Is fossil evidence that strong of a case for evolution?

[RickG]

You didn't read the whole article, did you?

Here's more from the link.

Despite the fact that the appearance of age is strictly a philosophical and theological argument, the RATE team (which has generally been focused on attempting to use scientific methodologies to back up the young earth model) has also weighed in on the issue. For example, in reference to certain rocks containing Polonium halos that appear to have a long geological history, the RATE team concludeed that according to Genesis it is theologically possible for these rocks to have been created with an appearance of age (Snelling 2000:440-441).

It appears to me that your argument brews even more contradiction. You cite the RATE team which makes the argument that all dating methods are invalid. The Polonium halo assertion is one of the craziest YEC claims of all. Wow!. Even more contradiction is seen with Snelling. Snelling is an author of several mainstream peer review papers where he describes deep time with no problem. What is so interesting about that is that those papers were published after Snelling had already been publishing young earth claims in the YEC literature.

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

Again, bottom line: If there were no fossils until after the fall, how did they get distributed throughout the geologic column, which you claim is 4.54 Ga embedded?

 

[Loudmouth]

It appears to me that your argument brews even more contradiction. You cite the RATE team which makes the argument that all dating methods are invalid. The Polonium halo assertion is one of the craziest YEC claims of all. Wow!. Even more contradiction is seen with Snelling. Snelling is an author of several mainstream peer review papers where he describes deep time with no problem. What is so interesting about that is that those papers were published after Snelling had already been publishing young earth claims in the YEC literature.

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

Again, bottom line: If there were no fossils until after the fall, how did they get distributed throughout the geologic column, which you claim is 4.54 Ga embedded?

Better yet, how did embedded age in the form of polonium halos get into rocks that are younger than fossils?

"A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks."
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

 

[AV1611VET]

So once again, you are trying to claim that embedded age includes fossils already in the ground when the Earth was created.

You can't even admit when you're wrong can you?

Ecclesiastes 2:14a The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness:

Why is it you agnostics talk just like atheists?

 

[Loudmouth]

You can't even admit when you're wrong can you?

You are the one citing polonium halos. I am just pointing out that this requires fossils to already be in the ground when the Earth is created.

It is you that can't admit being wrong.

Ecclesiastes 2:14a The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness:

You are in the dark, AV.

 

[RickG]

Better yet, how did embedded age in the form of polonium halos get into rocks that are younger than fossils?

"A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks."
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

You know, there's an interesting thing about Gentry. I don't recall were I came across it and I would like to find it again, but here's the gist. Gentry once worked at Oakridge on a team of scientists who were given the task to make radioactive material decay faster, therefore rendering it harmless in a shorter period of time than by natural means. The team failed. They could not increase decay rates through any means.

 

[AV1611VET]

The conclusion is that the Earth's physical age is 4.5 billion years, which you agree with.

Geophysicists conclude that means the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, which you disagree with.

The process used was radiometric dating, which you disagree with.

You disagree with the process of radiometric dating but not the results of that process?

Please explain.

1

 

[Naturalism]

Or did you forget he said it?

I take issue with people who suggest logic can take a hike when they state it's subordinate to theological claims. Saying "the moon" as you did in another thread doesn't help either as it's not an explanation on why the theological in that or this instance overrides logic itself never mind what evidence, reason, & logic you used to come to that conclusion.

Plants were made for food.

And when animals are eating those plants they are consuming them as a living organisms and are thus dying, hence death. And what of the animals that are carnivores that required ingestion of other organisms too? Consuming and digestion of other organisms is a key feature for those which belong to the Animal Kingdom.

There was no death of man or animals prior to the Fall.

But AV the article you cited said the plants and animals were made to be food sources. Maybe in your universe where "logic can take a hike" that means that the animals and plants don't die when they are consumed, but here in this universe that is precisely what it means. Food Chain? Food Web? Biosphere? The interconnectedness of the energy from the sun > plants > animals? All of that is wrong eh AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

But AV the article you cited ...

I cited the article to show that I am not the one who originated embedded age creation ... a false accusation that was laid at my feet.

That is the only reason I cited it.

I did not cite it to discuss details.

The particulars of the article I couldn't care less about.

I don't even know the people I highlighted in boldface.

... said the plants and animals were made to be food sources. Maybe in your universe where "logic can take a hike" that means that the animals and plants don't die when they are consumed, but here in this universe that is precisely what it means. Food Chain? Food Web? Biosphere? The interconnectedness of the energy from the sun > plants > animals? All of that is wrong eh AV?

I am talking about a time before the Fall, when things were very different.

We live in a time after the Fall.

