About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Dan From Smithville]

You may say that evolution is a fact, however perhaps you feel that facts don't need proof? Not sure.

There's that abuse of "proof" again.

There is a difference between the phenomenon and the theory that explains the phenomenon. Evolution is observed. The theory explains the observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I mean with certainty. By certainty yes, I mean absolutely without equivocation. Rock solid conclusions yes, meaning with -- proof beyond figuring what's not evidentiary. And of course, there is no proof, as it has been mentioned so many times. First let me thank you for your continued discussion with me, it caused me to think it over as carefully as possible. However it happened, here's what I do know: humans have a unique ability mentally to examine things. I leave it there right now. And again, despite you (and some others) calling me dumb, uneducated, ignorant, etc., (lol) I still do thank you for pointing me to things to think about.
Take care, SZ. Perhaps we can continue another time.

There is no such thing. And I have never called you dumb or stupid. I do get a bit frustrated when you refuse to learn rather simple concepts. Your religion is causing you to have trouble learning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So following this up, not sure if you've answered this yet -- underneath the lava is magma, is that right?

Yes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

So the magma presumably has been there for a llooonngg time. (Correct me when I'm wrong.) Then somehow it pushed up lava which goes over the edge and spills onto the earth. And then ash either comes from the volcano's mouth or from the fire and scatters. If I'm right I hope I remember that. Magma, lava, ash.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no such thing. And I have never called you dumb or stupid. I do get a bit frustrated when you refuse to learn rather simple concepts. Your religion is causing you to have trouble learning.

No, it's not. I never had a really good memory for certain things. Anyway, insofar as calling me dumb or stupid, that's how I interpret certain comments. My way of figuring (intepreting) what some people call me. Now back to the subject. In a way I don't want to get into the Bible as a contrast, but it's hard not to. I'd like to stick to a point, however, without going all over the place. So right now I'm concentrating on dating processes, which is why I found it interesting to learn that fossils really become stone. Is that true so far? (about the stones..). I really have to take this slow-ly. if possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's that abuse of "proof" again.

There is a difference between the phenomenon and the theory that explains the phenomenon. Evolution is observed. The theory explains the observations.

The theory can be wrong, isn't that possible? By the way, what are the observations of the theory? Oh, and what's the phenomenon?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory can be wrong, isn't that possible? By the way, what are the observations of the theory? Oh, and what's the phenomenon?

Evolution is the phenomenon. The theory is the explanation for it.

The theory could be wrong, but no one has shown it to be. I haven't seen anything on this forum that would make a sound argument against the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the magma presumably has been there for a llooonngg time. (Correct me when I'm wrong.) Then somehow it pushed up lava which goes over the edge and spills onto the earth. And then ash either comes from the volcano's mouth or from the fire and scatters. If I'm right I hope I remember that. Magma, lava, ash.

It could be. Do you know what magma is? It is molten rock. Geologic clocks do not "start" until the rock crystalizes. That is what they measure. The magma could have been there since the Earth was formed. What is being dated is the date of crystalization.

Do you understand this? I need a yes or no.

Let's take a zircon crystal for an example. Zircon will not take lead in. It simply does not chemically react with it in such a fashion. So when the crystal forms it will not have any lead. When the crystal forms the elements in it are frozen in place in the crystalline lattice, They can neither enter or leave. The lead that shows up in the crystal had to come from nuclear decay.

Do you understand this?

By the way, there are other "clocks" that we can use too. I have just chosen some of the simpler ones for you to understand. With the others we need to get into some mathematics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's not. I never had a really good memory for certain things. Anyway, insofar as calling me dumb or stupid, that's how I interpret certain comments. My way of figuring (intepreting) what some people call me. Now back to the subject. In a way I don't want to get into the Bible as a contrast, but it's hard not to. I'd like to stick to a point, however, without going all over the place. So right now I'm concentrating on dating processes, which is why I found it interesting to learn that fossils really become stone. Is that true so far? (about the stones..). I really have to take this slow-ly. if possible.

it is a bit complicated. Very often material is added. If you ever see bone it is quite porous. The open areas tend to get very slowly filled in with minerals of various sorts. usually silica or calcite. Have you heard of "petrified wood"? That is wood that was buried and then the porous parts, and wood is very very porous, was filled in with silica. The same material that makes up agates. The original pattern of the wood is preserved even if it is all gone. This process is called "permineralization".

