age of the creation of the sediment and life within it when it died. Not when turned to stone of coarse as that requires more time. They say.

In fact this is a good case for creationism in its claims that the conclusions of biological origins from evolution by way of mutations/selection is in reality GREATLY or LARGELY(to be liberal) founded on a separate study called geology.
Without the geology the biology fails. Therefore not only is this a rare case in subjects claiming to be scientific (that one subject is dependent on another) but it undermines that it even employs the scientific process .
Fossils are a very trivial point in regards to biological life. Only a presumption of ToE gives them meaning. This presumption is dependent on the geology claims behind the fossil.

A good case here for thinking people to examine why a theory of biology is depended on another theory of another subject.
Therefore ToE as biology is not making the case on biology.
There is no case.
Good thread here.

Ichthyic · 16 October 2010

what

nutter.

KL · 16 October 2010

"A good case here for thinking people to examine why a theory of biology is depended on another theory of another subject. "

Gee, I never thought of that!!! Sciences that overlap and reinforce each other. Whoda thunk?

Geeez, Robert, your understanding of science is simply pathetic.

Frank J · 16 October 2010

OK, just a little feeding:

Fossils are a very trivial point in regards to biological life. Only a presumption of ToE gives them meaning.
— Robert Byers

Funny, most other YECs (if indeed you are one) seem to think that a global Flood gives fossils plenty of meaning. While the one anti-evolution activist who thinks (or pretends to think) that the fossils are irrelavant is Michael Behe, whom you know has conceded that life is billions of years old and that you and I share common ancestors with the organisms who left behind those fossils. Sounds like you have lots to debate about with both YECs and IDers.

mrg · 16 October 2010

Frank J said: OK, just a little feeding:

FJ, isn't strange how hard it is to resist responding to zeroes? I have the same urge at times. Fortunately, after a time my brain recognizes that a troll's postings make absolutely no real sense and refuses to parse them, simply passing them on as incoherent assemblies of phrases.

Frank J · 16 October 2010

mrg:

I think a little feeding is good to alert lurkers of the games that the trolls play. Besides, the trolls rarely reply to my comments, so if anything I discourage them from hijacking threads.

WKM · 16 October 2010

For the serious fossil addicts, check out Tyndall® Stone, late Ordovician dolomitic limestone, Selkirk Member of the Red River Formation. It is quarried in Garson, Manitoba, 37 km northeast of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The fossil-rich rock has been used extensively on buildings in Winnipeg, also in Saskatoon and Regina in Saskatchewan, and other cities in western Canada. Also used in the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C.

University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon has a lot of it, especially in the Geology Building. TCU (Teachers Credit Union) bank has a lot, even a specially designed fossil wall inside for teachers to take their students on a fossil field trip.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndall_stone

http://www.whaton.uwaterloo.ca//waton/s9911.html

http://www.usask.ca/communications/ocn/02-nov-15/feature04.shtml

http://www.tyndallstone.com/mainindex.html

WKM · 16 October 2010

P.S. The late Ordovician is responsible for the world's largest trilobite, found in northern Manitoba:

http://www.manitobamuseum.ca/main/?s=trilobite

Paul Burnett · 17 October 2010

Robert Byers said: The fossils don't preserve ancient life. they preserve casts of former life.

But only since 4004 BC, right? In your worldview, is it possible that there are fossils "preserv(ing) casts of former life" older than 4004 BC? If so, how old?

william e emba · 17 October 2010

Robert Byers said:

Fossils are a very trivial point in regards to biological life. Only a presumption of ToE gives them meaning.

That's the whole point!! You either believe what's out there is just pointless random gibberish, or you believe that it actually makes some kind of sense. Ideas that explain large parts of reality are the main goal in science. Evolution has immense explanatory power. That you hold up one of the greatest strengths of evolution as some kind of flaw just reveals how completely, totally, willfully, proudly ignorant you are.

Frank J · 17 October 2010

WKM said: P.S. The late Ordovician is responsible for the world's largest trilobite, found in northern Manitoba: http://www.manitobamuseum.ca/main/?s=trilobite

That's about 450 MY ago. Not just "as scientists say" but as the evidence clearly indicates, as conceded by many self-described creationists. Only a gross misunderstanding or gross misrepresentation of the evidence would suggest that it is even half as old, let alone younger by a factor of many thousands. Even YECs know better than to pretend that the evidence converges on their particular faith-based age.

mrg · 17 October 2010

william e emba said: That's the whole point!! You either believe what's out there is just pointless random gibberish, or you believe that it actually makes some kind of sense. Ideas that explain large parts of reality are the main goal in science.

