Seeing fossils without the Evolution goggles

[Speedwell]

The claim has been made repeatedly that these institutions are just doing good science and not imposing their ideologies onto their interpretations of reality.

Current events provide a good look under the hood of modern institutions and how ideologically driven they are.

If it was all about the "science", we wouldn't have such shameless self-contradiction on full display for everyone to see, where the scientific "experts" completely invert their stances based on political alignment of the social gatherings.

This behavior is fully documented.


Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance

"For months, public health experts have urged Americans to take every precaution to stop the spread of Covid-19—stay at home, steer clear of friends and extended family, and absolutely avoid large gatherings.


Now some of those experts are broadcasting a new message: It’s time to get out of the house and join the mass protests against racism.


“We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted on Tuesday. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.” ...


It’s a message echoed by media outlets and some of the most prominent public health experts in America, like former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Tom Frieden, who loudly warned against efforts to rush reopening but is now supportive of mass protests. Their claim: If we don’t address racial inequality, it’ll be that much harder to fight Covid-19. There’s also evidence that the virus doesn’t spread easily outdoors, especially if people wear masks.

The experts maintain that their messages are consistent—that they were always flexible on Americans going outside, that they want protesters to take precautions and that they're prioritizing public health by demanding an urgent fix to systemic racism.

But their messages are also confounding to many who spent the spring strictly isolated on the advice of health officials, only to hear that the need might not be so absolute after all..."


I shouldn't even have to link this. We all witnessed this happen over the past few months.

But some people are so smitten by the myth of the objectivity of scientific institutions, they won't be able to admit what is now self evident.

If you can't admit to the overwhelming ideological bias driving supposedly "science"-based institutions... that you are witnessing right before your eyes, unconcealed and out in the open... what hope do you have of identifying such biases anywhere else?

Certainly, although I don't quite see why the bias is overwhelmingly ideological, but that's a question for another forum. No human institution can be free of at least some ideological bias, including science. But we are talking here about a particular ideological bias and the degree to which it affects evolutionary biologists, if any. You claim, that science is biased in favor of naturalistic causes, and in a sense, that's true. Science is interested in conclusions drawn from testable empirical evidence, which in general has not lead us to supernatural causes. So it looks like a trend, so natural causes are looked for and if natural causes are sufficient to explain a phenomenon no one is surprised. So what? As a Christian who believes in God's authorship of our being I fully expect the trend to continue and result in a naturalist explanation for abiogenesis. Because that is beginning to seem to be the way God does things.

 

[pitabread]

All the mainstream "health experts" encouraging severe lockdowns on states right now, clutching their pearls that any social gathering is going to kill grandma with COVID, that it's worth destroying national economies, and all sorts of other cruel restrictions... Then all of the same "experts" simultaneously looking the other way, or even cheering on mass city gatherings in which they are in political agreement.

The above isn't true. You're just reciting a false narrative. When BLM protests were starting, there was lots of reporting that experts actually feared that such protests could further the spread of the coronavirus.

For some reason, some people (e.g. you, apparently) have selectively decided to ignore that.

You are also selectively ignoring the role that the current administration has played in stoking the fires as opposed to putting them out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim has been made repeatedly that these institutions are just doing good science and not imposing their ideologies onto their interpretations of reality.

Current events provide a good look under the hood of modern institutions and how ideologically driven they are.

If it was all about the "science", we wouldn't have such shameless self-contradiction on full display for everyone to see, where the scientific "experts" completely invert their stances based on political alignment of the social gatherings.

This behavior is fully documented.


Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance

"For months, public health experts have urged Americans to take every precaution to stop the spread of Covid-19—stay at home, steer clear of friends and extended family, and absolutely avoid large gatherings.


Now some of those experts are broadcasting a new message: It’s time to get out of the house and join the mass protests against racism.


“We should always evaluate the risks and benefits of efforts to control the virus,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted on Tuesday. “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.” ...


It’s a message echoed by media outlets and some of the most prominent public health experts in America, like former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Tom Frieden, who loudly warned against efforts to rush reopening but is now supportive of mass protests. Their claim: If we don’t address racial inequality, it’ll be that much harder to fight Covid-19. There’s also evidence that the virus doesn’t spread easily outdoors, especially if people wear masks.

The experts maintain that their messages are consistent—that they were always flexible on Americans going outside, that they want protesters to take precautions and that they're prioritizing public health by demanding an urgent fix to systemic racism.

But their messages are also confounding to many who spent the spring strictly isolated on the advice of health officials, only to hear that the need might not be so absolute after all..."


I shouldn't even have to link this. We all witnessed this happen over the past few months.

But some people are so smitten by the myth of the objectivity of scientific institutions, they won't be able to admit what is now self evident.

If you can't admit to the overwhelming ideological bias driving supposedly "science"-based institutions... that you are witnessing right before your eyes, unconcealed and out in the open... what hope do you have of identifying such biases anywhere else?

