How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[SkepticThinker]

Genesis 1.

Best answer based on the complexity of life. Fits with historical narrative structure and not mythology structure.

But if you don't have room for a God in your model of the universe... then you will not share my conviction. But it explains the fossil record better than evolution. Another thing a naturalist mind can not accept.

How does the Biblical account of the origin of life, explain the "fossil record better than evolution?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

No... name calling is when one calls someone a name. Kind of in the wording.

I have not demanded... only asked.
If you think I am demanding anything then that was unfortunate.

Your opinions again.

And where do you think thw original came from... oh you are part of the borrowed from othe cultures crowd? Or maybe those cultures borrowed from the original.

They're made up.

God saw everything about creation and told Adam. Everything else was witnessed by the people who were there. Later compiled by another author. Accounts still eyewitness but that is in my book not yours.

This doesn't make any sense. If the "account" of what happened was written by someone who wasn't there, then it isn't an "eyewitness account."

Autism. Poor eyesight and many conversations at thensame time. I am just saying. You can accept or not.

s you do. You are probably unaware of when the mistake of interpreting Genesis literally first began in the US.

I am not interested in the history... i am talking about my own beliefs and understanding.

Nope. You are on the naughty list like everyone else.

Lucy right? How many of her bones were found. Was it not just a minor handful... less than a handful really.

Several hundred different Australopithecus afarensis specimens have been found to date, actually.
It appears that your talking points are out of date.

Australopithecus afarensis

humanorigins.si.edu

And we all have.

Check your history books. Science of the gaps.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not if I didn't see it. Or think it was serious.

An argument from silence is worthless.

This conversation is like talking to a woman. "You know what you did"... not helpful.

Oh no, you don't get to blame your failures in this thread on women.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know what a nuclear reactor is? Are you even slightly aware that dating back that far involves nuclear measurements? And if such measurements are supposedly so far off, then how in the world can nuclear reactors work?

To be fair the two are rather different. A nuclear reactor works by fission. That is the rough splitting in two of an atom when it absorbs a neutron from a neutron emitting source. Depending upon the number of neutrons released and absorbed the rate of energy released can be almost zero with no neutrons being added to Hiroshima or Nagasaki levels when neutrons and a dense mass of uranium in one spot are targeted. Even an uncontrolled event as in Chernobyl only results in a meltdown because of distances and purity of the nuclear material. At any rate those reactions are all much faster, and release more energy than that of nuclear decay. U238 will decay to Pb206. A difference of 32 nucleons. Where nuclear fission results in the atom splitting roughly in half to an average weight nucleus of 118. You can see that would be much further down the chart and much closer to iron on this chart"

Pb206 would be slightly below 8Mev on the chart and fission would be at about 8.5 on that chart. with U235 close to 7.5. Nuclear fission would ideally occur over a period of decades where and have a binding energy per nucleon change of about 1 where radioactive decay would take billions of years and have a change of energy of only .5Mev. It is a bit like comparing evolution and abiogenesis. With the exception that it is a far simpler process and is very very well understood. For both.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh no, you don't get to blame your failures in this thread on women.

Oh come on!! It's always the women's fault. Hmm, maybe that is why I am single now. It is all the women's fault.

 

[metis]

To be fair the two are rather different. A nuclear reactor works by fission. That is the rough splitting in two of an atom when it absorbs a neutron from a neutron emitting source. Depending upon the number of neutrons released and absorbed the rate of energy released can be almost zero with no neutrons being added to Hiroshima or Nagasaki levels when neutrons and a dense mass of uranium in one spot are targeted. Even an uncontrolled event as in Chernobyl only results in a meltdown because of distances and purity of the nuclear material. At any rate those reactions are all much faster, and release more energy than that of nuclear decay. U238 will decay to Pb206. A difference of 32 nucleons. Where nuclear fission results in the atom splitting roughly in half to an average weight nucleus of 118. You can see that would be much further down the chart and much closer to iron on this chart"

View attachment 85107

Pb206 would be slightly below 8Mev on the chart and fission would be at about 8.5 on that chart. with U235 close to 7.5. Nuclear fission would ideally occur over a period of decades where and have a binding energy per nucleon change of about 1 where radioactive decay would take billions of years and have a change of energy of only .5Mev. It is a bit like comparing evolution and abiogenesis. With the exception that it is a far simpler process and is very very well understood. For both.

Thanks for elaborating but my point was that using various forms of radiometry has been known for decades now, so nuclear physicists pretty much have a handle on how this works. In anthropology, we farm out to them for analysis as doing that ourselves would be out of range of our training. We are taught the basics but not the specifics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for elaborating but my point was that using various forms of radiometry has been known for decades now, so nuclear physicists pretty much have a handle on how this works. In anthropology, we farm out to them for analysis as doing that ourselves would be out of range of our training. We are taught the basics but not the specifics.

And you were probably taught proper protocol on how to avoid adding modern carbon bearing substances to your samples. Creationists are known for carbon dating fossils that were painted with shellac, which is made from the secretions of present day lac bugs. It is dissolved in alcohol, another possible source of modern carbon, and then painted on objects. When it dries you have a nice clear finish. For objects like fossils it allows them to be shipped much more safely and it does not interfere with studying the fossil. Of course if one is silly enough to date such an object you will get CO2 from the shellac and from any carbonate in the sample. The carbonate will be very very old and will not have any C14. The same cannot be said about the shellac at all.

 

[metis]

And you were probably taught proper protocol on how to avoid adding modern carbon bearing substances to your samples.

Samples are put into plastic bags & labeled, plus we normally wear gloves as well. However, at the dig site I was volunteering at, the dating had already been done plus we were dealing with pottery shards, thus many of us just went in with bare hands.

BTW, the dating was just a couple of decades b.c.e., and it was a cistern occupied by the Zealots that the Romans filled in with sand.

 

[Audie]

Cool.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Next, consider dismissing poster for cause.

 

[Khabeni412]

We could throw out the fossil record completely and evolution would still be a fact.