Show Me the Fossils!

[progressive hunter]

I heard of both. Do you have any example of either creating mountains in a short time?

The Himalayas are almost 9 km high and are rising at the rate of 1 cm/year. I'll let you do the math after you add in the time it would take to erode that 9 km range. Hint: the answer is in the millions of years.

Ocean spreading occurs at the rate your fingernails grow so the Atlantic took 60 million years to grow to its current size.


Confirming the work of another scientist is useful, disproving the work of generations of scientist will make you rich and famous.


Done. You're welcome.

your opinions dont prove anything wrong,,

 

[alang1216]

so you tell me how the decay rate of an object claimed to be 2 million yrs old is tracked??

Physics. We know the 1/2 lives of various isotopes and their decay products. After that is just a question of measuring. Simple really.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well, folks . . . we seem to have lost the thread of the thread, no pun intended.

The purpose of this thread is for dedicated Darwinists to show me real fossils and explain how they prove that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection is factual.

 

[progressive hunter]

Physics. We know the 1/2 lives of various isotopes and their decay products. After that is just a question of measuring. Simple really.

does a buried object decay at the same rate as one sitting on or near the surface??

 

[Dadoalex]

I don't have a competing theory, and I don't have a huge problem with the Darwinian theory.

So long as it is not falsely called a "fact," and so long as government schools do not require students to falsely claim that it is fact.

If you have no competing theory then THIS is the one we have.
The THEORY is composed of supporting FACTS.
As new facts become available the THEORY is adjusted to accommodate those facts.
The THEORY is presented as theory, the supporting facts as fact.

Those opposed to the theory oppose it because it contradicts their religious beliefs and demand their religion be taught in schools as science.

Do you believe in nuclear power? 100% of the foundations of nuclear power is based on theory.

 

[Dadoalex]

Well, folks . . . we seem to have lost the thread of the thread, no pun intended.

The purpose of this thread is for dedicated Darwinists to show me real fossils and explain how they prove that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection is factual.

So your demanding we show you proof of something we do not claim?

Uh huh

 

[occupied]

Well, folks . . . we seem to have lost the thread of the thread, no pun intended.

The purpose of this thread is for dedicated Darwinists to show me real fossils and explain how they prove that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection is factual.

The context in which a fossil is found tells the story. An archeological dig is like a crime scene. There may be a body laying there but they look at everything in the room. A hominid fossil is a wonderful thing to find but more often they find extinct animals, cooking fires or garbage dumps. These provide context.

There are anthropological digs into our own DNA. They have a good idea of how far you have to go back to find a common ancestor between any two organisms. This technique has provided a detailed picture of evolution that bears out the fossil record. .

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you have no competing theory then THIS is the one we have.
The THEORY is composed of supporting FACTS.
As new facts become available the THEORY is adjusted to accommodate those facts.
The THEORY is presented as theory, the supporting facts as fact.

Those opposed to the theory oppose it because it contradicts their religious beliefs and demand their religion be taught in schools as science.

Do you believe in nuclear power? 100% of the foundations of nuclear power is based on theory.

You said "theory" five times.

Does that mean that you don't object to public schools reminding students that evolution, in particular Darwinian evolution is theory, not fact?

I have to assume you don't know of any fossil evidence that proves that Darwin is fact, or even supports Darwin, or you would have listed it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The context in which a fossil is found tells the story. An archeological dig is like a crime scene. There may be a body laying there but they look at everything in the room. A hominid fossil is a wonderful thing to find but more often they find extinct animals, cooking fires or garbage dumps. These provide context.

There are anthropological digs into our own DNA. They have a good idea of how far you have to go back to find a common ancestor between any two organisms. This technique has provided a detailed picture of evolution that bears out the fossil record. .

But you see what you're doing here, occupied? Or do you?

I ask for examples of fossils that prove Darwinian evolution, and you go on a tangent about how fossils are found. That's what a lawyer would call "unresponsive."

 

[Hollie]

Well, folks . . . we seem to have lost the thread of the thread, no pun intended.

The purpose of this thread is for dedicated Darwinists to show me real fossils and explain how they prove that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection is factual.

Real fossils are on display at museums, US teaching and research universities and a host of other places. Denial of the fact by ID'iot creationers is their conspiracy theory to share among themselves. Being a recruiter for the Flat Earthers at AIG will leave you with a limited audience in the science forum.

Speciation through natural selection is common and the data was provided earlier. Dedicated ID'iot creationers will reject facts that conflict with their creationer dogma.