By the way, with sedimentary rocks, even if they are radioactive it can be very hard to determine when the radioactive minerals were added. That is why we cannot date them directly. For direct dating one often relies on ash flows that cover strata with identical fossil assemblages.

 

[YoursTrue]

it is a bit complicated. Very often material is added. If you ever see bone it is quite porous. The open areas tend to get very slowly filled in with minerals of various sorts. usually silica or calcite. Have you heard of "petrified wood"? That is wood that was buried and then the porous parts, and wood is very very porous, was filled in with silica. The same material that makes up agates. The original pattern of the wood is preserved even if it is all gone. This process is called "permineralization".

By the way, with sedimentary rocks, even if they are radioactive it can be very hard to determine when the radioactive minerals were added. That is why we cannot date them directly. For direct dating one often relies on ash flows that cover strata with identical fossil assemblages.

OK, I'm going to go over your post very carefully, if possible. Pardon me, but I need to be certain of what you are saying. I am reading a book now, written by Paul Davies and, of course, I can't question him about his statements, how he knows these things, etc. But you I can. So -- you said that "very often material is added." Added to bone? Yes, I suppose that's what you meant. You explained that bone, as well as wood, is porous. Then you speak of sedimentary rocks, so I looked that up. According to National Geographic, "Sedimentary rocks are formed on or near the Earth’s surface, in contrast to metamorphic and igneous rocks, which are formed deep within …" So these rocks are formed on or near the earth's surface from what? Bones or wood that were near the surface and filled with soil? what about lava and ash? Then the question -- where does the ash settle?

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is the phenomenon. The theory is the explanation for it.

The theory could be wrong, but no one has shown it to be. I haven't seen anything on this forum that would make a sound argument against the theory.

While not specifically mentioned insofar as I understand, it seems that what happened according to the theory (evolution by natural selection) was without an intelligent force behind the laws of nature.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's that abuse of "proof" again.

There is a difference between the phenomenon and the theory that explains the phenomenon. Evolution is observed. The theory explains the observations.

So a fact, according to some persons' definition, may or may not be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I'm going to go over your post very carefully, if possible. Pardon me, but I need to be certain of what you are saying. I am reading a book now, written by Paul Davies and, of course, I can't question him about his statements, how he knows these things, etc. But you I can. So -- you said that "very often material is added." Added to bone? Yes, I suppose that's what you meant. You explained that bone, as well as wood, is porous. Then you speak of sedimentary rocks, so I looked that up. According to National Geographic, "Sedimentary rocks are formed on or near the Earth’s surface, in contrast to metamorphic and igneous rocks, which are formed deep within …" So these rocks are formed on or near the earth's surface from what? Bones or wood that were near the surface and filled with soil? what about lava and ash? Then the question -- where does the ash settle?

Most sedimentary rocks are formed under water. They are mostly Shale, which is made of fine grained clay that has settled out of the water, sandstone, which usually forms on beaches and near shore environments, and limestone, which quite often forms on coral reefs.

They are made of "sediments". Call it dirt if you like, but that will be inaccurate. All three examples that I gave were examples of well sorted sedimentary rock. There are others but they are a small percentage.

Sandstone can also be aeolian, or wind blown. In the Grand Canyon one of the layers is windblown sand. You know, sand dunes, camels. Lawrence of Arabia. The Coconino sandstone is made up of wind blown sands. Geologists can tell by the angle of the cross bedding. Dunes have steep sides. If such a structure forms in water it is nowhere near as steep. The footprints of animals that live on sand dunes is also a good clue that they were sand dunes. And the sand itself tells us that it was wind blown. Sand in sand dunes is frosted. That means if one looks at it under a microscope it looks white due to all of the tiny collisions that it went through while flying in the air. Beach sands on the other hand are transparent. The water allows them to get polished instead of frosted.

