I'm gonna get raided for this meme but holly moly wth man

science

Don’t worry bro I’m not creationist

U tag line 💛💙💜💚

I like tags for some reason

No ur profile tag line

Ooooh, well you're welcome :D

If every species appeared suddenly, how come humans weren't made extinct by dinosaurs

And how did every species that wasn't a dinosaur survive the Permian extinction

That's a separate question, dinosaurs actually arrived during the Triassic which is after the Permian extinction known as the "great dying". I believe that was the flood, and dinosaurs were birds and marine reptiles that adapted to the empty dry continents after the great dying.

I believe that humans were centred in Turkey at that time and you will notice that the most ancient cities were often underground or had huge walls. That would have helped with dinosaurs.

The Cambrian Explosion was a lot earlier, and the fossil evidence is that nearly every phyla appeared then, phyla being the broader categories. There isn't evidence that every species within the phyla appeared then, as a creationist I wish I could find that. For example the phylum verbatrae appeared then, but the sub-category/class of mammals have not yet been discovered in the Cambrian. I think the reason is that the discovery of fossils have focussed on marine and swamps, and not on dry continents of the time, which are less accessible.

"Most ancient cities had huge walls or were underground"

Nope!

Most ancient settlements were usually above ground and didn't have enough materials to build massive walls, or had to reason to. Also, if the permian extinction was the flood, that means that humans have existed for well over 65 MILLION YEARS, which is incredibly implausible. If we've been around for so long, how come we haven't died out or made unthinkable technological advancements yet? Also, the cambrian explosion isn't unexplained by science or a mystery of evolution. Scientists have linked the boom of phyla to more oxygen in the atmosphere and increases in oceanic calcium concentrations. Also, how did humans survive the extinction of the dinosaurs? It made over 70% of all life extinct, except for small mammals and arboreal dinosaurs which later evolved into birds, along with a few ocean animals. Also, fossils show that birds evolved from dinosaurs, so dinosaurs evolving from birds after the Permian extinction doesn't make any sense at all.

One has to separate actual scientific fact from assumption. For example its assumed that hunter gatherer lifestyle preceded megalithic civilisation. But all around the world we have very early advanced megalithic civilisation, followed by a hunter gatherer lifestyle.

Mammals are more resilient than reptiles, and can handle colder climates. This is the reason why mammals survived the ice age at the end Jurassic extinction (meteorite) , and large reptiles did not.
Regarding the Cambrian Explosion, I agree with you that more oxygen made the variety of lifeforms possible. Why would thousands of new species just suddenly appear just at the right timing when the earth was suitable? I say creation, you probably assume evolution. I have the evidence (the sudden appearance of many species suitable to the new oxygenated environment). You do not have any evidence, there are no fossil intermediates to show any evolving at that time.

Regarding timeframes, these are assumed based on the fallible assumption of the constancy of decay rates. Purdue University found that in fact decay rates are not a constant. Mainstream thought has tried to belittle the challenge to mainstream timeframes, nevertheless the fact remains that the decay of parent to daughter isotopes is affected by unknown factors.
(logically background radiation affects decay rates)

Also, saying that mainstream thought has tried to belittle the facts sounds a lot like a watered down version of "I'm absolutely right, the government's just trying to cover it up."

Also, my evidence is THE ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. fossils show birds evolving from dinosaurs, dinosaurs evolving from amphibians, insects evolving from aquatic isopods. If every creature ever was created at the exact time, then none of these fossils would exist.

Also, no fossils of home sapiens exist. Fossilisation takes millions of years, and homo sapiens has only been around for 20,000.

"You do not have any evidence"

"Mammals are tougher than reptiles"

"Time frames are fake, it's just assumptions based on decay rates"

NONE of these statements are true, and evolution as a whole is not an assumption.

*inhales*

Firstly, you can't link timeframes to only decay rates. There are many, MANY factors that make up our current evolutionary timeline, including carbon dating, the position of the fossil in the earth's crust (the deeper you go, the older the rock is as sediment builds over time) and many others. Secondly, we do have fossils predating the cambrian explosion, but it stops at a certain point for the simple reason that soft-bodied life usually can't fossilise at all. Only parts like shell, carapace, bones and teeth can properly fossilised, so the fossils "appearing out of nowhere" marks the point of soft-bodied life evolving shell and carapace. Also, you vastly overexaggerated the scale of the cambrian explosion. 42 new phyla developed, not the thousands you stated. And separating scientific fact from assumption is a very poor choice of words considering you're stating that the way scientists measure the age of fossils is fake. The meteorite did not kill species by bringing an ice age, it brought immense clouds of Ash, debris and gases into the atmosphere, as well as causing a gigantic heat wave. Effectively, it did the exact opposite of what you described. AND there is clear evidence showing that hunter-gatherer type civilisations built megaliths. Mammals also EVOLVED from reptiles with hairlike protrusions, contradicting the "fact" that they all existed at once.

