The fossil record explained

[AV1611VET]

How could we even tell? A lot of what you post contradicts what other creationists claim.

Ask yourself this:

1. Do other creationists HAVE to resort to speaking in tongues (Hebrew says this, Greek says that) in order to make their points stick?

2. What do they say God's name is?

3. What version of the bible are they using?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As I've told you before, the Word of God written in the cosmic background radiation, the nucleosynthesis in stars, isotope geochemistry of rocks and meteorites, genetics, developmental biology, biogeography and a score of other fields and disciplines declares that you are mistaken.

What background radiation?

The one that doesn't produce shadows from the foreground galaxies???? Showing it is actually a local phenomenon?

The one that has both red and blue shift? Showing it is a local phenomenon, since no other radiation from any distant source beyond the local group shows any blue shift.....

people lack the ability to apply logical conclusions. But we do have a fairly recent source of radiation yet to be accounted for, the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere discovered not too long ago. Which would occur in a 360 degree sphere around the sun, produce no galaxy shadowing as it is foreground, not background, and produce both red and blue shift due to the earth's motion around the sun.....

The logical conclusions and recent discovery of the deceleration of the solar wind point towards the so-called background radiation far more strongly. radiation which by all know physics and electromagnetic theory would necessarily be in the microwave bandwidth. No special pleading or fantastic scenarios needed to avoid why it produces no shadowing and has red and blue shift.

The blue shift alone is enough to discount any background radiation from long ago, since not a single solitary known source of radiation at vast distances has any blue shift component whatsoever due to any motion of us or the galaxy..... but i guess we can ignore the actual observations if you all prefer.

And besides applying fantastical neutron stars, when neutrons immediately repel one another, the 100 year old model of nucleosynthesis has been laid in its coffin..... So I am not sure when you people are going to let it die....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How could we even tell? A lot of what you post contradicts what other creationists claim.

This is why creationists need to get together and sort things out amongst themselves first, before trying to argue with everyone else.

Is that like all the different cosmological theories and multiverses????? i guess they just need to get together first before they argue with anyone else....

 

[pitabread]

Is that like all the different cosmological theories and multiverses????? i guess they just need to get together first before they argue with anyone else....

In the context of this thread, I'm only concerned with biology.

On top of that science doesn't present any hypothesis for the origin or nature of the universe as strictly definitive.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In the context of this thread, I'm only concerned with biology.

On top of that science doesn't present any hypothesis for the origin or nature of the universe as strictly definitive.

yah lol, tell that to those that seriously challenge the Big bang or their belief in expansion. But you are correct, you can propose anything, including multiverses, strange matter, etc, as long as the Big bang is not seriously questioned....

 

[pitabread]

Ask yourself this:

1. Do other creationists HAVE to resort to speaking in tongues (Hebrew says this, Greek says that) in order to make their points stick?

2. What do they say God's name is?

3. What version of the bible are they using?

If you're trying to make an argument for validity, you first need a way of determining that validity. For example why is it relevant which Bible version one uses? How can you objectively demonstrate that is even relevant?

 

[pitabread]

yah lol, tell that to those that seriously challenge the Big bang or their belief in expansion.

Everything in science can be challenged. That's how science works.

If you're going to argue that science is dogmatic, then explain how the BB theory arose in the first place?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're trying to make an argument for validity, you first need a way of determining that validity. For example why is it relevant which Bible version one uses? How can you objectively demonstrate that is even relevant?

I'm under the impression they contradict each other.

 

[AV1611VET]

Everything in science can be challenged.

Just don't though, or you may be accused of glorifying tragedies for egotistical pleasure.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Everything in science can be challenged. That's how science works.

No it doesn't. It works by majority vote in the good ole boys club...

Astronomers make three assumptions about the universe based on theory and observation:

• The laws of physics are universal and don’t change with time or location in space.
• The universe is homogeneous, or roughly the same in every direction (though not necessarily for all of time).
• Humans do not observe the universe from a privileged location such as at its very center.

The second two have already been shown to be false by the COBE dipole and what they call the axis of evil and by the SLOAN digital survey.... The first was already shown to be false by Einstein who said that only in systems moving relative to one another (the same approximate velocity) are the laws of physics the same... Hence we understand that clocks tick at different rates and rulers change length, which not admitted by most, means the same values are not being measured. But they like to pretend they believe in relativity anyways....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you're trying to make an argument for validity, you first need a way of determining that validity. For example why is it relevant which Bible version one uses? How can you objectively demonstrate that is even relevant?

Why would it be relevant as to which definition of species we use? perhaps because without a precise definition one has nothing defining at all????

So then you agree the scientific definition of species that I choose is the absolute correct one since it doesn't matter which one we use????? Bet i see backpedaling now....

 

[pitabread]

No it doesn't. It works by majority vote in the good ole boys club.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that. Again, perhaps you can explain the history of scientific inquiry which has been based on overturning or supplementing prior ideas?

 

[pitabread]

Why would it be relevant as to which definition of species we use? perhaps because without a precise definition one has nothing defining at all????

