About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

If you get a chance, try looking at the article from bbc about these scientists trying to figure out how it all began ... What existed before the Big Bang?

Why? What does that have to do with fossils? The topic of the thread is evolution. Even if your God exists evolution only explains how he did it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Really? You know that you do not just get to make that claim, don't you? If you cannot justify your claim then you should not see anything wrong with your neighbor claiming that you are a child molester. I thought that you understood that by now. Even the Bible tells you not to make such claims.

What is the supposed "surmisal"?

Nah...that's what you say. Otherwise, the proof is in your pudding to give the recipe. Can you?
Meantime is it possible that your neighbor claims you are a liar and a child molester? Talk about ridiculous comparisons, you make yourself look awful by your means of arguing.
Meantime, do you believe any claims of a scientist, such as -- Stephen Hawking claiming the universe came from -- nothing -- but the "law of gravity was there"?
Yes, it has a lot to do with certain claims -- I said I would look into charcoal dating and I am. When I see more about and understand what they did to figure the dates, I'll let you know. Otherwise, why not say what you know as to how the dating of cave drawings is done, and that with explanations and details as to the process and substances obtained. Like you say, if someone claims you are a child molester, I'd need to see the proof and understand it if I would join in saying that about you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why? What does that have to do with fossils? The topic of the thread is evolution. Even if your God exists evolution only explains how he did it.

Prove that statement about "even if" my God exists evolution explains how he did it? It does?? I disagree with the dates some say when humans made cave drawings, but can you tell me if gorillas have made cave drawings?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone plus it appears from your comments that you don't really know what I believe about evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. It is your ignorance that is showing: Varve - Wikipedia

Since varve is described as an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock, are you suggesting that these annual layers, either singularly or in multiple layers, cannot be shifted by flooding or erosion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah...that's what you say. Otherwise, the proof is in your pudding to give the recipe. Can you?
Meantime is it possible that your neighbor claims you are a liar and a child molester? Talk about ridiculous comparisons, you make yourself look awful by your means of arguing.
Meantime, do you believe any claims of a scientist, such as -- Stephen Hawking claiming the universe came from -- nothing -- but the "law of gravity was there"?
Yes, it has a lot to do with certain claims -- I said I would look into charcoal dating and I am. When I see more about and understand what they did to figure the dates, I'll let you know. Otherwise, why not say what you know as to how the dating of cave drawings is done, and that with explanations and details as to the process and substances obtained. Like you say, if someone claims you are a child molester, I'd need to see the proof and understand it if I would join in saying that about you.

There is nothing ridiculous about that comparison. And I note that you could not support your false claim.

I am rather amazed that you holed the Ninth Commandment in such low regard. It is much more than a Commandment that just bans lying. In fact it does not actually ban lying.

And you misread what Hawking said. He said that it could. The universe could have started from nothing. Are you aware of the mass energy equivalence? Astronomers have weighted the universe. The explanation is really beyond my understanding, though I know roughly how, and I am sure that you do not know how they did it, But as close as they can measure the energy of the universe is zero. Both positive and negative energy exist and the total appears to balance out That means that the universe could have started from nothing since everything that you see that is positive energy, the Earth, the Sun, all of the stars, are balanced out by negative energy. There is no violation of the conservation of energy in such a universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove that statement about "even if" my God exists evolution explains how he did it? It does?? I disagree with the dates some say when humans made cave drawings, but can you tell me if gorillas have made cave drawings?

Sorry, you refuse to learn what evidence is. You therefore cannot demand "proof". Learn what is and what is not evidence and I will provide you with endless evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone plus it appears from your comments that you don't really know what I believe about evolution.

I do not think that you understand what you believe about evolution. You have only demonstrated that you have no understanding of it at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since varve is described as an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock, are you suggesting that these annual layers, either singularly or in multiple layers, cannot be shifted by flooding or erosion?

How would you "shift" them? You cannot move unconsolidated sediments without disturbing them. Especially with flood water. The layering would be destroyed. It can be shown time and time again how that happens. You would have to find a way to move them without disturbing the layers that we see. You are making a positive claim here, the burden of proof would be upon you.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing ridiculous about that comparison. And I note that you could not support your false claim.

I am rather amazed that you holed the Ninth Commandment in such low regard. It is much more than a Commandment that just bans lying. In fact it does not actually ban lying.

And you misread what Hawking said. He said that it could. The universe could have started from nothing. Are you aware of the mass energy equivalence? Astronomers have weighted the universe. The explanation is really beyond my understanding, though I know roughly how, and I am sure that you do not know how they did it, But as close as they can measure the energy of the universe is zero. Both positive and negative energy exist and the total appears to balance out That means that the universe could have started from nothing since everything that you see that is positive energy, the Earth, the Sun, all of the stars, are balanced out by negative energy. There is no violation of the conservation of energy in such a universe.

I don't see you often uphold your claims; if I make a mistake or don't know something, I admit it. An explanation is beyond your understanding yet you accept it? I no longer accept many of the claims of the theory of evolution. I ask questions and if something doesn't make sense or I don't understand it, I do not necessarily accept it. I will further look into the charcoal dating situation. Hawking said the universe could have started from nothing, is that much different from saying it might have started from nothing and it is a possibility?

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you "shift" them? You cannot move unconsolidated sediments without disturbing them. Especially with flood water. The layering would be destroyed. It can be shown time and time again how that happens. You would have to find a way to move them without disturbing the layers that we see. You are making a positive claim here, the burden of proof would be upon you.

