Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
180 replies to this topic

#141 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:59 AM

The first thing I googled was pictures of bat skeletons, none of which appeared to have "backwards knees" and if anything, appeared to have the orientation of someone with their legs bowed out or splayed and either in a "split" position or slightly forward (not backward). Then I googled the backward knee thing and found out it doesn't exist.

No need to get pissy.


Here is a good picture of a bat the original for which can be found here. Notice how the knee (arrow) bends forward. And yes, that is the knee, not the ankle. It also illustrates how the toes curl forward as well. Most bat anatomy drawings show the femur splayed out to the side which obscures the orientation of the knee and the digits.

Posted Image

#142 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:29 PM

Thank you for once again making me regret responding to you by simply pretending I didn't and 'saying nobody dares to respond to your brilliant objection to evolution.'


He did it again. Let him quote me saying those things.

Here is a good picture of a bat the original for which can be found here. Notice how the knee (arrow) bends forward. And yes, that is the knee, not the ankle. It also illustrates how the toes curl forward as well. Most bat anatomy drawings show the femur splayed out to the side which obscures the orientation of the knee and the digits.

Posted Image


Excellent point. Thanks.

#143 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:50 PM

Here is a good picture of a bat the original for which can be found here. Notice how the knee (arrow) bends forward. And yes, that is the knee, not the ankle. It also illustrates how the toes curl forward as well. Most bat anatomy drawings show the femur splayed out to the side which obscures the orientation of the knee and the digits.

Posted Image

They appear to have specifically used a picture of a bat in a very weird position - looking more closely it's actually two bats, I can't tell where one ends and the other begins exactly and the borders of the picture have been blacked out so for all I know the leg in question could even belong to a third bat) here s a picture of a bat skeleton:

http://www.bellewood-gardens.com/2008-1/Bats_2008-05_bat%20skeleton.jpg

This is the closest I can find to a "backwards leg" in a bat skeleton:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4057/5120664328_7384cf5b07_z.jpg

It appears this is the typical position for a bat while walking (just as in the video):

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/995/55047869.JPG

Note the leg is out to the side rather than being backward, which is the equivalent of a person having their legs splayed with the knee the normal way around.

Another bat (also a fruit bat):

http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a06/b6/qt/fruit-bat-habitat-800x800.jpg

Given that I can't find any evidence from videos, photos or skeletons to support the claim (and everything I can find suggests the reverse), I'm guessing it's just a misleading looking picture like this:

http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq76/bdave351/WTA%20Sydney%2010JAN2011/DSCF0384.jpg

Can you find any pictures of any bats that look like that online?

#144 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

Thank you for once again making me regret responding to you by simply pretending I didn't and saying nobody dares to respond to your brilliant objection to evolution.


There you go again! Nobody made you respond to me. I was posting my companion on the matter, not you. Nor did I ever conclude anywhere that my posts are so brilliant that no one can answer. Those are your words.

But you certainly didn't answer me concerning the so-called 'evolution' of mammary glands & how the offspring of the mammals survived for millions of yrs before those glands 'evolved' and furthermore your 'explanations' as to how bats could survive the slow and gradual (oh, millions of years!) changes is exceeded in incredulity only by the evolutionist insistence that whales survived the 'evolution' of the airhole on it's back to somehow breathing through nostrils...or vice versa. Evolution is a ridiculous theory and it merits no respect. Nor have you posted photos of any fossils between the fully developed bat (like the one you posted the picture of) and any kind of rodent.

Now would you please return to your stated intention of not posting me and just let me communicate with my brethren. I certainly will.

#145 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:34 PM

They appear to have specifically used a picture of a bat in a very weird position - looking more closely it's actually two bats, I can't tell where one ends and the other begins exactly and the borders of the picture have been blacked out so for all I know the leg in question could even belong to a third bat) here s a picture of a bat skeleton:

http://www.bellewood...%20skeleton.jpg

This is the closest I can find to a "backwards leg" in a bat skeleton:

http://farm5.staticf...384cf5b07_z.jpg

It appears this is the typical position for a bat while walking (just as in the video):

http://www.dkimages....95/55047869.JPG

Note the leg is out to the side rather than being backward, which is the equivalent of a person having their legs splayed with the knee the normal way around.

