Nature and Tetrapods

[Jet Black]

Tomorrow (April 6th) in Nature, a very interesting paper detailing a new tetrapod will be published, creating two missing links where previously there was only one.

 

[ushishir]

Tomorrow (April 6th) in Nature, a very interesting paper detailing a new tetrapod will be published, creating two missing links where previously there was only one.

Ooo can't wait, Per and Matin B have been dropping hints about this for ages at IIDB.

By the way Martin Brazeau (one of the authors of the forthcoming paper) has a nice post on his blog 'the lancelet' on the background to this discovery and how geology paleontology and evolution can work together to create successful predictions and new discoveries:

http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2006/03/blurb-about-prediction-in-historical.html

 

[Sarcopt]

Ooo can't wait, Per and Matin B have been dropping hints about this for ages at IIDB.

By the way Martin Brazeau (one of the authors of the forthcoming paper) has a nice post on his blog 'the lancelet' on the background to this discovery and how geology paleontology and evolution can work together to create successful predictions and new discoveries:

http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2006/03/blurb-about-prediction-in-historical.html

Martin Brazeau is not an author on one of the papers. The papers were written by a completely different group in the US.

Martin happens to know about what's going on, but is not one of the authors.

 

[Jet Black]

yeap. Per and Martin aren't the authors. But Per being one of the world experts on the matter, I wouldn't be suprised if he was one of the reviewers.

It is fascinating though isn't it? That by looking at the environment in which the other tetrapod fossils were found that they could (a) radiometrically determine the age of the fossils (b) determine the length of time between the fossils (c) determine the age of the rock to look at to find intermediates and (d) determine the type of rock to look at for the intermediates. Then they go to a bunch of geologists who date and determine types of rock, and just ask them if they know where a certain sort of rock is, then they go to this place, dig around for a while and then find exactly the sort of fossil they are looking for.

How would the flood scenario predict such a thing since all the fossils were buried at the same time, radiaoactive dating is false, evolution doesn't happen and so on? I mean, what possible explanation do the YECs have for this type of fossil that has never been seen before and has no contemporaries being predicted to be found in a certain location, and then sure as heckfire, it's there. I think in a sense the way that this fossil was found is just as interesting as the fossil itself. I look forward to responses from some of the more intelligent creationists on this matter. (i.e. dad, you're on my ignore list, I don't care what you say)

 

[Freodin]

It´s fake, I tell you. It´s just another fraud promoted by the satanic atheist evilutionists who want to keep their grants and their stranglehold on our innocent youth.

 

[USincognito]

It is fascinating though isn't it? That by looking at the environment in which the other tetrapod fossils were found that they could (a) radiometrically determine the age of the fossils (b) determine the length of time between the fossils (c) determine the age of the rock to look at to find intermediates and (d) determine the type of rock to look at for the intermediates. Then they go to a bunch of geologists who date and determine types of rock, and just ask them if they know where a certain sort of rock is, then they go to this place, dig around for a while and then find exactly the sort of fossil they are looking for.

How would the flood scenario predict such a thing since all the fossils were buried at the same time, radiaoactive dating is false, evolution doesn't happen and so on? I mean, what possible explanation do the YECs have for this type of fossil that has never been seen before and has no contemporaries being predicted to be found in a certain location, and then sure as heckfire, it's there. I think in a sense the way that this fossil was found is just as interesting as the fossil itself. I look forward to responses from some of the more intelligent creationists on this matter. (i.e. dad, you're on my ignore list, I don't care what you say)

Quoted and blued for Shinbits (and others) per his comments in dlambeth's thread. I've got you on iggy, but perhaps others with more patience will work with your response to the above.

 

[stumpjumper]

Cool. I love tetrapods.

They're good on the grill too

 

[Jet Black]

[/color]

Quoted and blued for Shinbits (and others) per his comments in dlambeth's thread. I've got you on iggy, but perhaps others with more patience will work with your response to the above.

yeap, I'd really love to see answers to this. So far all the creationist responses I've seen are things like "how do you know this is related to the other tetrapods" and so on. There is no discussion at all really on how the tetrapod was found, on that it was found where we expect it to be found, and have the properties we expect it to have. In essence, the properties of the other tetrapods, the radioactive properties and structural properties of the rocks have allowed us to find a particular fossil in a particular place.

 

[Dr.GH]

It´s fake, I tell you. It´s just another fraud promoted by the satanic atheist evilutionists who want to keep their grants and their stranglehold on our innocent youth.

OH! The po' widdle chillins.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Cool. I love tetrapods.

They're good on the grill too

Well it's several million years old. It might be a bit grody.

 

[USincognito]

Another important point relevant to the evo/creato issue is that the team of paleontologists went to that hostile location to work becasue the rock had been independently dated by radiometric methods, and the dates were when theory predicted that an aquatic to land transition would have occurred.

This totally refutes the creationist canard that "fossils date the rock, nad the rock dates the fossils."

I'd really like a Creationist to address what JB and Dr. GH have said in the quotes I've posted to this thread. I guess I'd even accept ad hockery since it would be something, but I find it interesting that not a single YEC or even a Gapper has responded to either of these comments.