The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

lifepsyop · May 30, 2015

RickG said:
Would you care to elaborate (in your own words) as to why you view scientific dating methods as a religious belief. What god does it worship?

Not scientific "dating" methods, but the unquestionable faith (held by all evolutionary mystics) that the earth is extremely ancient in a way that facilitates the mysterious evolution of all life on earth from a common seed. (i.e. millions and billions of years) This is a sacrosanct creed never, ever, to be questioned.

AV1611VET · May 30, 2015

lifepsyop said:
Not scientific "dating" methods, but the unquestionable faith (held by all evolutionary mystics) that the earth is extremely ancient in a way that facilitates the mysterious evolution of all life on earth from a common seed. (i.e. millions and billions of years) This is a sacrosanct creed never, ever, to be questioned.

I came up with a definition of "religion" that both excludes Christianity as a religion and includes atheism as a religion:

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

RickG · May 30, 2015

lifepsyop said:
Not scientific "dating" methods, but the unquestionable faith (held by all evolutionary mystics) that the earth is extremely ancient in a way that facilitates the mysterious evolution of all life on earth from a common seed. (i.e. millions and billions of years) This is a sacrosanct creed never, ever, to be questioned.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying "not scientific dating methods", then criticizing those ages obtained through those methods. Contrary to what you may believe, dating methods, and evolution are two completely different disciplines.

GrimKingGrim · May 30, 2015

AV1611VET said:
In short, I don't believe using stalactites and fossils as examples of deep time are convincing.

Showing me a stalactite and telling me it took [deep time years] to form doesn't cut it.

Ditto for fossils.

But do you understand fossilization? Like at all?

lifepsyop · May 30, 2015

RickG said:
You are contradicting yourself. You are saying "not scientific dating methods", then criticizing those ages obtained through those methods.

If you think that nobody believed in deep-time before radiometric "dating" came along, then you have some studying to do.

AV1611VET · May 30, 2015

GrimKingGrim said:
But do you understand fossilization? Like at all?

Somewhat.

But it's confusing to me.

One minute they show a tooth.

Then they show a skeleton.

Then they say it's some kind of process involving "fossilization."

Then they claim it's an impression in rock.

Who knows?

Are mummies "fossils"?

AV1611VET · May 30, 2015

lifepsyop said:
If you think that nobody believed in deep-time before radiometric "dating" came along, then you have some studying to do.

As they say:

Necessity is the mother of invention.

RickG · May 30, 2015

AV1611VET said:
In short, I don't believe using stalactites and fossils as examples of deep time are convincing.

Again, I ask what you base that belief upon?

Showing me a stalactite and telling me it took [deep time years] to form doesn't cut it..

What you are unknowingly describing is the discipline of Speleothem analysis and chronology. What you have done is trip over an area I am extremely familiar with. In case you don't recall, I have mentioned numerous times over the years that my concentration in my Earth Science degree was paleoclimatology. Speleothems are excellent proxy's for past climate conditions not only on an annual basis, but a sub-annual basis as well, through the examination and quantification of both stable and unstable isotopes. Speleothems are also an excellent source for increasing the accuracy of the radiocarbon calibration curve. If you are going to dispute any of the numerous applications of speleothems, you need to specify a specific application and show what the problem is you claim and present a scientific argument justifying said claim.

whois · May 30, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I came up with a definition of "religion" that both excludes Christianity as a religion and includes atheism as a religion:

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

i would say religion occurs when the bible is misinterpreted.

AV1611VET · May 30, 2015

whois said:
i would say religion occurs when the bible is misinterpreted.

No argument there.

MoreCoffee · May 30, 2015

Some living folk seem like fossils

AV1611VET · May 30, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Some living folk seem like fossils

I suppose if they can have "living wills," they can have "living fossils"!

Subduction Zone · May 30, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I came up with a definition of "religion" that both excludes Christianity as a religion and includes atheism as a religion:

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

And that definition utterly fails.

Subduction Zone · May 30, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Somewhat.

But it's confusing to me.

One minute they show a tooth.

Then they show a skeleton.

Really? When? The only example that I can think of was not done by a scientist.

Then they say it's some kind of process involving "fossilization."

Then they claim it's an impression in rock.

No, it can be shown that it is the mineralized replacement of original material.

Who knows?

Scientists that study fossils.

Are mummies "fossils"?

No.

MoreCoffee · May 30, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
And that definition utterly fails.

Your post only says that because atheists like to pretend to be non-religious.

Subduction Zone · May 30, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Your post only says that because atheists like to pretend to be non-religious.

No, it failed utterly. If you want to try again have at it.

MoreCoffee · May 30, 2015

Religion = a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

GrimKingGrim · May 30, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Somewhat.

But it's confusing to me.

One minute they show a tooth.

Then they show a skeleton.

Then they say it's some kind of process involving "fossilization."

Then they claim it's an impression in rock.

Who knows?

Are mummies "fossils"?

Fossilization is a very long and specific process. The conditions needed to make a fossil are very strict and they must be held for a very long time to mineralize or preserve the specimen or even bits of it. That's why fossil evidence and its location is so important to detailing age of rock layers and the earth in general.

Mummies are not fossils, they are the basically the dehydrated remains of humans (or whatever died)

RickG · May 30, 2015

Well AV, I'm still waiting for you explanation of why you discredit speleomeths. Or, perhaps you are realized that you are in way over your head with a baseless supported claim? Or is it that when you said deep time doesn't work, you realized that you were contradicting your own idea of embedded age?

Subduction Zone · May 30, 2015

MoreCoffee said:
Religion = a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

No, that is a definition that can be applied to many things other than religion.

Also you can't make up your own meaning for words. "Religion" already has a definition and that definition does not work because too many people will disagree with it. It is also so general and vague that almost anything could be a religion. Overly vague definitions also fail.

ETA: Also you forgot that somehow Christianity was not supposed to be a religion.

The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

The Thin Dead Line of sanity

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

rational

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Repentance works.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Regular Member

Repentance works.

Regular Member

Repentance works.

The Thin Dead Line of sanity

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Similar threads