Now that was quite the change of subject. So if we can demonstrate that any religion is bad we can use that to prove that Christianity is bad? Logical consistency will sink your argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Who do you think you're kidding? The Evolutionary worldview is constantly preached as the fundamental nature of reality as illuminated to us by "science", from the evolution of the cosmos itself, to the human mind. This metaphysical worldview permeates virtually every popular-science publication in the world. If you deny this, you may as well start arguing that the sky isn't blue.

I'm not kidding anyone - having qualified in biology and had a career in biology, I'm talking from experience. The majority of biologists accept it as fundamental to the field because it has been demonstrated far beyond reasonable doubt by multiple independent lines of evidence and has been tested more thoroughly and more often than any other scientific theory - and most importantly, in people's day-to-day lives, it works; it has applications in agriculture, genetic engineering, epidemiology, medicine development, commercial design, and much more.

But nevertheless, the principle remains that it is falsifiable (although it would take something on the order of the simulation hypothesis or a 3 billion year hoax by some malicious hyper-capable entity).

Demonstrably false. There is never any *if* ...
If there is no known natural explanation, then all it means is "science" is still working on finding it.

You just contradicted yourself. I've highlighted the 'if' for you. But of course we'll keep looking for an explanation that has the characteristics I described - we want to gain knowledge of how the world works, and gain the benefit of that knowledge. The God hypothesis ('God-did-it') has no explanatory power whatsoever, it's not even testable, however comforting it may be, it goes nowhere.

Even prior to the supposed "Big Bang" is now assumed to be a point in time where natural processes simply worked different than they do today. There is never any proposed limit to nature. It is an endless chain of propositions that are followed into the foundations of reality.

Francis Bacon referred to this as the search for the "secret motions" behind all things. It is that assumption of the almighty natural process that underlies all of reality.

That is the root of your mystical naturalist ideology that you've convinced yourself is a science.

I don't think so. I don't really have an ideology, I'm sceptical but open to provisionally accept whatever has repeatedly satisfied the criteria for a good explanation (previously described) or that follows logically from such an explanation.

it only "works" for you because it aligns with your ideology. See, you still believe that Evolution was arrived at scientifically.

I don't believe that, I conclude that; I spent several years at university studying at the evidence and many years since then updating what I learned. The evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive.

It doesn't just work for me, it works for everyone - from everyone who has a yearly flu vaccine, or who's benefitted from the cheaper, more abundant food it has enabled, to the businesses that profit from it, and designers who use it to evolve product designs no human would or could produce.

Look at Abiogenesis... it is advanced with basically the same confidence as the ToE, despite its lack of an explanation that "works" ... Failing an explanation that "works", it is simply assumed that "science" is still working on finding the natural-cause explanation.

Not everyone shares that confidence - the ToE is a well-established theory, abiogenesis is still at the stage of competing hypotheses. But of course the people who work on abiogenesis are confident they can make progress explaining how it could have happened; they wouldn't be working on it if they didn't - and they have made considerable progress. In the process, we've learned a lot about out-of-equilibrium organic chemistry and self-assembling molecular systems.

As I said, the God hypothesis tells you nothing, but if they discover a plausible abiogenic process, you can still say 'God-did-it' if it makes you happy, because it will make no other difference at all.

Your claim that science hinges on a "good explanation" is demonstrably false. The facts show that an underlying Evolutionary (natuarlistic) ideology is always rooted underneath different attempts at modeling an explanation.

A 'good explanation' is one that satisfies common abductive criteria (the criteria for the best explanation, as previously described) particularly well. They are criteria that have themselves evolved through empirical experience to give the best chance of acquiring reliable knowledge about the world. They are part of a methodology that attempts to minimise the influence of human bias and error that experience has shown can make knowledge acquisition unreliable.

There are an infinite number of possible hypotheses we can imagine to explain for the phenomena we observe, and the abductive criteria allow us to rank them. For example, when applied to the observed diversity of living things, or how life came about, the magic hypothesis, "It was Magic!", fails in every respect, ranking even below the 'aliens' hypothesis.

If you think you the God hypothesis is better than the magic hypothesis for explaining either the diversity of living things or how life came about, by all means explain how it satisfies those criteria. For your convenience, I'll list the common abductive criteria below:

Testability: makes predictions that can be tested; predictions of what is not currently known preferred.
Fruitfulness: its predictions are borne out; the more, the better.
Explanatory power: gives insight into & understanding of the phenomenon.
Scope: unifies disparate areas of knowledge, e.g. common mechanisms or principles.
Consistency: is internally consistent and coheres to some degree with our existing body of knowledge.
Parsimony: invokes no more assumptions, entities, or forces than necessary (Occam's Razor).
Rational: doesn't raise in-principle unanswerable questions or depend on the inexplicable.

The first three are the most important, if not essential. If you don't agree that those criteria are a good way to judge an explanation, perhaps you can explain why, and what you consider to be the features of a good explanation.

