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