Originally posted by KellyJayit does need special conditions to produce a fossil. The sample needs to be buried anaerobically and have a huge amount of pressure for a long time. Happily, with an old earth, you have the long time, plate techtonic theory explains the pressure, and the "buried anaerobically" bit is bound to happen by pure chance over a very long time. Good thing we've had billions of years, huh?
So tell me, if I die and my body is left out in the open in a few
hundred years will my body go through the fossilization process or
simply get eaten, decay, and go away from sight? Are you suggesting
that there isn't a process that requires certain conditions to cause
a fossil?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayFirst of all. We know for a FACT that evolution (including macro) can occur from here on. This means that a bacterium can become another species later on.
What is there to explain about fossils, something died, and died and
was buried in such a way it 'did not decay' the way it would have had it
not be buried properly. The mystery isn't so much that there are
fossils, but what happened to them, when.
Kelly
What I am saying before is that since we know that evolution can happen now, why can it have happened years ago? Scientists investigate fossils and infer that evolution has been happening. Evolution solely explains these fossils. Thus we might say that these fossils when they were living were part of the evolution process.
I dont understand your criticism of fossil evidence.
The origins of religous stories are much less detailed?
If so, then I pose this question: where in the Bible can you find out
where the waters, the flooded the earth, came from?
The water covered the entire earth. Water was everywhere. Where did it come from?
Like I posted earlier: read the book of Genesis REAL SLOW
Originally posted by NosracThe imagination of fools, I guess.
The origins of religous stories are much less detailed?
If so, then I pose this question: where in the Bible can you find out
where the waters, the flooded the earth, came from?
The water covered the entire earth. Water was everywhere. Where did it come from?
Originally posted by micarrWho was around to confirm that existence, existed billions of years
Fossils are in fact known from Pre-Cambrian times billions of years ago. Stromatolites are known from Isua sediments in Western Greenland >3.5 BYO. The Cambrian is the macroevolutionary radiation of the major bodyplans (bauplan in German) of metazoans (multi-cellular life) as studied by the great invertebrate biologist Charles Doolittle Walcott (see Wonderful ...[text shortened]... have no such impediments and this is why their respective origin stories are much less detailed.
ago? Are we left looking at the universe 'today' and assuming that
the dating methods used today are spot on accurate? You've seen
material react to billions of years to know that the rate seen today
is constant over that length of time, or are you just assuming it
does because within the window we have at looking at things iappears
consistent, so therefore it must have always been consistent, and that
nothing else at all interfered with the samples that were dated? You
have great faith in the assumptions of mankind about the so called
distant past!
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is the point isn't it, you believe they cannot be wrong, yet there
How many independant rulers, made by different people in different factories would you have to use to convince you of a given length of string?
Do you try and use this 'here and now' crap to get off with speeding tickets Kelly? Perhaps both your speedometer AND the policeman's lazergun are BOTH wrong. Also, of course, it takes time (admittedly infi ...[text shortened]... HE SAME RESULT TO WITHIN 2%. How can they all be independantly be wrong by the same amount?
is nothing that can prove them 'right' or 'wrong' because what they
are suggesting isn't anything we have the power to confirm! The tests
if they are all wrong, can all be wrong for the same reasons; you
cannot measure what wasn't there, therefore you get a false result we
cannot know, and for the very same same reason they can be all
correct too, and we are still left with just believing the results or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't have issue one with science, with people yes.
If you do not accept that the earth is at least a billion years old then yes you are denying they evidence. If you are not going with the 'crowd' on this one then you are basically implying that you believe that 90% of all scientific disciplines are wrong, and that the basic principles of scientific investigation is inherently flawed.
I said I don't deny evidence, I do have issues with what people try
to pass off as facts when they look at the evidence.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow long a time, with how much pressure? Have these questions been
it does need special conditions to produce a fossil. The sample needs to be buried anaerobically and have a huge amount of pressure for a long time. Happily, with an old earth, you have the long time, plate techtonic theory explains the pressure, and the "buried anaerobically" bit is bound to happen by pure chance over a very long time. Good thing we've had billions of years, huh?
answered by someone monitored the process, or another just
connecting the dots on what they think, because they believe there
were billions of years?
Kelly
Originally posted by Conrau KWe know for a 'FACT' do we? We know that bacterium can become
First of all. We know for a FACT that evolution (including macro) can occur from here on. This means that a bacterium can become another species later on.
What I am saying before is that since we know that evolution can happen now, why can it have happened years ago? Scientists investigate fossils and infer that evolution has been happening. Evolution s ...[text shortened]... ing were part of the evolution process.
I dont understand your criticism of fossil evidence.
another species later on? Is bacterium going to grow eyes, ears, and
so on? Let me guess, in a couple of billion years, and that is your
fact?
You can say evolution is happening now, but that is something I'd like
to see you prove! Changes occur, but like all things you start with
bacterium you end with bacterium, you start with dogs you end with
dogs. There are changes within each species, these do not mean they
build up to macro changes where bacterium start to grow light
sensitive spots as a precursor to eyes later on. The belief in evolution
is strong, but is only people connecting the dots and telling each other
this or that must of occurred billions of years ago, or this or that will
occur billions of years from now.
Kelly
Originally posted by NosracGod created the universe and everything in it.
The origins of religous stories are much less detailed?
If so, then I pose this question: where in the Bible can you find out
where the waters, the flooded the earth, came from?
The water covered the entire earth. Water was everywhere. Where did it come from?
Like I posted earlier: read the book of Genesis REAL SLOW
If you read the scripture slow or fast either way when your at the
beginning you will notice that the world was covered with water
before anything else was done to the planet when it was formless
and void. Land came up a little later on in the process, and after
sin the water once again covered the earth for a short time. You
have any other questions feel free to ask.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay1. What age do you belive the earth to be?
Who was around to confirm that existence, existed billions of years
ago? Are we left looking at the universe 'today' and assuming that
the dating methods used today are spot on accurate? You've seen
material react to billions of years to know that the rate seen today
is constant over that length of time, or are you just assuming it
does because within ...[text shortened]... You
have great faith in the assumptions of mankind about the so called
distant past!
Kelly
2. Why do you believe this figure?
3. You look very like a monkey. Why?
Creationist pseudo-science harm religion far far more than it does science.
Originally posted by micarr1. I believe in a young earth ~7K
1. What age do you belive the earth to be?
2. Why do you believe this figure?
3. You look very like a monkey. Why?
Creationist pseudo-science harm religion far far more than it does science.
2. I believe God created the universe, it is faith
3. design
My questions to you now.
1. Where did the universe come from?
2. How long has the universe been here?
3. What was here before the universe came into being?
4. Do things wear down and break down over time, or do they
become more functionally complex?
Kelly
Originally posted by micarrCreationist pseudo-science harm religion far far more than it does science.
1. What age do you belive the earth to be?
2. Why do you believe this figure?
3. You look very like a monkey. Why?
Creationist pseudo-science harm religion far far more than it does science.
Creation is not pseudo-science or science period, it is faith completely.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySO why do these independant measures give such good correlation if they are all wrong? Why aren't they all random? Why is your god trying to fool us? And, most importantly, where is your evidence that these measurements are incorrect?
That is the point isn't it, you believe they cannot be wrong, yet there
is nothing that can prove them 'right' or 'wrong' because what they
are suggesting isn't anything we have the power to confirm! The tests
if they are all wrong, can all be wrong for the same reasons; you
cannot measure what wasn't there, therefore you get a false result we
cannot k ...[text shortened]... be all
correct too, and we are still left with just believing the results or not.
Kelly