Everything you've wrote in this post is basically just tired, easily refuted propaganda to make your ideology seem more reasonable... make it seem like practitioners of Evolutionary ideology are all objective, skeptical people that are only following the data to the most likely conclusion. This is a laughably false and distorted view of reality.

So refute it - and show how your alternative is a better explanation than the worse-than-useless magic hypothesis.

Let's look at an example of "science" going on right now:

All the mainstream "health experts" encouraging severe lockdowns on states right now, clutching their pearls that any social gathering is going to kill grandma with COVID, that it's worth destroying national economies, and all sorts of other cruel restrictions... Then all of the same "experts" simultaneously looking the other way, or even cheering on mass city gatherings in which they are in political agreement. We can all see the hypocrisy with our own eyes. It's not even hidden anymore. I'd love to see someone try and deny this is happening. Let the liars identify themselves.

What scientists do it their own time is their own business. I think you'll find that the decision whether to impose lockdowns and other restrictions is a political one. The health experts give their advice on the likely health implications of various courses of action, and the politicians decide whether to accept their advice, and try to make the fine judgement of balancing the various kinds of short and long-term damage to the nation of taking various courses of action - or, more realistically, the damage to their political standing and careers.

 

[lifepsyop]

The above isn't true. You're just reciting a false narrative. When BLM protests were starting, there was lots of reporting that experts actually feared that such protests could further the spread of the coronavirus.

Oh, okay. If that's the case, I'm sure you could link me to some official statements, by the NIH perhaps, or other top health/epidemiology institutions, officially condemning the massive city-wide BLM protests in the same intensity all other social gatherings were strongly condemned and advised against with severe physical restrictions, including threats of fines and arrests for non-compliance. (and still are in many places)

I'm guessing you won't be able to find anything like that, for obvious reasons that you don't want to admit.

In order to protect your worldview, you need to believe our 'scientific' institutions are run by objective people. And in order to preserve that illusion, you have to embrace this type of cognitive dissonance and ignore the reality playing out before your eyes.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

I'm not kidding anyone - having qualified in biology and had a career in biology, I'm talking from experience. The majority of biologists accept it as fundamental to the field because it has been demonstrated far beyond reasonable doubt by multiple independent lines of evidence and has been tested more thoroughly and more often than any other scientific theory - and most importantly, in people's day-to-day lives, it works; it has applications in agriculture, genetic engineering, epidemiology, medicine development, commercial design, and much more.

The fact that life as revealed over time i.e., evolved, was in writing almost before the last of the pyramids were built. Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. Line and verse, just ask. The fact that biology is of the same mind simply shows that God knows a little more than humans -- even though he did create them in his own image so they can think in a sense like him.

Meanwhile, running away from an objective analysis of the theory one proposes as to how evolution was accomplished is simply "god of the gaps." There is a hole in darwinistic theory wide enough to accommodate a double decker bus sideways, but filling that hole any way other than to suit certain world views/religions is impossible unless one is willing to say, 'I will accept that the God who made heaven and earth is on the money and I will cease making Nature/the things he created the mystic deity that "did it". One is obliged to apply the scientific method. Since the scientific method is ultimately derived from the words/ inspiration of the Creator of heaven and earth, fine-tuned so to speak by a multitude of creationist mainstream scientists for the past millennium or more, you might or not not accommodate it? Hopefully, you might?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, okay. If that's the case, I'm sure you could link me to some official statements, by the NIH perhaps, or other top health/epidemiology institutions, officially condemning the massive city-wide BLM protests in the same intensity all other social gatherings were strongly condemned and advised against with severe physical restrictions, including threats of fines and arrests for non-compliance. (and still are in many places)

I'm guessing you won't be able to find anything like that, for obvious reasons that you don't want to admit.

In order to protect your worldview, you need to believe our 'scientific' institutions are run by objective people. And in order to preserve that illusion, you have to embrace this type of cognitive dissonance and ignore the reality playing out before your eyes.

You asked the wrong question. The question you should have asked is did the BLM movement cause a spike in Covid cases. It appears that that did not happen. Most BLM protesters wore masks. They maintained social distance:


Black Lives Matter Protests Didn’t Contribute to the COVID-19 Surge

And it was outside. The bump appears to be due to people crowding too close together in indoor events too soon. Churches had people singing, which of course seems natural, but it causes more particulate matter to come out than mere talking. And of course people were sitting next to each other and they were not masked. There were many churches that became hot spots of infection.

The reason that we won't find what you asked for is because it was a poorly framed question, not due to any bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not kidding anyone - having qualified in biology and had a career in biology, I'm talking from experience. The majority of biologists accept it as fundamental to the field because it has been demonstrated far beyond reasonable doubt by multiple independent lines of evidence and has been tested more thoroughly and more often than any other scientific theory - and most importantly, in people's day-to-day lives, it works; it has applications in agriculture, genetic engineering, epidemiology, medicine development, commercial design, and much more.