Shift means moving from one place to another, such as in a tsunami or lakeside overflow. I'm not sure what you mean that the layering would be destroyed. It (and more than one layer) could move and settle somewhere and stay for a while, maybe more layers come upon it and move later on due to circumstances. You keep talking burden of proof. Where's yours?

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you "shift" them? You cannot move unconsolidated sediments without disturbing them. Especially with flood water. The layering would be destroyed. It can be shown time and time again how that happens. You would have to find a way to move them without disturbing the layers that we see. You are making a positive claim here, the burden of proof would be upon you.

What layering would be destroyed? What makes you think that all the layers would move? Maybe some of them moved, not all of them.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing ridiculous about that comparison. And I note that you could not support your false claim.

I am rather amazed that you holed the Ninth Commandment in such low regard. It is much more than a Commandment that just bans lying. In fact it does not actually ban lying.

And you misread what Hawking said. He said that it could. The universe could have started from nothing. Are you aware of the mass energy equivalence? Astronomers have weighted the universe. The explanation is really beyond my understanding, though I know roughly how, and I am sure that you do not know how they did it, But as close as they can measure the energy of the universe is zero. Both positive and negative energy exist and the total appears to balance out That means that the universe could have started from nothing since everything that you see that is positive energy, the Earth, the Sun, all of the stars, are balanced out by negative energy. There is no violation of the conservation of energy in such a universe.

When I went to school (as I told you I was an honor student w/scholarships but not a science major), I (1) did not believe in God in particular, yet (2) I was amazed at the structure of life -- considering space between atoms, etc., among other things. I believed everything I was taught about evolution in school because I naively believed I was being told the truth. I didn't question it because -- I believed I was being told the truth absolutely
When you took a test, your answer was judged based on current knowledge. When scientific advances are made, the answers go along accordingly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see you often uphold your claims; if I make a mistake or don't know something, I admit it. An explanation is beyond your understanding yet you accept it? I no longer accept many of the claims of the theory of evolution. I ask questions and if something doesn't make sense or I don't understand it, I do not necessarily accept it. I will further look into the charcoal dating situation. Hawking said the universe could have started from nothing, is that much different from saying it might have started from nothing and it is a possibility?

There is usually no need to. I explained to you what happens to old partially burnt logs in fire. In fact if one knows what one is doing there are no such partially burnt logs. Partially burnt wood is what happens usually when amateurs make a fire. You said it could be old charcoal but could not explain where it came from. That meant that I really had no burden of proof.

And when you refuse to learn what evidence is you also let off our opponents. They no longer have the burden of proof because you have tacitly admitted that you are not here to debate properly.

If you want me to supply evidence you need to learn what it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What layering would be destroyed? What makes you think that all the layers would move? Maybe some of them moved, not all of them.

Holy cow!! You have no idea what you are arguing against. Didn't you at least read the article on varves.

And you do not realize it but you were the one that said that all layers would be moved. An honest debater checks out the sources used against him or her. I always check out your sources because over half of the time they are evidence against you.

Go back and read the link that was supplied to you by @exchemist about varves. Then we can discuss this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I went to school (as I told you I was an honor student w/scholarships but not a science major), I (1) did not believe in God in particular, yet (2) I was amazed at the structure of life -- considering space between atoms, etc., among other things. I believed everything I was taught about evolution in school because I naively believed I was being told the truth. I didn't question it because -- I believed I was being told the truth absolutely
When you took a test, your answer was judged based on current knowledge. When scientific advances are made, the answers go along accordingly.

Yes, but high school science is nothing compared to the real thing. And what little science education you had appears to have been poorly acquired. If you do not use it you lose it.

And it is too bad that you just "believe it". If you understood what was being taught to you you would have known it. When one knows something one can demonstrate it. But you have to be willing to listen to understand how others know when you merely have belief. You probably could have learned science. You probably still can learn what science is and how it is done. The only reason that you are ignorant is because you appear to be afraid to learn. Not because you lack intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shift means moving from one place to another, such as in a tsunami or lakeside overflow. I'm not sure what you mean that the layering would be destroyed. It (and more than one layer) could move and settle somewhere and stay for a while, maybe more layers come upon it and move later on due to circumstances. You keep talking burden of proof. Where's yours?

I can tell that. And that is rather damning for you. You should have known what I was talking about. If you have no cluse as to what someone is saying there is almost no way that you can refute them. You continue to show that you have no clue as to what varves are and how and why they can be used to determine local dates.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can tell that. And that is rather damning for you. You should have known what I was talking about. If you have no cluse as to what someone is saying there is almost no way that you can refute them. You continue to show that you have no clue as to what varves are and how and why they can be used to determine local dates.

Do you want to explain it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but high school science is nothing compared to the real thing. And what little science education you had appears to have been poorly acquired. If you do not use it you lose it.

And it is too bad that you just "believe it". If you understood what was being taught to you you would have known it. When one knows something one can demonstrate it. But you have to be willing to listen to understand how others know when you merely have belief. You probably could have learned science. You probably still can learn what science is and how it is done. The only reason that you are ignorant is because you appear to be afraid to learn. Not because you lack intelligence.

 

[exchemist]

Since varve is described as an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock, are you suggesting that these annual layers, either singularly or in multiple layers, cannot be shifted by flooding or erosion?

No. Read the posts to which I was replying.