• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fossil 'disproves' evolution...?

godless dave said:
Some of it is 155 million years old, including some of the deep trenches where the water temperature doesn't change much (except right around the thermal vents).
Click to expand...

My point was to counter the comment that Tidal margines have changed. Although the location and height of the margin has moved geologically. The actual environment has the same challenges and rewards for life it always has

It is the same with the abyss. The environment has changed little, but the physical properties of a location have changed dramatically. Areas of the Pacific are spreading as much as 4 or 5 inches a year. Anything living there simply takes a step to the right every so often, but the physical point continues to move on till it reaches a trench and begins it's plunge
 
Paulhoff said:
No one carbon-dates millions of years.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
You could have helped him out by finishing your thought.

Radioisotope (radiometric) dating is not limited to carbon 14 decay.
Different elements and isotopes are used depending on the isotopes present and the age of the rocks to be dated. Once-living matter can often be dated by radiocarbon dating, employing the half-life of the isotope carbon-14, which is naturally present in organic tissue.

Radiometric methods have been applied to the decay of long-lived isotopes, such as potassium-40, rubidium-87, thorium-232, and uranium-238, which are found in rocks. These isotopes decay very slowly and this has enabled rocks as old as 3,800 million years to be dated accurately. Carbon dating can be used for material between 1,000 and 100,000 years old. Potassium dating is used for material more than 100,000 years old, rubidium for rocks more than 10 million years old, and uranium and thorium dating is suitable for rocks older than 20 million years.
Click to expand...
 
truethat said:
.
.
The idea that an environment (even the one just surrounding the octopus) has not changed in a significant way in 95 million years is nonsense.
.
.
Click to expand...

Is that the only possibility? Shouldn't you also consider that environmental changes could well move the particual environmental conditions prefered by the octopus around? Couldn't the octupos follow that particular environment around as the climate shifts?

I just don't see the need to call nonsense when you've taken such a singular opinion of what could hapen.
 
Tricky said:
As you look at the pictures, you can see a foraminiferan adding chambers, changing the amount of spiral, evolving a "lip' on the opening of its test (shell), and countless other subtle changes. Theses changes can be laid out in a successive picture so that the evolution from one to another is crystal clear. You never find one of the younger ones under one of the older ones (unless the sediments have been disturbed.) You will occasionally find "reworked" fossils, i.e. bugs from an older age that have been eroded and redeposited in younger sediments, but there are often clues (like polishing) that tell you if they are reworked.
Click to expand...

{Creationist}

But that's just a drawing. How do I know what the fossils look like? Where can I get my hands on all of these supposed transitionals and examine them myself?

{/Creationist}
 
Paulhoff said:
Millions and millions and millions of fossils prove evolution. Hey, wait a minute, just looky here, here is one fossil that doesn’t, see I told you the bible was right, no evolution.

Paul

:) :) :)

give me a break
Click to expand...

Well, *I'm* convinced! :D :D :D
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
{Creationist}

But that's just a drawing. How do I know what the fossils look like? Where can I get my hands on all of these supposed transitionals and examine them myself?

{/Creationist}
Click to expand...

"I haven't *seen* any tyrannosaurs or other dinos walking around; therefore, they don't exist!

...Except on the Ark....Oh, and in caveman times....which I also don't believe in....except that the Creation Museum shows them together...

So, to recap: I don't believe in Evolution, because it's just *WRONG*, but I do believe in the Bible, because it's *TRUE*! There! Hope that clears everything up!"


Speaking as a non-Bible scholar, I'd always thought it odd, that the Bible never mentioned dinosaurs...then it hit me: it doesn't, because the people who wrote the Bible, didn't know about them. If they did, well, they'd be all over it.

And, if there *are* any Believers/scholars here who disagree with my observation, could you please point out the places where they are, in fact, mentioned?
 
Temporal Renegade said:
...
Speaking as a non-Bible scholar, I'd always thought it odd, that the Bible never mentioned dinosaurs...then it hit me: it doesn't, because the people who wrote the Bible, didn't know about them. If they did, well, they'd be all over it.

