The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[xianghua]

But you have already agreed that life can do some things that non-living mechanical things cannot do. Since life can do some things non-living machines cannot do, why can it not be that "evolve" is one of those things?

but non living things can also do things that living things cant do. so by this logic we can say that non living things can evolve and living things cant. see? it work for both directions.

 

[xianghua]

OK, so long as you disagree with biologists and the evidence I guess you are perfectly in the clear to come up with whatever form of science you like.

Enjoy.

so you have no real scientific objection to my counter evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

but non living things can also do things that living things cant do. so by this logic we can say that non living things can evolve and living things cant. see? it work for both directions.

That is not how logic works.

You might as well say: "Since the guilty and the innocent are different, it's equally logical to put the innocent in jail and free the guilty."

 

[bhsmte]

so you have no real scientific objection to my counter evidence.

You have yet to demonstrate any science.

 

[dad]

uh, and I have also offered reasons for believing the laws of nature were constant.

Do you have any reason at all for believing they changed?

You can't see time. We experience time, and do so only on and near earth and our solar system area. That is the only time we know. You look at light coming in HERE, to our rules and time zone, and you assume that light from some unknown time and space operated always in this time?!

We could get a little more complicated, but I try to avoid that where possible.

The fine structure we see in atoms (from anywhere) is also only seen here. It doesn't matter where the atoms are from, they are only seen here.

We know the laws of physics were the same years ago, because the incoming starlight looks exactly like it would look like if the laws were the same when it left the distant stars. How do you explain that?

False. False. False. You do not know how many years are involved for any star in the sky. Not only that, but the light and info from all stars is only seen HERE!!!!

We know the stars are distant for many reasons. For example take supernova sn1987A. A star exploded in a supernova. The light reached a cloud ring around the star 8 months later and lit up the cloud. On earth we saw the supernova, and then saw the ring around it light up 8 months later. That tells us the ring was 8 light months in radius. Knowing the actual size of the ring, and the apparent size from earth, simple trig tells us it was 169,000 light years away. How do you explain it?

You are using a TIME measure. 8 months. Not only that, but you are talking about an area where we do not even know that time as we know it exists at all. What 'unfolds' in our time as 8 months, may be extremely different out there in unknown time and space.

Einstein merely started off with the belief and assumption that time and laws and light speed were the same everywhere. Then he did math accordingly. That might be better called special fishbowl relativity.

 

[Shemjaza]

You can't see time. We experience time, and do so only on and near earth and our solar system area. That is the only time we know. You look at light coming in HERE, to our rules and time zone, and you assume that light from some unknown time and space operated always in this time?!

We could get a little more complicated, but I try to avoid that where possible.

The fine structure we see in atoms (from anywhere) is also only seen here. It doesn't matter where the atoms are from, they are only seen here.
False. False. False. You do not know how many years are involved for any star in the sky. Not only that, but the light and info from all stars is only seen HERE!!!!

You are using a TIME measure. 8 months. Not only that, but you are talking about an area where we do not even know that time as we know it exists at all. What 'unfolds' in our time as 8 months, may be extremely different out there in unknown time and space.

Einstein merely started off with the belief and assumption that time and laws and light speed were the same everywhere. Then he did math accordingly. That might be better called special fishbowl relativity.

Do you at least accept that the appearances and measurements are all consistent with the laws of physics being the same thoughout the universe?

 

[dad]

Do you at least accept that the appearances and measurements are all consistent with the laws of physics being the same thoughout the universe?

I wouldn't know. I would be surprised if that was not the case though. What causes spin (nuclear)? What causes the strong or weal nuclear force? at exactly is gravity and it's relation to the quantum realities? Etc etc. Unless we knew what these things really were, how could we say what causes them? How would I know if nuclear spin was affected by things like time or something, we have no idea about? If the forces were affected by things we do not know about, then how could we say, that the atomic spin observed HERE or light or etc reflects exactly as it would exist and operate out there in the unknown yonder exactly the same? Yes, we see the atomic signature here from far space light, but for that to have the meaning you think it has all of the aforementioned things would have to also be true. You do not (even begin) to know that!