Interesting point. If we don't assume the evidence of the Earth tells a detailed story that we can play detective with and assemble to show how it fits together ... then the Earth is just a big trashheap and there's no more to read into it than that. In reality, archaeologists can figure out a lot from old human trashheaps. And also in reality, this interesting point is as lost on its target as it would be on a concrete block.

DS · 17 October 2010

Of coarse Byers hasn't yet learned the difference between of coarse and of course, even though he has been repeatedly corrected. Now what is the probability that a person this willfully ignorant could ever be convinced that it is a grate strength that biology explain many findings in many different fields? What is the pastability that anyone will be fooled by his foolfish nonsense? What is the probability that anyone will even be able to disearn any intangible meating from any of his incohearable post its? It's a tragedy of justifiable propensities. A veritable concucopia of inepetutideness. A plethora of pedantic semantics. A slander on slander. Behold yore brain on creationism and weep.

rob · 17 October 2010

How will the (CaCO₃) shelled organisms of today stand up to the increased ocean acidity caused by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide? These organisms do play a role in the oxygen content of the atmosphere.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: My MS and PhD research primarily used Foraminifera, single celled planktonic and benthic critters that make shells of calcite (CaCO₃). Most of them are well under 1 mm in size. Amazingly complex and often beautiful, and present by the billions in sediments from the ocean floor. Coccolithophorids, Radiolaria, and Diatoms are similarly sized and equally abundant (although the diatom and radiolaria shells are opal rather than calcite). Can't remember how far back they go, but it's at least 100 million years. I'd love to ask that jackass who said that they were carved, "who did it, when, and how?"
Leszek said:
Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?
The best one I ever heard was on FSTDT.com several months back. Someone was revealing their suspicions that Darwinists aren't finding fossils but carving them out of the stone! When I was in cubscouts, we camped at an area near lake Huron. I must have found hundreds of fossils on that beach. I still got a bunch of them. They are just clams of somesort. But its very obvious to anyone who has at least that much experience how claims of Satan, or carving or whatever just aren't that convincing. Having a chance to show more people fossils sounds like a good idea to me. Besides making creationists harder to believe....it was very interesting.

william e emba · 17 October 2010

mrg said:
william e emba said: That's the whole point!! You either believe what's out there is just pointless random gibberish, or you believe that it actually makes some kind of sense. Ideas that explain large parts of reality are the main goal in science.
Interesting point. If we don't assume the evidence of the Earth tells a detailed story that we can play detective with and assemble to show how it fits together ... then the Earth is just a big trashheap and there's no more to read into it than that.

Good grief. A trash heap assumption would be a gigantic step up over ID/creationism, which offers nothing by way of explanation of what all the fossils are there for.

In reality, archaeologists can figure out a lot from old human trashheaps.

Because they model these trash heaps as a product of certain known activities, and not as pointless random gibberish. They do not say these trash heaps were poofed into existence, for reasons unknown and unknowable.

Vince · 17 October 2010

DS said: Of coarse Byers hasn't yet learned the difference between of coarse and of course, even though he has been repeatedly corrected. Now what is the probability that a person this willfully ignorant could ever be convinced that it is a grate strength that biology explain many findings in many different fields? What is the pastability that anyone will be fooled by his foolfish nonsense? What is the probability that anyone will even be able to disearn any intangible meating from any of his incohearable post its? It's a tragedy of justifiable propensities. A veritable concucopia of inepetutideness. A plethora of pedantic semantics. A slander on slander. Behold yore brain on creationism and weep.

Maybe Byers will actually understand this, given that its phrased in his own special language.....

mrg · 17 October 2010

william e emba said: Because they model these trash heaps as a product of certain known activities, and not as pointless random gibberish. They do not say these trash heaps were poofed into existence, for reasons unknown and unknowable.

You preaching to the choir here, sport.

DS · 17 October 2010

Uh, thanks Vince, I think. I have been to Canada.

william e emba · 17 October 2010

mrg said: You preaching to the choir here, sport.

Well, duh. Creationists have nothing but one-liners, and when they get exposed, nothing but cliches to fall back on. You choose to be a moron, so of course you can't be educated. Everybody here knows that--but it's nice to see it in black and white that you have nothing.

mrg · 17 October 2010

william e emba said: You choose to be a moron, so of course you can't be educated.