So then you agree the scientific definition of species that I choose is the absolute correct one since it doesn't matter which one we use????? Bet i see backpedaling now....

Your post has nothing to do with the discussion you're responding to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, perhaps you can explain the history of scientific inquiry which has been based on overturning or supplementing prior ideas?

You mean like a rigged Pluto vote?

 

[pitabread]

Just don't though, or you may be accused of glorifying tragedies for egotistical pleasure.

Posting things relating to human tragedies is not challenging ideas in science. If you think it is, that may explain a few things about your posting style here...

 

[pitabread]

I'm under the impression they contradict each other.

Maybe. What does that have to do with establishing the validity of you being an authority on creationism?

 

[Ophiolite]

Does it not take computers nowadays to correlate all this data into one explainable picture of the past?

No.

Any data that would run contrary to this picture (depth of moondust, strength of magnetic field, ocean salination, etc.) would be automatically excluded from input, would it not?

Since the data are not being correlated within some giant program the question is irrelevant. That said:

• The depth of moondust is entirely consistent with the age of the moon as determined by isotope measurements (of the moon and of meteorites). Perhaps you have overlooked the depth of the regolith.
  
• The strength of the magnetic field and variations in its position, declination and polarity are not only consistent with an old Earth, but provide one of the many sources of evidence for that age.
• Ocean salinity, coupled with the age determined by many other means, matches expectations when modelling element cycling via plate tectonics.

You would be unaware of all this since you believe science can take a hike.

What would happen, for example, if a rabbit were to be found in the pre-Cambrian?

It would depend on whether or not its name was Edgar Rice Burrows.

In my opinion, they would reprogram their computers and recalibrate the date of the pre-Cambrian era, so as to keep intact the "fact" that there are no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.

Unfortunately, your opinion on scientific matters is of limited value.

 

[Ophiolite]

What background radiation?

The one that doesn't produce shadows from the foreground galaxies???? Showing it is actually a local phenomenon?

The one that has both red and blue shift? Showing it is a local phenomenon, since no other radiation from any distant source beyond the local group shows any blue shift.....

people lack the ability to apply logical conclusions. But we do have a fairly recent source of radiation yet to be accounted for, the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere discovered not too long ago. Which would occur in a 360 degree sphere around the sun, produce no galaxy shadowing as it is foreground, not background, and produce both red and blue shift due to the earth's motion around the sun.....

The logical conclusions and recent discovery of the deceleration of the solar wind point towards the so-called background radiation far more strongly. radiation which by all know physics and electromagnetic theory would necessarily be in the microwave bandwidth. No special pleading or fantastic scenarios needed to avoid why it produces no shadowing and has red and blue shift.

The blue shift alone is enough to discount any background radiation from long ago, since not a single solitary known source of radiation at vast distances has any blue shift component whatsoever due to any motion of us or the galaxy..... but i guess we can ignore the actual observations if you all prefer.

And besides applying fantastical neutron stars, when neutrons immediately repel one another, the 100 year old model of nucleosynthesis has been laid in its coffin..... So I am not sure when you people are going to let it die....

I take it you also believe in the value of homeopathy, clairvoyance and the honesty of all politicianes.

Addressing your points specifically, I will take the conclusions of an army of well-educated, dedicated, professional scientists (schooled in the same methodologies I have gained experience of) over the unsupported assertions of an anonymous nay-sayer on the internet. If you wish to convincingly challenge any or all of these current consensus views, please open a thread, but ensure you produce appropriate citations to justify, or at least provide a measure of support for, your claims.

 

[Job 33:6]

In your scenario the terrestral fossils, once washed away by the sea water, will end up somewhere on the sea floor, getting mixed up with the marine fossils. But we simply don't observe such mix up.

Your scenario also doesn't work when the opposite happens: when former sea beds elevate and become terrestrial again. But we do not only observe many instances where terrestrial layers are alternated by marine one but also the other way round. And when a sea dries up and becomes land area again, there is no known mechanism that would cause the land animals and plants to "move out".

Or, put in othe rwords, fossils, once buried, do not move out or in. they sit in often hard and solid rock formations.

Maybe i could make this a personal challenge, but im pretty sure that in very rare occasions, you can find terrestrial fossils that have been washed into marine depositional environments. Give me some time and Ill support this claim, unless it goes uncontested, in which case we can let it go.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm sure you'd like to believe that. Again, perhaps you can explain the history of scientific inquiry which has been based on overturning or supplementing prior ideas?

After they ridiculed and ousted the one who challenged them for half a decade before finally having to admit the truth. Sort of like Harlen Bretz and Kristian Birkeland. People that challenged the prevailing theories of their time and were ridiculed and rejected for half a century. Then they end up like Sydney Chapman adopting their theories as their own....

If you actually believe science willingly abandons theories in favor of new ones, you haven't studied history much. Not once has a previous theory been abandoned without a long drawn out battle of ridicule and slander before they finally succumb to the truth of the new theory.... Don't fall under the spell of PR spiels, wake up and accept reality....