The fact that life as revealed over time i.e., evolved, was in writing almost before the last of the pyramids were built. Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. Line and verse, just ask. The fact that biology is of the same mind simply shows that God knows a little more than humans -- even though he did create them in his own image so they can think in a sense like him.

Meanwhile, running away from an objective analysis of the theory one proposes as to how evolution was accomplished is simply "god of the gaps." There is a hole in darwinistic theory wide enough to accommodate a double decker bus sideways, but filling that hole any way other than to suit certain world views/religions is impossible unless one is willing to say, 'I will accept that the God who made heaven and earth is on the money and I will cease making Nature/the things he created the mystic deity that "did it". One is obliged to apply the scientific method. Since the scientific method is ultimately derived from the words/ inspiration of the Creator of heaven and earth, fine-tuned so to speak by a multitude of creationist mainstream scientists for the past millennium or more, you might or not not accommodate it? Hopefully, you might?

What supposed hole is there in the theory?

You keep claiming this but you ca never name a hole.

 

[pitabread]

officially condemning the massive city-wide BLM protests in the same intensity all other social gatherings were strongly condemned and advised against with severe physical restrictions, including threats of fines and arrests for non-compliance. (and still are in many places)

Now you're just blatantly moving the goalposts. Which is a clear sign you know your original claim wasn't true.

Glad we got that sorted out.

In order to protect your worldview, you need to believe our 'scientific' institutions are run by objective people. And in order to preserve that illusion, you have to embrace this type of cognitive dissonance and ignore the reality playing out before your eyes

You're just building and tearing down strawmen. Another sign your claims don't hold any merit.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm not kidding anyone - having qualified in biology and had a career in biology, I'm talking from experience. The majority of biologists accept it as fundamental to the field because it has been demonstrated far beyond reasonable doubt by multiple independent lines of evidence and has been tested more thoroughly and more often than any other scientific theory - and most importantly, in people's day-to-day lives, it works; it has applications in agriculture, genetic engineering, epidemiology, medicine development, commercial design, and much more.

The fact that life as revealed over time i.e., evolved, was in writing almost before the last of the pyramids were built. Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. Line and verse, just ask. The fact that biology is of the same mind simply shows that God knows a little more than humans -- even though he did create them in his own image so they can think in a sense like him.

Meanwhile, running away from an objective analysis of the theory one proposes as to how evolution was accomplished is simply "god of the gaps." There is a hole in darwinistic theory wide enough to accommodate a double decker bus sideways, but filling that hole any way other than to suit certain world views/religions is impossible unless one is willing to say, 'I will accept that the God who made heaven and earth is on the money and I will cease making Nature/the things he created the mystic deity that "did it". One is obliged to apply the scientific method. Since the scientific method is ultimately derived from the words/ inspiration of the Creator of heaven and earth, fine-tuned so to speak by a multitude of creationist mainstream scientists for the past millennium or more, you might or not not accommodate it? Hopefully, you might?

Yanno, using the quote function is pretty easy. You should try it.

 

[SelfSim]

What gets me here is the total unwillingness to see that there is an alternative to being driven by beliefs (or assuming initial posits as simply being 'true .. because'.. ).

Our ability to make up a belief and then make that the basis for everything we perceive is as old as humans are. I wouldn't ever deny that as being an obvious mundane fact.

Denying our ability to distinguish those beliefs, condemns us all to being stuck in a perpetual loop .. we will forever see everything in exactly the same way, next time around.
But why should we self impose this? What is the purpose, given that we can also see the obvious outcomes of doing that?

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

What supposed hole is there in the theory?
You keep claiming this but you can never name a hole.

People by definition tend to avoid questioning their personal religion/idea of the Deity. Good luck to them. Sincerity coupled with determination to find 'the way, the truth and the life', is likely to lead to arrival at the said truth etc..

But they tend to keep repeating statements such as? See above. There are no holes in a deity. No holes visible to the believer.

It is impossible in some (Cretaceous) drill core to fit a razor blade between few if any flowering plant fossils (microscopic spores, often prolific in black shales) and avalanche style abundance of the pollen and seeds of flowering plants. A similar scenario almost certainly exists at the base of the Cambrian -- but the strata of the Cambrian are not so amenable to fossil preservation. Further, the (mostly marine) Cambrian fossils are not air borne nor potentially airborne. Radiometric dating within the Cambrian is difficult bordering on impossible due to unsuitable dating materials. (The Cambrian is an exceptional system -- gives food for thought.) Without controversy there is evidence of the sudden abundance of complex life being close to instantaneous in real time. Every phylum of complex life, with its future specializations demonstrably inherent within itself, sprang into existence in a geologic instant. Every phylum. No new information was emplaced in the biosphere subsequent to that event.