Excuse, why for you call me a moron? Did I say something wrong? Or you just have a very incomprehensible sense of humor?

william e emba · 17 October 2010

mrg said: Excuse, why for you call me a moron?

Because, you for a moron are. Duh!

mrg · 17 October 2010

william e emba said: Because, you for a moron are. Duh!

Excuse me, why for you call me a moron? Did I say something wrong? Or you just have a very incomprehensible sense of humor?

mrg · 17 October 2010

PS: Sport, if this is how you react when someone AGREES with you ...

... REMIND ME NOT TO DO ANYTHING TO HONESTLY TORK YOU OFF!

Dave Thomas · 17 October 2010

Methinks Mr. Emba parsed the phrase "preaching to the choir here" incorrectly, or something.

mrg · 17 October 2010

It seems to have turned into "screeching at the choir".

Ichthyic · 17 October 2010

Evolution has immense explanatory power.

and predictive.

Tiktalik was NOT a random find, after all.

Stanton · 17 October 2010

mrg said: It seems to have turned into "screeching at the choir".

Have I ever told you the time a troop of howler monkeys got loose at the neighborhood Armenian Greek Orthodox church, and went to war with a pair of screech owls living in the church's rafters?

mrg · 17 October 2010

Stanton said: Have I ever told you the time a troop of howler monkeys got loose at the neighborhood Armenian Greek Orthodox church, and went to war with a pair of screech owls living in the church's rafters?

Would you like to hear about the terrible night When I bravely fought -- No? All right. -- Shel Silverstein

Hygaboo Andersen · 18 October 2010

Leszek said:
Paul Burnett said: Any bets on how long before Byers or FL check in with a "Fossils were created by Satan" or "Dinosaur fossils were deposited by Noah's Flood" rant?
The best one I ever heard was on FSTDT.com several months back. Someone was revealing their suspicions that Darwinists aren't finding fossils but carving them out of the stone! When I was in cubscouts, we camped at an area near lake Huron. I must have found hundreds of fossils on that beach. I still got a bunch of them. They are just clams of somesort. But its very obvious to anyone who has at least that much experience how claims of Satan, or carving or whatever just aren't that convincing. Having a chance to show more people fossils sounds like a good idea to me. Besides making creationists harder to believe....it was very interesting.

Now we know the role of the Easter Bunny in the moral cosmology of the religion of evolutionism. I used to think it was merely distract people from the reality of Christ's Resurrection. It seems that the Easter egg hunts that evolutionists put on for children serves as a training ground for Darwinian fossil-hunting expeditions to find carve rocks that other evolutionists have planted without their knowledge.

Dave Luckett · 18 October 2010

Well, nobody mentioned Higaboo's name in the prediction above. But hey, gibbering, howling, frothing-at-the-mouth insanity is unpredictable by definition. This is a guy who doesn't so much walk with God as dance the three-legged macarena, and lead, yet.

hoary puccoon · 18 October 2010

Higaboo--

Interesting theory about easter eggs. I always thought they were stolen by Christians from pagan traditions long before evolution was ever thought of.

Two questions:

1. Nicolaus Steno came up with the idea that fossils were the remains of ancient living creatures in 1669. Steno, like everybody of his time, was a creationist. So, who was carving all those fossils in the 290 years between the publication of Steno's work and Darwin's, and to what purpose?

2. Fossils are often found in cuts by construction workers building highways. So, after the evolutionists carve the fossils, how do they manage to bury them dozens of feet deep in solid rock, which the construction workers need blasting caps and heavy equipment to break apart? And why do they go to all that effort? Wouldn't it be simpler to carve the fossils and then just pretend they came out of the ground?

Henry J · 18 October 2010

And even if there weren't fossils, there would still be all those nested hierarchies!

Just Bob · 18 October 2010

What's the consensus on Hygaboo--Poe or for real? If she's for real, there's no better demonstration of the validity of Poe's Law.

But just for the heck of it: Hey HA, fossils unearthed in road cuts are one thing, but I, personally, have split open solid pebbles to find lovely fossils inside, that were completely surrounded by the matrix of very hard rock. No splits, no cracks, no gluing together--just a solid, seamless rock with a fossil embedded. I'm not any sort of scientist, but I used to hunt these kinds of fossils as a kid. Back in the part of Illinois that I'm from, they're fairly common in stream beds. Usually they're fossils of ferns or other leaves.

mrg · 18 October 2010

Just Bob said: What's the consensus on Hygaboo--Poe or for real? If she's for real, there's no better demonstration of the validity of Poe's Law.

