Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 02-06-2002, 03:22 AM

In the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000084&p=5" target="_blank">DNA content of a cell</a> thread, davidH posted thusly:

Quote:

"Is the abundant fossil evidence consistent with YEC? No way. Is it consistent with evolution? Yes. Every time a fossil is discovered, the same question is asked. And the answer has been "it supports evolution" for over 100 years."

Now about the fossil record, I think there is pretty strong evidience that that ties in with the Bible.

By all means present it.

Quote:

In order for fossils to form the creature had to be buried very quickly inorder to prevent decompostion.

Something like that. Do you suppose that might be why the fossil record is often so patchy? And of course it depends on what you mean by fossil: the tough shells of ammonites, trilobites etc are very common precisely because they are resistant to decomposition. Indeed, that is why we generally only find bones. Organisms that have not decomposed are rather sparse in the fossil record. Fossils of the soft parts of organisms, such as impressions in mud or the iron pyrite-etched legs of trilobites, are very rare.

<a href="http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm" target="_blank">A Brief Introduction to Taphonomy</a>
<a href="http://cathar.jcu.edu.au/~jluly/taphonomy.html" target="_blank">The Gentle Art of Taphonomy</a>

<a href="http://paleo.cortland.edu/tutorial/Taphonomy&Pres/taphonomy.htm" target="_blank">Taphonomy and Preservation</a>

Quote:

Fossils are also found near river beds and areas where there was water as it enabled them to be buried quickly. This ties in with the Flood in Noah's time, as the sediment would be extremely likely to cover the creatures that had drowned.

What flood? And please be specific. Do you mean Genesis 6 to 8 literally, as in a flood covering “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven” (7:19)? Or is this some localised flood? (We’ve seen that claimed before, so best to clear it up.) If not literally, how do you know which bits are literal and which aren’t. In other words, please state exactly what it is you think is the case, so we can examine it.

Quote:

The fossil record does tie in - its just the dating that doesn't.

Define “ties in”. You really haven’t a clue what you’re on about have you?

I’ve given you this link before, but here it is again:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/</a>

Quote:

Today I was reading on the dating techniques that are used.

Radioactive carbon dating is no good after 40,000 years so they use quatz that hasn't seen light for ages and has electrons out of orbit and things like that. There's also a biological time clock.

If I may ask, how old are you? I ask honestly, since you have referred to being in school. Maybe we’re pitching the information we keep giving you a bit too high -- no offence meant (by now you should realise, you’ll know it when I do

).

Quote:

I am particulary interested in the radioactive carbon dating. I realise that it relies on a number of assumptions, could any of you outline what these are? I haven't the passage infront of me at the minute.

Just what the blue hell do I have to do to get you to follow a link? I gave you a bunch about this in the other thread. Here they are again:

<a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/10740RadioactiveDecay.html" target="_blank">http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/10740RadioactiveDecay.html</a>

<a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear.htm" target="_blank">http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear.htm</a>

And then

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Tim_J_Thompson/radiometric.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Tim_J_Thompson/radiometric.html</a>

and the one above.

Go away and read them, since you apparently didn’t bother last time. If they’re too technical, I’ll try and find simpler ones, but give ‘em a go first.

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 02-07-2002, 01:24 PM

Bumped for David's attention.

GunnerJ · 02-07-2002, 03:51 PM

Can I get a BUMP, BUMP!?

The Naked Mage · 02-07-2002, 05:13 PM

Sho' nuff. Ba-ba-BUMP.

By the way, is "thusly" a real word?

(w00t-w00t! 200th post!)

Writer@Large · 02-07-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Naked Mage:
By the way, is "thusly" a real word?

It's an extremely poor word. "Thus" gets the job done just fine. Why add the -ly?

--W@L

Oolon Colluphid · 02-08-2002, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Writer@Large:


It's an extremely poor word. "Thus" gets the job done just fine. Why add the -ly?

--W@L

Because I was using it as an adverb. Erm... 'thus' is and adverb, isn't it...

Oolon the lexicographically challenged

Oolon Colluphid · 02-10-2002, 10:52 AM

Bump...

Oolon Colluphid · 02-12-2002, 12:07 AM

Bumping this back onto the top page. David's got a link from 'his' other thread, this is now here at the top again... I guess if he still doesn't answer, he just doesn't have any answers to offer...

Oolon

davidH · 02-28-2002, 01:42 PM

nope, I'm back again. Sorry for being away for so long.

Nah, I'm not an expert on this subject by any means but I'll talk u through a few of my problems.

The only one that I have time for at the minute is one on the fossil record.

You say that the fossil record supports evolution every time, but as far as I have seen the fossil record doesn't show evolution except in sizes etc.
Like you'd expect there to be fossils of all the "inbetween" animals connecting everything together. Yet all I have seen are fossils of animals that already have all the chacteristics of their group.
Shouldn't there be more variation? There are also fossils that haven't changed from present day species and yet the fossils are suppose to be millions of years old? Why isn't there this variation?

tgamble · 02-28-2002, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by davidH:
You say that the fossil record supports evolution every time, but as far as I have seen the fossil record doesn't show evolution except in sizes etc. Like you'd expect there to be fossils of all the "inbetween" animals connecting everything together. Yet all I have seen are fossils of animals that already have all the chacteristics of their group.
Shouldn't there be more variation? There are also fossils that haven't changed from present day species and yet the fossils are suppose to be millions of years old? Why isn't there this variation?

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</a>
<a href="http://www.members.aol.com/ps418/tran.htm" target="_blank">www.members.aol.com/ps418/tran.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm" target="_blank">www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm</a>

The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms
<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html</a>

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html</a>

Keith Miller, it's worth noteing, is a Christian so there's no imaginary anti god bias to whine about. As apposed to addressing the facts....

Hooking Leviathan by Its Past <a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_leviathan.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_leviathan.html</a>

Quote:

"We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory — for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw.

[Edited by Oolon to fix link to Patrick's site]

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2002, 01:24 PM	#2
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Bumped for David's attention.

02-07-2002, 03:51 PM	#3
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	Can I get a BUMP, BUMP!?

02-07-2002, 05:13 PM	#4
The Naked Mage Veteran Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Execution State, USA Posts: 5,031	Sho' nuff. Ba-ba-BUMP. By the way, is "thusly" a real word? (w00t-w00t! 200th post!)

02-10-2002, 10:52 AM	#7
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Bump...

02-12-2002, 12:07 AM	#8
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Bumping this back onto the top page. David's got a link from 'his' other thread, this is now here at the top again... I guess if he still doesn't answer, he just doesn't have any answers to offer... Oolon

02-28-2002, 01:42 PM	#9
davidH Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: N.Ireland Posts: 527	nope, I'm back again. Sorry for being away for so long. Nah, I'm not an expert on this subject by any means but I'll talk u through a few of my problems. The only one that I have time for at the minute is one on the fossil record. You say that the fossil record supports evolution every time, but as far as I have seen the fossil record doesn't show evolution except in sizes etc. Like you'd expect there to be fossils of all the "inbetween" animals connecting everything together. Yet all I have seen are fossils of animals that already have all the chacteristics of their group. Shouldn't there be more variation? There are also fossils that haven't changed from present day species and yet the fossils are suppose to be millions of years old? Why isn't there this variation?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.