Want to learn about evolution? Take a free course

[PsychoSarah]

Lol well if there is no living creature to compare it the only way u could determine sex is if they were giving birth while fossilized

How about if they were fossilized having sex? Because there are fossils like that. Also, quite a few fossils of pregnant organisms.

Unless it is something really old, like from the Cambrian era, there are usually modern animals close enough that we can tell what the sex organs of the fossil are as long as the fossil is complete enough to preserve them. Not to mention bone structure trends.

 

[Ophiolite]

You mean clarify. I assume english isn't your first language i hope. Anyway u were talking about the fossil record ophi which is seperate from behe's view of a bacteria flegellum i think is how it is spelled. All fossils tell u is its a dead animal and thats it period. Everything else is imagined period. Thats the truth.

Yes. I meant clarify. I mistyped the word. English is my first language. (Despite forays into Latin, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Finnish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Arabic, Manadarin, Malaysian and Japanese, it remains my only language.) That's what enables me to note the langauge errors and stylistic inadequacies in your own post. (If you wish to trade implicit insults regarding competence in language let's take this off-line, where I'll eat you up and spit you out in nothing flat. Or, we could focus instead on the subject matter.)

You cited Behe as someone whose words on ID and evolution should be heeded. Behe accepts the consensus scientific view on the fossil record. So, I ask again, do you agree with Behe, disagree with Behe, or exercise discriminatory selection when it comes to his views. If the latter, how do you justify that ?

 

[Strathos]

How about if they were fossilized having sex? Because there are fossils like that.

What a way to go...

 

[Ophiolite]

What a way to go...

Rock hard.

 

[Larniavc]

Whatever happened to that elevator scientists were going to give us?

The one that stretches from the earth up to some space station?

(They're probably in a heated debate over what color to paint it.)

I’m still waiting for Moon Base Alpha.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's a "freak horse"?

 

[Jcreigns]

Sorry it took so long to reply people been busy doing other things. Anyway ophi i agree with his design theory, but not behe's thoughts on fossils. They date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils. I don't like circular reasoning because it's illogical. I wasn't trying to offend you. I hope your not a snowflake liberal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils.

That's not how it's done.

 

[Jcreigns]

Yes it is warden, or atleast from what ive read.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes it is warden, or atleast from what ive read.

Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated?

What ever source you read was woefully wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes it is warden, or atleast from what ive read.

'No, it's just the kind of misinformation one picks up from creationist sources. If you've read something different show us the source.

 

[USincognito]

They date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils. I don't like circular reasoning because it's illogical.

This a tired Creationist PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Sedimentary strata are identified by index fossils. Strata are dated using radiometric dating methods. Since this is a favorite claim of Kent Hovind I made this meme.

I wasn't trying to offend you. I hope your not a snowflake liberal.

I would suggest reviewing the site rules.

 

[USincognito]

And fact or law equate to basically absolute truth especially law. Fact i have never heard or read of changing either though.

I"m sorry but this is completely wrong. Science doesn't deal in truth and certainly not absolute truth.

Facts are things which have been studied and tested to the point where we can provisionally accept them as factual. They are provisionally accepted because all propositions in science must be subject to potential future falsification.

Scientific laws are descriptions (usually mathematical) of observed phenomenon. Newton's Laws of Planetary Motion for instance describe how a planet (or other body) will revolve around a star.

 

[Jcreigns]

I know what fact and law means, but thank you for the explanation.

 

[Jcreigns]

And radiometric isn't even as accurate as carbon dating us. Which is only 50 percent accurate.

 

[Speedwell]

And radiometric isn't even as accurate as carbon dating us. Which is only 50 percent accurate.

Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating. It relies on the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes just like the others.
50% accurate? I'll ask again--where are you getting this stuff?

 

[Jimmy D]

Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating. It relies on the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes just like the others.
50% accurate? I'll ask again--where are you getting this stuff?

It sounds like someone is need of a geology course as well as a free course on evolution.

 

[Zoii]

Evolution is unfounded, unbiblical and 100% satanic.

No it has foundations... yes its unbiblical.... and how do u even justify satanic

 

[Zoii]

Thought I'd post this for anyone who is interested in learning more about evolutionary biology or biology in general. There is a free university-level course entitled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution" available through Coursera: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera

I took a similar course in university and it was quite enlightening and provided a solid basis for understanding of genetics and the mechanisms behind evolutionary change.

I've also done other courses via Coursera and it's pretty much what you'd expect from an online/remote university course: lecture videos, assignments, tests, the whole shebang.

I'd especially invite our creationist friends here to take such a course, since the more you learn about evolution the better equipped you'll be to argue against it, right?

Ty it looks interesting

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry it took so long to reply people been busy doing other things. Anyway ophi i agree with his design theory, but not behe's thoughts on fossils. They date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils. I don't like circular reasoning because it's illogical. I wasn't trying to offend you. I hope your not a snowflake liberal.

As other members have pointed out your understanding in this area is so oversimplified to the point of being completely wrong. It's easy to pick up these faulty notions, since there are individuals (and groups) out there promoting these errors aggressively and with oodles of confidence.

I'll amend a point made by several others. Fossils allow us to establish the relative age of sedimentary strata. This is because in many parts of the world thick sequences (many thousands of feet) have been deposited and experienced very little subsequent deformation. Observations of such sequences and present/recent deposits establishes that the older rocks are at the bottom of the sequence, the youngest rocks at the top. We then note the the fossils to be found in each part of the sequence.

When we find those same fossils in another rock elsewhere we suspect that it may, therefore, be the same age. By examining the fossil content of the beds above and below it, and finding that, once again, the anticipated fossil groups are present, we tend to confirm our suspicion. When this is done in many thousands of location, with many hundreds of groups of fossils, we are confident our suspicion was well founded.

For some peculiar reason many anti-evolutionists call this well validated process and its accepted conclusion an assumption. Presonally, I find such a corruption of the English language offensive, but maybe that's just me.