Stratigraphy, radiometric evidence, fossil evidence, and genetics.

[shunyadragon]

With a complete dialogue where evolution is considered there needs to consider the four types of evidence together. No single type of evidence stands alone. Each offers certain predictive objective falsifiable evidence that interrelate to support the hypothesis or theory of evolution.

Actually the most important key is stratigraphy falsifying and demonstrating a history of earth billions of years old with orderly complete strata of the history of the earth in a number of places on the earth. There are many places where plate techtonics, mountain building, erosion, and deposition, though incomplete, can be correlated with those places on earth with a complete stratigraphic column. The volcanics in these strata may be dated to the time they occurred and and often eroded. The type deposition or intrusion of each strata may be accurately identified, such as beach sands, lake deposits, marine deposits, coral reefs wind blown sand, loess (wind blown silt.) Terrestrial deposits such as rivers, erosion surfaces showing river systems, and deposits of coal in swamps. All these deposits are in normal cyclic sequences, and the same way they are found today in deposition, erosion and the igneous - intrusion and volcanic deposits.Actually it was stratigraphy and erosion that the contemporaries of Darwin that lead them to the conclusion of an ancient earth.

All the fossil evidence and radiometric dating is consistent evidence that correlates with stratigraphy. It must be understood that the stratigraphic evidence stands alone as dating the age and history of the earth. The radiometric dating just increases the specific accuracy of the sequence of the strata.The fossil evidence correlates well with startegraphy in that the animal and plant life fossil are falsified and determined to be progressively more complex from simple life forms to more complex over a period of billions of years.

Hint:
there are no rabbit fossils in Cambrian rock strata.

The discussion of genetics as correlated with the other evidence will follow.

 

[shunyadragon]

Detailed descriptive knowledge of the strata of the earth goes back to before the work of Charles Darwin with the work of William Smith, a coal geologist.

From: 8.1 The Geological Time Scale – Physical Geology

William “Strata” Smith worked as a surveyor in the coal-mining and canal-building industries in southwestern England in the late 1700s and early 1800s. While doing his work, he had many opportunities to look at the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of the region, and he did so in a way that few had done before. Smith noticed the textural similarities and differences between rocks in different locations, and more importantly, he discovered that fossils could be used to correlate rocks of the same age. Smith is credited with formulating the principle of faunal succession (the concept that specific types of organisms lived during different time intervals), and he used it to great effect in his monumental project to create a geological map of England and Wales, published in 1815. (For more on William Smith, including a large-scale digital copy of the famous map, see William Smith (geologist) - Wikipedia.)

Inset into Smith’s great geological map is a small diagram showing a schematic geological cross-section extending from the Thames estuary of eastern England all the way to the west coast of Wales. Smith shows the sequence of rocks, from the Paleozoic rocks of Wales and western England, through the Mesozoic rocks of central England, to the Cenozoic rocks of the area around London (Figure 8.2). Although Smith did not put any dates on these — because he didn’t know them — he was aware of the principle of superposition (the idea, developed much earlier by the Danish theologian and scientist Nicholas Steno, that young sedimentary rocks form on top of older ones), and so he knew that this diagram represented a stratigraphic column. And because almost every period of the Phanerozoic is represented along that section through Wales and England, it is a primitive geological time scale.


Figure 8.2 William Smith’s “Sketch of the succession of strata and their relative altitudes,” an inset on his geological map of England and Wales (with era names added). [SE after: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilliamSmith/images/sketch_of_the_succession_of_strata.jpg]
Smith’s work set the stage for the naming and ordering of the geological periods, which was initiated around 1820, first by British geologists, and later by other European geologists. Many of the periods are named for places where rocks of that age are found in Europe, such as Cambrian for Cambria (Wales), Devonian for Devon in England, Jurassic for the Jura Mountains in France and Switzerland, and Permian for the Perm region of Russia. Some are named for the type of rock that is common during that age, such as Carboniferous for the coal- and carbonate-bearing rocks of England, and Cretaceous for the chalks of England and France.

The early time scales were only relative because 19th century geologists did not know the ages of the rocks. That information was not available until the development of isotopic dating techniques early in the 20th century.

The geological time scale is currently maintained by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), which is part of the International Union of Geological Sciences. The time scale is continuously being updated as we learn more about the timing and nature of past geological events. You can view the ICS time scale at ICS - Chart/Time Scale. It would be a good idea to print a copy (in colour) to put on your wall while you are studying geology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some wrongfully accuse that the dating of the strata by strata properties and radiometric dating is circular and each method of dating justifies the other, which is false. Dating by stratigraphy is much older than radiometric dating of the strata and stands alone as demonstrating the age of the strata as progressive in a uniform sequence and millions of years old, by the objective verifiable evidence within the strata themselves.

Radiometric dating only confirms and gives more accurate dating of the strata, further correlation of the strata world wide, and further demonstrated this worldwide relationship using the comparison of the fossils within the strata, as developed by William Smith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some wrongfully accuse that the dating of the strata by strata properties and radiometric dating is circular and each method of dating justifies the other, which is false. Dating by stratigraphy is much older than radiometric dating of the strata and stands alone as demonstrating the age of the strata as progressive in a uniform sequence and millions of years old, by the objective verifiable evidence within the strata themselves.

Radiometric dating only confirms and gives more accurate dating of the strata, further correlation of the strata world wide, and further demonstrated this worldwide relationship using the comparison of the fossils within the strata, as developed by William Smith.

I wanted to add that even though Charles Darwin first proposed the hypothesis (theory) of evolution, he had knowledge of the ground work of previous work William Smith and other European scientists that made observations and conclusions based on the stratigraphy and the fossils found. Charles Darwin did not come up with his hypothesis of evolution alone.

This is part of the reason that I do not refer to terms such as Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism, because given the broad foundation of the science of evolution in the work of other scientists before and during Darwin's life it was inevitable that the science of evolution would have been proposed and falsified by some scientist as is the history of the science has many scientists..

 

[Polymath257]

This is part of the reason that I do not refer to terms such as Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism, because given the broad foundation of the science of evolution in the work of other scientists before and during Darwin's life it was inevitable that the science of evolution would have been proposed and falsified by some scientist as is the history of the science has many scientists..

And, in fact, the basic idea was independently discovered by Wallace.

 

[shunyadragon]

And, in fact, the basic idea was independently discovered by Wallace.

Should we call it Wallacism or Neo-Wallacism?

 

[shunyadragon]

And, in fact, the basic idea was independently discovered by Wallace.

Next fossils and the geologic history of life. The finding of fossils is documented by stratigraphy, and demonstrate the evolution of life through billions of years, because the sequence of fossils is from only simple life forms in the rocks of the Pre Cambrisn consistently and predictably more complex over time. Evolution has been falsified by making predictions of intermediates by using the the known stratigraphy. A good example is the evolution of the whale. Predictions and descriptions of the intermediate species were made on where in the the stratigraphy fossils were known. The scientists looked for them in the strata where they predicted they should be found, and the intermediates have been found, Prediction hypothesis is how evolution is falsified in the strata.

 

[dad]

Actually the most important key is stratigraphy falsifying and demonstrating a history of earth billions of years old with orderly complete strata of the history of the earth in a number of places on the earth. There are many places where plate techtonics, mountain building, erosion, and deposition, though incomplete, can be correlated with those places on earth with a complete stratigraphic column.

No problem, There are layers and plates moved, and mountains were pushed up..etc.

The volcanics in these strata may be dated to the time they occurred and and often eroded.

No problem, as molten rock and volcanoes are expected. Now how long ago that was is another issue.

The type deposition or intrusion of each strata may be accurately identified, such as beach sands, lake deposits, marine deposits, coral reefs wind blown sand, loess (wind blown silt.) Terrestrial deposits such as rivers, erosion surfaces showing river systems, and deposits of coal in swamps. All these deposits are in normal cyclic sequences, and the same way they are found today in deposition, erosion and the igneous - intrusion and volcanic deposits.Actually it was stratigraphy and erosion that the contemporaries of Darwin that lead them to the conclusion of an ancient earth.

