4 ms·

“ These formations may have resulted from carcass burial in an anoxic environment with minimal bacteria, thus delaying the decomposition of both gross and fine

“ These formations may have resulted from carcass burial in an anoxic environment with minimal bacteria, thus delaying the decomposition of both gross and fine biological features until long after a durable impression was created in the surrounding matrix.” From the linked Wikipedia page. In many places, it is indeed impossible for fossils to form (for example, rainforests) due to various environmental factors. But in some places, fossils do in fact form, as evidenced by the fact that we have fossils.

verisimi 5y ago
> But in some places, fossils do in fact form, as evidenced by the fact that we have fossils. Yes :) But you realise you are accepting what you are told to say that? Are there any other possibilities though, to explain what we see as fossils? Is it possible that these photos are faked, or that the fossils themselves are faked? Or that they are real skeletons, but the story around them is wrong? Eg perhaps the fish was placed on the wall last year, and that is the mark it left. I think it is clear that there are other possibilities. I think I can also make a case for them being more plausible than the story. Regardless, we will not gain knowledge by accepting what we are told unconditionally - we should be personally verifying. Unless we have personally verified something, we cannot say "I know". We can I can say "I read" or "I believe" or "it is my hypothesis that". But it is not possible to truthfully say "I know".
- eesmith 5y ago
  This sort of skepticism is called "Last Thursdayism." - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism > Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything (including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older. > Last Thursdayism functions both as a philosophical point on how our observations may not match with "reality" and a reductio ad absurdum of the young-Earth creationist idea of the omphalos hypothesis: if the world was created 6,000 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what is there to stop us from claiming it was made Last Thursday? It's boring. Yes, there are other possibilities - the universe could have been created Last Thursday. > I think I can also make a case for them being more plausible than the story. And Last Thursdayists make the case that Last Thursdayism is more plausible than the usual cosmology. So, go ahead and do it. > Unless we have personally verified something, we cannot say "I know". Have you personally verified that North Dakota exists? That New Zealand exists? If you want a discussion about solipsism, go bother some philosophers. Just Asking Questions - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions - is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
  - verisimi 5y ago
    > It's boring. I understand your point - but there is a real point to what I'm saying. The fact is that no one is actually checking anything. Its all based on trust. I know. Its dull, but you need to verify information before you actively promote or parrot it. Its the scientific method, and it should be applied personally. You cannot "know" unless you verify personally. You can trust, believe, etc but not know. If you say 'I know' without having verified whatever-it-is, you are in fact (unintentionally, perhaps) lying. > It's boring. Another way of responding is that the truth may in fact be boring. It might not be possible to say anything meaningful about stuff, especially when that stuff relates to events that may (or may not) have happened 66 million years ago. Just because its boring, and there is not much to know, should we accept any old story that purports to explain things? Is that reason? Is it religious/magical thinking? Would it better to say 'I don't know'?
    - eesmith 5y ago
      > The fact is that no one is actually checking anything. Its all based on trust. I don't trust your statement. I don't trust your statement because everything I've done to actually check on thing shows it to be correct. Again, does North Dakota exist? Does New Zealand exist? Was the universe created last Thursday? > but you need to verify information before you actively promote or parrot it. I have verified it to my satisfaction. Just because you are not satisfied does not mean I am parroting thing. I have never been to New Zealand. I am satisfied that it exists. > should we accept any old story that purports to explain things? Absolutely not. Which is why I don't accept your story that "It's all based on trust.
- ralfd 5y ago
  1. There is a long record of fossils as they are quite common. The old Greeks found marine fossils on land and deduced that land was once under water. The ancient Chinese documented them to be dragon bones. 2. How wide do you expect the fossil-conspiracy to be? This specimen was found in China by Chinese, surely they don't care about western evolutionists? 3. Have you never ever seen or found a fossil yourself? If you use sedimentary rock as wall cover you will get a fossil sooner or later. https://southlandstone.com/using-fossil-stone-in-the-house/ https://southlandstone.com/using-fossil-stone-in-the-house/ 3. You could travel to Michigan and just wander the beach until you find a fossilized coral. They are easy to find: https://www.michigan.org/article/trip-idea/where-find-petoskey-stones-michigan https://www.michigan.org/article/trip-idea/where-find-petosk... 4. Or go treasure hunting other coasts. Here is a video of a guy collecting fossilized ammonites in Ireland. I link to the timestamp he is opening a rock. If this is fake how do you think it was done? https://youtu.be/OVCH98aFSRY?t=591 https://youtu.be/OVCH98aFSRY?t=591 And if you watch the whole video you see other fossils in the big stones themselves. To reiterate: You can visit these places! Fossils are quite common.

