Define evolution

[RomanumCatholicam]

Is it not possible for fossils to be created in short periods of time? I have heard and read of many secular, evolutionist articles saying that in flood conditions a fossil can be created rapidly, and not in millions of years. I think this theory of flood causing rapid fossilization is called neo-catastrophy.

 

[s41nn0n]

how can you rely on a google search? anthing that has got fish, reptile or fossil in it will show up.

ohh and the rat will sink first.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

OK but how would a fossil be created Quickly in natural
circumstances without decay taking place or other animals eating it?

most fossils are of animals that died and were quickly obscurred from scavengers. this usually occurs by being buried. It requires lots of time for sediment to build upon the bones and for geologic processes to replace the bone with minerals. You can go to a local museum and find animals that died 10,000 years ago and low and behold they arent fossils, they are bone.

 

[RomanumCatholicam]

Aha CactusJack we meet again!
Are you implying that dead things would need to be buried quickly in order to be made into fossils?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

How do evilotionist date fossils?

Paleontologists mostly use radiometric dating. It is an observed fact that unstable isotopes of atoms break down at a constant rate. The ratio of isotopes to byproducts combined with some mathematics to account for the decay rate gives us the date. Potassium-argon and uranium-lead are the most common isotopes used.

 

[s41nn0n]

We had a show on m-net on sunday called Carte Blanche they were showing us about 6 girls that were killed +- 18 years ago in 1989.
They recovered bones and the DNA was so broken up and that they were there for 18 years in a residental are where not many scavangers would be able to find them because of the people in that area.

Those bones wouldnt have made a fossil because of the decomposition of them and not to mention all fosslis are of near perfect or perfect bones.
and they were in a swamp.

 

[RomanumCatholicam]

"...combined with some mathematics..." LOL. I failed maths so maybe I shouldn't argue with you on that point...

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Is it not possible for fossils to be created in short periods of time? I have heard and read of many secular, evolutionist articles saying that in flood conditions a fossil can be created rapidly, and not in millions of years. I think this theory of flood causing rapid fossilization is called neo-catastrophy.

flood can bury potential fossils rapidy, that doesnt mean that they will fossilize rapidly.

 

[Baggins]

OK but how would a fossil be created Quickly in natural
circumstances without decay taking place or other animals eating it?

Animals that are fossilised are often buried quickly. This in no way implies that they are fossilised quickly. There are two different process going on there.

 

[Baggins]

How do evilotionist date fossils?

Is that some sort of joke?

Geologists date fossils using radiometric dating.

 

[Baggins]

Is it not possible for fossils to be created in short periods of time? I have heard and read of many secular, evolutionist articles saying that in flood conditions a fossil can be created rapidly, and not in millions of years. I think this theory of flood causing rapid fossilization is called neo-catastrophy.

Again: animals can be buried quickly, the process of fossilisation takes a lot longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilisation

Read that, you are confusing two different processes; burial and fossilisation

 

[Loudmouth]

Is it not possible for fossils to be created in short periods of time? I have heard and read of many secular, evolutionist articles saying that in flood conditions a fossil can be created rapidly, and not in millions of years. I think this theory of flood causing rapid fossilization is called neo-catastrophy.

Any preserved remnant of an organism is considered to be a fossil. Even a bone completely unmineralized is considered to be a fossil, from what I have read.

The process that does take long periods is permineralization. In this process living tissue is replaced by minerals.

Most of the "quickly formed fossils" that creationists trot out are concretions. This is where the fossil is quickly covered in mineral concretions. However, none of the fossil material is ever replaced by minerals in these fossils.

 

[Baggins]

I would say the process of fossilisation is the perminaralization or other alteration of a skeleton. Otherwise all you have are buried bones.

By that definition an body in a grave would be a fossil.

I could be wrong, I didn't bother looking through the wikipedia article before I posted it

Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms

Their definition doesn't really help matters

Some things, obviously do not fit this discription because even after prolonged burial they aren't much altered, many micro-fossils are like this

I stand by my syayement that the initial quick proocess is simply burial, and that fossilisation is the longer process of the alteration of the body along with the rock during the transformation from the original sediment to rock.