Species in the fossil record as a rule (the geologic record of course can be plagued with gaps) as a rule appear abruptly, bursting on the scene with almost shocking verve and vitality, no hint of gradation from any other species, no evidence of development upwards during their tenure on Earth. You may dig in the marine sands for a shell called Lingula which has remained unchanged since at least the Ordovician -- stratigraphically only a little above the Cambrian. There is close on zero evidence of what Darwin suggested, (other than that life was evolved) but a mountain of evidence for what the Creator of heaven and earth states. Organisms reproduce after their kind. End of story. Not quite. The scriptural message is that species were transformed. New DNA, new immune progamming. Necessarily, effectively instantaneously in terms of geologic time. It is now as simple as ABC to see how it was presumably done --- science has advanced. No direct divine action. Pre-programmed, quantum category information technology. Physics. The one thing missing from Darwinism. Physics. Scientific proof. Before getting all jumpy up and downy about so-called transition fossils -- not an entirely inaccurate term -- the method of species transformation put in place by the Creator almost certainly relies on close bodily similarity between the transformer and the transformee.
I am not about to download multiple kilobytes of internet site but if one actually is able to encompass varying world views -- it's at your service. Creationtheory dot com .

 

[Subduction Zone]

What supposed hole is there in the theory?
You keep claiming this but you can never name a hole.

People by definition tend to avoid questioning their personal religion/idea of the Deity. Good luck to them. Sincerity coupled with determination to find 'the way, the truth and the life', is likely to lead to arrival at the said truth etc..

But they tend to keep repeating statements such as? See above. There are no holes in a deity. No holes visible to the believer.

It is impossible in some (Cretaceous) drill core to fit a razor blade between few if any flowering plant fossils (microscopic spores, often prolific in black shales) and avalanche style abundance of the pollen and seeds of flowering plants. A similar scenario almost certainly exists at the base of the Cambrian -- but the strata of the Cambrian are not so amenable to fossil preservation. Further, the (mostly marine) Cambrian fossils are not air borne nor potentially airborne. Radiometric dating within the Cambrian is difficult bordering on impossible due to unsuitable dating materials. (The Cambrian is an exceptional system -- gives food for thought.) Without controversy there is evidence of the sudden abundance of complex life being close to instantaneous in real time. Every phylum of complex life, with its future specializations demonstrably inherent within itself, sprang into existence in a geologic instant. Every phylum. No new information was emplaced in the biosphere subsequent to that event.

Species in the fossil record as a rule (the geologic record of course can be plagued with gaps) as a rule appear abruptly, bursting on the scene with almost shocking verve and vitality, no hint of gradation from any other species, no evidence of development upwards during their tenure on Earth. You may dig in the marine sands for a shell called Lingula which has remained unchanged since at least the Ordovician -- stratigraphically only a little above the Cambrian. There is close on zero evidence of what Darwin suggested, (other than that life was evolved) but a mountain of evidence for what the Creator of heaven and earth states. Organisms reproduce after their kind. End of story. Not quite. The scriptural message is that species were transformed. New DNA, new immune progamming. Necessarily, effectively instantaneously in terms of geologic time. It is now as simple as ABC to see how it was presumably done --- science has advanced. No direct divine action. Pre-programmed, quantum category information technology. Physics. The one thing missing from Darwinism. Physics. Scientific proof. Before getting all jumpy up and downy about so-called transition fossils -- not an entirely inaccurate term -- the method of species transformation put in place by the Creator almost certainly relies on close bodily similarity between the transformer and the transformee.
I am not about to download multiple kilobytes of internet site but if one actually is able to encompass varying world views -- it's at your service. Creationtheory dot com .

Sorry, complex life existed before the Cambrian. And besides a lot of rhetoric and noise you still have not posted any holes.

We can also see that you do not understand how absolute dating is done. Here is a hint, it is usually done with igneous rocks.


Instead of posting nonsense why not try to learn? Politely asked questions will be answered.

Lastly calling science a religion is against the rules here now. It is as bad as others calling your religion a "superstition" . It is rude a no conducive to a healthy discussion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact that life as revealed over time i.e., evolved, was in writing almost before the last of the pyramids were built. Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. Line and verse, just ask. The fact that biology is of the same mind simply shows that God knows a little more than humans -- even though he did create them in his own image so they can think in a sense like him.

Meanwhile, running away from an objective analysis of the theory one proposes as to how evolution was accomplished is simply "god of the gaps." There is a hole in darwinistic theory wide enough to accommodate a double decker bus sideways, but filling that hole any way other than to suit certain world views/religions is impossible unless one is willing to say, 'I will accept that the God who made heaven and earth is on the money and I will cease making Nature/the things he created the mystic deity that "did it". One is obliged to apply the scientific method. Since the scientific method is ultimately derived from the words/ inspiration of the Creator of heaven and earth, fine-tuned so to speak by a multitude of creationist mainstream scientists for the past millennium or more, you might or not not accommodate it? Hopefully, you might?

