The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[Mr Strawberry]

That's fine.

Try doing it and being right at the same time; will you please?

I don't mind you making a list, but it bugs me if I have to correct it.

So if you lost your faith you'd still get worked up about those other things on your list? Hmm, I think not somehow.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It wouldn't be if you actually had them.

The fact that you can't tell me how many there are, shows me the world is not in possession of this daisy chain I'm asking for.

Either that, or there were no animals in between to leave anything behind.


Nice.

That leaves about what? 30 more quadrillion to go?

Swell.

You just severly narrowed the playing field.

I'm sure I mentioned cyanobacteria to man -- not chimpanzee to man.

No.

But when it comes to phantom evolution, you'd better be able to cough up a daisy chain if you want me to buy into it.

It also wouldn't be an issue for the bible if we had the Ark of the covenant and it had unexplainable powers, but we shouldn't base who is right on something impossible. Not every creature fossilizes, and it is amazing how many more we have then expected.

I can't tell you how many there are because people are constantly debating about the number, both in regards to fossils we have found and ones we expect to exist based on the gaps. You try making that kind of distinction between transitional species, it can be really hard if they don't have tens of thousands of years between them.

By your logic, I could not have been born, because I cannot name my great grandparents and present their bones. Would you honestly say that if we discovered all but 1 transitional fossil for the evolution of all life on earth, that finding that last one would make evolution more apparent to you than having all but 1? Why? Besides, if I recall correctly, you said once that even if we had a time machine, and we could go back and observe evolution from single cell to human, that you still would never agree with the theory. So why behave as if anything would convince you?

How many left to find for humans? Well, for between humans and chimpanzees, we might be nearly halfway there for those that won't get us deadlocked on the labels. And every few years, we find another one, I guess our ancestors liked to hang around places good for fossil formation.

And I am sure I have mentioned that I do not agree with UCA theory and personally am skeptical about prokaryotes and eukaryotes sharing ancestry. Surely you don't expect me to try to demonstrate cyanobacteria-->humans when I don't personally think that was the case?

I don't ever expect you to put any stock in evolution, and personally, I am not trying to convince you that you should, only that I find flaw in the reasons why you don't agree with evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if you lost your faith you'd still get worked up about those other things on your list? Hmm, I think not somehow.

Until I do, try to respect accuracy, will you?

Especially ... especially ... if you adhere to the scientific method.

When you don't walk your talk, it makes me wonder how effective you think it really is.

 

[AV1611VET]

It also wouldn't be an issue for the bible if we had the Ark of the covenant and it had unexplainable powers,

Oh, please.

"Unexplainable powers"?

The "power" came from above the Ark, not the Ark itself.

Not to mention the ninth Person in it as well.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Samson was 98 pounds and stood 4'2".

Had he been the "Mr. America" that Hellholewood portrays him, the Philistines wouldn't have been so perplexed as to where he got his strength.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh, please.

"Unexplainable powers"?

The "power" came from above the Ark, not the Ark itself.

Not to mention the ninth Person in it as well.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Samson was 98 pounds and stood 4'2".

Had he been the "Mr. America" that Hellholewood portrays him, the Philistines wouldn't have been so perplexed as to where he got his strength.

It seems you didn't get that memo either, this is a fictitious fable too.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh, please.

"Unexplainable powers"?

The "power" came from above the Ark, not the Ark itself.

Not to mention the ninth Person in it as well.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Samson was 98 pounds and stood 4'2".

Had he been the "Mr. America" that Hellholewood portrays him, the Philistines wouldn't have been so perplexed as to where he got his strength.

Unexplainable beyond the supernatural is what I was implying. Also, those tablets were supposedly directly touched by god, do you honestly think that such an object would be like any other stone tablet?

Pretty sure Samson's size is given in the bible, though probably not in modern units.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I beg your pardon?

I'm second to none here denying deep time.

The more you guys post about what I believe, the more wrong you are.

You do believe in deep time, AV -- you just believe it was fraudulently "embedded."

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Until I do, try to respect accuracy, will you?

Especially ... especially ... if you adhere to the scientific method.

When you don't walk your talk, it makes me wonder how effective you think it really is.

You're not following. What comes across is that you seem to have a problem with being related to the rest of the animal kingdom that has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. If you lost your faith it appears that you would still balk at the idea of being a part of the animal kingdom. The other items on your list, however, would no longer matter to you as they are merely things you cling to as part of your religion and in and of themselves are just meaningless arbitrary, abstract arguments. That's all.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do believe in deep time, AV -- you just believe it was fraudulently "embedded."

Like I said, the more you guys talk about what I believe, the wronger you are.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is what they want to believe, despite the fact the fossil record supports no such belief. The fossil record nowhere supports the connecting line below. And if they ever get around to studying the rest of the fossils and correct those 2 of every 3 they got wrong - that tree will become gap games of even greater scope. Those dots will all disappear, connected by nothing but the imagination it already is.

What features are these fossils missing that a real transtional would have?

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, the more you guys talk about what I believe, the wronger you are.

The fact that you can never show how we are wrong says that we have it right. For example . . .