Another bat (also a fruit bat):

http://img.ehowcdn.c...tat-800x800.jpg

Given that I can't find any evidence from videos, photos or skeletons to support the claim (and everything I can find suggests the reverse), I'm guessing it's just a misleading looking picture like this:

http://i435.photobuc...11/DSCF0384.jpg

Can you find any pictures of any bats that look like that online?


Now you're just stalling and playing dumb rather than conceding the point. That "weird position" you're referring to is the bat in flight carrying an infant. If you can't see that the leg belongs to the upper bat then you better look again. What, is the wing membrane of the upper bat somehow connected to the leg of the lower bat?

As far as the walking bat goes, if you had bothered to read my original link, you would have answered your own question, so I'll quote it here.

The hindlimbs are rotated through 180º, thus when a bat walks on the ground its knees stick up into the air. The lower section of the hindlimb is composed almost entirely of the tibia, the fibula is vestigial, like the ulna in the forelimb only more so, and fused tto the tibia. The whole limb can rotate through a wide angle allowing a hanging bat to swivel its body through a complete circle.

Emphasis added

In other words, when a bat walks on the ground, it can rotate the femur around enough to where the legs are splayed out to the side.

Here is another illustration showing the forward bending knee, with the legs in the same position as the picture I posted above.

Posted Image

#146 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:38 PM

There you go again! Nobody made you respond to me. I was posting my companion on the matter, not you. Nor did I ever conclude anywhere that my posts are so brilliant that no one can answer. Those are your words.

But you certainly didn't answer me concerning the so-called 'evolution' of mammary glands & how the offspring of the mammals survived for millions of yrs before those glands 'evolved' and furthermore your 'explanations' as to how bats could survive the slow and gradual (oh, millions of years!) changes is exceeded in incredulity only by the evolutionist insistence that whales survived the 'evolution' of the airhole on it's back to somehow breathing through nostrils...or vice versa. Evolution is a ridiculous theory and it merits no respect. Nor have you posted photos of any fossils between the fully developed bat (like the one you posted the picture of) and any kind of rodent.

Now would you please return to your stated intention of not posting me and just let me communicate with my brethren. I certainly will.

I responded to all of that, and to answer your latest red herring, yet another prediction of paleontologists in support of evolution is the prediction that when the "missing link" (actually nearly half a dozen transitional forms to fill the gap) between land mammals and modern whales was discovered, the position of the nose would gradually move to the top of the head throughout the intermediates, which of course it does which is one of several ways they know they are genuine transitional forms. Another prediction about those intermediates that also came true is described in the second video what's his face refuses to look at.

#147 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:53 PM

Now you're just stalling and playing dumb rather than conceding the point. That "weird position" you're referring to is the bat in flight carrying an infant. If you can't see that the leg belongs to the upper bat then you better look again. What, is the wing membrane of the upper bat somehow connected to the leg of the lower bat?

As far as the walking bat goes, if you had bothered to read my original link, you would have answered your own question, so I'll quote it here.

Emphasis added

In other words, when a bat walks on the ground, it can rotate the femur around enough to where the legs are splayed out to the side.

Here is another illustration showing the forward bending knee, with the legs in the same position as the picture I posted above.

Posted Image

I don't see how that disagrees with my conclusion, other than the rude personal accusations. Swiveling the leg back and forth is how I interpreted the position of the bat's legs, your interpretation (if I'm not mistaken) is that his leg is simply back and the knee is inverted.

And if he's carrying the other bat presumably his other leg is involved (either holding the bat or the bat is holding it) in which case it would make sense his visible leg would be in a contorted position.

But you didn't answer my question, could you find a bat picture with an inverted knee on the internet? I can't. Did you even look?

#148 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:20 PM

"Now would you please return to your stated intention of not posting me"...???

He has no intention of being truthful in this matter. Nor were there any 'transitions' shown between the rodent and the fully developed bat...anywhere.

I've debated this for longer than he has been alive and no one has ever been able to fill the gaps with anything more than clever artist conceptions. Like...

Posted Image as far as bats with inverted knees, it's already been explained and illustrated:


Posted Imagehttp://etc.usf.edu/clipart/32000/32048/bat_32048_mth.gif
  • Bonedigger likes this

#149 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:26 PM

Now you're just stalling and playing dumb rather than conceding the point. That "weird position" you're referring to is the bat in flight carrying an infant. If you can't see that the leg belongs to the upper bat then you better look again. What, is the wing membrane of the upper bat somehow connected to the leg of the lower bat?