And regarding the ice age, I did use the incorrect term. After the heat wave of an impact event, the debris blocks out the sun, causing an extended winter. Ie shorter than an ice age, but still a freezing over.

Nah sorry, carbon dating is only for recent timeframes and does not work in conjunction with radiometric dating, which is highly unreliable over the short term. No other evidence supports the long timeframes of radiometric dating. Sure time is relative to depth, but this does not equate to billions of years. I'm fact quite the opposite, erosion rates even of the Mississippi would have removed every landmass many times over in the currently claimed timeframes.
Only the assumption that current rates of decay were always constant, supports the long time frames. And that assumption is being tested, even solar flares and seasonal factors can affect decay rates.
I don't recall saying that "thousands" of phyla appeared, can you show me where I said that.........................
Yes I agree that fossils predated the Cambrian, there were simple life forms, eg the small shellies of the Ediacaran. However no intermediaries exist between those species and the many species that appeared suddenly without fossil precursor, in the Cambrian. There are enough soft bodied fossils Pre- Cambrian and after, that the absolute lack of the intermediates is damning to the theory of evolution.

Gobleki Tepe, one of the most ancient of all settlements had a vast underground network.

I think you're misunderstanding evolution here. There are no "missing links" between species. Certain species with a genetic mutation that proves advantageous will become more successful than others in its species, but this doesn't mean that the species that it evolved from doesnt survive. More offshoots from that species eventually adapt as well. Also, carbon dating is for recent time frames, but you can still use It to prove that plant matter in ancient settlements like gobleki tepe dates back to 12,000 BCE. Also, sure mammals may have been able to survive the ice age after the meteor, but being creatures adapted to colder environments, humans would have been undoubtedly killed by the heat wave and Ash. Also, in your first comment you stated that dinosaurs were birds and aquatic reptiles that evolved on the empty dry continents. So are you damming evolution or supporting it? Time relative to depth DOES equate to billions of years, scientists have found traces of bacteria in rocks 5 billion years old, proving that life began on earth at around that time. Your explanation of erosion rates also doesn't make sense. Erosion is rock being constantly pummelled by running water or wind over time, so sediment settling at the bottom of the ocean wouldn't have that apply. Anyone with basic knowledge of the rock cycle would know this. Your theory that evolution is disproved from the lack of fossils "connecting" cambrian life and early shell bearing life is quite minor, compared to the millions of other fossils proving the existence of evolution. For example, if you put bat skeletons, whale skeletons, and monkey skeletons side by side, you can clearly see that they all have the same basic hand structure, proving that they all evolved from a common ancestor and adapted to different environments over time, for example bats evolving large flaps of skin between fingers to fly or whales evolving skin and muscle connecting the bones to act as fins.

I guess if you put a variety of cars together, you can be sure they have a common ancestor, compared to a grouping of trucks. Can't be design similarities, well done for proving evolution

You're saying that convergent evolution is just God being lazy and doing pallet swaps? Since we're going with the car analogy, the fossils are more like a 1st edition tesla compared to a newer model.
Also, convergent evolution (animals evolving similarly) is because certain body types (crabs are a good example) are so successful or fill a common niche in the ecosystem that by coincidence, a completely different species can evolve to look similar

I think you're misunderstanding my point about river erosion. Inland sediment is washing into the sea in such large quantities over 100000 years that it would remove a continent. The existence of neat layers of sediment over time is testament to the impossibility of long time frames. The fossil record should be a jumble of finely ground sediment over a billion years judging my current erosion rates.

The existence of neat layers of sediment is due to the sediment being finely compressed by the immense pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Ever had a middle school science lesson about the rock cycle? They explain that. Also, erosion happens REALLY slowly.

And scientists aren't increasingly doubting radiometric dating. There may be inconsistencies, but those inconsistencies can be up to two million years off in the span of 2.5 billion. The science of radiometric dating has been refined incredibly.

I agree, scientists are not doubting the dating. The evidence itself that there are fluctuations in decay, thought to be a constant, puts doubt on the issue. The evidence speaks louder than "scientists say"

The evidence that scientists have proven

There are fluctuations, but those fluctuations are the inconsistencies I mentioned. And they aren't constant.

I see you won't admit to one good point, and I have made many. You didn't even go into how much sediment is washed into the oceans by rivers every year, compared to continental landmasses, which makes timespans of billions of years impossible. So this conversation is pointless.

I've made many good retaliations that you've just ignored. Also, I know how much sediment is washed into the oceans, this article explains how it doesn't change much

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/14200/how-much-does-sea-level-rise-due-to-sediment-deposition