verisimi 5y ago

> But in some places, fossils do in fact form, as evidenced by the fact that we have fossils. Yes :) But you realise you are accepting what you are told to say that? Are there any other possibilities though, to explain what we see as fossils? Is it possible that these photos are faked, or that the fossils themselves are faked? Or that they are real skeletons, but the story around them is wrong? Eg perhaps the fish was placed on the wall last year, and that is the mark it left. I think it is clear that there are other possibilities. I think I can also make a case for them being more plausible than the story. Regardless, we will not gain knowledge by accepting what we are told unconditionally - we should be personally verifying. Unless we have personally verified something, we cannot say "I know". We can I can say "I read" or "I believe" or "it is my hypothesis that". But it is not possible to truthfully say "I know".

eesmith 5y ago
This sort of skepticism is called "Last Thursdayism." - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism > Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything (including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older. > Last Thursdayism functions both as a philosophical point on how our observations may not match with "reality" and a reductio ad absurdum of the young-Earth creationist idea of the omphalos hypothesis: if the world was created 6,000 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what is there to stop us from claiming it was made Last Thursday? It's boring. Yes, there are other possibilities - the universe could have been created Last Thursday. > I think I can also make a case for them being more plausible than the story. And Last Thursdayists make the case that Last Thursdayism is more plausible than the usual cosmology. So, go ahead and do it. > Unless we have personally verified something, we cannot say "I know". Have you personally verified that North Dakota exists? That New Zealand exists? If you want a discussion about solipsism, go bother some philosophers. Just Asking Questions - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions - is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
- verisimi 5y ago
  > It's boring. I understand your point - but there is a real point to what I'm saying. The fact is that no one is actually checking anything. Its all based on trust. I know. Its dull, but you need to verify information before you actively promote or parrot it. Its the scientific method, and it should be applied personally. You cannot "know" unless you verify personally. You can trust, believe, etc but not know. If you say 'I know' without having verified whatever-it-is, you are in fact (unintentionally, perhaps) lying. > It's boring. Another way of responding is that the truth may in fact be boring. It might not be possible to say anything meaningful about stuff, especially when that stuff relates to events that may (or may not) have happened 66 million years ago. Just because its boring, and there is not much to know, should we accept any old story that purports to explain things? Is that reason? Is it religious/magical thinking? Would it better to say 'I don't know'?
  - eesmith 5y ago
    > The fact is that no one is actually checking anything. Its all based on trust. I don't trust your statement. I don't trust your statement because everything I've done to actually check on thing shows it to be correct. Again, does North Dakota exist? Does New Zealand exist? Was the universe created last Thursday? > but you need to verify information before you actively promote or parrot it. I have verified it to my satisfaction. Just because you are not satisfied does not mean I am parroting thing. I have never been to New Zealand. I am satisfied that it exists. > should we accept any old story that purports to explain things? Absolutely not. Which is why I don't accept your story that "It's all based on trust.
ralfd 5y ago
1. There is a long record of fossils as they are quite common. The old Greeks found marine fossils on land and deduced that land was once under water. The ancient Chinese documented them to be dragon bones. 2. How wide do you expect the fossil-conspiracy to be? This specimen was found in China by Chinese, surely they don't care about western evolutionists? 3. Have you never ever seen or found a fossil yourself? If you use sedimentary rock as wall cover you will get a fossil sooner or later. https://southlandstone.com/using-fossil-stone-in-the-house/ https://southlandstone.com/using-fossil-stone-in-the-house/ 3. You could travel to Michigan and just wander the beach until you find a fossilized coral. They are easy to find: https://www.michigan.org/article/trip-idea/where-find-petoskey-stones-michigan https://www.michigan.org/article/trip-idea/where-find-petosk... 4. Or go treasure hunting other coasts. Here is a video of a guy collecting fossilized ammonites in Ireland. I link to the timestamp he is opening a rock. If this is fake how do you think it was done? https://youtu.be/OVCH98aFSRY?t=591 https://youtu.be/OVCH98aFSRY?t=591 And if you watch the whole video you see other fossils in the big stones themselves. To reiterate: You can visit these places! Fossils are quite common.