Meh, a lot of unsubstantiated assertions - I'm waiting to hear your refutation of the ToE and your better alternative explanation. Or, at least, an explanation that ranks better than 'magic'.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

Suckers for punishment. Will you stop making it up as you go along. SUBDUCTION says:
Sorry, complex life existed before the Cambrian. And besides a lot of rhetoric and noise you still have not posted any holes.
To be fair, yes, Geology, 50, repeat, 50, years ago acknowledged complex (=animal grade) life in the Pre-Cambrian. On the basis of fossilized sea floor tracks. By 20 years ago, Geology had discovered the likely cause of the tracks - and had not discovered one true animal fossil in the Pre-Cambrian. You say otherwise? Name it, present photographs, and don't fool about with anything that does not have indisputable internal bilateral symmetry. From indisputably Pre-Cambrian strata. This strata is not to include your lunch.
Sciencedaily, one of a number of similar accounts (referenced at Creationtheory dot com) which leave no complex, or animal grade life in the Pre-Cambrian:
Rolling 'Sea Grape' Rocks The Fossil Record
Dateecember 4, 2008
Sourceuke University
Summary:
A submarine expedition that went looking for visually flashy sea creatures instead found a drab, mud-covered blob that may turn out to be truly spectacular indeed.
Share:
FULL STORY

A submarine expedition that went looking for visually flashy sea creatures instead found a drab, mud-covered blob that may turn out to be truly spectacular indeed.

advertisement

The grape-like animal, tentatively named the Bahamian Gromia, is actually a single-celled organism, fully one inch long. But what makes it really fantastic is that it moves -- very slowly -- by rolling itself along the ocean floor.

"At first, we assumed they were snails, because they had trails," said Sönke Johnsen, an associate professor of biology at Duke University. But after sucking up a few with the tools aboard the NOAA research submarine Johnson-Sea-Link and having a look, they figured the soft, nondescript blobs were simply some kind of elaborate poop. "We called them doo-doo balls," Johnsen said.

"We watched the video over and over," Johnsen said. The trails couldn't be the result of currents because they went in several directions at the same spot, and sometimes they even changed course. And they weren't the result of rolling downhill. In fact, one trail was found that went down into a small depression and came back up the other side.

"We argued about it forever," Johnsen said. "These things can't possibly be moving!" But they are, at a rate too slow to be captured on the sub's video. Johnsen guesses they move maybe an inch a day or less.

The distinctive trail that the Gromias leave is identical to mud tracks found in the fossil record, which throws a big wrench into one long-standing argument in biology. The fossil tracks pre-date the so-called "Cambrian explosion" 530 million years ago, which was a blossoming of multicellular life and complex body plans from what had previously just been simple, blobby life forms. Many paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have argued that such a trail couldn't possibly have been made by a simple organism, meaning complex body plans were around before the Cambrian explosion. But the Gromia show that simple blobs can indeed move and make tracks in the light, silty bottom.

We're confident that drawing attention to these bizarre mega-protists will provide a powerful new spin to the debate," said biologist Mikhail Matz of the University of Texas at Austin, who is first author on the paper in Current Biology. Matz worked out the genetics of the new creature and found it's a giant amoeba closely related to similar blobs found in the Gulf of Oman, near Antarctica, off Guam, and in the Mediterranean. None of them are known to move.

The surface of the cell is covered with tiny ports. Its interior is just a fluid; the important working parts of the cell are all near the surface. Think of the working cell as a very thick balloon, Johnsen said.

These sea grapes are almost neutrally buoyant, so they barely rest on the ocean floor 800 meters down. It's possible, Johnsen said, that they're sort of eating and rolling at the same time, pulling new sediment in on one side, and pushing "pseudo feces" out on the other, leaving the distinctive trail. END SCIENCEDAILY EXTRACT.

Subduction again. We can also see that you do not understand how absolute dating is done. Here is a hint, it is usually done with igneous rocks.

You absolutely date your lunch by counting the number of greeblies slithering about in it. Pre-Cambrian bacteria in a huddle. With portholes but probably not a smokestack. In terms of diet, obviously not good for brain stimulation.
Here is something else which, like dating your lunch, has been discovered less than 50 years ago.. You will presumably therefore know zip about it. irect isotopic dating for sedimentary rocks is possible. One of these is glauconite, a silicate minerals that contains potassium. Since the K in part contain K 40, the K-A method can be used. Potassium Argon Dating: This depends on the decay of the naturally occurring radioactive Potassium (K 40) isotope to Argon (A 40) and Calcium (Ca 40).

THE FURIOUS BAGSNATCHER, having discovered the word, 'magic', an adequate and timely inspiration, fitting the occasion ........ . Either try reading, will ya's, (my site they can not discover) or desist with the lunar assertions?