After all the universe is temporary, and will roll up like a scroll one day soon, to be no more.

All the theories of science about the cosmos are wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but non living things can also do things that living things cant do. so by this logic we can say that non living things can evolve and living things cant.

Really?

I can do things that my dog cant do. so by this logic we can say that I can walk on water and I created the earth in six days.

I don't agree with that logic.

I do stand by what I said, that since life can do things watches can't do, therefore the fact that watches can't evolve biologically does not prove life can't do it.

 

[Shemjaza]

I wouldn't know. I would be surprised if that was not the case though. What causes spin (nuclear)? What causes the strong or weal nuclear force? at exactly is gravity and it's relation to the quantum realities? Etc etc. Unless we knew what these things really were, how could we say what causes them? How would I know if nuclear spin was affected by things like time or something, we have no idea about? If the forces were affected by things we do not know about, then how could we say, that the atomic spin observed HERE or light or etc reflects exactly as it would exist and operate out there in the unknown yonder exactly the same? Yes, we see the atomic signature here from far space light, but for that to have the meaning you think it has all of the aforementioned things would have to also be true. You do not (even begin) to know that!


After all the universe is temporary, and will roll up like a scroll one day soon, to be no more.

All the theories of science about the cosmos are wrong.

Okay, I think that clears up the standard you expect scientists to live up to to explain anything:

Dad:
Reads the Bible and has a think and gets a good feeling about how it fits together.
Scientists:
Have complete knowledge about every aspect and mechanism of the Universe.

On top of being illogical you are also totally unreasonable.

 

[Astrophile]

the problem is that any fossil cant be consider as evidence for evolution, since we cant prove that those animals evolved from each other.

This is like saying that because I can't prove that I'm descended from any particular person who lived at the time of Copernicus (1473-1543) there is no evidence that I had ancestors who lived in Copernicus's time.

No fossil ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs have been found in Permian or older rocks, and we can't prove that Mesozoic ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs were descended from any particular Permian animals. Do you think that means that Mesozoic ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs didn't have Permian ancestors, or do you accept that they must have been descended from Permian animals that were not ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs, even though we don't know what those ancestral animals were?

 

[theQuincunx5]

I wouldn't know. I would be surprised if that was not the case though. What causes spin (nuclear)? What causes the strong or weal nuclear force? at exactly is gravity and it's relation to the quantum realities? Etc etc. Unless we knew what these things really were, how could we say what causes them? How would I know if nuclear spin was affected by things like time or something, we have no idea about? If the forces were affected by things we do not know about, then how could we say, that the atomic spin observed HERE or light or etc reflects exactly as it would exist and operate out there in the unknown yonder exactly the same? Yes, we see the atomic signature here from far space light, but for that to have the meaning you think it has all of the aforementioned things would have to also be true. You do not (even begin) to know that!


After all the universe is temporary, and will roll up like a scroll one day soon, to be no more.

All the theories of science about the cosmos are wrong.

FIrst off: KUDOS for mentioning nuclear spin. I'm impressed.

Second off: You just spent a while paragraph decrying our inability to really "know" anything about these various things then you end it all by decreeing all the science is WRONG.

I wish someone could explain to you how fractally messed up that logic is, but I don't think they could do so for you.

Still, it's fun to see.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You can't see time. We experience time, and do so only on and near earth and our solar system area. That is the only time we know. You look at light coming in HERE, to our rules and time zone, and you assume that light from some unknown time and space operated always in this time?!

We could get a little more complicated, but I try to avoid that where possible.

The fine structure we see in atoms (from anywhere) is also only seen here. It doesn't matter where the atoms are from, they are only seen here.
False. False. False. You do not know how many years are involved for any star in the sky. Not only that, but the light and info from all stars is only seen HERE!!!!

You are using a TIME measure. 8 months. Not only that, but you are talking about an area where we do not even know that time as we know it exists at all. What 'unfolds' in our time as 8 months, may be extremely different out there in unknown time and space.

Einstein merely started off with the belief and assumption that time and laws and light speed were the same everywhere. Then he did math accordingly. That might be better called special fishbowl relativity.

