Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Varve dating is not independent of radiocarbon dating...it depends on it being correct. If one is off, the other is off.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Believabliltiy of Evolution
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
I do not. The evidence indicates that they are not. I can see how someone that doesn't have all the available evidence or denies evidence they do not understand might think that seasonal processes are constant everywhere. Of course, if you travel a bit and live long enough, even a human lifespan will reveal changes. But the layers are made up of many of these years. They show the changes in climate, biology, time. Denying that does not make one correct.
What about cataclysmic events?
And you know about these hurricane layers, their deposition and patterns because...of
Could it be.
I don't know.
Maybe...
Science.
Of course you jump right over the fact that you are now indicating that you think people believe evolution occurs even where their is no life.
It is mistakes like that which cast much doubt on the validity of your arguments.
This is the only place we know of that life exists. That only tells us that this is the only place we know of that life exists.
gnostic
The Lost One
Again, with “something from nothing” strawman.
Evolution don’t support this “something from nothing”.
Abiogenesis also don’t support this “something from nothing”.
I have already explained to you of these erroneous and false claims you keep making...and you keep repeating them. For someone who claimed he’s not being dishonest, why do you keep repeating the same false claims.
Dating layers existed long before radiometric dating. Radiometric dating confirms the previous dating methods.
Do they use much radiocarbon dating in determining the ages of rocks that are millions of years old?
What about cataclysmic events?
Without the evidence provided using science, you wouldn't even know about them.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Do you really think that scientists who spend their entire lives studying this stuff don't know that?
gnostic
The Lost One
Did I mention “radiocarbon dating”?
You do know that there more than one radioactive isotope to be used in radiometric dating?
Radiocarbon is only useful and reliable for dating objects that are less 55,000 years old. Any higher, will require more calibration. So it is better to use other isotopes to measure anything greater than 100,000 years old or older.
For instances, specific isotopes from uranium, lead, argon, and some others, can measure some things older than a billion years old.
Plus. Using multiple different isotopes in dating, can verify if the first result is correct or not.
Sciences required verification. Plus, if you use thermoluminescence techniques to verify radiometric results, then you would satisfy the requirements of Scientific Method (SM), because SM demands that any testing must be repeatable or having multiple independent evidence (hence empirical evidence).
You are really are clueless in not only how sciences work, but the reliance on verification...or that can be more than one method or one technique for testing.
You’re utterly clueless.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
You entirely missed the point. It's easy for science to mis interpret the evidence.
cladking
Well-Known Member
There are several reasons that this study does not support your contentions. Chiefly among which is I have repeatedly said that change in MAJOR SPECIES occurs suddenly just like all change in all life. I have several times specifically stated that for many reasons this doesn't apply to the simplest fauna including bacteria and viruses. I made this perfectly clear the first several times I said you have no evidence for a gradual change but believers don't listen or try to communicate, they lecture. This is because minor species always have very short generations and most exist in micro-niches that can not be controlled or measured. Additionally this "experiment" spanned only some 30 years; a blink of the eye compared to the "fossil record" to which YOU want to extrapolate the results.
The "niche" was almost certainly not controlled. Products like glucose-limited medium DM25 vary greatly over even short periods. It is likely that most of the subtle changes over the 30 years were simply tracking changes in their media. Many many different processes and materials are used to make even the simplest products and these change suddenly again and again just like living things.
One of the big problems here is we're looking at 65,000 generations in an unnatural and essentially unchanging niche. Temperature, food, and most relevant parameters were little changed during this time. No natural niches are, ever will, or have been like this. "ALL" natural niches change dramatically in every generation and even seasonally. But , more importantly over so many generations there is likely to be an entire reset of the biosphere. It is logical to assume that larger organism are more resilient and more resistant to change than simple ones unless "survival of the fittest" is real so assuming that these results can be extrapolated to lions or whales is simply a circular argument. Even were it true every individual tiger can certainly withstand larger changes to its environment than e coli. And environments of major species are far larger so a tiger suddenly without its favorite prey can simply go to a new area or it might suddenly die.
There are many reasons this can not legitimately be extrapolated to prove "survival of the fittest" and I'd be happy to discuss them but I'm guessing I'm already reaching out to deaf ears.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Which came first the chicken or the egg.
The egg necessarily came first because chickens come from eggs by definition.
All life comes from life but this hardly rules out abiogenesis. At some point you merely have to acknowledge that something is fundamentally different than what gave rise to it. I would suggest that "life" exists when consciousness arises. "Consciousness" is just another of myriad things that can be described as a miracle or a result of the hand of God.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Nonsense.
This is merely logical extrapolation with very little experimental and no observational support. This is a belief.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You're getting there but the odds against a specific individual are more remote than winning lotto trillions of times in a row.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And what laid the egg?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Since no one is trying to get a specific individual, so what?
Yes. It's reproductive success that determines which genetic configurations get passed on.
cladking
Well-Known Member
A chicken like animal that may or may not have come from an egg.
cladking
Well-Known Member
So this is invisible to reductionistic science. To see a non-reductionistic view you must step outside of it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Is that the extent of your "science"?
cladking
Well-Known Member
All individuals are equally "fit" and merely different.
Your sentence is circular. It's a tautology but tautologies in isolation have no meaning and no relevancy.