 

[Shemjaza]

Suckers for punishment. Will you stop making it up as you go along. SUBDUCTION says:
Sorry, complex life existed before the Cambrian. And besides a lot of rhetoric and noise you still have not posted any holes.
To be fair, yes, Geology, 50, repeat, 50, years ago acknowledged complex (=animal grade) life in the Pre-Cambrian. On the basis of fossilized sea floor tracks. By 20 years ago, Geology had discovered the likely cause of the tracks - and had not discovered one true animal fossil in the Pre-Cambrian. You say otherwise? Name it, present photographs, and don't fool about with anything that does not have indisputable internal bilateral symmetry. From indisputably Pre-Cambrian strata. This strata is not to include your lunch.
Sciencedaily, one of a number of similar accounts (referenced at Creationtheory dot com) which leave no complex, or animal grade life in the Pre-Cambrian:
Rolling 'Sea Grape' Rocks The Fossil Record
Dateecember 4, 2008
Sourceuke University
Summary:
A submarine expedition that went looking for visually flashy sea creatures instead found a drab, mud-covered blob that may turn out to be truly spectacular indeed.
Share:
FULL STORY

A submarine expedition that went looking for visually flashy sea creatures instead found a drab, mud-covered blob that may turn out to be truly spectacular indeed.

advertisement

The grape-like animal, tentatively named the Bahamian Gromia, is actually a single-celled organism, fully one inch long. But what makes it really fantastic is that it moves -- very slowly -- by rolling itself along the ocean floor.

"At first, we assumed they were snails, because they had trails," said Sönke Johnsen, an associate professor of biology at Duke University. But after sucking up a few with the tools aboard the NOAA research submarine Johnson-Sea-Link and having a look, they figured the soft, nondescript blobs were simply some kind of elaborate poop. "We called them doo-doo balls," Johnsen said.

"We watched the video over and over," Johnsen said. The trails couldn't be the result of currents because they went in several directions at the same spot, and sometimes they even changed course. And they weren't the result of rolling downhill. In fact, one trail was found that went down into a small depression and came back up the other side.

"We argued about it forever," Johnsen said. "These things can't possibly be moving!" But they are, at a rate too slow to be captured on the sub's video. Johnsen guesses they move maybe an inch a day or less.

The distinctive trail that the Gromias leave is identical to mud tracks found in the fossil record, which throws a big wrench into one long-standing argument in biology. The fossil tracks pre-date the so-called "Cambrian explosion" 530 million years ago, which was a blossoming of multicellular life and complex body plans from what had previously just been simple, blobby life forms. Many paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have argued that such a trail couldn't possibly have been made by a simple organism, meaning complex body plans were around before the Cambrian explosion. But the Gromia show that simple blobs can indeed move and make tracks in the light, silty bottom.

We're confident that drawing attention to these bizarre mega-protists will provide a powerful new spin to the debate," said biologist Mikhail Matz of the University of Texas at Austin, who is first author on the paper in Current Biology. Matz worked out the genetics of the new creature and found it's a giant amoeba closely related to similar blobs found in the Gulf of Oman, near Antarctica, off Guam, and in the Mediterranean. None of them are known to move.

The surface of the cell is covered with tiny ports. Its interior is just a fluid; the important working parts of the cell are all near the surface. Think of the working cell as a very thick balloon, Johnsen said.

These sea grapes are almost neutrally buoyant, so they barely rest on the ocean floor 800 meters down. It's possible, Johnsen said, that they're sort of eating and rolling at the same time, pulling new sediment in on one side, and pushing "pseudo feces" out on the other, leaving the distinctive trail. END SCIENCEDAILY EXTRACT.

Subduction again. We can also see that you do not understand how absolute dating is done. Here is a hint, it is usually done with igneous rocks.

You absolutely date your lunch by counting the number of greeblies slithering about in it. Pre-Cambrian bacteria in a huddle. With portholes but probably not a smokestack. In terms of diet, obviously not good for brain stimulation.
Here is something else which, like dating your lunch, has been discovered less than 50 years ago.. You will presumably therefore know zip about it. irect isotopic dating for sedimentary rocks is possible. One of these is glauconite, a silicate minerals that contains potassium. Since the K in part contain K 40, the K-A method can be used. Potassium Argon Dating: This depends on the decay of the naturally occurring radioactive Potassium (K 40) isotope to Argon (A 40) and Calcium (Ca 40).

THE FURIOUS BAGSNATCHER, having discovered the word, 'magic', an adequate and timely inspiration, fitting the occasion ........ . Either try reading, will ya's, (my site they can not discover) or desist with the lunar assertions?

Can you explain your point of this?

It seems to agree that complex life existed before the Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian explosion is a huge increase in diversity of animals with hard parts analogous to bones or shells.

