|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But it is not deceitful. As I pointed out above Message 1804 the time periods are defined by the geological systems. If a geological system turned out to have been deposited in a minute or an hour then the period would be revised to that duration. I hope you will have the honesty to apologise for your false accusation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You are wrong. Significant changes to the radioactive decay rate are held to be impossible under any conditions that could be found on Earth, even in the distant past. Changing the rates of different radioactive decays so that they still gave the sample radiometric dates (within the error bounds) is more unlikely still. In short, unless the revision to the ages worked within physics as it is currently understood it would require revisions to physics. And it is very unlikely that that is even possible.
quote: This leads to exactly the point. Creationists, since they are not interested in the truth, take the apologetic appraisals ch of dealing with things piecemeal, not bothering to see how things fit together. Scientists, because they are interested in the truth do care about how things fit together. If Creationist ideas run foul of other unsolved problems then too bad for creationists. Objecting to legitimate responses simply shows the weakness of your position. And of course those objections will frequently based in true science so you should accept them as legitimate, right ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Then you would have to accept the current dates as scientifically valid. Science doesn’t and shouldn’t assume the presence of unknown factors that probably don’t exist and that just happen to mean that you are right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: I didn’t say that you had to believe that they were true, only that they are scientifically valid. And, in fact, since you’ve ruled out changes in decay rate as an explanation for radiometric dates you have to admit that there is very strong evidence against a young Earth there for a start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Where by collecting you mean making up. The actual geological evidence clearly indicates that tectonic disturbances have continued throughout the lifetime of the planet. You, on the other hand have only lookevad one relativelynstsnle area and even there the evidence was against you. And how could you possibly conclude that the extent of a stratum - or rather a formation which is usually a much more complex beast - would mean that nothing could live there. The Sahara is pretty big, things still live there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
The geological record is a testament to long ages. The evidence clearly shows multiple tectonic events, widely separated in time, as well as long periods of non-deposition where considerable erosion occurred. Of course, different localities will show different events but it really is clear.
(And there are other things such as the time time required for lithification or the time required for magmatic intrusions to cool)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: As are your claims of evidence. Mine have the advantage of being true.
quote: No, you haven’t.
quote: The angular unconformity at the Supergroup is strong evidence, alone.
quote: Bare assertion. Geologists have been working on these questions, you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That just isn’t true. In reality the evidence shows a long history of tectonic events. To first this in with your religious doctrine you come up with the idea that they all happened at the same time. It’s not based on the physical evidence - it’s an attempt to deny the obvious implications of real physical evidence. But you go on, and now you are insisting that your apologetic excuse is evidence of a Young Earth, and even an observable fact! In reality you’ve only looked at one small part of the planet, and you haven’t come up with any real evidence that your idea is true even there. That is your physical evidence - a lousy religious apologetic that you try to pass off as a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: So you say. But you haven’t even made a reasonable case for that in the examples that have been discussed.
quote: I’d rather stick to the point than go back to something where we already have made a good case. Why you are you trying to pass off an opinion you hold for religious reasons as evidence? Why are you insisting that it can be shown from the physical evidence when you can’t even do that for the region we’ve discussed most? Let alone the rest of the planet? And why are you evading this point ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Nobody sees it. You just assume it.
quote: There are no actual observations that provide any significant support. None.
quote: They were clearly formed by surface erosion - like the ones herebedragons showed pictures of. They were there when the Tapeats was being deposited.
quote: That is an obvious falsehood. You would have had to have looked at a great many locations to determine that, not just one. And you are almost certainly wrong about the one region you did look at. It’s obvious that you just made it up, and it isn’t exactly hard to guess the motive.
quote: Don’t worry, you aren’t missing anything. Just more irrational nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: And edge and I have been explaining it to you. But you don’t seem to like that. I don’t really see any honest attempt to understand - you seem to be far more interested in finding excuses - even false excuses - to dismiss the standard view. In fact this seems to be what is going on. You don’t understand, you jump to the conclusion that it must be mainstream geology at fault and you resist explanations *because* they make sense. That’s not trying to honestly understand.
quote: You see, you can’t even consider the possibility that what they really believe is not contra-natural. You can’t see that the systems and the periods identified from the systems are our classification system, derived from the ordering of the strata and the differences in the fossils they contain. There’s nothing magic there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: As jar has said fossils will almost always be buried at or relatively close to the surface. How would it happen otherwise ?
quote: Because they were buried over very long periods of time and the life on Earth changed over time. We worked that one out long ago. It’s only a problem for people like you who insist that they were all buried at about the same time.
quote: Now you are just getting confused. We are not talking about the actual physical depth at any one location. The Earth’s surface is not that stable, deposition is uneven and so is erosion. We are talking about the relationships between the strata, the order of deposition. Where strata from two different periods are both present they will be in the same order - those from one period will always be above the other (in the absence of relatively rare disturbances like thrust faults). It will not always be the case that strata from both - or even either - period is present. There are regions where the surface rocks are Precambrian (and, therefore, no other periods would be represented at all). Even if both periods are present then strata from intervening periods may or may not be present and there is no set thickness of rock for any period. So, physical depth is not very useful in this discussion. It can only really be applied to fossils at the same location and even then all we can say is that one assemblage will be found deeper than the other. So, what we are really talking about is the relative ordering of the strata produced by correlating the rocks at many different locations. An effort which goes back to the early days of geology, before Darwin.
quote: As I hope I have explained the order of the fossil record is explained as the order in which various species - and larger groups - appeared and flourished and disappeared over the long history of the Earth. This was settled before Darwin came along and was accepted by scientists like Cuvier without any influence from evolutionary theory (even the pre-Darwinian ideas current in Cuvier’s lifetime). Evolutionary theory, however places constraints in the order in which species could appear. And in fact these constraints are met by the order of the fossil record. So if you accept that the known processes invoked by geology can produce distinct rock layers (and there is the obvious example of transgressions sequences where it clearly makes sense) there really isn’t any problem.
quote: The effects of earthquakes and tectonic displacements - where even relevant - are detected and accounted for in the cross-correlations of the strata. Geologists and Palaeontologists do take account of things that could affect the order. If remains are found in caves, for instance the question of how they got there is considered.
quote: It’s a simplified view and you seem to be reading far too much into the simplifications. Edited by PaulK, : Tidy up typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So the Flood is a lie.
quote: Where ? None of these things are true of the Grand Canyon region we’ve been talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You have ? Why haven’t you posted about it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Then why have you kept quiet about it ? What is this evidence?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024