Uh, the time we saw was very real. Nobody saw this light before 1987, when a burst of neutrinos hit earth. Several hours later the light from the explosion hit earth. And eight months later the light from the ring around the supernova hit earth. How do you explain that? You have not even tried.

The 8 months are real earth months. We waited 8 months for the reflection to arrive after the original explosion.

We know a lot about what happened. The event began with neutrino emissions followed by the light of the explosion. 8 months later the light traveling outward hit the cloud ring that surrounded it and it lit up. Then some 14 years later debris hit the cloud, causing it to get brighter again. All this and so much more fits in with the idea that this event occurred with the same laws of physics 169,000 years ago.

See SN 1987A - Wikipedia

What do you think happened to cause what we see?

 

[dad]

Dad:
Reads the Bible and has a think and gets a good feeling about how it fits together.

Compares things diligently to the revealed communication from God, checks the reality and veracity of what is truly known, and what portion science claims is belief based...and comes up with knowledge gold.

Scientists:
Have complete knowledge about every aspect and mechanism of the Universe.

Utterly ignorant false prophets who deal in fables, and pure belief based godless models. The more insane and vile and anti bible the results, the more gleeful they are.

They have long abandoned reason and truth.

 

[dad]

FIrst off: KUDOS for mentioning nuclear spin. I'm impressed.

Second off: You just spent a while paragraph decrying our inability to really "know" anything about these various things then you end it all by decreeing all the science is WRONG.

I wish someone could explain to you how fractally messed up that logic is, but I don't think they could do so for you.

Still, it's fun to see.

They know their way around the fishbowl, let's give em that. The special fishbowl relativity seems pretty tested and reasonable. Beyond that...to far space and the past nature on earth...they shall not pass!

 

[Speedwell]

Utterly ignorant false prophets who deal in fables, and pure belief based godless models. The more insane and vile and anti bible the results, the more gleeful they are.

They have long abandoned reason and truth.

Harboring lurid and baseless fantasies about others like that is not a healthy state of mind.

 

[Shemjaza]

Compares things diligently to the revealed communication from God, checks the reality and veracity of what is truly known, and what portion science claims is belief based...and comes up with knowledge gold.
Utterly ignorant false prophets who deal in fables, and pure belief based godless models. The more insane and vile and anti bible the results, the more gleeful they are.

They have long abandoned reason and truth.

Foolishness.

You have never been able to describe why you are reliable without calling back on your own supernatural powers.

Science works, it produces knowledge and technology... you can't even convince your fellow Young Earth Creationists that your particular version is correct.

 

[dad]

Harboring lurid and baseless fantasies about others like that is not a healthy state of mind.

Science and beliefs used by science may be fantasies. A sound, bible balanced world view and a healthy skepticism of man's wisdom is a good thing. By the way, science is not 'others'. Science is a set of beliefs.

 

[dad]

You have never been able to describe why you are reliable without calling back on your own supernatural powers.

If His word was not more than natural, it would not be of value.

Science works, it produces knowledge and technology.

Science does not work in the future or far past in any way. The only science that works is right here and now.

.. you can't even convince your fellow Young Earth Creationists that your particular version is correct.

That is my job? So tell us then, if the bible and Jesus are true and accurate, what better way is there to look at origin science assumptions and premises, and beliefs?

Flood geology..(where they try to attribute the fossils record, and all layers, and etc etc to the flood)? Total disrepect and dismissal, and unbelief, (where we simply say the bible and God are not reaaaallllly true after all) but a day was not reeeaaallllly a day, a morning not really a morning, and evening not really an evening, the first man not really a real man from whom a woman was made? and a world wide flood that left only some animals and 8 people on an ark was not really true? And how sin never really came into the world by one man, and that there was not reeeeaaalllllly a tree with fruits he was told not to eat?

Do tell.

 

[xianghua]

No, we present evidence. Hypothesis and theories which are then tested.

Evolution works and ID had nothing but hand waves, lies and logical fallacies.

so far i seen no evidence...

 

[Jjmcubbin]

so far i seen no evidence...

Are you going to a doctor for that memory loss?