A slug is equally complex, developed and behaviorally similar to a snail, but a snail is massive more likely to leave a fossil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Suckers for punishment. Will you stop making it up as you go along. SUBDUCTION says:
Sorry, complex life existed before the Cambrian. And besides a lot of rhetoric and noise you still have not posted any holes.
To be fair, yes, Geology, 50, repeat, 50, years ago acknowledged complex (=animal grade) life in the Pre-Cambrian. On the basis of fossilized sea floor tracks. By 20 years ago, Geology had discovered the likely cause of the tracks - and had not discovered one true animal fossil in the Pre-Cambrian. You say otherwise? Name it, present photographs, and don't fool about with anything that does not have indisputable internal bilateral symmetry. From indisputably Pre-Cambrian strata. This strata is not to include your lunch.
Sciencedaily, one of a number of similar accounts (referenced at Creationtheory dot com) which leave no complex, or animal grade life in the Pre-Cambrian:
Rolling 'Sea Grape' Rocks The Fossil Record
Dateecember 4, 2008
Sourceuke University
Summary:
A submarine expedition that went looking for visually flashy sea creatures instead found a drab, mud-covered blob that may turn out to be truly spectacular indeed.
Share:
FULL STORY

A submarine expedition that went looking for visually flashy sea creatures instead found a drab, mud-covered blob that may turn out to be truly spectacular indeed.

advertisement

The grape-like animal, tentatively named the Bahamian Gromia, is actually a single-celled organism, fully one inch long. But what makes it really fantastic is that it moves -- very slowly -- by rolling itself along the ocean floor.

"At first, we assumed they were snails, because they had trails," said Sönke Johnsen, an associate professor of biology at Duke University. But after sucking up a few with the tools aboard the NOAA research submarine Johnson-Sea-Link and having a look, they figured the soft, nondescript blobs were simply some kind of elaborate poop. "We called them doo-doo balls," Johnsen said.

"We watched the video over and over," Johnsen said. The trails couldn't be the result of currents because they went in several directions at the same spot, and sometimes they even changed course. And they weren't the result of rolling downhill. In fact, one trail was found that went down into a small depression and came back up the other side.

"We argued about it forever," Johnsen said. "These things can't possibly be moving!" But they are, at a rate too slow to be captured on the sub's video. Johnsen guesses they move maybe an inch a day or less.

The distinctive trail that the Gromias leave is identical to mud tracks found in the fossil record, which throws a big wrench into one long-standing argument in biology. The fossil tracks pre-date the so-called "Cambrian explosion" 530 million years ago, which was a blossoming of multicellular life and complex body plans from what had previously just been simple, blobby life forms. Many paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have argued that such a trail couldn't possibly have been made by a simple organism, meaning complex body plans were around before the Cambrian explosion. But the Gromia show that simple blobs can indeed move and make tracks in the light, silty bottom.

We're confident that drawing attention to these bizarre mega-protists will provide a powerful new spin to the debate," said biologist Mikhail Matz of the University of Texas at Austin, who is first author on the paper in Current Biology. Matz worked out the genetics of the new creature and found it's a giant amoeba closely related to similar blobs found in the Gulf of Oman, near Antarctica, off Guam, and in the Mediterranean. None of them are known to move.

The surface of the cell is covered with tiny ports. Its interior is just a fluid; the important working parts of the cell are all near the surface. Think of the working cell as a very thick balloon, Johnsen said.

These sea grapes are almost neutrally buoyant, so they barely rest on the ocean floor 800 meters down. It's possible, Johnsen said, that they're sort of eating and rolling at the same time, pulling new sediment in on one side, and pushing "pseudo feces" out on the other, leaving the distinctive trail. END SCIENCEDAILY EXTRACT.

Subduction again. We can also see that you do not understand how absolute dating is done. Here is a hint, it is usually done with igneous rocks.

You absolutely date your lunch by counting the number of greeblies slithering about in it. Pre-Cambrian bacteria in a huddle. With portholes but probably not a smokestack. In terms of diet, obviously not good for brain stimulation.
Here is something else which, like dating your lunch, has been discovered less than 50 years ago.. You will presumably therefore know zip about it. irect isotopic dating for sedimentary rocks is possible. One of these is glauconite, a silicate minerals that contains potassium. Since the K in part contain K 40, the K-A method can be used. Potassium Argon Dating: This depends on the decay of the naturally occurring radioactive Potassium (K 40) isotope to Argon (A 40) and Calcium (Ca 40).

THE FURIOUS BAGSNATCHER, having discovered the word, 'magic', an adequate and timely inspiration, fitting the occasion ........ . Either try reading, will ya's, (my site they can not discover) or desist with the lunar assertions?

No one is "making it up as we go along". Oh wait. I take that back. That is what creationists do.

Creationists tend to be about fifty years behind the times or more. Of course anyone with even a middle school level of scientific literacy understands why complex Precambrian fossils are very rare. Here is a hint, it was not because life did not exist. Here is some bawic material to read:

Ediacaran - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Ediacaran Period | Definition, Biota, and Facts
Ediacaran biota - Wikipedia

When one does not understand a topic it is always wiser to ask questions rather than to make false accusations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists tend to be about fifty years behind the times or more.

It doesn't matter if we are fifty or a hundred, since no science was involved in the Creation Events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't matter if we are fifty or a hundred, since no science was involved in the Creation Events.

Of course not, since science is a tool to learn what happened. No individuals were involved in tge origin of this world. Just gravity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course not, since science is a tool to learn what happened. No individuals were involved in tge origin of this world. Just gravity.

QV the second verse of this song: