God is at work within them or else they wouldn't give a dam.
Learning Genesis
- Thread starter TubbyTubby
- Start date
- Status
So are you now claiming to be a scientist?? Of what discipline ?
Hmmm well it seems fossilization is so rare an honour in fact that it is global in extent.
Go visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites
Not so ridiculous when we are confronted daily with pseudo science.
Dr. Smith "Dr Jones, how old are these bones I just found in this rock?"
Dr. Jones "Well the rocks a 500 million years old so I'd say your bones would have to be that old"
Dr. Jones " How old are these rocks?"
Dr. Smith "These rocks are around 500 Million years old. We know this because bones from animals that lived then are found in the exact same rock strata.
That is dynamic science??
Ahh but what about radiometric dating? Well for one example: If it was surely known what the ration of Carbon 14:12 was say 10,000 years ago and that it has remained constant yeahh might have a point. But as it is it is based on speculation and unfounded assumption. If any given rock sample started out with 100% pure uranium with a known mix (Oxymoron??) of U235:238 Then yeah maybe a reasonable guesstimate of age could be made. However with the universe being supposedly 13.7 Billion years old and Uranium having a half life of only 3.8 or so billion years..without an exact time of coming into being of that uranium....I'll let you join the dots.
The uncertainty of radiometric dating is flabbergasting
Every fossil found then, according to your thinking, is just another unsuccessful creation that didn't cut it in Gods world. Take the lower conservative estimate of 1 billion species and it works out that only 0.9% of everything ever created has struggled on to the present day. The rest having been wiped out for one or other reasons. That smacks of either carelessness, willful neglect or perhaps a poor design on the part of a creator if you ask me. Surely Lucy deserved a better fate?
What a sad twisted spin on the purely logical straight forward explanation I gave. Its a good thing no one asked you. Lucy died and so will I and so will you. And no every fossil is not an unsuccessful creation...but many did not make it...they died! Many are still around.
Now I have one for you (and believe me you give yourself far too much credit. You are hardly the toughest Atheist I have spokem with, I just believe agnosticism is the only honest position for a non-believer)...
How is it that in random sedimentary layers around the world, some claimed to have taken 1000s or 1000000s of years to form do we find fossils of struggling fish? They only take a few days to utterly rot (ask gonefishing)!
What a sad twisted spin on the purely logical straight forward explanation I gave. Its a good thing no one asked you. Lucy died and so will I and so will you. And no every fossil is not an unsuccessful creation...but many did not make it...they died! Many are still around.
Now I have one for you (and believe me you give yourself far too much credit. You are hardly the toughest Atheist I have spokem with, I just believe agnosticism is the only honest position for a non-believer)...
How is it that in random sedimentary layers around the world, some claimed to have taken 1000s or 1000000s of years to form do we find fossils of struggling fish? They only take a few days to utterly rot (ask gonefishing)!
Speaking of the flood, I thought you wouldn't to move forward tub tub.
Fossils of Australopithecus have been studied in painstaking detail: their manner of walking, the structure of their ear, pattern of tooth development, their long and powerful forearms, short hind limbs, structure of their feet, small sized brains, and very ape- like skulls, jaws, and faces. These prove that Australopithecus was an ape and no way related to man. Donald Johanson himself, the discoverer of Lucy, later concluded that Australophitecus africanus (Lucy) was not related to humans at all.
Calvin!! Learn to spell will ya? "No Vultures or Jackals
So, have you tried any astophotography with your goto spyglass?........Bit difficult without a wedge, do you have one?
Only dabbled with a modified webcam for some planetary photos. A wedge and dedicated photo equipment is for a later date.
That must be a consequence of my sad twisted mind vs your pure logic.
I presume you mean 'not every fossil is an unsuccessful creation' as you had a double negative in there. There are examples of 'living fossils' but the vast majority are not with us today are they? Even the living fossils show differences to their fossil record. Why create all these creatures for no good obvious reason? That was my question which nobody has answered so far.
I don't see myself as a 'tough atheist' whatever that may be and we've already discussed your view about agnostics I believe.
I don't know, but I get the feeling you are going to tell me. Sediment can be laid down very rapidly in some cases, the 1 million years that you quote is not the time taken for something to be buried.
Not true, I think you misquoted him (or have read a misquote). His conclusion is that Lucy may not be a 'direct link to homo sapiens because the human family tree has many different branches. So, we can't be certain that she herself was actually on the direct line'.
That is not the same as 'not related to humans at all'.
What point are you trying to make with your picture?
No point at all. I came across it while reading articles about Lucy.
Donald Johanson (the guy who discovered Lucy) and T. D. White, issued the following statement in Science magazine:
Donald Johanson himself, the discoverer of Lucy, later concluded that Australophitecus africanus (Lucy) was not related to humans at all.
Source D Johnson, T D White, Science, 203:321, 1979
"Free will, and all that"
Australophitecus africanus is either a direct link to us or is on another branch of the evolutionary tree. There is no disputing that anywhere I think you'll find. Lucy is a hominid specimen.
No, I'm an engineer. It's just quicker to lump myself and scientists together in conversation. A bit like you would perhaps refer to yourself and vicars or preachers as the same merry band of believers.
I thought we'd done all the radiometric stuff before Calvin. It's well proven beyond doubt and if someone has valid proof to the contrary then I would urge them to have their work published so that it can be reviewed. If found to be correct, and accepted it will change the scientific world, and I would be very excited to see the consequences. If it's found to be unsubstantiated baloney then we can revert to the current accepted theory of radiometric dating.
There are several Phd qualifieds that dispute the accuracy of radiometric data. Sure the principles are well established, but there are too many assumptions that just don't have any strength...but these assumed truths are just that! assumed truths. You can't seriously be saying that the original mixes are accurately known; they are just assumptions so why get all prickly about it?
The disputes are too numerous to list. Your faith, along with other evolutionists, requires a family tree that includes man, chimps, and apes on the same branch. My faith does not.
- Status