As far as the walking bat goes, if you had bothered to read my original link, you would have answered your own question, so I'll quote it here.

Emphasis added

In other words, when a bat walks on the ground, it can rotate the femur around enough to where the legs are splayed out to the side.

Here is another illustration showing the forward bending knee, with the legs in the same position as the picture I posted above.

Posted Image

He's winging it. (wink)
  • Bonedigger likes this

#150 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 04:52 PM

I'd like to see a fossil of a mammal with elongated fingers, but not to the point of a bat.... Additionally I'd like to know of the environmental pressures for elongated fingers and how this pressure never applied to other animals...

#151 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:42 PM

Not that I believe any of that, but so what?? You made the point that the cambrian rabbit didn't need to be a rabbit, but now you are trying to apply the condition that whatever it "is" HAS to be found in the cambrian, otherwise all bets are off. You might as well have suck with the rabbit! Ooparts are ooparts. Or is falsifying evolution restricted to the cambrian and involve adopting the evolutionist assumption as to what the cambrian is?

The Cambrian and precambrian are the earliest era's where fossils can be found. They would be the best layer to find a falsification of evolutionary theory in since nearly any animal would be found well before its ancestors should have evolved. The more recent the geologic era you wish to consider, the fewer species of animals that would count as falsifications of evolutionary theory. Since creationism suggests that all modern animals existed since the earth was formed there's no reason why focusing on these periods is invalid or unfair.

How do we know exactly where the "cambrian" stops or starts? Dating methods that you claim are independent of fossils have been shown to be unreliable and yet you are trying to tell me how far it extends.

Like any other human definition, we know where it starts and stops because we decide where it starts and stops. We've decided that it starts at 541 and stops at 485 million years ago. Radiometric dating methods have not been shown to be unreliable, if they had geologists wouldn't rely on them.

Just as has been pointed out many times in this forum, dating of layers and rocks is circular reasoning. Radiometric dates that don't line up with the evolutionist assumption are considered incorrect and rejected.

Ok, show me a rejected date of 500 million years or older for a mammal fossil and we can take it from there to decide whether it was appropriate to reject that date.

Well, that kind of disqualifies your point. The "criterion of reproduction" is part of the definition of species, is it not?

Reproductive isolation isn't used where it doesn't apply (asexual organisms) or can't be used (extinct organisms). It would be rather dumb to use a criteria that's impossible to check, don't you think? For fossils, species are primarily defined by physical characteristics.

As an example, would you agree that a T-rex and a squid are separate species and that this classification is based on physical characteristics and not reproductive isolation?

#152 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:52 PM

The Cambrian and precambrian are the earliest era's where fossils can be found. They would be the best layer to find a falsification of evolutionary theory in since nearly any animal would be found well before its ancestors should have evolved. The more recent the geologic era you wish to consider, the fewer species of animals that would count as falsifications of evolutionary theory. Since creationism suggests that all modern animals existed since the earth was formed there's no reason why focusing on these periods is invalid or unfair.


Like any other human definition, we know where it starts and stops because we decide where it starts and stops. We've decided that it starts at 541 and stops at 485 million years ago. Radiometric dating methods have not been shown to be unreliable, if they had geologists wouldn't rely on them.


Ok, show me a rejected date of 500 million years or older for a mammal fossil and we can take it from there to decide whether it was appropriate to reject that date.


Reproductive isolation isn't used where it doesn't apply (asexual organisms) or can't be used (extinct organisms). It would be rather dumb to use a criteria that's impossible to check, don't you think? For fossils, species are primarily defined by physical characteristics.

As an example, would you agree that a T-rex and a squid are separate species and that this classification is based on physical characteristics and not reproductive isolation?

The oldest fossils are 3.4 billion years old, much older than the cambrian period. The pre-cambrian period is the beginning of multi-cellular life not the beginning of life (though creationists made this claim for years, and I'm sure some still do).

#153 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:01 PM

He did it again. Let him quote me saying those things.


Yeah I get that too... When you reply and refute all the points... Yet Agno still says you never reply? Or he / she makes strawmen or puts words in ones mouth....

