No, its not one of those contexts. Its not that all of science is wrong, its just that a few categories of science are based on 1) radiometric dating (does have scientific backing, but too many assumptions and also a head in the sand approach) 2) evolution (circular reasoning)
Now, your turn. Show us evidence for that isolated sea in which all the whales were hiding until the Eocene. Oh, right, you can't, 'cos that's imaginary
C'mon you can do better than that. What are those? Are they mammals, have you got names and links for me to look into this a bit more. Seriously I would like to get into this because the information I had researched said the following:
http://www.macroevolution.net/...of-whales.html#.UPfjNh11-UI "The accepted account of the evolution of whales is poorly documented in terms of fossils. Relatively few marine fossils of any kind are known from the Paleocene, the first epoch of the Cenozoic Era, the so-called Age of Mammals. It isn't surprising, then, that no fossils of whales or whale-like animals are known from the Paleocene. The earliest fossil forms normally classified as whales date from the ensuing epoch, the Eocene (~54–34 mya).1 "
This seems to be the standard view, that each of the current species of whales is lacking in transitionary fossils that reflect the development of that species' uniqueness. (ie a lack of transitional fossils for each modern species)
In many contexts, pointing out to someone that if they are right, all of science is wrong is a useful technique for stimulating introspection. I just don't think that this is one of those contexts.
No, its not one of those contexts. Its not that all of science is wrong, its just that a few categories of science are based on
So what would be a good technique for encouraging you to indulge in some introspection? You seem willing to talk spout about stuff you know little about with great authority and hubris.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Sorry about the "hubris", in my defense I do sometimes apologise for making mistakes and also show appreciation for good points, which I do feel is also lacking from other members.
Also regarding lack of knowledge , I feel I have done adequately considering I'm debating with various experts in many fields, and there is just me. Who on earth would be able to be an expert in most scientific fields at once, yet this is expected of me in this thread and I have taken on the various experts and I feel I haven't done too badly considering. I am sure you will disagree , no problem
Curiously, we do not need to use radiometric dating to know that the earth is very old -- much older than any "young earth" concept.
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 Not one young earth creationist has explained these correlation in the nine years since it was posted here.
I have deliberately avoided this topic in this thread because of all the side issues it creates, and there have already been too many side issues. But as a general rule, the claims of annual events are not as concrete as claimed. eg you have bi-annual tree rings, you have tidal (daily) sedimentary deposits that can be mistaken as annual, the techniques for overlapping tree ring data are not 100% reliable, ice forms layers with precipitation, not necessarily annual, there could be two or more precipitation seasons etc etc.
What I am saying is that I believe only radiometric dating gives a strong case for old layers, the other logic is negligible in comparison.
PS I am not a YEC, I believe Genesis 1 starts with an earth already in existence, and then we have 6 days of events from the visible perspective from the misty surface of the earth. So I do believe in 6 literal days of creation, but this involves increased visibility in a misty world, and the creation of biological life-forms within the 6 days , occurring less than 7000 years ago.
I believe Genesis 1 starts with an earth already in existence, and then we have 6 days of events from the visible perspective from the misty surface of the earth. So I do believe in 6 literal days of creation, but this involves increased visibility in a misty world, and the creation of biological life-forms within the 6 days , occurring less than 7000 years ago.
PS I am not a YEC
Yes, you are.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
I have little to add to Dr Adequate's answers, but there are a couple of things that I'd like to point out.
Applying Occam's razor and assuming their sudden appearance is due to the disappearance of their reptile competitors
That's not an example of Occam's Razor. You have no way of knowing that marine reptiles would out-compete cetaceans. Perhaps the mammals would out-compete the reptiles, you can only guess. And your guesses on this topic do not have the greatest track record so far.
Occam's Razor favours the explanation with the fewest assumptions. Your series of tortured excuses and guess is far from that.
cold waters where their dominant reptile competitors could not survive
a) The waters at the poles were not particularly cold during the Early Triassic. They were more of a warm temperate level.
b) Would it surprise you to learn that many ancient marine reptiles were warm-blooded?
I see this thread is about to go into summation, but this should be a relatively easy question. If it requires a new thread, I can start one later.
I saw a creationist video that claimed that there was no actual geological column - that it only consists of fragmentary pieces scattered throughout the world. Geologists assembled the fragments into what appear to be a column and that ...
quote: For more than 100 years the geologists of all countries have cooperating in this endeavor and the total thickness of the stratified rocks now recognized would exceed 500,000 feet (95 miles) if all the beds were directly superimposed.
Now they seem to think that this disproves conventional geology and provides support to flood geology. But if the geological layers were laid down in a world wide flood, wouldn't the layers be much more uniform and evenly distributed throughout the world? Doesn't the fact that the different strata are dispersed throughout the world and not distributed evenly actually disprove flood geology rather than support it?
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
I saw a creationist video that claimed that there was no actual geological column - that it only consists of fragmentary pieces scattered throughout the world.
The geological column is a summary of the stratigraphic relationships that obtain between fossils, it's not claimed to be a thing.
Obviously in any particular location deposition will not have been continuous and erosion will have occurred, so there will not be a geological record corresponding to the whole of the geological column.
But if the geological layers were laid down in a world wide flood, wouldn't the layers be much more uniform and evenly distributed throughout the world?
You're talking as though "flood geology" involved investigating the geological consequences of a flood. 99% of it consists of being too stupid to understand real geology. Then explanations involving magic water are taken as being true by default.
? A young earth creationist believes in a young earth. I don't.
I believe the layers currently aged at about 600 million and younger are actually less than 6500 years old because these layers show fossils of life-forms. I agree older layers are older than 6500 years.