Wherever Darwin was led doesn't matter much. There is no need to invoke old ages.

All the fossil evidence and radiometric dating is consistent evidence that correlates with stratigraphy.

No. The correlation in radiometric dates is a matter of belief only and cannot be verified or tested.

It must be understood that the stratigraphic evidence stands alone as dating the age and history of the earth.

Great, so we have about 6000 years.

The radiometric dating just increases the specific accuracy of the sequence of the strata.

Not at all. The dream dates confuse issues, and all depend on the same belief, which I think you know.

The fossil evidence correlates well with startegraphy in that the animal and plant life fossil are falsified and determined to be progressively more complex from simple life forms to more complex over a period of billions of years.

Hint:
there are no rabbit fossils in Cambrian rock strata.

Absurd. You assume that the fossil record represents all life that was on earth, rather than just a tiny percentage of life that could leave fossil remains.

The discussion of genetics as correlated with the other evidence will follow.

Any discussion of genetics must include known samples from the early strata eras if you want to include early life in the discussion. Personally, I suspect that modern DNA works quite differently from any genetics in the far past. It is fine if you disagree, but to do so in the name of science, you will need some hard evidence.

 

[sayak83]

No problem, There are layers and plates moved, and mountains were pushed up..etc.



No problem, as molten rock and volcanoes are expected. Now how long ago that was is another issue.


Wherever Darwin was led doesn't matter much. There is no need to invoke old ages.

No. The correlation in radiometric dates is a matter of belief only and cannot be verified or tested.

Great, so we have about 6000 years.


Not at all. The dream dates confuse issues, and all depend on the same belief, which I think you know.

Absurd. You assume that the fossil record represents all life that was on earth, rather than just a tiny percentage of life that could leave fossil remains.


Any discussion of genetics must include known samples from the early strata eras if you want to include early life in the discussion. Personally, I suspect that modern DNA works quite differently from any genetics in the far past. It is fine if you disagree, but to do so in the name of science, you will need some hard evidence.

You believe radioactive decay rates are wrong? How are nuclear power plants working then?

 

[shunyadragon]

No problem, There are layers and plates moved, and mountains were pushed up..etc.

No problem, as molten rock and volcanoes are expected. Now how long ago that was is another issue. .

Yes, there are severe problems if you propose a history of the earth of less than ~10,000 years.

The issue of time is in the record of the stratigraphy. I will go in more detail if necessary, but a few examples I will provide now.

(1) There are lake deposits being deposited in lake deposits today in discret thin seasonal lamela that show a geologic history of over 400,000 years in Lake Biwa in Japan. The annual lameli show an interesting history. We can analyse recent lameli that date the nuclear age and the atomic bombs in Japan and the Industrial evolution.

See Quaternary changes in delivery and accumulation of organic matter in sediments of Lake Biwa, Japan

Within the older strata of the earth there are many examples of similar lake deposits that show thousands of years of annual lamela

(2) Proposing an earth ~10,000 years presents an unresolvable problem with the thermodynamics of sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic strata and formations simply will not work, including the problem of proposing the thermodynamics of plate tectonics taking place in short period of time. If the energy required to form these formations takes place in less than ~10,000 years the earth would melt. I will go into this in more detail with references if requested. This is based on simple Newtonian Physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics.

(3) The history of coral deposits and coral atolls of the Pacific show a history of hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of years. First there was a volcano surrounded or underlying the coral reef that has eroded away then as the volcano erodes away and sinks the progressive individual discrete layers of coral are a record of tens of thousands of years or more.

The coral and limestone deposits of the Bermuda platform are underlain by a huge volcano that was first errode off during the millions of years required for the sequence of events to take place.

(4) the vast limestone deposits with vast coral reefs hundreds of feet thick within the strata layers cannot possibly form in a short period of time. The formed in shallow seas with coral reefs in the same manner as vaste limestone and coral reefs of the Bermuda platform forms today.

Wherever Darwin was led doesn't matter much. There is no need to invoke old ages.

No. The correlation in radiometric dates is a matter of belief only and cannot be verified or tested.