Why don't you recite the 'statement of faith'' you agreed to when you joined the AIG Cult.

 

[occupied]

But you see what you're doing here, occupied? Or do you?

I ask for examples of fossils that prove Darwinian evolution, and you go on a tangent about how fossils are found. That's what a lawyer would call "unresponsive."

There are likely several fine texts on anthropology that can explain things better than I can. If you want an education I suggest you start there. My point is that there is far more to the story of early hominids than just bones. All of the natural sciences have something to say on the matter. What you ask is like telling a pathologist to solve a crime using only one forensic technique.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There are likely several fine texts on anthropology that can explain things better than I can. If you want an education I suggest you start there. My point is that there is far more to the story of early hominids than just bones. All of the natural sciences have something to say on the matter. What you ask is like telling a pathologist to solve a crime using only one forensic technique.

Ok, you don't have to give me the whole curriculum, of course. But I assume that you have read these fine texts, since you are so sure of their existance?

Just give, say, the best three examples of fossils that demonstrate that Darwinian theory is fact.

Or if your meaning is just, "Everyone says so, so who am I to question it," just say so. Perfectly valid position to take.

 

[occupied]

Ok, you don't have to give me the whole curriculum, of course. But I assume that you have read these fine texts, since you are so sure of their existance?

Just give, say, the best three examples of fossils that demonstrate that Darwinian theory is fact.

Or if your meaning is just, "Everyone says so, so who am I to question it," just say so. Perfectly valid position to take.

Are you a flat-earther as well? Rejecting evolution requires roughly the same level of scientific denial. Since it seems you are rejecting the long-held consensus on the natural history of Earth what good is it to argue with you? Believe what you want, flat-earther. I don't give a fuck.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are you a flat-earther as well? Rejecting evolution requires roughly the same level of scientific denial. Since it seems you are rejecting the long-held consensus on the natural history of Earth what good is it to argue with you? Believe what you want, flat-earther. I don't give a fuck.

None of that is even close to evidence.

 

[toobfreak]

Are you a flat-earther as well? Rejecting evolution requires roughly the same level of scientific denial. Since it seems you are rejecting the long-held consensus on the natural history of Earth what good is it to argue with you? Believe what you want, flat-earther. I don't give a fuck.

Geologic and stratigraphic evidence shows beyond all doubt that:

1. Simple life begun in the seas.
2. Plants were first.
3. Animals came later.
4. Life moved onto land.
5. Simple life grew into more and more complex life over the millennia.
6. Basic mammals came first.
7. Most advanced upright walking bipedal humans were among the last to arrive on the scene.

All of which is consistent with the evidence found by Wallace at his Malay Archipelago.

Even the braincase of man has grown over that of earlier hominids.

Evolution and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive, but for a person to argue AGAINST evolution, one has a very weak argument.

 

[occupied]

None of that is even close to evidence.

Do I sound like I want to make a lot of effort with you flat-earther? I gave you a general overview of evolutionary research and you found that unsatisfying so now I'm just ridiculing your willful ignorance.

 

[westwall]

estimates are just another way to say a guess,,,

tell me did someone find a built on date somewhere??

You can see how long something takes to happen now. You then calculate the length of time required to form similar formations from long ago.

A good friend of mine is a geologist like myself, but also a devout Catholic. I asked him how he reconciled creationism with geologic time.

I am paraphrasing but he essentially said how long is a day in God time? We are incredibly arrogant to think a God day, is the same as OUR day.

Don't you think?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do I sound like I want to make a lot of effort with you flat-earther? I gave you a general overview of evolutionary research and you found that unsatisfying so now I'm just ridiculing your willful ignorance.

Yes, actually.

You seem to be making post after post to convince me, while presenting no evidence at all.

 

[westwall]

So you agree that geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years. Thanks.

Oh? Where did I say that? How long was the pre-Cambrian?

 

[westwall]

I heard of both. Do you have any example of either creating mountains in a short time?

The Himalayas are almost 9 km high and are rising at the rate of 1 cm/year. I'll let you do the math after you add in the time it would take to erode that 9 km range. Hint: the answer is in the millions of years.

Ocean spreading occurs at the rate your fingernails grow so the Atlantic took 60 million years to grow to its current size.


Confirming the work of another scientist is useful, disproving the work of generations of scientist will make you rich and famous.


Done. You're welcome.

Yes, Anak Krakatoa. Look it up.

Some geologist you are.