Why do I feel there are parts of both stories that are conveniently left out? Like in McIntyre's case, the site was dated not the artifact which was obviously dropped there some 250,000 years later.
Upvote
0
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.
Questions raised about oldest mammal | Science News | Find Articles
Scientists had formerly dated both the limestone and sandstone to be about 1.1 billion years old, but the shells in the limestone indicate that this layer is only about 540 million years old.Virginia Steen McIntyre, PhD Suppressions: Archaeological Coverups - YouTube
It is only reasonable to act on what is known. You are making the assumption that human intelligence and the unknown designers intelligence have common forms, this in my view is a bad assumption. How are we to recognise the design of that which is unknown?
How is this specificity combined with function? I mean if you're saying it's specifically concrete and its function is to be hard, then I'd propose absolutely everything is intelligently designed (which we know is not the case). Can you please be more specific about where your line between intelligent design and unintelligent design is drawn. Wave Rock is a good example of supposed design, using specificity and functionality explain to me why Wave Rock is a product of unintelligent design and a piece of stone sculpture depicting wave rock is intelligent design. (Google Wave Rock if you are unfamiliar.)
The we I refer to are those who are unconvinced by the argument of intelligent design. If the unknown design methods of this intelligent agent are outside the scope of what we can know, why do you assume to be able to recognise his work? ID seems to be applying knowledge it doesn't have. I am still unconvinced that your definition of intelligent design holds any water, maybe you could convince me some more. See my challenge above.
Evolution is quite slow, the types of examples I'd love to show you are all in the fossil record and I know you won't like that. There are examples like the peppered moth in England, and the Galapagos Finches but these are modifications rather than additions. This is where we must turn to bacteria since they reproduce so rapidly and give us a chance to actually see these additions occur, and there are many examples. We have bacteria which can digest nylon (which is a totally synthetic substance), we have examples of E. Coli changing it's metabolic pathways to be able to digest new compounds which they could now digest before. All these are examples of features being added which were non-existent previously.
The bacterial flagellum has been largely accounted for since IDers brought it up, and the whole irreducible complexity argument has been shredded. Let me see if I can explain the general idea. All that is needed for irreducible complexity to present itself in biological systems is:
1. Add a part
2. Make it necessary
As silly as it may sound that's what the argument boils down to. Behe who coined the term and originally brought up the argument had a faulty assumption, and that was that evolution only occurs through the step-wise addition of parts. We know this is incorrect, in evolution parts can be removed, they can be modified, and they can be translocated. Now that we can add AND remove/modify/translocate parts irreducible complexity falls apart. I wish I could explain the flagellum to you but I can't post links yet and it's too involved for an internet forum.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but does this mean you agree that evolution COULD be true even though you consider it unlikely? Is the main problem you have with ID vs Evo a probability one?
Strawman? the problem is evolution has not provided any explanation for the existance of complex interrelated systems, or how they were built in a step by step process of random mutation acted on by natural selection.You're arguing against a strawman, no theory of evolution supposes that a bunch of parts appeared and by chance stuck together
It is a self replicating molecule, amazing but flawed in ways that even humans can understand. If it were a good programming language like the ones computers use, we'd be able to reactivate our vitamin C and be able to synthesize our own. And we wouldn't get cancer either.
And what exactly are those odds?
This is just interesting trivia, they don't explicitly support your position.
Still waiting. I'll make it simpler this time.
Why are there no hominid fossils in Cretaceous strata?
Why are there no bear fossils in Devonian strata?
Why are there no Mammoth fossils in Triassic Strata?
In other words how do we get from simple life forms prior to the Phanerozoic Eon to increasingly complex life forms in the Cambrian and becoming more complex and diverse through each successive geologic period to present?
Explain how that happened. I don't care about speciation, or macro-evolution. I want to know in your own words without irrelevant copy/paste how that came about without evolution. That is all I ask.
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']1. Facts and Reason -impossible for creationists.^^^^^ If anything about creationism needs to be explained, it's THAT.
But the only explanation I've heard of this is that the devil put all those fossils in the ground in chronologically separated layers to make us think things evolved to discredit the "special creation" of the Bible.
Why do I feel there are parts of both stories that are conveniently left out? Like in McIntyre's case, the site was dated not the artifact which was obviously dropped there some 250,000 years later.
Ok so according to Thanks for keeping this civil, lets continue this discussion without any copy pasting from websites!
Questions raised about oldest mammal | Science News | Find ArticlesScientists had formerly dated both the limestone and sandstone to be about 1.1 billion years old, but the shells in the limestone indicate that this layer is only about 540 million years old.Virginia Steen McIntyre, PhD Suppressions: Archaeological Coverups - YouTube
In case you didn't realize, it's just a Poe, and not a particularly good one at that.I really don't know how to respond to that video.