 

[s41nn0n]

Paleontologists mostly use radiometric dating. It is an observed fact that unstable isotopes of atoms break down at a constant rate. The ratio of isotopes to byproducts combined with some mathematics to account for the decay rate gives us the date. Potassium-argon and uranium-lead are the most common isotopes used.

how do you know that method works?
Have you or others been here long enough to experience that the isotopes of atoms break down at a constant rate. if scientists have done tests how do you know if the rate doesnt change at a rate that we cannot experience like if the rate doubles in 1000 years then doubles in 500 years?

 

[Skaloop]

how do you know that method works?
Have you or others been here long enough to experience that the isotopes of atoms break down at a constant rate. if scientists have done tests how do you know if the rate doesnt change at a rate that we cannot experience like if the rate doubles in 1000 years then doubles in 500 years?

First of all, such a thing would leave evidence. A sudden change like that would have observable impacts.

But secondly, and more importantly, there are several isotopes that can be measured, and there are also several other dating methods that can be employed. And when various independent methodologies are used that confirm the same date, we can be confident that (a) the date is correct, and (b) the various dating methods are reliable.

 

[Loudmouth]

how do you know that method works?
Have you or others been here long enough to experience that the isotopes of atoms break down at a constant rate.

Yep, we have. If you have taken any chemistry class you will remember a very important number, Avogadro's Number. From this we know that there are 6.022 x 10^23 atoms in one mole. This means that even in a short time period there will still be thousands and thousands of disintegrations.

There are also other observations that support the constancy of decay rates. For example, there was at one time, ~1.7 billion before present, naturally occuring nuclear reactors at a place called Oklo. The characteristics of these reactors is consistent with constant decay rates. There is also Supernova 1987a which is ~170,000 light years away. When it exploded it produced radioactive isotopes that were able to measure. This supernova showed us that decay rates were the same 170,000 years ago.

if scientists have done tests how do you know if the rate doesnt change at a rate that we cannot experience like if the rate doubles in 1000 years then doubles in 500 years?

If it did that then we would all be in trouble. Increased radioactive decay produces increased heat, not to mention raising the background level of radiation. The increase in radioactive decay needed in a 6-10,000 year old Earth would have roasted Adam and/or blown up the Earth.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

how do you know that method works?
Have you or others been here long enough to experience that the isotopes of atoms break down at a constant rate.

Every isotope decay that is observable is constant. Combining this with the fact that the dates are consistent with other paleontological data such stratigraphy and dendrochronology makes a strong case for these techniques.

if scientists have done tests how do you know if the rate doesnt change at a rate that we cannot experience like if the rate doubles in 1000 years then doubles in 500 years?

That would have physical consequences that would be obvious.

 

[FishFace]

how do you know that method works?

For a limited length of time, it can be checked against completely different methods, like ice core dating.
For a much longer period of time, it can be checked against other radiometric methods. If radiometric dating doesn't work, then there would be no reason for different radiometric methods to agree with one another, but they do.

Have you or others been here long enough to experience that the isotopes of atoms break down at a constant rate.

It doesn't take that long if you have a lot of atoms. The point is that over a given length of time, half the atoms will decay. If you have billions of atoms, then it's going to take a tiny fraction of that time before a few atoms have decayed. It's therefore possible to measure radioactivity from a source over, say, a week, and show that the rate of decay is constant.
Scientists of course have not just done this for a week, but have done this for all different kinds of radioactive materials for a combined total of ages and ages.

if scientists have done tests how do you know if the rate doesnt change at a rate that we cannot experience like if the rate doubles in 1000 years then doubles in 500 years?

Well, firstly, if the rate of some or all radioactive isotope was different ages ago, we would expect wild disagreement between the various methods of radiometric dating. There should be no correlation at all. First let's imagine that all of the rates of all of isotopes changed in proportion. But different methods use different isotopes, so some methods will give older dates, some will give newer.
If you suppose that different isotope's rates changed differently, then it might be good for just one rock sample, but then all of the other rock samples would just go crazy.

Secondly, to assume something changes without evidence is a big no-no. You don't think that the laws of physics might tomorrow change, do you? Why not? Because they've always been the same. Well, decay rates have always been the same, for as long as we can tell, so we can be pretty certain that they've been the same even longer.

Thirdly, 30 years ago scientists observed a supernova called SN1987A. We received gamma rays from the explosion which contained the signature of cobalt decay. I won't bore you with details, but from the way in which the gamma rays we received changed over time, scientists calculated that what they were seeing was the same decay rate as observed here on earth. The supernova actually exploded 168,000 years in the past, so we know that radiometric dating is good for that long at least.

Finally, radioactive decay produces heat. If you speed up the rate of decay, you get more heat - simple. (This, by the way, is why a nuclear power plant works) What happens if you squash all the radiation that we thought occurred over billions of years into 10,000 years? Well, you get roast Adam and poached Eve. (In fact, according to Meert, it would be enough energy to melt the entire earth)

Conclusion? If decay rates had been different previously, we'd A) not be able to get radiometric dates at all, B) be extremely confused, C) be even more confused, and D) not be here at all.

 

[s41nn0n]

For a limited length of time, it can be checked against completely different methods, like ice core dating.
For a much longer period of time, it can be checked against other radiometric methods. If radiometric dating doesn't work, then there would be no reason for different radiometric methods to agree with one another, but they do.



It doesn't take that long if you have a lot of atoms. The point is that over a given length of time, half the atoms will decay. If you have billions of atoms, then it's going to take a tiny fraction of that time before a few atoms have decayed. It's therefore possible to measure radioactivity from a source over, say, a week, and show that the rate of decay is constant.
Scientists of course have not just done this for a week, but have done this for all different kinds of radioactive materials for a combined total of ages and ages.



Well, firstly, if the rate of some or all radioactive isotope was different ages ago, we would expect wild disagreement between the various methods of radiometric dating. There should be no correlation at all. First let's imagine that all of the rates of all of isotopes changed in proportion. But different methods use different isotopes, so some methods will give older dates, some will give newer.
If you suppose that different isotope's rates changed differently, then it might be good for just one rock sample, but then all of the other rock samples would just go crazy.

Secondly, to assume something changes without evidence is a big no-no. You don't think that the laws of physics might tomorrow change, do you? Why not? Because they've always been the same. Well, decay rates have always been the same, for as long as we can tell, so we can be pretty certain that they've been the same even longer.

Thirdly, 30 years ago scientists observed a supernova called SN1987A. We received gamma rays from the explosion which contained the signature of cobalt decay. I won't bore you with details, but from the way in which the gamma rays we received changed over time, scientists calculated that what they were seeing was the same decay rate as observed here on earth. The supernova actually exploded 168,000 years in the past, so we know that radiometric dating is good for that long at least.

Finally, radioactive decay produces heat. If you speed up the rate of decay, you get more heat - simple. (This, by the way, is why a nuclear power plant works) What happens if you squash all the radiation that we thought occurred over billions of years into 10,000 years? Well, you get roast Adam and poached Eve. (In fact, according to Meert, it would be enough energy to melt the entire earth)

Conclusion? If decay rates had been different previously, we'd A) not be able to get radiometric dates at all, B) be extremely confused, C) be even more confused, and D) not be here at all.

FishFace
"For a limited length of time, it can be checked against completely different methods, like ice core dating.
For a much longer period of time, it can be checked against other radiometric methods. If radiometric dating doesn't work, then there would be no reason for different radiometric methods to agree with one another, but they do."

what do you meant hat it cannot work so you are saying that it has flaws.

And if it has flaws it will bring up the wrong dates.

"It doesn't take that long if you have a lot of atoms. The point is that over a given length of time, half the atoms will decay. If you have billions of atoms, then it's going to take a tiny fraction of that time before a few atoms have decayed. It's therefore possible to measure radioactivity from a source over, say, a week, and show that the rate of decay is constant."

How do you know that the rate of decay was cnstant doesnt pressure and temperature also effect the rate of decay.

and how do scientists know the temperature in a particular area in that time frame? and pressure?

 

[s41nn0n]

Oh and doesnt the sun loose its size as it burns up? yes it does.
30 million years ago the sun would have been so big that it would have been in the exact place that the earth is now.
or the sun would have been so hot that the earth would not be here as it would have vapourised the eatrh into little pieces of dust.