Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Black Akuma]

Which ones?

Read the link.

 

[46AND2]

Ok, I have to address this.

The Geologic Column absolutely, 100% positive, exists. It may not exist in the way you want it too, but it is there.

In simplified terms, the Geologic column is stratum. If you want a picture just Google Stratum or go to the grand canyon, or many other places that they are exposed.

Due to natural processes such as erosion you will not always find every layer together at once, but how we determine the layers is through Radiometric dating. The dating of stratum is what makes up the Geologic Column.

If you want a better example Google the K/T Boundary, this is found throughout the world and is made of shocked quartz and iridium (a very rare material on earth)

Now that we've covered the Geologic column, let's discuss radiometric dating. There are many isotopes that we can choose from to date many different things, some isotopes are better suited for some things.

Carbon-14 is used to date organic material with an approximate limit of 60,000 years. We know c14 dating works because we can test it by dating organic materials of a known age. With that said, Carbon-14 is never used to date stratum.

The better isotope for rock dating is Uranium-Lead. Despite what some creationists say about decay rates, there is no known mechanism by which the rate of decay changes.

Radiometric dating wasn't something someone just pulled out of thin air. We can directly measure decay rates and when crosschecked against other known methods of dating, the results are consistent.

You sound surprised, you shouldn't be.

Unfortunatly radiometric dating has a lot of flaws.

1. It's based on assumptions and biases and if the dating doesn't fit the scientists theory, it is discarded.

2. If there is no known beginning to life, how can scientists date a rock without knowing what it was composed of before?

It's kind of like a swimmer swimming a race. We know the time he starts, because we were there and we recorded it on a wristwatch. We saw how long it took him to finish the race, and we timed it with out wristwatch. So we know the beginning and the end.

If you only saw the end of the race, how would you know how long it took him to finish the race?

The starting time! Yes, but that's not enough! And niether is the accuracy of the wristwatch.

Without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.

You cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.​

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

3. Creationists however have a beginning to start with, with witness accounts, written records, and geneolegies, to record the beginning, middle and end. They were there to observe what happened, such as the Flood.

If I tried to explain to you how wrong you are about your first two points, it would be way over your head. No offense, but you don't have the desire to actually learn how radiometric dating works, instead of how apologists tell you it works.

Suffice it to say, you must think scientists are monumentally stupid, if you think they use a tool that is as easily debunked as what you just wrote. I mean, really, full on dunces. I know how it actually works, and if it truly relied on the assumptions you claim it does, I wouldn't accept it, either.

Good thing you could not be more wrong.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

How is it using the scientific method?

I'll use Darwin's Finches as a starting point for this very informal example of the scientific method:

1. Formulation of a Question: Why do the Finches on the Galapogos Islands differ in beak size and shape?

2. Hypothesis: When Finches made it to the Galapogos Islands from the mainland of South America they adapted to the individual environments on the seperate islands. This would indicate that all living organisms possess the ability to adapt over generations to their environment. Descent with Modification and Natural Selection appears to be the driving mechanism.

3. Prediction: Darwin predicted that we should find examples of adaptation in other species. He also viewed the lack of transitional fossils (in his time) as a major hinderance to his theory, which effectively predicted that we should have more. He also predicted that the Earth should be many millions of years old to explain the amount of diversity.

4. Testing: Darwin himself examined Fauna, Beagles, and many other examples in his time which solidified the idea of Natural Selection and Descent with modification. However Testing in the area of evolution continues to this day. Since Darwin's time, we've determined through many different fields of study that the earth's age is extremely old. We've discovered Genetics and the relation we all share with common ancestors. We've discovered many transitional fossils. There are literally mountains of testing data which confirms the Theory of Evolution.

5. Analysis: This continues on to this day. Predictions made with evolution as the foundation are responsible for many discoveries in the area of biology, drug research, genetics, etc. Every time an experiment uses the Theory of Evolution as a bedrock, we are effectively testing the theory. It holds up every single time.

 

[anyathesword]

Are you serious?

Oh yes!

 

[juvenissun]

Wisdom comes from experience.

(or a good roll on your character sheet)

Low level wisdom.

 

[Queller]

If I refer to each of those in the subset (trip), I do say "every student" but not "all students"

If God created 100 fish kinds in Day 5. At the end of the Day, God can say: EVERY one of the fishes is good.

Since God is going to create more fish on Day 6, so at the end of Day 5, God does not say: All fishes are good. Because some are not created yet.

There you go again. Adding to the Bible in direct defiance of the what the Bible says.

Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

 

[Black Akuma]

Oh yes!

Hell is in the center of the Earth - so if we somehow dug dug deep enough, we would actually see people roasting alive?

Are they in the core?

 

[juvenissun]

Cows were created during the first week of the earth's existence. So yeah, they were here.