Top intellectual honesty here...


Agno you're not doing the Atheist camp any favours by behaving this way (on a public forum no less)

#154 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:20 AM

The Cambrian and precambrian are the earliest era's where fossils can be found. They would be the best layer to find a falsification of evolutionary theory in since nearly any animal would be found well before its ancestors should have evolved. The more recent the geologic era you wish to consider, the fewer species of animals that would count as falsifications of evolutionary theory. Since creationism suggests that all modern animals existed since the earth was formed there's no reason why focusing on these periods is invalid or unfair.


That still doesn't address my point. The stages of evolution seem to generally follow the altitude of fossils found. The "oldest" are bottom sea dewllers, then come the middle sea dwellers, then the upper sea dwellers, the amphibians and then mammals and so on. The fact that you claim that the layer to falsify evolution in is the one that is perhaps the most distant layer environmentally from our point of view is nothing else than convenient.

Radiometric dating methods have not been shown to be unreliable, if they had geologists wouldn't rely on them.


Geologist "rely" on the dates that confirm the paradigm they have been taught. If scientists don't agree with a given date result from testing, they will simply declare that date or test to be contaminated and just throw it out:

This is from the Nevada Bureau of Mines, Report 9, 1965, and is found at http://books.google.....A24&dq=when st...

Page 16: "For some unexplained reason, however, the radiocarbon ages of all samples of tufa from the high-shore zone (4,300 to 4,370 feet altitude) are considered younger than expected (perhaps by 6,000 to 8,000 years) on the basis of the local stratigraphic relations on certain "landmark" radio carbon dates, and on the interregional correlations prepared in this paper." In other words, the radio carbon dates were rejected because they did not fit existing 'landmark' dates.

Page 17: "Broecker and Kaufman (1964) concluded from this investigation that radiocarbon ages... are in almost all cases reliable to within +/- 1,000 radiocarbon years. However, these workers virtually ignored the stratigraphic assignments of the samples in making their appraisal; their evaluation was based almost entirely on geochemical considerations. Unfortunately, we cannot concur with their conclusions as to the relatively high reliability of radiocarbon dates from pluvial lake deposits, on the basis of our own evaluation of the radiocarbon ages combined with the stratigraphical associations of the samples from Lakes Lahonton and Bonneville."

Page 18: "Obviously, either the stratigraphic interpretation or the radio carbon age determination from the high-shore tufas is in error. Data adequate to resolve this dilemma are not available at present. The 7,000-year gap (out of 18,000 years estimated) in radiocarbon ages from the earlier Sehoo, together with other considerations, however, suggests the possibility that all the radiocarbon ages...are considerably too young., particularly those from the higher shores. The most obvious hypothesis to explain radiocarbon ages that are too young is to assume that contamination... has occurred..."

"Because of the serious uncertainties in the higher-shore radiocarbon dates, we prefer for the present to disregard these dates, relying instead on..."

"On the basis of the chronologic scheme it is apparent that the radiocarbon ages of the tufas from the high-shore zone are 6,000 to 8,000 years too young. The highest Sehoo lake maximum is inferred to have occurred in early (pre-dendritic) Sehoo time, about 18,000 years ago. Such a date is consistent with the maximum extent of continental glaciation in the Midwest." I might post more evidence later of how scientists work together before nreporting new finds to adjust certain data to fit existing theories without conflict, which sometimes also requires rejecting previously obtained dates from testing.

Page 21: "In view of the numerous dilemmas between the radiocarbon dates and the stratigraphy, we can only affirm the statement made by Eardley and others concerning the radiocarbon shronology of Lake Bonneville "The results are inconsistent, and, at present, baffling."

show me a rejected date of 500 million years or older


Again, you are using "cambrian rabbit" tactics to prove your point. In other words you are assuming an age, where the original environment in question may very well give vastly different readings than those that are considered more "modern", and besides, since I don't believe in such dates, perhaps it would be better if we turn that question around and you tell me how anyone knows that ANY date that goes beyond recorded history is correct? In other words, what dating method is not built on uniformitarian assumption?

Reproductive isolation isn't used where it doesn't apply (asexual organisms) or can't be used (extinct organisms). It would be rather dumb to use a criteria that's impossible to check, don't you think?


