Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsnNone of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.
The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.
Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.
The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.
The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.
If you Look here:
Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".
You can derive your own conclusions.
Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsn
Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.
The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.
The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.
If you Look here:
Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".
You can derive your own conclusions.
Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.
Lonestar_logic said:Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.
Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.
He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.
Yes dating methods are flawed.
Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsnNone of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.
The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.
Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.
The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.
The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.
If you Look here:
Talk Origins - Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".
You can derive your own conclusions.
Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
thanks for proving my statement to be true..dodge and a lie...Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .
A dodge and a lie? You're more stupid than I thought.
Look asshole, I've been reading evolutionist jibberish for more years than I care to remember. It's all the same old bullshit. They accept results that fit their preconceived notions and disregard the rest. Fact is dating methods are flawed and in so being all dated material is questionable.
Get it through that neanderthal skull of yours and wise up!
What silly creationist cut and paste."Saying something doesn't make it so. Darwinists have a bad habit of saying this or that wonder "evolved" with no sense of obligation to say how it evolved. Tracking down the individual lucky accidents that led to a complex adaptation (behavior included) is too hard, so here's what they do: assume evolution, then just assert that the trait evolved, because evolution is already assumed to be a fact."
"It may well be that flying fish gained their adaptations from fish that did not have them. It would seem improbable, but not impossible, to imagine the fins growing longer as certain fish leaped above the water to avoid predators. Perhaps this kind of adaptability is itself a product of design. But with no fossil record of the transition, we need a lot more than a Darwinian evolutionist's word for it that a blind, purposeless process produced a functional adaptation.
Instead, we are told that these fish "evolved so that they could escape predators by 'gliding' over-water to safety." No transitional forms are needed; no accounting of mutations is required. The magic occurs in a black box the audience can't see, and presto! -- a fully functioning flying fish leaps above the water, complete with brain software to know how to use its new equipment.
If we demanded that evolutionists drop all teleological language to be consistent with their anti-teleological worldview, evolution would be a very boring act. If we insisted on looking into the black box to see how the trick was done, there would be a loud hissing sound as the hot air escapes. What would be left, if anything, would undoubtedly be a finely tuned, designed mechanism for producing adaptive change. That's not natural selection; that's intelligent design."
Why would you make fun of your own last name like this?...retard.
What silliness. " Concrete" evidence that doesn't exist. We call fantasy. The fantastical world of the supernaturalist.Only in your total denial. We have concrete evidence that no presently observable specified information exists that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. If we apply the historical science methods of Lyell and Darwin, we conclude that the best explanation for the specified information is DNA is intelligence. Only in Hoki Lollie world do we get to pretend things don't exist if we just ignore them.
We are talking about Historical science in case you missed the last 600 pages. And yes, faith is required for Historical science you poor dear.
Please show me an example where the source is not an intelligent agent. Put up or shut up.
It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.
Fossils prove what exactly?
There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)
Prove it.
I was returning one red herring for another.
I would never actually make the claim "there is no god" because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative existential claim.
I can however, prove that the christian god does not exist, because it is logically incongruous. As defined, the judeo-christian god is said to be perfect, yet this being needs or wants a relationship? A perfect being wouldn't need anything. It would never be jealous, as the bible often indicates. Also, omniscience and omnipotence are also logically incongruous. If you know every action you are going to take in the future, you are powerless to change them.
Then you admit your views to are based in faith.
It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.
Fossils prove what exactly?
There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)
WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
What silliness. " Concrete" evidence that doesn't exist. We call fantasy. The fantastical world of the supernaturalist.
Please show me an example where the source is not an intelligent agent. Put up or shut up.
Still waiting for Hollie and Loki's example. Maybe if they ignore it, everyone will forget they can't win this argument because they don't have an answer.
So once again, fundie Christians are exposed as liars.Fossils prove what exactly?
There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwins theory of evolution facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.
The key problem is this: Darwins theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:
WOW!!! The worst quote mine of ALL TIME. You are an imbecile.
So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:
"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
[...]
He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." Charles Darwin
This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
There's no proof that god isn't a retard.
since it's not conjecture the answer stands.are youreally this ignorant?
In mineralogy, diamond (from the ancient Greek αδάμας adámas "unbreakable") is an allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice. Diamond is less stable than graphite, but the conversion rate from diamond to graphite is negligible at ambient conditions
Diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
btw graphite is also carbon...
I don't need your answers based on conjecture. I just want you to answer why carbon is found on stones that should not be there according to the dating methods.
first there is no should in geology...
you do understand the concepts of plate tectonic, volcanism, erosion, glacial expantion and retraction, flooding? all these things move shit around and mix things up .so finding carbon mixed with other stones is no big suprise.
discribe what kind of dating method it was,
better yet give me the link to the site where you read that.
yes you are as ignorant as you seemlol...asshat
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
Michael Benton
articlehighlights
Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines:
the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
mathematical calculations are used
the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations
tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
read articlelearn moreget involvededucator resources January 2001
Fossils provide a record of the history of life.
Engraving from William Smiths 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.
Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
Millions of fossils have been discovered.They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noahs flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow drowned by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
Fossils occur in sequences
Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.
Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.
From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of progress going on.
All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his On the origin of species. The progress shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.
Accuracy of the fossils
Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great tree of life. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.
Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.
Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.
Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.
The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.
Accuracy of dating
Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:
Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rocks age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.
Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.Conclusion
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
© 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact [email protected] for reprint permission. See reprint policy.
Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist with particular interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. Currently, he is studying certain basal dinosaurs from the Late Triassic and the quality of different segments of the fossil record. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids books.
People: Earth Sciences: University of Bristol
Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
Not only was carbon found on stones while you are at it explain why dinosaur fossils found contain carbon. Asshat
Carbon pools in the major reservoirs on earth.[2] Pool Quantity (gigatons)
Atmosphere 720
Oceans (total) 38,400
Total inorganic 37,400
Total organic 1,000
Surface layer 670
Deep layer 36,730
Lithosphere
Sedimentary carbonates > 60,000,000
Kerogens 15,000,000
Terrestrial biosphere (total) 2,000
Living biomass 600 - 1,000
Dead biomass 1,200
Aquatic biosphere 1 - 2
Fossil fuels (total) 4,130
Coal 3,510
Oil 230
Gas 140
Other (peat) 250
if that does not explain it nothing will.
more of your ignorance come shinning through.Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.
FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.
Funny,the bible does not have artistic renditions of events or creatures described but evolutionist however do,it must make it more credible for them.
ever hear the term ilumnated bible or manuscript?
all of the bibles construted during the dark ages all had artistic ( showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution ) repesentations of events and creatures
the practice still goes on today.
so as always you are talking out your ass.
Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.
Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.
He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.
.
Lonestar_logic said:Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!
I have nothing to spin. When you cut and paste lies, those lies become your own.
If you're comfortable with dishonesty, I'm happy for you. I just have no issue exposing the lies that you are comfortable with when "quotes" are purposely altered, parsed and forged to represent something not intended by the author.
Lies? It was quote straight from his book it was not altered, parsed or forged in any way, shape or form.
He readily admits there is an unexplainable gap in the fossil record.
you share the pathology that afflicts the other fundies in this thread who take no issue with lies in furtherance of their religion.