Nope, there aren't. If there were, they would have, you know, left fossils. Here is another one for you to think about: there was no grass either.

You do not know that. There were a lot of grass.

If there were plants, there were fruit trees. Grass is a type of fruit tree.

 

[Black Akuma]

You do not know that. There were a lot of grass.

If there were plants, there were fruit trees. Grass is a type of fruit tree.

What?!

 

[Queller]

It is above the "knowledge" of man.

Man does not have wisdom (except one). Wisdom comes from God.

Which one man has the wisdom?

(please don't say you, please don't say you)

 

[juvenissun]

There you go again. Adding to the Bible in direct defiance of the what the Bible says.

Proverbs 30:5-6

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Which word did I add to the Bible?

 

[Queller]

Cows are not created yet.
There ARE fruit trees in the Cambrian time.

Evidence?

 

[Queller]

The scientific method is more than just a hypothesis, you should all know that!!

I remember in Chemistry, I always had to write a report using the scientific method. And one important factor besides the hypothesis is OBSERVATION!!

And REPEATABILITY!!! That's the conducting the experiment and testing it.

Here is the scientific method:

Step 1: Make an observation
Step 2: Ask a question
Step 3: Formulate a hypothesis
Step 4: Conduct an experiment
Step 5: Analyze data and draw a conclusion

Now this is science. Now explain to me how the origin of information and the theory of Evolution works here?

Where are the tests? Where is the independent and dépendent variables, the control group and the experimental group? Where is the observation supporting each hypothesis? Where are the tests?

I'm having a hard time seeing the origin of life playing here... help me out...

I'm not sure what the origin of information has to do with anything as evolution only considers what happens once that information is in place. However, here is exactly how the theory of evolution fits the steps you gave.

Step 1: Make an observation
Lobe-finned fish are found in lower layers of sediment and tetrapods are found in higher layers of sediment.

Step 2: Ask a question
Where would I find a fossil that has features of both lobe-finned fish and tetrapods?

Step 3: Formulate a hypothesis
I think that I would find a fossil bearing features of both tetrapods in a layer of sediment between those containing lobe-finned fish and those containing tetrapods.

Step 4: Conduct an experiment
a. Determine what are the layers where lobe-finned fish and tetrapods appear.
b. Find where these layers may be available for study.
c. Determine if an appropriate intermediary layer appears in any of those locations.
d. Actually go to one of those locations and begin to search for fossils.
e. After five years of searching, find several fossils that fit parameters.

Step 5: Analyze data and draw a conclusion
Spend a year conducting pain-staking research and study of those fossils and announce that the fossils you have found do indeed have a mixture of features from lobe-finned fish and tetrapods. Acknowledge that some of your pre-discovery conclusions were off somewhat but know that is the nature of science.

Step 6. Have your discoveries mocked by creationists who don't have a clue about paleontology or geology or biology. (this step wasn't in your list but you can bet it happens every time.)


Now then, how is the above NOT science?

 

[juvenissun]

Which one man has the wisdom?

(please don't say you, please don't say you)

Many. For example, king Solomon.

 

[juvenissun]

Evidence?

There are coals older than Devonian.

 

[anyathesword]

I'll use Darwin's Finches as a starting point for this very informal example of the scientific method:

1. Formulation of a Question: Why do the Finches on the Galapogos Islands differ in beak size and shape?

2. Hypothesis: When Finches made it to the Galapogos Islands from the mainland of South America they adapted to the individual environments on the seperate islands. This would indicate that all living organisms possess the ability to adapt over generations to their environment. Descent with Modification and Natural Selection appears to be the driving mechanism.

3. Prediction: Darwin predicted that we should find examples of adaptation in other species. He also viewed the lack of transitional fossils (in his time) as a major hinderance to his theory, which effectively predicted that we should have more. He also predicted that the Earth should be many millions of years old to explain the amount of diversity.

4. Testing: Darwin himself examined Fauna, Beagles, and many other examples in his time which solidified the idea of Natural Selection and Descent with modification. However Testing in the area of evolution continues to this day. Since Darwin's time, we've determined through many different fields of study that the earth's age is extremely old. We've discovered Genetics and the relation we all share with common ancestors. We've discovered many transitional fossils. There are literally mountains of testing data which confirms the Theory of Evolution.

5. Analysis: This continues on to this day. Predictions made with evolution as the foundation are responsible for many discoveries in the area of biology, drug research, genetics, etc. Every time an experiment uses the Theory of Evolution as a bedrock, we are effectively testing the theory. It holds up every single time.

No no no, it doesn't work like this for the origin of life. Yes Darwin observed finches and their adaptability, and we have been able to see animals adapt. But finches are still finches. Yes animals adapt to their environment, but they stay the same! Frog, mouse, goat, bird.

This is a hypothesis for Darwin's finches, not a hypothesis to say we came from apes for example, or that one celled organisms Evolved into fish and into land animals.

Where is the test to see something evolve into something else? Where are the experiments? The earth's age has nothing to do with finches.

No this isn't working in the scientific method. You pick on hypothesis, one question, and you answer it through experiments and observation.

AND it should be able to be repeated over and over again AND refuted if possible. Theories need to change over and over or it isn't science.

 

[46AND2]

If I refer to each of those in the subset (trip), I do say "every student" but not "all students"

No you don't. You are using two independent sets without realizing it. You can't say every student went on the trip, because some students did not go.

If God created 100 fish kinds in Day 5. At the end of the Day, God can say: EVERY one of the fishes is good.

Since God is going to create more fish on Day 6, so at the end of Day 5, God does not say: All fishes are good. Because some are not created yet.

Two INDEPENDENT sets...again...if god cannot use all on day 5, like you say, then he cannot use every, either. Don't you see? Every fish is not good, because some haven't been created, yet.

1. Every fish created SO FAR, is good.
2. All the fish created SO FAR, are good.

Means the same thing.

Every IS NOT A SUBSET of all.

In fact, I challenge you to find just one professional who agrees with you. Show me that you actually learned this, rather than just made it up yourself to avoid having to admit you're wrong.

 

[Black Akuma]

No no no, it doesn't work like this for the origin of life. Yes Darwin observed finches and their adaptability, and we have been able to see animals adapt. But finches are still finches. Yes animals adapt to their environment, but they stay the same! Frog, mouse, goat, bird.

This is a hypothesis for Darwin's finches, not a hypothesis to say we came from apes for example, or that one celled organisms Evolved into fish and into land animals.

Where is the test to see something evolve into something else? Where are the experiments? The earth's age has nothing to do with finches.

No this isn't working in the scientific method. You pick on hypothesis, one question, and you answer it through experiments and observation.

AND it should be able to be repeated over and over again AND refuted if possible. Theories need to change over and over or it isn't science.

Observations of evolution

I think your problem - and the problem of many creationists - is that you're stuck on this grade school, simplified version of the scientific method. It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

Again, you accept that Chemistry is a science, correct? Have you ever directly observed a chemical bond breaking?

 

[Queller]

The Devonian, Tertiary, Cambrian are all terms used by Evolutionists to narrate history. It is THEIR assumptions and point of view of the past even though they weren't there to see what happened.

If you look at this chart you will see how it differs greatly, lol!
http://biblicalgeology.net/images/stories/field_guides/comparison-lg.jpg

The devonian period is considered the ascending phase of the Flood, during 50 days after the Eruptive phase of the Flood. There is a huge time difference according to the view, 50 days to 100 million years or so.

The deal is if we can wrap our minds to the fact that The Flood caused a huge heck of damage, both in the eruptive phase and the ascending phase, then we can see that the fossil record is confusing.

During the Ascending phase there was UPLIFT, EROSION, and ERUPTION of rocks. And it all happened in a short time.

AFTER, we come to more uplift, erosion, and eruption. So how would something stay in the same layer anyway?

The cow would get uplifted, then eroded to another place, then erupted, then again the cycle continues but slowely. There is just no way to really know.

Here's the problem with that claim. We know, FROM OBSERVING THESE THINGS TODAY, how long uplifting takes and how long erosion takes. There is no evidence whatsoever that these rates have changed any time in the recent past. Also, if those rates were several orders of magnitude faster in the past (which is what it would take to equal the uplift and erosion rates creationists claim) those faster changes would have left evidence behind. As I said, there is no such evidence.

All we have is a true reliable written record to say what happened in the past by people who were there, not scientists today trying to make up their own narrative to the past.

Scientists don't "make up" (i.e. lie) about the past.

 

[46AND2]

No no no, it doesn't work like this for the origin of life. Yes Darwin observed finches and their adaptability, and we have been able to see animals adapt. But finches are still finches. Yes animals adapt to their environment, but they stay the same! Frog, mouse, goat, bird.

This is a hypothesis for Darwin's finches, not a hypothesis to say we came from apes for example, or that one celled organisms Evolved into fish and into land animals.

Where is the test to see something evolve into something else? Where are the experiments? The earth's age has nothing to do with finches.

No this isn't working in the scientific method. You pick on hypothesis, one question, and you answer it through experiments and observation.

AND it should be able to be repeated over and over again AND refuted if possible. Theories need to change over and over or it isn't science.

Learn about nested hierarchies...from science backed sites, first. I mean really learn it, and how to identify examples that don't fit.

This is how evolution is tested, by observing nested hierarchies. And it has been tested tens of thousands of times, through multiple fields of study.