Yes, I think we both agree that such a thing would be dumb, which is why I brought it up.

As an example, would you agree that a T-rex and a squid are separate species and that this classification is based on physical characteristics and not reproductive isolation?


Sure, common sense dictates that! But don't you think that the difference between a T-rex and a squid is much greater than todays coelacanth and the fossilized version? Creationists are accused of being vague about kinds and yet you think just because I can see the difference betwee a T-rex and a squid then I am supposed to be satisfied with your "evidence of speciation"?
  • gilbo12345 and Calypsis4 like this

#155 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:02 AM

That still doesn't address my point. The stages of evolution seem to generally follow the altitude of fossils found. The "oldest" are bottom sea dewllers, then come the middle sea dwellers, then the upper sea dwellers, the amphibians and then mammals and so on. The fact that you claim that the layer to falsify evolution in is the one that is perhaps the most distant layer environmentally from our point of view is nothing else than convenient.

No, the fossil record most certainly doesn't follow altitude. The earliest fossils are upper sea dwellers like photosynthetic bacteria not deep sea animals. Aquatic mammals are found after land animals. Birds are found in lower layers than humans and human artifacts. In multiple areas we can find alternating water, land, water fossils.

Geologist "rely" on the dates that confirm the paradigm they have been taught. If scientists don't agree with a given date result from testing, they will simply declare that date or test to be contaminated and just throw it out:
.....
(multiple quotes)

And what's your reason for thinking they are unjustified in throwing that date out? Are you suggesting that based on data from one technique on one region all radiometric dating is flawed?

Again, you are using "cambrian rabbit" tactics to prove your point. In other words you are assuming an age, where the original environment in question may very well give vastly different readings than those that are considered more "modern", and besides, since I don't believe in such dates, perhaps it would be better if we turn that question around and you tell me how anyone knows that ANY date that goes beyond recorded history is correct? In other words, what dating method is not built on uniformitarian assumption?

Ok, in order to take your 'may very well...' seriously please explain how all cambrian environments could consistently give vastly different readings from modern environments.
I know of no dating method that isn't based on the assumption that physics/chemistry/geology/etc works the same way today as they did in the past. So what? We can test this assumption by looking at past results of physics/chemistry/geology and seeing if present processes produce similar results. Do you have any evidence that physics/chemistry/etc. worked differently in the past?

Yes, I think we both agree that such a thing would be dumb, which is why I brought it up.

Sure, common sense dictates that! But don't you think that the difference between a T-rex and a squid is much greater than todays coelacanth and the fossilized version? Creationists are accused of being vague about kinds and yet you think just because I can see the difference betwee a T-rex and a squid then I am supposed to be satisfied with your "evidence of speciation"?

Good, we are in agreement that physical differences can be sufficient to classify organisms as different species and are just disagreeing where to draw the line. Let's assume that all ceolacanths as the same species. The fossils aren't out of geologic place, evolutionary theory doesn't require extinction so finding a living ceolacanth isn't a problem for evolution. If we found a ceolocanth fossil in the precambrian, before it's ancestors should have evolved, that would be a problem, but we haven't.

#156 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:11 PM

No, the fossil record most certainly doesn't follow altitude. The earliest fossils are upper sea dwellers like photosynthetic bacteria not deep sea animals. Aquatic mammals are found after land animals. Birds are found in lower layers than humans and human artifacts. In multiple areas we can find alternating water, land, water fossils.


I said that the stages of evolution generally follow the altitude of fossils found. The fact that you make assertions about what is "earliest" makes very little difference to me. You cannot expect me to simply accept arguments based on what evolutionists believe.

And what's your reason for thinking they are unjustified in throwing that date out? Are you suggesting that based on data from one technique on one region all radiometric dating is flawed?


I neither said they were justified nor unjustified, only that radiometric dating is not an exact science, and that they are selecting data in favor of what they believe.

Ok, in order to take your 'may very well...' seriously please explain how all cambrian environments could consistently give vastly different readings from modern environments. I know of no dating method that isn't based on the assumption that physics/chemistry/geology/etc works the same way today as they did in the past. So what? We can test this assumption by looking at past results of physics/chemistry/geology and seeing if present processes produce similar results. Do you have any evidence that physics/chemistry/etc. worked differently in the past?