You claim that rocks are millions and billions of years old by radiometric dating because of embedded age. Is this correct?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In and of itself I mean. You have no objection to time having gone on for billions of years in itself. Why would you? Denying the whole picture - that's a laugh, you haven't even got a picture. The order? These are all just pointless bible quibbles. They don't actually matter to you in themselves. Denial of sin nature? Well, to be honest you'd feel a hundred percent better if you woke up tomorrow without that disgusting idea warping your views and opinions relating to humanity and the world into something less than wholesome and pleasant, and that's putting it mildly, but you're too far gone to explain that one to you. But none of these things really matter to you in themselves, they are just things you have to adhere to in order to get your prize of eternity as god's favourite bathtime loofer. But being related to the rest of the animal kingdom? You don't like that at all for some reason. That really upsets you. Weird.

Why would one accept the standard claims of time which go against every theory and experiment there is? Do or do not clocks slow under acceleration? Is or is not the universe undergoing a continued increasing acceleration - from a relativistic acceleration at the start? So if we accept these mainstream conclusions we can then logically conclude that since in the past the expansion was less than it is today - then clocks would have ran faster - i.e. the decay rate would also have been faster. So that what evolutionists assume to have taken billions of years happened in an unknowable time in the past.

Yet they continue to use the rate of clocks as they tick today - when their very own theory and science tells them at near relativistic speeds clocks slow dramatically. And according to the cosmological model currently in place - this expansion happened at relativistic speeds and is increasing. Of course in answer they will wave hands and present strawmen - all the while denying the very theory in practice that they preach with their lips.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would one accept the standard claims of time which go against every theory and experiment there is? Do or do not clocks slow under acceleration?

Let's see what your little scenario would involve.

1. In order for rocks to have the wrong age by radiometric dating due to an accelerated frame of reference, the rocks and the Earth would need to be in different frames.

2. This would require every single rock that has ever been dated to be taken off the Earth, accelerated to nearl luminal speeds for long time periods, and then brought back to Earth.

Are you serious about this?

Yet they continue to use the rate of clocks as they tick today -

Rates only differ BETWEEN FRAMES OF REFERENCE. That is Relativity 101.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The fact that you can never show how we are wrong says that we have it right. For example . . .

You claim that rocks are millions and billions of years old by radiometric dating because of embedded age. Is this correct?

He doesn't know anymore -- it's hard to keep the stories straight.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's see what your little scenario would involve.

1. In order for rocks to have the wrong age by radiometric dating due to an accelerated frame of reference, the rocks and the Earth would need to be in different frames.

So the twin needs to be in earth's frame so he doesn't age slower???? The twin that ages slower sees no discrepancy in his clock - he ages slower due only to acceleration. Just as you see none in yours. Only someone in another frame can see any discrepancies.

2. This would require every single rock that has ever been dated to be taken off the Earth, accelerated to nearl luminal speeds for long time periods, and then brought back to Earth.

Only when like you we ignore all of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

So deny all you like, but the very science you "claim" to follow shows how wrong you are.

Rates only differ BETWEEN FRAMES OF REFERENCE. That is Relativity 101.

No relativity 101 is that is clocks slow under acceleration. The twin as he accelerates notices no change in his clock - yet he ages slower. Now you deny that very theory because you do not want to accept the reverse. That as things slow - time speeds up.

It's the rest of the science:

"the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes..... The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest."

Quit denying all of science in an attempt to save your falsified beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the twin needs to be in earth's frame so he doesn't age slower???? The twin that ages slower sees no discrepancy in his clock - he ages slower due only to acceleration. Just as you see none in yours. Only someone in another frame can see any discrepancies.

Neither twin sees a change in his clock, they both see the clocks of the other twin running slower. It is not acceleration that matters it is velocity and frame of reference. The twin that goes out and comes back changes its frame of reference.

Only when like you we ignore all of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

So deny all you like, but the very science you "claim" to follow shows how wrong you are.

You seem to have gone off of the rails here. Loudmouth was only talking about relativistic effects.

No relativity 101 is that is clocks slow under acceleration. The twin as he accelerates notices no change in his clock - yet he ages slower. Now you deny that very theory because you do not want to accept the reverse. That as things slow - time speeds up.

It's the rest of the science:

"the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes..... The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest."

Quit denying all of science in an attempt to save your falsified beliefs.

No, again, when the differences due to the Doppler effect are correct for both see the others clock as having slowed. That is why this is called a paradox. If both twins see the other twin's clock as being slowed why does one age more than the other? It is because one twin changed frames of reference. Or in scientific terms, it broke symmetry.

 

[dad]

What features are these fossils missing that a real transtional would have?

K looks kind of like an alien

 

[dad]

Why would one accept the standard claims of time which go against every theory and experiment there is? ..

Hey for that matter why accept ANY claim of time!? Maybe we just don't really know what it is all about.

 

[dad]

You claim that rocks are millions and billions of years old by radiometric dating because of embedded age. Is this correct?

I would suggest what is embedded is the belief that all materials had to be produced in the present nature. That is in there deep!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey for that matter why accept ANY claim of time!? Maybe we just don't really know what it is all about.

Oh they know, they are just in the excuse stage is all.

The Bible says nothing of how long ago the universe was created. Only mankind and the animals created with him. Which were created after the darkness that befell the earth.

Some say comet - some say meteor - some described it in terms of angels cast out of heaven.

But when the Hebrew word "hayah" is properly translated that discrepancy goes away. "And the earth *became - hayah* desolate and waste. And darkness *became - hayah* upon the surface of the deep.

And hence the dinosaurs went extinct. And another unknown period of time passes and God moves and the darkness clears. And man is created upon the destruction - the sixth creative act in a period of 5 unknown extinctions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events

And an unknown period spent within the garden before we begin to even count time.