Great, so we have about 6000 years.


Not at all. The dream dates confuse issues, and all depend on the same belief, which I think you know.

Absurd. You assume that the fossil record represents all life that was on earth, rather than just a tiny percentage of life that could leave fossil remains.
.

Based on the objective verifiable evidence there is the necessary millions of years simply based on stratigraphy and thermodynamics, without considering radiometric dating as provided in the examples above.

The only option of less than ~10,000 year Biblical synereo is that God Created all the vaste stratigraphy at once as it is, and that is a bizzaro synereo.

 

[dad]

You believe radioactive decay rates are wrong? How are nuclear power plants working then?

The rates are great...now. In this present world and nature, atoms behave a certain way. The issue is when you try to apply this to the unknown distant past on earth.

 

[dad]

Yes, there are severe problems if you propose a history of the earth of less than ~10,000 years.

The issue of time is in the record of the stratigraphy. I will go in more detail if necessary, but a few examples I will provide now.

(1) There are lake deposits being deposited in lake deposits today in discret thin seasonal lamela that show a geologic history of over 400,000 years in Lake Biwa in Japan. The annual lameli show an interesting history. We can analyse recent lameli that date the nuclear age and the atomic bombs in Japan and the Industrial evolution.

You are basically claiming that current rates and ways of deposition represent the way it always was.

In the past according to the bible records there was fountains from deep under the earth that brought up water. These may have formed similar deposits. We can't just look at them all in one area as if they modern methods of deposit are responsible.

Looking at the tectonic plates in the area I see a few converge in the area.

See Quaternary changes in delivery and accumulation of organic matter in sediments of Lake Biwa, Japan

That would be post flood. Show us how the dates are attained. From your link I see this claim

" We compare the types and amounts of organic matter present in sediments of Lake Biwa, Japan, that were deposited over the last two million years.."

(2) Proposing an earth ~10,000 years presents an unresolvable problem with the thermodynamics of sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic strata and formations simply will not work, including the problem of proposing the thermodynamics of plate tectonics taking place in short period of time. If the energy required to form these formations takes place in less than ~10,000 years the earth would melt. I will go into this in more detail with references if requested. This is based on simple Newtonian Physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Actually it works fine. Your main problem is taking dream dates based on beliefs too seriously.

(3) The history of coral deposits and coral atolls of the Pacific show a history of hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of years. First there was a volcano surrounded or underlying the coral reef that has eroded away then as the volcano erodes away and sinks the progressive individual discrete layers of coral are a record of tens of thousands of years or more.

Volcanoes are no problem. The rpid coral growth in the former world era may confuse you, since you try to assign modern growth pattern/rates to the remains.

The coral and limestone deposits of the Bermuda platform are underlain by a huge volcano that was first errode off during the millions of years required for the sequence of events to take place.

In other words INSIDE your mind assuming a present nature always existed, it WOULD need to take millions of years to happen.

(4) the vast limestone deposits with vast coral reefs hundreds of feet thick within the strata layers cannot possibly form in a short period of time.

Not now, of course.

The formed in shallow seas with coral reefs in the same manner as vaste limestone and coral reefs of the Bermuda platform forms today.

The rapid continental movements in the past affected a lot of areas, pushed mountains up, and etc etc etc. Looking at the Bermuda area, I see one explanation for how the Bermuda pedestal came to exist..

"Vogt and Jung propose that the Bermuda Pedestal possibly formed as a result of a worldwide reorganization of the Earth's tectonic plates due to the closing of the Tethys Ocean when the Indian subcontinent collided with Eurasia.[1]"

Bermuda Pedestal - Wikipedia

That could mean that molten rock and/or volcanic activity resulted at this time. We possibly even could have some coral remains piled up in some areas. In any case, with rapid reproduction of the former times and nature, we cannot just assume areas are built in uniformity and old ages!

Based on the objective verifiable evidence there is the necessary millions of years simply based on stratigraphy and thermodynamics, without considering radiometric dating as provided in the examples above.