HA detests EVIL-utionists but the arguments are blatantly facetious. He's just yanking chains.

Mike Elzinga · 18 October 2010

There are all those fossils at the top of Mt. Everest, up in the Andes, down deep in coal mines, and the ones that pop out of the weathered rocks in the Great Rift Valley, the Grand Canyon and the remote, inhospitable regions of China.

Then there are those found by the ancient Greeks. We had to go back in time to plant those. Imagine the technology involved.

Man we work hard to deceive. I break a sweat just thinking about it.

mrg · 18 October 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Man we work hard to deceive. I break a sweat just thinking about it.

Well, we wouldn't have to go through all this trouble if people would just stop putting tinfoil in their hats and blocking the mind-control beams.

Henry J · 18 October 2010

And, a broken sweat can be a hard thing to fix, even with duct tape.

Robert Byers · 18 October 2010

Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: The fossils don't preserve ancient life. they preserve casts of former life.
But only since 4004 BC, right? In your worldview, is it possible that there are fossils "preserv(ing) casts of former life" older than 4004 BC? If so, how old?

Off point. but no. The only casts are from the biblical flood and later events. no mechanisms to fossilize before the flood or would anything remain after the chaos. again. biological conclusions can not be made by geological study and claim to be from biology. chuck Darwin himself said the Toe should be not studied if one did not already accept the geology conclusions. He was right. ToE flaw is its based on geology ideas for evidence and biological evidence is hardly involved.

W. H. Heydt · 18 October 2010

Just Bob said: What's the consensus on Hygaboo--Poe or for real? If she's for real, there's no better demonstration of the validity of Poe's Law.

I assumed it was tongue in cheek when I first read it...but what do I know? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Stanton · 18 October 2010

Robert Byers said:
Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: The fossils don't preserve ancient life. they preserve casts of former life.
But only since 4004 BC, right? In your worldview, is it possible that there are fossils "preserv(ing) casts of former life" older than 4004 BC? If so, how old?
Off point. but no. The only casts are from the biblical flood and later events. no mechanisms to fossilize before the flood or would anything remain after the chaos. again. biological conclusions can not be made by geological study and claim to be from biology. chuck Darwin himself said the Toe should be not studied if one did not already accept the geology conclusions. He was right. ToE flaw is its based on geology ideas for evidence and biological evidence is hardly involved.

And where in the Bible does it specifically state that fossils are magically petrified leftovers of the Flood? Then again, why should we believe you, Robert Byers, when you know absolutely nothing about Science, to begin with?

DS · 19 October 2010

again. biological conclusions can be made by geological study and are still from biology. Darwin himself said the Toe should be studied since one has to accept the geology conclusions. He was right. ToE is its based on geology ideas for evidence and biological evidence is also involved.

Hygaboo Andersen · 19 October 2010

Mike Elzinga said: There are all those fossils at the top of Mt. Everest, up in the Andes, down deep in coal mines, and the ones that pop out of the weathered rocks in the Great Rift Valley, the Grand Canyon and the remote, inhospitable regions of China. Then there are those found by the ancient Greeks. We had to go back in time to plant those. Imagine the technology involved. Man we work hard to deceive. I break a sweat just thinking about it.

mrg · 19 October 2010

Hygaboo Andersen said: I should have been more spevific. It is only those fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and other evolutionary farces deemed "trasitional" that are certain to be fake. The fossils on the top of Mount Everest and the Andes are real.

Ah. Inconvenient fossils are BAD SCIENCE and convenient (or at least untroublesome) fossils are GOOD SCIENCE. I have to add, HA, that I am not under any mistaken impression you are being serious.

W. H. Heydt · 19 October 2010

Hygaboo Andersen said: I should have been more spevific. It is only those fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and other evolutionary farces deemed "trasitional" that are certain to be fake. The fossils on the top of Mount Everest and the Andes are real. They show evolutionism is a lie by proving the reality of the Genesis Flood. There is no other explanation other than a global flood covering the mountaintops why they are there.

Okay...NOW I agree that we've got another creationist troll. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

mrg · 19 October 2010

W. H. Heydt said: Okay...NOW I agree that we've got another creationist troll.

Yeah, is this the same HA noted for his X-rated postings? It reads like Byers copying his handle.

hoary puccoon · 19 October 2010

Hygaboo Andersen said: blockquote> Mike Elzinga said: There are all those fossils at the top of Mt. Everest, up in the Andes, down deep in coal mines, and the ones that pop out of the weathered rocks in the Great Rift Valley, the Grand Canyon and the remote, inhospitable regions of China. < Then there are those found by the ancient Greeks. We had to go back in time to plant those. Imagine the technology involved. Man we work hard to deceive. I break a sweat just thinking about it.

