• 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.

Lines of Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am always skeptical of the fossil record. All the claims about where fossils are found is not always verified. It is left up to peoples interpretation and even influence about where they find the fossils and in what order they do. Quite often many of the fossils are found on the surface. But they are put into their categories by other finds or by the age they have determined the ground it was found in. So a fossil age can be determined by the ground and the ground can be determined by the fossil.

If they find say a modern bone in what is suppose to be old ground they automatically determine that even though the bone many look modern it is old. Then this can become a new discovery for a transitional because this is all judged on pieces of bone similarities that connect different species together. The bone cannot be considered modern because the determination has already been made that no modern bones can be found in those locations. If they did acknowledge that then it becomes a big problem so they dont even entertain the idea. It just has to be part of an old species with modern looking features. Yet if we were to place all those anomalies aside and just for a moment allow the alternative view that they maybe be out of place fossils the system would be full of contradictory fossils.
Steve, you should know that your description of how ages are determined is not very honest. There are two ways that rocks are dated. Fossil evidence gives relative ages. In other words it can be used to tell which of two different strata is older. The record is very complete, the correlation has already been done, so it is not circular reasoning at this point to date rocks relatively that way. It was not always so, until a reasonable database was built up all sorts of considerations had to be taken in to date strata relatively. But with millions of data points it is reasonable to assume the old work was correct. If you think it was not done correctly you can always try to show it was wrong.

Second absolute dates are given by radiometric dating. That is not done at all locations, but combining the two does give us very accurate dates for the strata and no circular reasoning is involved.

And you would get famous if you cold show that serious anomalies existed. Don't think that people have not tried. Creationists have tried quite often and to date they have nothing. And they don't work with the same assumptions that scientists do, yet they have not been able to show that the scientists are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I am always skeptical of the fossil record. All the claims about where fossils are found is not always verified. It is left up to peoples interpretation and even influence about where they find the fossils and in what order they do. Quite often many of the fossils are found on the surface. But they are put into their categories by other finds or by the age they have determined the ground it was found in. So a fossil age can be determined by the ground and the ground can be determined by the fossil.
Photos are usually taken of the fossils in situ before they are exhumed. Old rocks are often exposed on the surface from erosion, which makes fossils much more accessible than otherwise... I'm not sure why you think this is bad. The common creationist canard, "the fossils are used to date the rocks and the rocks to date the fossils" is a often repeated lie.

If they find say a modern bone in what is suppose to be old ground they automatically determine that even though the bone many look modern it is old. Then this can become a new discovery for a transitional because this is all judged on pieces of bone similarities that connect different species together. The bone cannot be considered modern because the determination has already been made that no modern bones can be found in those locations. If they did acknowledge that then it becomes a big problem so they dont even entertain the idea. It just has to be part of an old species with modern looking features. Yet if we were to place all those anomalies aside and just for a moment allow the alternative view that they maybe be out of place fossils the system would be full of contradictory fossils.
You really have no idea how paleontology works... do you? You just make up a fantasy that fits with your preconceptions and biases and then assume your fantasy is how the real world works. It isn't.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I see layers and layer of different kinds of sediment. Just like the ones that were formed in a matter of days at Mt. St. Helen's. The geologic column has been well debunked in posts here and by many accredited people who can be read on the internet if you open your eyes. Believe the lie if you must.

The layers at Mt St Helen's are not made up of sandstone, limestone and shale.

You continue to repeat the falsehood that the geological column has been debunked here by, yet you cannot provide any references for this. Your continued silence on the references I have provided for the geological column here in North Dakota is deafening. Here they are again:
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/documents/Publication_List/pdf/MiscSeries/MS-66.pdf
Williston Basin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who's the one with his eyes closed here?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I am always skeptical of the fossil record

Can that skepticism explain how the fossil record is laid down exactly how evolution would expect? How did all those fossils just pop into the geologic strata at just the right place time?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,939.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Can that skepticism explain how the fossil record is laid down exactly how evolution would expect?

After how many tries?

How many times did evolutionists have to update their software, until they got it to where it is 'exactly how evolution would expect'?
 
Upvote 0
D

DerelictJunction

Guest
After how many tries?

How many times did evolutionists have to update their software, until they got it to where it is 'exactly how evolution would expect'?
Please back up your implication with evidence that this has actually occurred. Otherwise we will have to categorize it as the lie that it appears to be.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
After how many tries?

How many times did evolutionists have to update their software, until they got it to where it is 'exactly how evolution would expect'?

It has nothing to do with software. If evolution were false we would find all forms of life in all layers of strata. We do not. Why is that AV?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,939.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
I am always skeptical of the fossil record.

We often hear from you that creationists are using the same evidence as evolutionists. That isn't true, is it? You invent fantasy after fantasy in order to ignore the fossil evidence.

Quite often many of the fossils are found on the surface. But they are put into their categories by other finds or by the age they have determined the ground it was found in. So a fossil age can be determined by the ground and the ground can be determined by the fossil.

Have you heard of this thing called "erosion"?

If they find say a modern bone in what is suppose to be old ground they automatically determine that even though the bone many look modern it is old.

Yet another fantasy that you have made up in order to feel justified for ignoring the fossil evidence.

The bone cannot be considered modern because the determination has already been made that no modern bones can be found in those locations.

Regardless of age, no H. erectus specimen would be considered modern. Do you know why? If there were still members of the H. erectus species alive today, they would still be considered transitional. Do you know why?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
If you can't answer my question with a number, may I assume you don't know?

I don't have a number because what you are asking for makes absolutely no sense. Now, do you want to address my first question and explain the fossil record without evolution.
 
Upvote 0
D

DerelictJunction

Guest
I'm sure if you knew the number, you would have produced it.

After nine years, I have come to realize you guys use ad hominems as a synonym for "I don't know."
No. I say I don't know when I don't know.

Frankly, I don't even know if there is "software" being used to arrange the fossils. There could have been adjustments in the placement of fossil date ranges because new fossils have been found. Those are changes based on new evidence and not the dishonesty you imply in your original question.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The quote I posted is self explanatory.

It is a dishonest quote mine. Darwin did not think that the fossil record would produce a finely graduated series of intermediates. It is made clear if you read his actual work without dishonestly quote mining it.

The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Darwin hoped that the imperfect geological record would show more and more facts, as it was researched and excavated, to back up his "theory". We now know it was very disappointing.

Darwin knew that the geologic record was not complete enough to produce a finely graduated series of intermediates. Perhaps you should try to be honest about it instead of using quote mines.


That's just it. You can't.

Then you have admitted that, as a creationist, you do not use the fossil evidence. You have admitted that you cling to a dogmatic belief that does not allow you to even consider the evidence.

Thanks for playing.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,939.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't have a number because what you are asking for makes absolutely no sense.

So scientists got it right the first time?

Oh, that's right ... I'm making no sense.

(Translation: You don't know the answer.)

Now, do you want to address my first question and explain the fossil record without evolution.

Are you kidding?

It's your record, not mine.

You present it, along with your conclusion.

I'll run your conclusion through my Boolean standards and let you know if it can take a hike or not.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
So scientists got it right the first time?

Oh, that's right ... I'm making no sense.

(Translation: You don't know the answer.)



Are you kidding?

It's your record, not mine.

You present it, along with your conclusion.

I'll run your conclusion through my Boolean standards and let you know if it can take a hike or not.

It is everyone's record.

Please explain the fossil record without using evolution.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,939.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

Why do I see a trend here?

We see a trend of creationists twisting the words of other people. Who was the character in the Bible who did that?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.