The dating is nothing but assigning isotope ratios 'ages' based solely on modern decay processes and rates! Therefore your dates are meaningless. As for thermodynamics, in the past the record tells us that the laws worked differently. Example: the rapid continent movement did not produce the killing heat it may produce today is such a rapid plate movement occurred. As for stratigraphy, the rates of deposit, and violent events relating to tectonic movements, and reproduction/life processes of the past nature need to be considered.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are basically claiming that current rates and ways of deposition represent the way it always was.

In the past according to the bible records there was fountains from deep under the earth that brought up water. These may have formed similar deposits. We can't just look at them all in one area as if they modern methods of deposit are responsible.

Looking at the tectonic plates in the area I see a few converge in the area.

That would be post flood. Show us how the dates are attained. From your link I see this claim

" We compare the types and amounts of organic matter present in sediments of Lake Biwa, Japan, that were deposited over the last two million years.."

Actually it works fine. Your main problem is taking dream dates based on beliefs too seriously.



Volcanoes are no problem. The rpid coral growth in the former world era may confuse you, since you try to assign modern growth pattern/rates to the remains.
In other words INSIDE your mind assuming a present nature always existed, it WOULD need to take millions of years to happen.


Not now, of course.


The rapid continental movements in the past affected a lot of areas, pushed mountains up, and etc etc etc. Looking at the Bermuda area, I see one explanation for how the Bermuda pedestal came to exist..

"Vogt and Jung propose that the Bermuda Pedestal possibly formed as a result of a worldwide reorganization of the Earth's tectonic plates due to the closing of the Tethys Ocean when the Indian subcontinent collided with Eurasia.[1]"

Bermuda Pedestal - Wikipedia

That could mean that molten rock and/or volcanic activity resulted at this time. We possibly even could have some coral remains piled up in some areas. In any case, with rapid reproduction of the former times and nature, we cannot just assume areas are built in uniformity and old ages!


The dating is nothing but assigning isotope ratios 'ages' based solely on modern decay processes and rates! Therefore your dates are meaningless. As for thermodynamics, in the past the record tells us that the laws worked differently. Example: the rapid continent movement did not produce the killing heat it may produce today is such a rapid plate movement occurred. As for stratigraphy, the rates of deposit, and violent events relating to tectonic movements, and reproduction/life processes of the past nature need to be considered.

There is no issue of radiometric dating so far in this thread. The only argument being proposed her concerns stratigraphy. You apparently reject a the uniform natural processes over time, but you have no evidence that the processes of nature were not uniform over time,

You do not have a coherent response to the over 400,000 uniform annual lamela deposited in the Japanese lake. No alternate explanation offered.

Nothing you proposed above would negate the fact that claiming an age of the earth less than ~10,000 years old violates the LAws of thermodynamics, because the amount of energy involved in the observed processes over time.

 

[dad]

There is no issue of radiometric dating so far in this thread. The only argument being proposed her concerns stratigraphy. You apparently reject a the uniform natural processes over time, but you have no evidence that the processes of nature were not uniform over time,

Except that your site quoted 2 million years as the age. How did you think they got that?

You do not have a coherent response to the over 400,000 uniform annual lamela deposited in the Japanese lake. No alternate explanation offered.

Well, lets throw out some numbers then.

If we had fountains of the deep working along with the deposition rates of the former nature, let's look at how many layers (that are now apparently annually produced)
There was apparently times of the day, such as the cool of the day in those days. Presumably the mists came up regularly. In some cases probably we got tidal like action because of this with the ebbs and flows. Let's say that over a night and a day we may have had about 12 a day. Now let's say this happened for the 1600 years or so from creation till the flood. Then add another century plus after the flood, because the former nature apparently lasted till about then. That is about 1700 plus years at 12 layers per day, or 4,380 per year! That works out to about a possible almost 7.5 million layers!!!!

Now, we could even get some more in some areas if there was tectonic movement that may have pushed a few areas together combining layers!? Any way you look at it, the less than half a million layers you cite are NO PROBLEM!!

Nothing you proposed above would negate the fact that claiming an age of the earth less than ~10,000 years old violates the LAws of thermodynamics, because the amount of energy involved in the observed processes over time.