I should have been more spevific. It is only those fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and other evolutionary farces deemed "trasitional" that are certain to be fake. The fossils on the top of Mount Everest and the Andes are real. They show evolutionism is a lie by proving the reality of the Genesis Flood. There is no other explanation other than a global flood covering the mountaintops why they are there. Um, no. Before Neil Shubin found Tiktaalik, he found transitional reptile-to-mammal fossils in-- road cuts. So, who faked those fossils? The construction teams? Also, if the surface of the earth is static, how come it keeps moving?

hoary puccoon · 19 October 2010

hmm. Block quote fail. Only the last paragraph about Neil Shubin is mine.

Stanton · 19 October 2010

Hygaboo Andersen said:
Mike Elzinga said: There are all those fossils at the top of Mt. Everest, up in the Andes, down deep in coal mines, and the ones that pop out of the weathered rocks in the Great Rift Valley, the Grand Canyon and the remote, inhospitable regions of China. Then there are those found by the ancient Greeks. We had to go back in time to plant those. Imagine the technology involved. Man we work hard to deceive. I break a sweat just thinking about it.
I should have been more spevific. It is only those fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and other evolutionary farces deemed "trasitional" that are certain to be fake. The fossils on the top of Mount Everest and the Andes are real. They show evolutionism is a lie by proving the reality of the Genesis Flood. There is no other explanation other than a global flood covering the mountaintops why they are there.

Can you provide actual evidence that fossils of transitional forms, like Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, all of the ceratopsian fossils between Xuanhuasaurus and Triceratops, all of the horse fossils, and all of the hominid fossils are magically convenient fakes? Oh, wait, no, you can't because you're just blowing out your pompous ass. Please go away, Hygaboo Anderson, you're less funny and less pleasant than a root canal with a dab of lidocaine on my doctor's toe.

Dave Luckett · 19 October 2010

This flood, it covered the Himalayas and the whole of the rest of the Earth, right? So the floodwater was about five and a half miles deeper than the present sea level. Lessee, the surface area of the Earth, (4pi.r^2) is about 201068800 square miles, times 5.5 - so that's 1.1x10^9 cubic miles of water, not counting what was already in the oceans at the time of this flood.

The total volume of water in the Earth's oceans today is roughly 3.1x10^8 cubic miles.

So, the Flood added about three times as much water to the planet - above and beyond what already existed then - as that which exists in the oceans today.

I wonder where it all came from? I wonder where it all went to?

(channels creonut) God poofed it all into existence and then made it disappear again when He calmed down.

Well, it's good to get that cleared up. Gosh, gee, is that the time?

SWT · 19 October 2010

Dave Luckett said: ... So, the Flood added about three times as much water to the planet - above and beyond what already existed then - as that which exists in the oceans today. I wonder where it all came from? I wonder where it all went to? (channels creonut) God poofed it all into existence and then made it disappear again when He calmed down. Well, it's good to get that cleared up. Gosh, gee, is that the time?

Don't be silly, Dave -- you know there was no "poofing" involved. The ancient text tells us that the water came from the springs of the Deep (below the earth) and through the Floodgates of Heaven (above the firmament). Obviously, the water drained back into the Deep. I'm guessing the water is now in huge tanks sited next to the storehouses of hail and snow ...

Just Bob · 19 October 2010

Why would an omnipotent god NEED a flood to get rid of the folks he doesn't like? Especially when it results in the extinction and near-extinction of every terrestrial species. It's like killing a mosquito on your friend's neck with a shotgun.

Henry J · 19 October 2010

o the floodwater was about five and a half miles deeper than the present sea level.

Mountains were a lot shorter back then. ;)

Sylvilagus · 19 October 2010

Hygaboo Andersen said: I should have been more spevific. It is only those fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and other evolutionary farces deemed "trasitional" that are certain to be fake. The fossils on the top of Mount Everest and the Andes are real. They show evolutionism is a lie by proving the reality of the Genesis Flood. There is no other explanation other than a global flood covering the mountaintops why they are there.

But ALL fossils are transitional between some form and another. Can you name a single fossil that is NOT a transitional form at some cladistic level?