You can't apply all current physics & logic to how the universe ran prior to the Fall -- that's a mistake we call uniformitarianism.

 

[Loudmouth]

I cited the article to show that I am not the one who originated embedded age creation ... a false accusation that was laid at my feet.

The people who did coin the term "embedded age" included embedded history in the term, as shown by the need to have fossils in the ground at the moment of creation in order for their polonium halos to work.

I am talking about a time before the Fall, when things were very different.

We are talking about rocks that overly fossils, and are therefore younger than the fossils. Do these rocks have embedded age in them, according to you?

You can't apply all current physics & logic to how the universe ran prior to the Fall -- that's a mistake we call uniformitarianism.

Show that it is a mistake.

 

[HitchSlap]

I use the physical age that is currently in vogue at the time for Occam's sake.

In other words, I agree with the conclusion, but not the process that arrived at that conclusion.

You're basically saying you agree with what scientists say regarding the age of the earth (4.57by), you just don't know why you believe it to be 4.57by.

 

[Naturalism]

That is the only reason I cited it.

Presumably you cite it as it supports or is consistent with your views. I nthis instance it's stating plants and animals made for food sources. Well, you don't get a free lunch here AV, consumption of plants and/or animals means those plants and/or animals are dying as a result of a metabolic processes.

The particulars of the article I couldn't care less about.

I understand why you don't want to discuss them, but details do matter.

I am talking about a time before the Fall, when things were very different.

For which you have zero evidence for though. There is no evidence in the past that digestion of other organisms did not mean they were in fact dying as a result.

You can't apply all current physics & logic to how the universe ran prior to the Fall -- that's a mistake we call uniformitarianism.

But you can apply ad-hoc reasoning and dispel logic where needed right? I will entertain your notion of logic and physics needed to be different in only so far as it can be shown by reason, evidence and logic that they were. What are the data supporting this?

There was no death of man or animals prior to the Fall.

So you are saying the fossils were made in the earth as all just an "appearance" of age". And you call that logical?

 

[AV1611VET]

The people who did coin the term "embedded age" included embedded history in the term,

Maybe you had better read it again then, eh?

Therefore God must have created the Garden of Eden with an apparent but nonexistent history in order for it to support plant and animal life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe you had better read it again then, eh?

Maybe you should?

"For example, in reference to certain rocks containing Polonium halos that appear to have a long geological history, the RATE team concludeed that according to Genesis it is theologically possible for these rocks to have been created with an appearance of age (Snelling 2000:440-441)."

They include polonium halos as rocks with embedded age. These rocks overly and intrude into fossil bearing rocks, meaning that the rocks with fossils are older than the rocks with polonium halos and an embedded age. This means that they include fossils as something that is embedded in rocks to show age.

 

[Naturalism]

Maybe you had better read it again then, eh?Therefore God must have created the Garden of Eden with an apparent but nonexistent history in order for it to support plant and animal life.

But nothing about having fossils in the layers of the ground is related to supporting plant and animal life. Sure, you could suggest the topsoil had to have certain minerals and such to support plants but this is no way explains why there are layers upon layers of strata filled with fossils that are of no consequence of topsoil.

 

[AV1611VET]

They include polonium halos ...

That's their prerogative.

1

 

[AV1611VET]

But nothing about having fossils in the layers of the ground is related to supporting plant and animal life. Sure, you could suggest the topsoil had to have certain minerals and such to support plants but this is no way explains why there are layers upon layers of strata filled with fossils that are of no consequence of topsoil.

Fossils have nothing to do with the creation week.

 

[Naturalism]

Fossils have nothing to do with the creation week.

But, but, but AV these fossils would have had to been after the fall since nothing was dying prior to it right?

Also, I wonder how it is you're ok with the upper age of the earth (4.57 BY) but not the method/processes used to know that age. How does that work logically?

If plants and animals are made as food sources but then nothing was dying, how were they used as food sources? How does that work logically?

Logic can take a hike?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's their prerogative.

It is also your prerogative. The igneous rock layers that overly fossils carry millions of years of embedded history.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossils have nothing to do with the creation week.

Then why can we find millions of years of history in rocks that are found on top of fossils?

 

[AV1611VET]

But, but, but AV these fossils would have had to been after the fall since nothing was dying prior to it right?

That is correct.

Also, I wonder how it is you're ok with the upper age of the earth (4.57 BY) but not the method/processes used to know that age. How does that work logically?

For the second time: 1

If plants and animals are made as food sources but then nothing was dying, how were they used as food sources?

Did I say animals were made as food sources? if so, link please?

How does that work logically?

You tell me.

Logic can take a hike?

Either that, or you need to read what I said.