Geochronology is on flex time

[Morat]

  We must have some sort of loyality oath, only letting people who swear that evolution is true regardless of the facts publish in journals.

  Oh, I'm sorry. That's the ICR's Biblical inerrancy oath. Forget my own head next!

 

 

[Morat]

  What strata was it found in, Nick, and what strata should it have been in?

   You made the claim, please give us the details.

 

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by npetreley
I see - so if you can call this guy enough names, that will mean that fossils are only found in strata that fits preconceived geochronological order and are never found in strata where you wouldn't have expected to find them.

The real problem is that Sarfati’s claim is false. Here is an image of a fossil remains of a single Ambulocetus, the same one that Sarfati showed with the yellow bones above.

Can't you read? Wait - you don't even need to be able to read. Just look at the picture. And it's not the fanciful artwork of your disgruntled medical illustrator. It's a photograph. You know what a pelvis is, right?

 

[Jerry Smith]

So far, Nick, we only have your copied and pasted creationist web-site's say-so that any whale fossils are found out-of-order. Fortunately, there is a reference provided to another article from the same creationist web-site for support. That one in turn claims that some Archeoceti have been found in the lower eocine, the same strata as Ambulocetus.. That one cites a 1992 Encyclopedia Brittanica as its source.

At this point, I no longer care whether they correctly interpreted what was in Brittanica.. Even if they did, and an ambulocetus really did survive until roughly the same time that the Archeoceti (the oldest fossil "true" whale - itself very much considered transitional) appeared, there is no problem for geochronology. So this whole thread was yet another COLLOSSAL waste of our time.. Please come back when you have something to add to the discussion.

 

[Morat]

  I checked to. Ambulocetus is about 50 MY old. Unless Safarti is claiming Pakicetus was a full-blown whale (*snort*), I don't know what he's smoking.

  Ambulocetus was a early-mid Eocene whale. The earliest fully aquatic whales were mid-late Eocene whales. 10 to 20 million years later. Safarti blowing smoke, and Nick swallowed.


  (Edited to ad: If Safarti claims Pakicetus is a full-blown whale, I expect actual support, not an airy implied assertation)
 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Its funny to watch the swing between hard-core skeptic and willing to believe anything personas of some of these guys. On the one hand, they have no problem believing in 3rd sets of teeth, and will take a John Safarti's word for it on a point of fact (which presumably gives them a bit of ammunition), but they won't accept the word of a scientist on any point of fact ever, even if the scientist is standing there pointing to a plainly smoking gun that any fool could see.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

(Duplicate post - sorry)

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Anatomy of creationist nonsense.

Nick started with the following reference that alleges that Ambolucetus was found in later rock strata than its predecessors:

http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2471.asp

Specifically, the following quote:

Even more disturbing is the fact that fossils of Ambulocetus were found in strata at or above the stratigraphic levels where whale fossils were found.6

Now that little "6" is a reference to an article in Creation Ex Nihilo, a creationist periodical. I tracked down the article and found the following quote:

The Ambulocetus fossil was found in ‘lower to middle Eocene’ beds. Fossils of whales of the suborder Archeoceti have been found in lower Eocene strata,4 so Ambulocetus is unlikely to be an ancestor of modern whales, as claimed by Thewissen et al.

Now the "4" is a reference to Encyclopedia Britannica, so I will assume it is OK. But the quote only refers to "Archeoceti". Now Archeoceti does not refer to a single species, but a group of species. One of the species in this group is Pakicetus, which is both more primitive than Ambulocetus and was discovered ten years earlier!

So explain to me why it is a problem if Ambultocetus is found in later rock strata than fossils thought to be more primitive than Ambulocetus itself?

(The above discussion illustrates the problem with getting your scientific knowledge from creationist web sites)

 

[Morat]

  Why does that little bit of deception not surprise me?

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Archeoceti are a suborder. They also include Basilosaurus (sp?), some of which have been found in the "middle" Eocine. They are considered the first "true" whales, with their vestigial legs tucked inside their bellies.. So this would represent some potential for overlap, if the claim of "lower" Eocine is mistakenly or even correctly applied to them... Overlap isn't a problem at all, as long as a more modern form found in earlier strata than the earliest strata where its putative ancestors are found.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Morat
  Why does that little bit of deception not surprise me?

 

think about it, when your position can only be supported by bluster or by deception, and you run out of bluster....

 

[Morat]

  The earliest B.isis fossil I'm aware of is dated at 40 Ma. 10 Ma after Ambulocetus. I

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by npetreley
By the way, it's interesting that you evolutionists are attempting to hijack this thread into a discussion of Ambulocetus itself and are totally ignoring the point, which is the interpretation of fossil geochronology.

Your bogus criticism of fossil geochronology is based solely upon the specious claims about Ambulocetus. 

They stand or fall together.

So if your claims about Ambulocetus turn out to be wrong, then your criticism of fossil geochronology is likewise busted.  As usual.




 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by npetreley


Well, you are into fairy tales, after all, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Fairy tales?  No; this is the wrong forum for that, Nick.  This is creation/evolution, not biblical apologetics.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Sauron, I'm sorry, but the fact is the two claims do stand or fall separately. Well, in this case, they fall separately. Someone creatively re-interpreted "Archeocetus" as "whale" in the article in question.

 

[Morat]

  I notice Nick started a whole new thread to talk about how we failed to discuss the geochronology claim, instead of dealing with us discussing the geochronology claim here.

  Interesting.