Stratigraphy, radiometric evidence, fossil evidence, and genetics.

[Subduction Zone]

There IS no scientific evidence either way. There is layers and evidences that are interpreted BY beliefs. The evidence of written records agrees with me in the ages and nature of the past. Nothing agrees with you, except your inbred beliefs.

Do you think anyone checked the 900 meter (or whatever length) little core from under a lake for truly uniform layers?? Ha. Do you think that when our present nature came into place that tree rings, for example suddenly no longer existed, or that we should have some giant red or blue gap between rings that year, or that anyone ever really checked?? Do you think that layers were no longer being deposited in many areas all of a sudden? No. All we would see is that the new nature would result in a new process or way or timing that layers were made. In much the same way, people were alive back then. (what science claims was 65 million years ago or so) But in the former nature we read that they lived about a thousand years! The also probably returned to dust too fast to be able to leave fossil remains. So after the nayure change, in the days of Peleg, we see man only started to live about 230 years. Then it leveled off over centuries to modern life spans.
I am glad it is accurate because the last several posts you claimed 440,000 (or was it 400,00?)! Ha. It is still easily explainable also in a different past nature.

Great. So??

Are you saying there are an additional 1.6 million layers under there? Be clear on HOW this is dated.
False. It is religiously assumed that the layers all represent ones laid down as we see them now laid down in this nature. That is not 'dated'. That is religious delusional dreaming.

dad, you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence so you cannot honestly make that claim. In fact if you understood the concept of scientific evidence you would be a liar.

 

[Wandering Monk]

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 . . .

You will wait until hell freezes over. Dad will just keep doing what he does until he wears you out, then claim victory and vindication of his world view. He has done this over on Christian Forums forever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

So you have a bigger, more elaborate God of the Gaps argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

dad, you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence so you cannot honestly make that claim. In fact if you understood the concept of scientific evidence you would be a liar.

That may have been achieved without understanding the concept.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Wow dad. You sure are a heck of an acrobat. I have never seen such back-breaking speculation that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE for support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Is diversion the best you can come up with here? Really?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I reject faith based scenarios labeled as science.

You have not established the faith basis, so this is meaningless. Unless, you mean your own faith-based version. That is a curiosity. You reject your own beliefs. Strange.

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.

No. Scripture is a claim. The Bible is not verified as factual end to end. Popular belief is not evidence supporting the validity of what is believed. You like to chase your own tail in ever diminishing gaps.

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.

Sorry. You lose again.

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

You have no observations. Just claims. You have no authority. Sorry. You lose again.

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.

I think that is being a bit hard on yourself. Accurate. But still. I would reckon that it is fear and ignorance that cause you to believe historical assertions that have no support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

What have you got against cute little bunnies?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So how do you come up with 2 millions years?

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.

So you have nothing except a gap you are desperately trying to justify.

 

[shunyadragon]

What have you got against cute little bunnies?

On full moons they are evil rabbids.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You will wait until hell freezes over. Dad will just keep doing what he does until he wears you out, then claim victory and vindication of his world view. He has done this over on Christian Forums forever.

Where they had to make what I call the "dad rule" because of his sort of debating. It is pretty bad when a Christian's number one argument has to be banned by fellow Christians.

 

[dad]

So you have a bigger, more elaborate God of the Gaps argument.

Nope you just have a gap in your grasp of issues here.

 

[dad]

Wow dad. You sure are a heck of an acrobat. I have never seen such back-breaking speculation that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE for support.

If you consider the record of the bible no evidence, fine. But in any case you have no evidence for the mother of all foundational basis for origin science claims!

 

[dad]

Is diversion the best you can come up with here? Really?

Well, show us there was decay in the far past on earth and we can accept it and move on to other possible explanations. Cat got your tongue?

 

[dad]

You have not established the faith basis, so this is meaningless. Unless, you mean your own faith-based version. That is a curiosity. You reject your own beliefs. Strange.

The faith basis is well established in this thread by the colossal failure of any posted to prove the same nature in the past science uses.

No. Scripture is a claim.

That is what you claim, Jesus disagrees.

The Bible is not verified as factual end to end.

Not by people who chose to reject it.

Popular belief is not evidence supporting the validity of what is believed. You like to chase your own tail in ever diminishing gaps.

The only record man has in history and Scripture of that early world is not popular belief, but an exclusive record.

You have no observations. Just claims.

We all can observe you fail to support the same nature in the past belief that underpins origin sciences. Very clear to observe!

 

[dad]

So you have nothing except a gap you are desperately trying to justify.

Sorry, no gap exists for me. Maybe you like to say that word?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, no gap exists for me. Maybe you like to say that word?

You created a gap. You are mad about gaps.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope you just have a gap in your grasp of issues here.

Nope. You are confused.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you consider the record of the bible no evidence, fine. But in any case you have no evidence for the mother of all foundational basis for origin science claims!

Sorry. Wrong again. You live in denial. It is a harsh disease that leaves the afflicted confused and lost.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, show us there was decay in the far past on earth and we can accept it and move on to other possible explanations. Cat got your tongue?

Show us there wasn't. Gap got your tongue?