Your first example has a couple problems. One, the title is wrong. The discovery had nothing to do with mammals - they were talking about worm burrows.
Two, the article itself explains how the age difference could have come about.
Your second example is likely a case of what RickG said - they dated the rocks rather than the artifacts.
And you're deliberately ignoring the rest of my post.Given that the shells were 540 million years old, theories on how they ended up in 1 billion year old rocks emerged.
Fossils are not dated by the rocks they're in? Well no wonder she lost her job. It's because her date and methods were meaningless!
Rick, I do not have an answer for you. There could be reasons having to do with dating, how the layers actually were layed down. There are many questions still to be answered. All I can comment on is what I am familiar with. I will say that, it is point that points to evolution at this time. Many evolutionist are patiently waiting for evidence they say/hope will be found in the future. Like how almost all the major plans showed up all at once with no gradual progression, and why there has been stasis ever since.
Very smart people believe in evolution for reasons. The whole of the evidence for me, and many, very smarter people than me, is better explained by ID. LIke I have said more than once, I cannot prove ID for a fact, but neither can an evolutionist prove evolution as a fact. (outside of variation)
I have a lot of quesions regarding dating. This fossil is this old because it was found in this rock, this rock is this old because this fossil was found in it.
I am not convinced dating of millions and billions of years are all that acurate. A whole slew of assumptions have to be made before you begin.
And you're deliberately ignoring the rest of my post.
She wasn't very clear on what was dated or where the object was found. The two dating methods that she mentioned (Uranium atoms and zircon) makes it rather unclear - there are quite a few different Uranium dating methods, and one uses zircons, so it could have been only one dating method, not the two that she thought.
Moreover, Uranium has a pretty long half-life (~4.5 billion years), so it's not exactly ideal for dating material thought to be around 20,000 years old. The margin of error is frequently close to that amount, even on the most accurate dates.
which I gather was never published.
Well how about them apples.
Fossils are not dated by the rocks they're in? Well no wonder she lost her job. It's because her date and methods were meaningless!
She didn't date the site, she had the site dated by geochronologists which was dated correctly. Understand that this was not an archeological site, rather just an artifact that was found. The artifact was found under a thin layer of volcanic ash that dated to 250,000 years. What she did was to assume the artifact preceded being covered by the ash. In most cases that would be a fair assumption. But not being a geologist and examining the geology of the area and the source of the ash, she made a grave error. She should have investigated further, especially since the date was over 200,000 years older than she suspected it might be in the first place.
These "theories" that you're talking about existed long before this controversy ever emerged and are based on common sense: if you have one rock with very durable crystals (it takes several days in one of the strongest acids in existence at 200-300 degrees Celsius to dissolved them for analysis) that erodes, with the mineral grains carried to a basin and deposited, then you'd expect to find those grains in the sedimentary rock found in that basin, right? That's just basic logic.I didn't talk about the theories?
Indeed. I'm actually not all that familiar with U-series dating (I deal with older stuff), so that was an interesting read. Seems my complaints about the methods are invalid.Interesting.
Thanks for the link. It's actually pretty interesting reading - just based on that, it seems like there's a reasonable possibility that her dates are right. Fission track dating is notoriously unreliable, but the ages she got were pretty old, even with the massive error accounted for. The one thing to note is that clays often contain high amounts of thorium, one of the daughter products used in U-series dating, and there was a lot of clay in the dig site. That would increase the amount of apparent daughter product, making the artifacts seem older. Of course, this can be accounted for, so it may be moot. The articles didn't say whether they had applied a correction.Well you're in luck. Steen-McIntyre
Eh, reading the articles, it sounded like she did a pretty good job of verifying her dates. As a tephrochronologist, she was able to compare the ash with ash beds that had been previously dated to around the expected age and found no correlation. It would be better if she was able to get some older ash samples as well to compare to, but it sounds like those are nowhere near to being exposed.She didn't date the site, she had the site dated by geochronologists which was dated correctly. Understand that this was not an archeological site, rather just an artifact that was found. The artifact was found under a thin layer of volcanic ash that dated to 250,000 years. What she did was to assume the artifact preceded being covered by the ash. In most cases that would be a fair assumption. But not being a geologist and examining the geology of the area and the source of the ash, she made a grave error. She should have investigated further, especially since the date was over 200,000 years older than she suspected it might be in the first place.
Ah, so fossils are dated by the rocks they're in?
Ah, so fossils are dated by the rocks they're in?
(For your quote above http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/Nexus_article.pdf - Tests on the Tephra Layers).
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?