About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[YoursTrue]

Now you are in denial again which is why we need to go back to evidence. There is clear evidence for evolution. What we see in our shared genetics is what is predicted by the theory. That makes it evidence for evolution.

And yes, even though you do not like it, it is a fact that we evolved from an ancestor that we share with other apes. The evidence for it is endless. I only gave you one small piece. It would take years and years to go over it all.

Here we go again. OK, it's getting late and I'm getting tired. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's plenty that evolutionists don't know about evolution. I mean they believe in the theory. But there is plenty that they don't know about it. And make adjustments, but -- it's still estimates being pushed into the mold. They are going to stick to the theory because that is how they see life. That black hole is still there, you know like Darwin's Black Hole. I've read enough to realize and think life 'just' doesn't come about by itself. And I won't get into Lucy now about how dumb she was and supposedly elevated by natural selection over a long period of time to -- humans? So because I am settling my conversation on evolution and not creation, yes, the more I think about it, the more I realize it (life and growth) is more than what MY mind (maybe not yours) can fathom. Because of the fabulous complexity of life. Cells, DNA, molecules and other fabulous things.
Why do I have skin? Why do I have a stomach and regulatory system? That is because that is what God wants.
Now while I'm willing to continue, and I appreciate what you bring to the table, and your patience with me, perhaps we can continue and I will be disappointed if we cannot, but I do understand. So thank you again.

The adjustments made today are rather small. There is no doubt about the theory in general. That is not a belief, that is knowledge. Scientists can explain to you how they know what they know if you give them the time.

And no, your claim about life not coming into existence by itself is a belief. You do not have anywhere near the education to make such a claim as knowledge. You cannot explain why you think tht you are right without being endlessly corrected.

You have those various organs because they are the product of evolution and it is not that difficult to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go again. OK, it's getting late and I'm getting tired. Maybe tomorrow.

Once again, when did I ever say that you were a YEC?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@YoursTrue , one of the sources that I used tonight was a Christian source. The reason that I did that was to show you that evolution is not an atheistic idea. It is a scientific one. And there are honest Christian scientists that have no problem with it. Worldwide there are definitely more Christians that accept the theory of evolution than atheists that accept it. In fact worldwide there are probably more Christian "evolutionists" than there are Christian creationists. Creationism is merely science and reality denial.


I posted an interview with Dr. Mary Schweitzer yesterday. She is a Christian. She used to be a YEC, but she took a class and it did not take her too long to realize that she had been wrong. She went on to get a doctorate in paleontology. She not only accepts that evolution is a fact, she was the scientist that discovered "Soft tissue" in dinosaur bones. I used the scare quotes because she had to soak the sample in a weak acid bath for over a week to demineralize it. The tissues were far from soft until she did that. One of her main arguments? "God is not a deceiver". She like me, can see that creationists are calling their God a liar.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Are the dates of the fossils imputed from the sediment or rocks around them, or can fossils themselves minus the sediment be dated?

Neither.

The ages of the fossils and the rocks are derived from counting the isotopes present in each specimen.

Thus, Kent Hovind's claim that "they date the fossils by the rocks they're in, then they date the rocks by the fossils they found" (or something like that) is patently false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither.

The ages of the fossils and the rocks are derived from counting the isotopes present in each specimen.

Thus, Kent Hovind's claim that "they date the fossils by the rocks they're in, then they date the rocks by the fossils they found" (or something like that) is patently false.

It is a bit more complicated than that. And of course when it comes to anything complicated you know that Kent will get it wrong.

There are two sorts of geological dating. Direct dating, which is radiometric dating and other means, and relative dating. Relative dating came first. The early laws of it were first formed by Nicolaus Steno. He came up with what seems obvious to us now. That sedimentary beds were originally deposited horizontally, that the oldest beds were laid down first and the others had to follow.

Geologic Principles—Superposition and Original Horizontality (U.S. National Park Service).

Steno was a Christian and surely believed the creation myths. So these are not "atheistic" ideas. When fossils were discovered it could be seen that fossil species tended to last a limited span of time, but there existence was widespread and often global. That allowed different deposits be correlated with each other all around the world.

At that point in time Kent's statement was correct. They had no absolute dating. Of course creationists have to ignore improvements in the sciences.

In the late 1800's radioactivity was discovered. When scientists eventually realized that the decay rate of radioactive elements was constant we had an absolute clock. The first use was in 1905. And like most first attempts it worked, more or less. It was not terribly accurate, but first attempts rarely are. And once again creationists only get the early problems in dating right. For some odd reason they never get the corrections

At any rate, most sedimentary beds cannot be directly dated. Radiometric dating works best on igneous rocks. Rocks that went directly from a molten stage to being a "rock". Basalt, granite, gabbro, diorite. andesite, rhyolite . . . and volcanic ash. Volcanic ash is favorite for those working with sedimentary rocks because it is igneous, it is widespread when it occurs. And it often temporarily interrupts the regular deposition process. And most important, it gives us a datable layer within sedimentary rock.