And, if there *are* any Believers/scholars here who disagree with my observation, could you please point out the places where they are, in fact, mentioned?
Click to expand...
...
Big damn things!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth
The Hebrews didn't know Latin, so T.rex was misnamed... :)
 
I Ratant said:
...
Big damn things!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth
The Hebrews didn't know Latin, so T.rex was misnamed... :)
Click to expand...

It's a stretch to say that the biblical Behemoth was a reference to dinosaurs.

There are many reasons why I say this, but at least one obvious problem is that the biblical Behemoth had a navel. Also, it seems to be the name of just one individual monster and not a species (or superorder!)

ETA: I know you were kidding, but plenty of YECs aren't.
 
As I understand it, the notion "perfectly suited to its environment" makes no sense in evolutionary terms. Nothing is perfectly suited. Organisms are either:

a) Just barely well enough adapted to survive and reproduce;

or

b) extinct.
 
Prometheus said:
Nothing is perfectly suited. Organisms are either:

a) Just barely well enough adapted to survive and reproduce;

or

b) extinct.
Click to expand...
Recommend this change.

(a) is a little misleading. Environments change, sometimes drastically, but quite often. Extant animals need to be a bit more than barely well enough adapted to survive and reproduce in order to exist through such environmental stress. The not perfect sentiment is still fine.

It's not outright wrong because the definition of "environment" could be stretched; however, it's misleading because most of the time, the environment is not maximally stressing.
 
Molinaro said:
Is that the only possibility? Shouldn't you also consider that environmental changes could well move the particual environmental conditions prefered by the octopus around? Couldn't the octupos follow that particular environment around as the climate shifts?

I just don't see the need to call nonsense when you've taken such a singular opinion of what could hapen.
Click to expand...

What opinion would that be?
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
{Creationist}

But that's just a drawing. How do I know what the fossils look like? Where can I get my hands on all of these supposed transitionals and examine them myself?

{/Creationist}
Click to expand...
Well, I have photographs, but they could be faked too. Or I could invite you by the office to look at the actual prepared fossil slides. Of course I wouldn't tell you we had worked four decades using microcopes to make millions of them from plasticene. It's more important to make sure the myth of evolution is maintained.
 
Tricky said:
Well, I have photographs, but they could be faked too. Or I could invite you by the office to look at the actual prepared fossil slides. Of course I wouldn't tell you we had worked four decades using microcopes to make millions of them from plasticene. It's more important to make sure the myth of evolution is maintained.
Click to expand...

In the spring they have field trips to bury the "fossils" they will "find" in the fall.:rolleyes:
 
tsig said:
In the spring they have field trips to bury the "fossils" they will "find" in the fall.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Correct. And believe me, it is hard to bury those fossils deeply into rocks and then reassemble the rocks to make them look undisturbed. But the Myth of Evolution is worth it. Without it, people might start turning to God or sumpin'.
 
Tricky said:
Well, I have photographs, but they could be faked too. Or I could invite you by the office to look at the actual prepared fossil slides. Of course I wouldn't tell you we had worked four decades using microcopes to make millions of them from plasticene. It's more important to make sure the myth of evolution is maintained.
Click to expand...

And that frustrates the willey out of me. Fossil hunting is actually very easy. It must be if even I can do it. Any shale formation or flakey sedimentary rock, even coal will produce something that you find with your own eyes and scrape out of the rock with your own hands
 
MG1962 said:
And that frustrates the willey out of me. Fossil hunting is actually very easy. It must be if even I can do it. Any shale formation or flakey sedimentary rock, even coal will produce something that you find with your own eyes and scrape out of the rock with your own hands
Click to expand...

Well, anything after the Cambrian, anyway.;)
 
{Creationist quote miner}

Tricky said:
Well, I have photographs...faked. ...{T}he actual prepared fossil slides... we had worked four decades using microcopes to make millions of them from plasticene. It's more important to make sure the myth of evolution is maintained.
Click to expand...

Aha! This proves evolution is a fraud and a lie!

{/Creationist quote miner}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom