Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   calling creationists
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 21 (9086)
04-28-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ksc
04-28-2002 10:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Do you know there are many ways that sorted the fossils?
The fossil record in the geologic column is one of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, concident with increasing age as indicated by radiometric dating. How does a single flood explain not only this, but also the evidence in the geologic layers themselves about where, when and how they were deposited?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ksc, posted 04-28-2002 10:31 PM ksc has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 7 of 21 (9091)
04-29-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
04-28-2002 11:09 PM


TrueCreation writes:

Percipient would however be incorrect to say that 'modern' forms are less found with increasing depth.
On the contrary, increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth is precisely what we find. This is the primary reason that many years before Darwin formulated his theory it was already realized that life had evolved over time.

Scorpions for instance are found virtually unchanged in the fossil record in 420 million year sediment deposits (on the uniformitarian scale).
Your statements don't seem to reflect the understanding of someone who has read 10 geology books.
The lifetime of some species is short, of others is long. Some species have existed virtually unchanged for over hundred million years, while others have made only a brief appearance, flitting into existence through speciation and out again through extinction in only a geological instant.

He is also relatively correct that radionucleic dating within its assumptions will give older dates as you increase in sedimentary depth (daughter isotopes are found in higher quantities, that is for Parent/Daughter isotopic ratio's).
Radiometric dating has been explained to you several times now, so I don't understand why you're still raising the same simplistic objections. Dating methods have not only been cross-confirmed literally thousands of time, but the isochron methods render the daughter isotope issue moot. Not only that, but despite all the potential problems of the early dating techniques that Creationists love to cite, such as for U/Pb, the dates of the highly accurate modern methods broadly confirm those of the supposedly inaccurate earlier approaches.

However, some of my studies on radioisotopic dating seemingly is beginning to propel my thinking on radioisotopes. I am haveing some thought on radioitosopic deposition within lithophilic elements, or something along that line.
I have no idea what this means, and I don't think you do, either.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 04-28-2002 11:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 04-29-2002 7:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 21 (9128)
04-29-2002 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by TrueCreation
04-29-2002 7:31 PM


TrueCreation writes:

'simpler' forms are more prone to change and adaption through natural selection from more factors vulnerable than other forms such as isolating populations. However I would be interested in seeing more information on these differences, I am not too much into zoology and paleontology, though it does interest me a bit.
This reply avoids the issue you yourself raised. Fossils in the geologic column increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth. The geologic column is a record of change over time. It shows species passing into and out of existence. Some persist in the geologic record for long periods, some for short. Deflecting discussion with a "like to see more information" type of comment is evasive. The amount of information available in the early 1800s was sufficient for students of nature to conclude evolution had happened - no more is necessary.
A map of the entire United States will tell you that New York and San Francisco are about 3000 miles apart. Your hope that more detail will reveal the earth is really only 10,000 years old is like hoping that detailed examination of roadmaps for the individual states will reveal that San Francisco and New York are actually both in Manhattan.
Just as a map of the entire country is more than sufficient for a solid estimate of the distance between New York and San Francisco, what you already know about fossils, geologic layers and radiometric dating is more than sufficient to understand that the earth is a very ancient place.

Geology incorperates some paleontology, however not at all as much as the the actual field of paleontology, I am more into the studies in Geologic mechanics and lithospheric dynamics (plate tectonics)along with various sedimentary and rock formations. So I would be more prone to display a higher lack of knowledge in paleontology rather than geology.
The sedimentary layers you mention are named for the periods of life contained within them: Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc. Our understanding of the geologic and fossil information in the layers developed simultaneously. Even Creationism recognizes this when they mistakenly claim that dating is circular (the layer tells what life will be found there, the life found there tells what layer it is). You can't possibly have read 10 geology books without knowing the intimate relationship between the fossil record and the geologic column of sedimentary layers.

This is a simple factoid I took into account in my thoughts for my first comment.
Unless this translates as "I was wrong" or "I spoke without thinking", I have no idea what this means.
Percy writes:

Radiometric dating has been explained to you several times now, so I don't understand why you're still raising the same simplistic objections.
TC replies:

I had not displayed objections in my post?
Are you asking if you posted messages in response? Or are you asking if you addressed the issues? If the latter, then no, you haven't. You not only didn't address them, you didn't even indicate an understanding of them. Every geology book includes a discussion of radiometric dating. This is yet another indicator lending me doubt that you've read any.

I don't think it would be wise for me to cite my objections until I have more information on radioisotopic dating.
This statement isn't consistent with your just previous question, "I had not displayed objections in my post?" If you don't think you know enough to address the issues now, then obviously you couldn't have addressed them in earlier messages.

I do know what I am talking about.
Someone who feels constantly called upon to claim that he does *to* know what he's talking about is in need of some serious self examination.
Look, TC, everyone, including me, likes you and likes that you're here, but that doesn't change the fact that you're transparently pretending you know and understand far more than you do. The act was fun for a while, but it's getting old and wearing thin.

A lithophilic element is pertaining to elements that tend to become concentrated in the silicate phase of meteorites or the crustal rocks of the earth. Something that is of study in the realm of the distribution of radioactive isotopes in the earth and some Geochemistry. I do believe the rest is self-explanitory when I say 'radioisotopic deposition within lithophilic elements, or something along that line'.
I have no idea what this means, and I don't think you do, either.
A lithophilic element is simply an element found in the lithosphere. That's pretty much all naturally occurring elements. It has nothing specifically to do with radioactive isotopes at all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 04-29-2002 7:31 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2002 12:41 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 15 by joz, posted 04-30-2002 9:51 AM Percy has replied
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 05-04-2002 12:50 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 21 (9173)
05-02-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by joz
04-30-2002 9:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Of course that observer is about 300 times as heavy...
But he won't mind because he's 300 times thinner in the direction of motion!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by joz, posted 04-30-2002 9:51 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by joz, posted 05-03-2002 9:00 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 21 (9186)
05-03-2002 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by joz
05-03-2002 9:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
But he will because his Tadger is 300 times shorter...
Excellent point, and a significant consideration when showing off by moving fast, since these changes are only apparent to stationary observers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by joz, posted 05-03-2002 9:00 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024