When we get a date of one strata by radiometric dating the fossils within the sedimentary rock above and below it allow for us to have a rather close date to any other strata all around the world with the same fossil assemblage. There are thousands of such dates that have been taken and thousands of fossil layers that have been correlated all around the world. There is no real need to do new dating, but it still occurs regularly. And as a result the absolute dating of the the layers all around the world keeps getting more and more accurate. Right now the database is strong enough so that one can use the 'fossils to date the layer' but that is only because the radiometric dating has already been done.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue , one of the sources that I used tonight was a Christian source. The reason that I did that was to show you that evolution is not an atheistic idea. It is a scientific one. And there are honest Christian scientists that have no problem with it. Worldwide there are definitely more Christians that accept the theory of evolution than atheists that accept it. In fact worldwide there are probably more Christian "evolutionists" than there are Christian creationists. Creationism is merely science and reality denial.


I posted an interview with Dr. Mary Schweitzer yesterday. She is a Christian. She used to be a YEC, but she took a class and it did not take her too long to realize that she had been wrong. She went on to get a doctorate in paleontology. She not only accepts that evolution is a fact, she was the scientist that discovered "Soft tissue" in dinosaur bones. I used the scare quotes because she had to soak the sample in a weak acid bath for over a week to demineralize it. The tissues were far from soft until she did that. One of her main arguments? "God is not a deceiver". She like me, can see that creationists are calling their God a liar.

I was thinking about this. The problem in my mind is that the theory goes against what the Bible says. And that is where I stop now for a while. I am not saying that district genetic changes did not happen...but again, horses remain horses for the most part, don't they? So I am going to refrain for a while from questioning. Maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was thinking about this. The problem in my mind is that the theory goes against what the Bible says. And that is where I stop now for a while. I am not saying that district genetic changes did not happen...but again, horses remain horses for the most part, don't they? So I am going to refrain for a while from questioning. Maybe.

So what? Not even the Bible makes the mistake of claiming that it is perfect or all true. There are countless errors in the Bible.

Yes, horses remain horses, by the way that is a YEC argument. Apes remain apes. You are still an ape. That fact bothers you. That is an incredibly stupid argument since that is what the theory of evolution says.

Why do you think that God is a liar? You refuse to understand the concept of evidence, but there is endless evidence out there and all of it supports the theory of evolution. None of it supports the creation myth of the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "gorillas stay gorillas" argument is a YEC argument. You do not know the YEC's that use it.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No. Even if their offspring eventually grew bat wings and flew they would still be gorillas or bonobos.

You keep using such poor arguments that only show your rather impressive ignorance.

And there are several species between Lucy and us. I know that I have posted an image of some of the skulls for you. They show a continued growth in brain case sizes.

Please stop jumping to incredibly wrong conclusions.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? Not even the Bible makes the mistake of claiming that it is perfect or all true. There are countless errors in the Bible.

Yes, horses remain horses, by the way that is a YEC argument. Apes remain apes. You are still an ape. That fact bothers you. That is an incredibly stupid argument since that is what the theory of evolution says.

Why do you think that God is a liar? You refuse to understand the concept of evidence, but there is endless evidence out there and all of it supports the theory of evolution. None of it supports the creation myth of the Bible.

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?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Even if their offspring eventually grew bat wings and flew they would still be gorillas or bonobos.

You keep using such poor arguments that only show your rather impressive ignorance.

And there are several species between Lucy and us. I know that I have posted an image of some of the skulls for you. They show a continued growth in brain case sizes.

Please stop jumping to incredibly wrong conclusions.

So let's be honest. At a certain point, according to the theory, homo sapiens evolved from animals like Lucy (not necessarily chimpanzees although maybe? they all came from a "common ancestor") and homo sapiens became smarter, is that right, than their predecessors. Like Lucy and further ones. Now I guess I will try to look up how long do scientists say gorillas have been around.
So here's the question: as far as evolution goes, isn't it said that there are different branches that came from possibly one form, like bacteria growing to possibly plants and maybe more bacteria growing at a different time to animals?

 

[YoursTrue]

Where did I ever say that you are a YEC?

And no, there is plenty that you do not understand about evolution.