You are trying to shift the burden of proof on me, when what is being discussed here is the Cambrian rabbit argument. I don't know what happened in the past, neither do I claim to know, and neither do I have to know - the Cambrian rabbit argument is not mine!

Your assertion is that nothing happened in the past that could effect radiometric dating, but since we don't know that the "physics/chemistry/geology" of the past is the same as we observe today, that is simply a belief.

#157 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:14 PM

I said that the stages of evolution generally follow the altitude of fossils found. The fact that you make assertions about what is "earliest" makes very little difference to me. You cannot expect me to simply accept arguments based on what evolutionists believe.

Except that the stages of evolution don't generally follow altitude of habitats. Here's a general evolutionary timeline with habitats: photosynthetic bacteria (shallow water) -> fish (shallow/deep water) -> land plants (land) -> amphibians (land/shallow water) -> mammals (land) -> aquatic mammals (water).

Whales don't live at higher altitudes than trees or horses.

I neither said they were justified nor unjustified, only that radiometric dating is not an exact science, and that they are selecting data in favor of what they believe.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof on me, when what is being discussed here is the Cambrian rabbit argument. I don't know what happened in the past, neither do I claim to know, and neither do I have to know - the Cambrian rabbit argument is not mine!

Your assertion is that nothing happened in the past that could effect radiometric dating, but since we don't know that the "physics/chemistry/geology" of the past is the same as we observe today, that is simply a belief.

Scientists can't select in favor of something when the alternative has never happened. Has radiometric dating produced a date of 500 million years or older for rocks containing mammal fossils? Creationists are capable of performing radiometric dating too, have they found any such rocks?

The cambrian rabbit argument states that no mammal fossil will be found in rock dating 500 mya or older. This remains a true statement.

Let's call it a belief then. Is this belief consistent with the available evidence? (one piece of evidence is that a significant increase in radioactivity would have melted or sterilized the earth)
Do you have any evidence indicating this belief is wrong?

#158 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:44 PM

Let's call it a belief then. Is this belief consistent with the available evidence? (one piece of evidence is that a significant increase in radioactivity would have melted or sterilized the earth)
Do you have any evidence indicating this belief is wrong?


Who says?

#159 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:06 PM

Except that the stages of evolution don't generally follow altitude of habitats. Here's a general evolutionary timeline with habitats: photosynthetic bacteria (shallow water) -> fish (shallow/deep water) -> land plants (land) -> amphibians (land/shallow water) -> mammals (land) -> aquatic mammals (water).


Well OK miles, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you show me the evidence that these types of animals and plants are found in the order that you assert. For example, do fish appear before plants according to the fossil record? Show me the evidence. Does fossilized photosynthectic bacteria only appear at at the bottom layer? Do aquatic mammals appear only after land mammals, and so on...

Whales don't live at higher altitudes than trees or horses.


I never said they did, just as I never said that ALL fossils show a strict adherence to altitude. You are still ignoring this and trying to take what I said to the utmost extreme. My point is more along the lines that you won't find mammals, such as rabbits, at the bottom of the oceans, and as far as I KNOW, there is nothing in the cambrian that isn't aquatic or that cannot live in an aquatic environment. But again, I will leave it to you to prove otherwise.

Has radiometric dating produced a date of 500 million years or older for rocks containing mammal fossils? Creationists are capable of performing radiometric dating too, have they found any such rocks?


Perhaps not, but what do we know about whether or not radiometric dating can have been effected by environmental factors? What if the sequence of a certain catastrophic event perhaps having its origin in a certain environment effected radiometric dating differently in different types of environments, for example the sea and the land?

The cambrian rabbit argument states that no mammal fossil will be found in rock dating 500 mya or older. This remains a true statement.


So does the fact that a rabbit is unlikely to be found fossilized at the bottom of the ocean, and what "remains" to be proven is that any rock is 500 mya or older.

#160 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:55 PM

I've read a lot on this forum and I find it full of great information. Yet I don't see any evidence for evolution. I have yet to see one fully formed transitional fossil.


Why does a transitional fossil have to fully formed to be evidence for evolution? The process of fossilization is imperfect and must of the time most or part of a fossil will degrade. In fact fully formed fossils are pretty rare. We do see a lot of fossils that are 80%, 90%, 95%, or 99% complete.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users