Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I never said there were a bunch of misplaced genra, I meant specific species fossils, and I don't think many are misplaced.
And yes, well aware of the homology issues. I need to learn to communicate better.
Oh gosh, I'm such a punk. I read your comment right the first time, then I went back and responded after I had forgotten the context and read something entirely different into it.
Oh gosh, I'm such a punk. I read your comment right the first time, then I went back and responded after I had forgotten the context and read something entirely different into it.
...just so we don't own up to our own.As long as we own up to your errors there is no problem.
...just so we don't own up to our own.
Not pushing you to come back to this thread...it's only been one day. Just keeping it on your radar screen.And I'm not arguing either of those.
What I am claiming is the implications to the overall theory, that anachronisms can potentially be rescued by discarding old dates and re-dating the regions they're found in. This has implications for potential falsifiability and flies in the face of the familiar cry of evolutionists that their theory could be disproven by "discovering a single out of place fossil." Things clearly are not that black and white.
What I am claiming is the implications to the overall theory, that anachronisms can potentially be rescued by discarding old dates and re-dating the regions they're found in. This has implications for potential falsifiability and flies in the face of the familiar cry of evolutionists that their theory could be disproven by "discovering a single out of place fossil." Things clearly are not that black and white.
Not pushing you to come back to this thread...it's only been one day. Just keeping it on your radar screen.
If ,my watch says it is two o`clock, my phone says its two o`clock, the town hall clock says its two o`clock and the two o`clock news has just come on, but the clock outside the jewelers says it is five o`clock - what time is it?
This is an opportunity for clarity. Now think about the implications of what you're saying here.
In other words,
Since everyone knows a certain fossil does not belong outside of X, we are therefore justified in re-interpreting its anomalous appearance as within X.
That is exactly the type of circular reasoning that works to insulate evolution theory from potential falsification.
And lastly, why the heck did Nature retract the original article? The authors did nothing wrong, did they? There was no malice or malpractice. And yet they retracted it.
Why would a scientific journal want to retract articles after other articles disprove them? Isn't that what science is?
There's a variety of things about this case that make me uneasy:
If the strata of the Laguna Brava formation had not contained the bird-like footprints, no one would have batted an eye and no one would have thought anything of it. The formation was confirmed to be late Triassic via 3 independent methods: fossil wood (Caminos et al., 1995), 40Ar/39Ar dating (Coughlin, 2001) and paleomagnetic studies (Vizan et al., 2005). That's pretty damning evidence to say it is Triassic.
This raises the question: how many other geological settings have been dated wildly wrong? If a formation has been dated 3 times via different methods and all methods independently verified the same age, and all of it was wrong by several hundred million years, that seriously throws into question a good chunk of the Earth's strata. Thats a really bad spot to be in as a geologist...
How sure are they that the new date is any better?
Furthermore, why is it so impossible to think that a therapod could make the tracks? The scientific community seemed to get in a tizzy about it and build these convoluted geological models that get Eocene rocks on top of Permian strata. They redid the radiometric dating (with U-Pb, not 40Ar/39Ar....why didn't they try using the same method as Coughlin (2001)?)
There was a paper written by Milner et al (2009) which talks about an early Jurassic therapod that has distincly bird-like tracks (specifically a 'reversed hallux'). (Title of the article: "Bird-like anatomy, posture, and behavior revealed by an early Jurassic theropod"). So there's already research out there to suggest that bird-like tracks should not be all that surprising in early Jurassic strata.
I would almost rather go with the original conclusions: the rock is late Triassic, as confirmed from 3 independent sources. A bird-like theropod made the tracks, as supported by Milner (2009).
The current conclusion seems far sketchier and convoluted. A 200 million year discontinuity that previous researchers missed? Three independent sources all being wrong simultaneously? A convoluted paleo-magnetic model that introduces b-shifting to get the poles to align? All this to explain away a set of tracks that had already been explained perfectly and consistently by the previous model...
And lastly, why the heck did Nature retract the original article? The authors did nothing wrong, did they? There was no malice or malpractice. And yet they retracted it. Why would a scientific journal want to retract articles after other articles disprove them? Isn't that what science is? Scientific progress depends on other people proving other people wrong. By retracting the article, you get rid of the trail that shows how that progress occurred.
There's a whole bunch of things about this case that just don't make sense to me.
Note: Of course, none of this even remotely supports a 6000-year old Earth. It's funny that lifepsyop is saying "Gotcha!", but the conclusion he's using is that the rock is still like 50 million years old...
Thank you, I couldn't have said it any better. They are rejecting a previous concordance of data, which has implications for geochronology in general.
Well this thread certainly got quiet all of the sudden.
Well this thread certainly got quiet all of the sudden.
Well this thread certainly got quiet all of the sudden.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?