And volcanic ash settles whenever there is an eruption. There is no rule as to when. Where do you live, no need to be exact. I might be able to find a mountain that you are familiar with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So a fact, according to some persons' definition, may or may not be true.

If you define anything that you know as a "fact" then by the same standards you use (as long as they are rational ones) then evolution is a fact too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

While not specifically mentioned insofar as I understand, it seems that what happened according to the theory (evolution by natural selection) was without an intelligent force behind the laws of nature.

There is no evidence for the actions of an agent in any natural phenomena.

This does not mean there isn't one. Just that there is no evidence for one.

This is where the facts are often turned into a straw man argument claiming science is against or some similar nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, as long as you continue saying that I am a YEC, I may keep calling evolution by "natural selection" magic. There is plenty that is inexplicable about evolution.

You may not be a YEC, but you are definitely using their arguments and talking points.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So? There is no 'evidence' that gorillas and/or bonobos are evolving. It doesn't matter if it's a YEC argument or not. Of course the argument would probably be that there would be not enough time to observe. Maybe. Because that would be the argument in favor of the lack of recorded observation. Guess (?) the early homo sapiens were too busy getting food to say the least to wonder about what was or was not around them. But then there might not be questions about the other branches (not sure if that's the right term for it) that stemmed from the "Unknown Common Ancestor" as far as the first 195,000 years of homo sapiens is concerned.
And then it does seem from what I have read that Lucys were small brained, therefore kind of dumb theoretically speaking of course, because even dogs and cats are not really dumb, and the brain cavity or the size of brain eventually expanded, evolutionary logic saying that homo sapiens are currently the top of list. For now. Meaning the latest.
So I can only guess that whatever evolutionists figure homo sapiens come from were developing bigger brain cavities and more intelligence when "homo sapiens" emerged 200,000 years ago. Of course IQ tests were not taken back then. Yet Lucy is said to be a predecessor. But eventually she evolved into something smarter. This by the way of some arguing that the early homo sapiens just did not need to keep records.

You don't have to guess. This information is freely available to all inquiring minds. Maybe you've heard of this thing called the internet? It's chock full of academic sources for all of this stuff.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not talking about much right now except regarding the ToE. Because of course there are other questions. And so I was doing a little research about what scientists (hope these are not YECly people) believe about the early formation of life (not abiogenesis) on the earth: So here is what I found: The Evolution and Complete Timeline of Life on Earth (humanoriginproject.com) Explaining the first forms of life on the earth and how they came about: (But anyway, either the following is true or it's not true) I didn't read the wholte thing, but tell me if you think the following is true:

"How did photosynthesis change the earth?
2.1 billion years ago more sunlight was starting to penetrate the earth’s toxic atmosphere.
Cyanobacteria, named after their blue/green color- were the first to start exhaling oxygen. Here the early stages of photosynthesis began."

So in review, it is said there that more sunlight was starting to penetrate the earth's toxic atmosphere. Notice what Genesis 1:2-5 says about first darkness and then light coming to be on the earth. The question is: how did Moses know such a thing? That light came to be penetrating the earth's atmosphere in order to promote the necessary mechanisms from the sun to enable photosynthesis.

Now right at the beginning of the Bible, and the account of creation, it says:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.”
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

So the real question to you is, do you agree that more sunlight was penetrating through to the earth a few billion years ago?

You've already been told countless times that abiogenesis isn't evolution. Why are you still acting as though it is?
Why can't you take in new information? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Astrophile]

Then you speak of sedimentary rocks, so I looked that up. According to National Geographic, "Sedimentary rocks are formed on or near the Earth’s surface, in contrast to metamorphic and igneous rocks, which are formed deep within …" So these rocks are formed on or near the earth's surface from what?

Ultimately, sedimentary rocks are formed by deposition of material eroded from older rocks, which may be igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ultimately, sedimentary rocks are formed by deposition of material eroded from older rocks, which may be igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary.

Makes sense. So here is what I discern from your answer and @Subduction Zone's responses regarding this detail: the dating of the fossils is without doubt intertwined with the soil residue.