How Evolutionists Date Rocks & Fossils

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolutionists Date Rocks & Fossils with Circular Reasoning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efcJEIV2RAk

Wrong (by leaving out the various other dating methods he makes it look like circular reasoning - though it's not).

Evolution theory doesn't predict the existence of fossils, so nothing one could possibly observe or not observe about fossils would be useful in refuting evolution. Fossils are merely a tool that can help us track the history of biological evolution on Earth, a distinction often missed by people lacking a basic understanding of what the theory entails.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution theory doesn't predict the existence of fossils, so nothing one could possibly observe or not observe about fossils would be useful in refuting evolution. Fossils are merely a tool that can help us track the history of biological evolution on Earth, a distinction often missed by people lacking a basic understanding of what the theory entails.

Well said.
One thing evolution does predict is common ancestry although, very strictly speaking, not necessarily common ancestry for ALL species of Earth life. Although, it just so happens that there is overweening evidence for common ancestry for all known life on Earth, hypothetically, if there was evidence of at least one exception to that, that wouldn't in anyway contradict evolution one bit for it could have been that life arose independently more than once on Earth.

I find it is interesting to note just how strong the evidence for common ancestry is and includes the fact that the DNA codon set where each codon codes for a different amino acid (except the none-amino acid codons such as the stop codon ) , despite being totally arbitrary meaning there would be no biological cost of it being slightly different from what it is, is absolutely identical for all known species ( except yeast which as an extremely tiny trivial deviation from that universal codon set that is hardly noteworthy ) . Now, for that to be all a gigantic coincidence is pretty absurd! if all species do not share the same ancestor, that would beg the question of why the totally arbitrary and pointless identical codon set? why is there no known species that has a completely different codon set or at least with a codon that codes for different amino acid than what it does in other species? For all those species to share the exact same codon set by pure chance would be mathematically be a vanishingly small probability -in practical terms, completely absurd in fact!
Of course, there is a vast mountain of other evidence that proves common ancestry and even I am surprised by just how powerful and vast that proof is! here is just a tiny but impressive bit of it! :

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html


"...Example 1: mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
Example 2: pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches
Example 3: snake and whale embryos with legs
Example 4: embryonic human tail
Example 5: marsupial eggshell and caruncle ...”

( you just have to read it all yourself to see it )

also see


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

and that isn't even half of it!!! It is just amazingly vast!

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have no reasonable arguments.

Ancient Egyptian 6 day creation mythology is a one trick pony. Science on the other hand has thousands of fingers everywhere.

I think that fact frightens you a bit, you denigrate mankind's ability to think for themselves, you figure your Egyptian 6 day creation myth is 100% correct. You are wrong on many levels.

Originally posted by C Hess
Wrong (by leaving out the various other dating methods he makes it look like circular reasoning - though it's not).

There were no dating methods for rocks and fossils other than guessing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There were no dating methods for rocks and fossils other than guessing.

Wrong.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution theory doesn't predict the existence of fossils, so nothing one could possibly observe or not observe about fossils would be useful in refuting evolution. Fossils are merely a tool that can help us track the history of biological evolution on Earth, a distinction often missed by people lacking a basic understanding of what the theory entails.

Fossils are only evidence that some things died. The type of fossil is not a clock to tell when it died. The age of the fossil is a guess and can not be determined scientifically.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The age of the fossil is a guess and can not be determined scientifically.

Wrong.

Originally posted by humy
Well said.
One thing evolution does predict is common ancestry although, very strictly speaking, not necessarily common ancestry for ALL species of Earth life. Although, it just so happens that there is overweening evidence for common ancestry for all known life on Earth, hypothetically, if there was evidence of at least one exception to that, that wouldn't in ...[text shortened]... g/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

and that isn't even half of it!!! It is just amazingly vast!

The theory of evolution predicts vast quantities of transitional fossils, according to Darwin, himself, but there are none. Therefore, there can not be any evidence of common ancestry from one kind to another. The only evidence of common ancestry is within the same kinds.

The evidence shows that each kind of life arose independently and fully formed within a relatively brief time frame. The evolutionists call it the Cambrian Explosion and attempt to stretch out the time period as much as they think they can get away with to fit their hypothesis (an educated guess about how things work).

The common DNA programming in all life forms is easily explained by a common designer and programmer of all life forms. To determine if something is poorly designed or not, one would have to know the initial condition for which it was designed. That, of course, nobody knows.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The theory of evolution predicts vast quantities of transitional fossils, according to Darwin, himself, but there are none.

Wrong.

Originally posted by C Hess
Wrong.

If there were any, I am sure evolutionists would not be hiding them. Where is the evidence of common ancestry from one kind to another?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If there were any, I am sure evolutionists would not be hiding them. Where is the evidence of common ancestry from one kind to another?

Hinds you incredibly stupid and repugnant being.

ALL fossils are transitional.

We have millions of fossil finds, and thus millions of transitional species.

Now get your fat ass out of science.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hinds you incredibly stupid and repugnant being.

ALL fossils are transitional.

We have millions of fossil finds, and thus millions of transitional species.

Now get your fat ass out of science.

I am referring to a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another. In other words, the missing links.


Darwinists still try to depict fully formed, complete and perfect fossils as transitional forms, or else manufacture their own. The principal reason for their resorting to fraud is without doubt their inability to produce any scientific evidence. The main element that makes Darwinism a fraud is that the followers of this superstitious religion have to engage in hoaxes, lies and deception. The adherents of this superstitious faith claim to be acting in the name of science, but the findings of science openly refute the theory of evolution. In Darwinists’ eyes, Darwinism can only be propped up by means of countless lies. Their “transitional form found” propaganda that constitutes part of this is also a huge fraud.

http://harunyahya.com/en/Daily-Comments/14977/the-discovery-of-the-transitional

I just came across this

http://news.yahoo.com/earths-oldest-biggest-crater-yields-secrets-152207006.html

on an impact crater dated to be 2.02 billion years old.

RJ, how long ago did that crater really form, and what process created it?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
I just came across this

http://news.yahoo.com/earths-oldest-biggest-crater-yields-secrets-152207006.html

on an impact crater dated to be 2.02 billion years old.

RJ, how long ago did that crater really form, and what process created it?

I am certainly not qualified to solve this controversy as to the process. However, the 2.02 billion years ago claim is obviously an exaggeration.