Remember that a real time of about 4500 years equals about 70 million science dated (same nature in the past belief based) years! So when you say 10,000, again that is funny.

 

[sayak83]

The rates are great...now. In this present world and nature, atoms behave a certain way. The issue is when you try to apply this to the unknown distant past on earth.

Provide evidence that the rates were different in the past.

 

[dad]

Provide evidence that the rates were different in the past.

? You claim there WERE rates of DECAY in the past on earth? Proof? Why would I assume that unless you had a reason?

 

[shunyadragon]

Except that your site quoted 2 million years as the age. How did you think they got that?

This part of the thread deals with stratigraphy

Well, lets throw out some numbers then.

If we had fountains of the deep working along with the deposition rates of the former nature, let's look at how many layers (that are now apparently annually produced)
There was apparently times of the day, such as the cool of the day in those days. Presumably the mists came up regularly. In some cases probably we got tidal like action because of this with the ebbs and flows. Let's say that over a night and a day we may have had about 12 a day. Now let's say this happened for the 1600 years or so from creation till the flood. Then add another century plus after the flood, because the former nature apparently lasted till about then. That is about 1700 plus years at 12 layers per day, or 4,380 per year! That works out to about a possible almost 7.5 million layers!!!!

Now, we could even get some more in some areas if there was tectonic movement that may have pushed a few areas together combining layers!? Any way you look at it, the less than half a million layers you cite are NO PROBLEM!!
Remember that a real time of about 4500 years equals about 70 million science dated (same nature in the past belief based) years! So when you say 10,000, again that is funny.

Let's throw away these numbers, because they do not remotely fit the evidence. The evidence of the lake deposit lamella forming today is consistent ten years ago, a hundred years ago, all the way to the lamella formed over 400,000 years ago, and the experimental evidence confirms how they have always formed.

Can you present or cite objective verifiable evidence with scientific research that lamela can form in the bizarre way you describe?

 

[dad]

This part of the thread deals with stratigraphy

So how do you come up with 2 millions years?

Let's throw away these numbers, because they do not remotely fit the evidence. The evidence of the lake deposit lamella forming today is consistent ten years ago, a hundred years ago, all the way to the lamella formed over 400,000 years ago, and the experimental evidence confirms how they have always formed.

No thanks. I'll throw away belief based dates you prefer because there is no proof the same nature existed and that is what you use.

Can you present or cite objective verifiable evidence with scientific research that lamela can form in the bizarre way you describe?

It can't! That is the point. It NOW only forms a certain way. You went and thought THAT was was the way it USED to form! You simply believe it was uniform in nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

No thanks. I'll throw away belief based dates you prefer because there is no proof the same nature existed and that is what you use.

It can't! That is the point. It NOW only forms a certain way. You went and thought THAT was was the way it USED to form! You simply believe it was uniform in nature.

This sums up your rejection of science based on a faith based scenario based on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance. By the way science does not prove anything, fortunately. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates there is only one way lamela can form based on direct observation. Simply if you can present a hypothesis based on your scenario that can be supported by science you would have an alternative way they could form. but so far you have only presented an unsupported bizarre assertion with no evidence.

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

This sums up your rejection of science based on a faith based scenario....

I reject faith based scenarios labeled as science.

based on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance.

The proving of Scripture is in real lives of people and events through all history. Science is not equipped to even discuss it, let alone disprove it.

By the way science does not prove anything, fortunately. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Science runs evidences through it's little current physical natural world criteria, so it has no significant falsifying power, or verifying ability for matters pertaining to creation.

Yes, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates there is only one way lamela can form based on direct observation.

Your observations are limited to the present and yet you dare speak of the far past? By what authority?

Simply if you can present a hypothesis based on your scenario that can be supported by science you would have an alternative way they could form.

Science is a creature of THIS present nature. That is it's limits and scope and mandate. Therefore science can support nothing else, or oppose it. By virtue of it's self imposed limits nothing else can be supported by science except this natural physical world and nature. Pretending historical records and experiences of humanity through all ages, or origin issues involving the deep past on earth could or should be subject to that is hypocritical and thick.