I'm sure there is. I'm not denying that. I'm finding some things very interesting about nuclear reaction, cells, elements and so forth. But there's only so much time in the day and one's lifetime to investigate and learn about these things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Sorry, but now you are trying to reinterpret the Bible after the fact. It is better to think of the stories of Genesis as morality tales. None of them appear to have happened. There never was a flood of Noah. There never were only two people. God could have inspired it, but it was clearly not inspired as being factual. Nor is there any need to be factual.

 

[rational experiences]

Earths mass was saviour ice mass saved three times.

Fossils would have been snap frozen too.

Origin earth instant snap frozen holds artefacts in coal. Proof we combusted. And machine parts in fusion.

Instant. Freeze saved earth mass.

History space pressures had.

Law of earth God now saviour not mother womb.

Snap froze in dinosaur attrning gases.ack. Star mass heated pushed through burning gases.

As dusts consumed as light a fuel remove back to ashes.

Moses incident also.

 

[YoursTrue]

The adjustments made today are rather small. There is no doubt about the theory in general. That is not a belief, that is knowledge. Scientists can explain to you how they know what they know if you give them the time.

And no, your claim about life not coming into existence by itself is a belief. You do not have anywhere near the education to make such a claim as knowledge. You cannot explain why you think tht you are right without being endlessly corrected.

You have those various organs because they are the product of evolution and it is not that difficult to understand.

I'm still wondering about the dating process. But as you said, it takes time, at least for me to learn about it. I'm not a born scientist. And I do believe that there are some well educated scientists who may not believe in the God of the Bible, OR a god at all, but are astonished and amazed and filled with awe at the establishment of the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let's be honest. At a certain point, according to the theory, homo sapiens evolved from animals like Lucy (not necessarily chimpanzees although maybe? they all came from a "common ancestor") and homo sapiens became smarter, is that right, than their predecessors. Like Lucy and further ones. Now I guess I will try to look up how long do scientists say gorillas have been around.
So here's the question: as far as evolution goes, isn't it said that there are different branches that came from possibly one form, like bacteria growing to possibly plants and maybe more bacteria growing at a different time to animals?

A species will quite frequently split into two different species. The first thing that happens is some sort of separation. Both groups continue to evolve until the point where they can no longer interbreed. We even have examples of that right now. They are called ring species. This one where A can breed with B and B can breed with C and C can breed with D but D can no longer breed with A. By the breeding definition of species those are two different species. And yet by the same definition A and B are the same species, B and C are the same species etc.. This sort of "problem" with species, that they cannot be clearly defined, is due to evolution. If creationism were true we should be able to find hard lines between species without any of this sort of fuzziness.

So yes, the offspring of a single species can eventually become multiple speceis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still wondering about the dating process. But as you said, it takes time, at least for me to learn about it. I'm not a born scientist. And I do believe that there are some well educated scientists who may not believe in the God of the Bible, OR a god at all, but are astonished and amazed and filled with awe at the establishment of the universe.

Do you have any specific questions?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but now you are trying to reinterpret the Bible after the fact. It is better to think of the stories of Genesis as morality tales. None of them appear to have happened. There never was a flood of Noah. There never were only two people. God could have inspired it, but it was clearly not inspired as being factual. Nor is there any need to be factual.

Let's try to stick to the one idea of light coming to the earth. Not everything the Bible says. Because the Bible itself says there are things hard to understand in it.
Photosynthesis is necessary, isn't it? And yes, I am going over the Bible, too. It doesn't mean I understand everything.
So evolutionists understand that light is necessary, don't they, for growth on the earth. We see what's around us. When I was young I appreciated sunlight, didn't know the Bible, didn't really associate sunlight with God arranging for it to reach the earth in the way it does, but I could feel the warmth and knew not to look at the sun directly.
Yet it is written that God at the beginning of life on the earth enabled sunilght to penetrate the atmosphere in a profound way. And scientists seem to say that light first began to penetrate the earth a long, long time ago, before the growth of plants and emergence of animals.

 

[YoursTrue]

A species will quite frequently split into two different species. The first thing that happens is some sort of separation. Both groups continue to evolve until the point where they can no longer interbreed. We even have examples of that right now. They are called ring species. This one where A can breed with B and B can breed with C and C can breed with D but D can no longer breed with A. By the breeding definition of species those are two different species. And yet by the same definition A and B are the same species, B and C are the same species etc.. This sort of "problem" with species, that they cannot be clearly defined, is due to evolution. If creationism were true we should be able to find hard lines between species without any of this sort of fuzziness.

So yes, the offspring of a single species can eventually become multiple speceis.

Right now, and again, I thank you for your reply, I'm not going to discuss too much about species because it seems the definition of species varies. Not sure what you mean by creationism. Once again -- later -- and have a good night.