Ichthyic · 19 October 2010

he fossils on the top of Mount Everest and the Andes are real.

what about the fossils geologists use to figure out where best to drill for oil?

there are certainly good transitional sequences there.

are those fake?

is the oil fake?

have we been driving our cars on wishes and farts?

If so, maybe we have underestimated the role methane plays in global warming...

Hmm, I see another NSF grant in my near future!

Ichthyic · 19 October 2010

It’s like killing a mosquito on your friend’s neck with a shotgun.

say now, I think only Dick Cheney can use that as a defense.

Oclarki · 20 October 2010

Hygaboo Andersen said: I should have been more spevific. It is only those fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and other evolutionary farces deemed "trasitional" that are certain to be fake. The fossils on the top of Mount Everest and the Andes are real. They show evolutionism is a lie by proving the reality of the Genesis Flood. There is no other explanation other than a global flood covering the mountaintops why they are there.

So sorry...Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx are most certainly and most demostrably real. Weven better is the concept that Tiktaalik was found based on substantive analyses of geologic information and the predictions enabled by such analyses. In other words, application of the princples and methodologies of science resulted in the discovery of Tiktaalik. And oddly enough, creationist "science" had absolutely nothing to do with that discovery. Why? Well, perhaps because creationist "science" can not predict its way out of a paper bag.

Ichthyic · 20 October 2010

Tiktaalik was found based on substantive analyses of geologic information and the predictions enabled by such analyses.

the fun thing was, it was much MORE than that!

it was a prediction not only based on what we knew about geology, but also about the last 50 years of developmental biology, molecular biology, and of course, evolutionary biology.

I still am glad Shubin made a book out of that experience; he did an excellent job of explaining how that one single example relates back to just about everything we have learned in biology, and ties it in a neat little bow.

one I would in fact, recommend to our ignorant poster, but I'm not sure reading is their *thing*.

just in case, though:

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474

hoary puccoon · 20 October 2010

Oclarki said:
Hygaboo Andersen said: I should have been more spevific. It is only those fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx and other evolutionary farces deemed "trasitional" that are certain to be fake. The fossils on the top of Mount Everest and the Andes are real. They show evolutionism is a lie by proving the reality of the Genesis Flood. There is no other explanation other than a global flood covering the mountaintops why they are there.
So sorry...Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx are most certainly and most demostrably real. Weven better is the concept that Tiktaalik was found based on substantive analyses of geologic information and the predictions enabled by such analyses. In other words, application of the princples and methodologies of science resulted in the discovery of Tiktaalik. And oddly enough, creationist "science" had absolutely nothing to do with that discovery. Why? Well, perhaps because creationist "science" can not predict its way out of a paper bag.

It's so ironic -- creationists claim that believing in evolution will deteriorate our moral values. But look what happens to *their* moral values, when they try to defend creationism. First, it's "all fossils are faked." Then, when people present clear evidence fossils couldn't be faked, it's "oh, I meant *transitional* fossils." And, of course, the only fossils that a "real" are on top of the Andes or Mount Everest-- where hardly any people can check out the evidence. Then they claim that the biblical flood is the "only" explanation--conveniently leaving out all the research on plate tectonics. Neat, little lie of omission there. Lies, excuses, evasions-- it never ends. Creationism does to your morals what cigarettes do to your lungs. It's just rot, rot, rot, all the way.

faith4flipper · 3 November 2010

Oh neat! Now I noticed in the article it stated "Fossils discovered on the nation’s public lands preserve ancient life from all major eras of Earth’s history, and from every major group of animal or plant."

Thats pretty neat. Question though, does this also contain life discovered from other planets with animal or plant life?

faith4flipper · 3 November 2010

"It’s so ironic – creationists claim that believing in evolution will deteriorate our moral values. But look what happens to *their* moral values, when they try to defend creationism. First, it’s “all fossils are faked.” Then, when people present clear evidence fossils couldn’t be faked, it’s “oh, I meant *transitional* fossils.” And, of course, the only fossils that a “real” are on top of the Andes or Mount Everest– where hardly any people can check out the evidence. Then they claim that the biblical flood is the “only” explanation–conveniently leaving out all the research on plate tectonics. Neat, little lie of omission there."

Isn't that the truth. Aren't you guys doing your job as activists in the area of bettering job expulsion of anybody whom mentions the word.."*expletive* Design" from their jobs than you are now! Remember the Kansas case. And Roe vs. Wade! If anything, thats what Creationism is really all about!