- Thread Author
- #1
Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!
By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!
-
If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.
"Young Earth" creationist discovers 60MM year old fossil
- Thread starter Michchamp
- Start date
well, the author is extremely ignorant about science too.
I'd be one sorry paleontologist, given the opportunity. I've never even found a fossil, so he's got me there. But the science of dating fossils is not shaky -- at least not on the order of tens of millions of years of error
yes, the fossil is millions of years old, but isotropic dating techniques actually does provide a window of millions of years, not a pinpoint time. for example, dating via uranium isotopes can approach hundreds of millions of years for its window.
furthermore, the author is confusing evolution (a biological theory) with isotropic dating (geological theory). you cannot use isotropic dating to prove evolution. you can use it to say Creature X lived roughly from Time A to Time B, but you cannot use it to prove evolution. it supports the concept to some extent, helping show how creatures might have changed throughout time; however, the concept of evolution is still theory, (which is also subject to being wrong at times - see Law of Gravity). isotropic dating is far closer to being considered accurate at this point in human scientific study, so yes...the age of the fossil and the rocks around it are highly accurate. did the creature evolve (in a traditional Evolutionary sense), that is not able to be determined with this finding.
now, do I lean toward Evolution or Creationism? I am able to grasp how the two are one in the same...just not on the time scale proposed by Bible Thumpers nor the pure randomness proposed by non-spiritual Scientists. Neither group makes sense to me.
I'd be one sorry paleontologist, given the opportunity. I've never even found a fossil, so he's got me there. But the science of dating fossils is not shaky -- at least not on the order of tens of millions of years of error
yes, the fossil is millions of years old, but isotropic dating techniques actually does provide a window of millions of years, not a pinpoint time. for example, dating via uranium isotopes can approach hundreds of millions of years for its window.
furthermore, the author is confusing evolution (a biological theory) with isotropic dating (geological theory). you cannot use isotropic dating to prove evolution. you can use it to say Creature X lived roughly from Time A to Time B, but you cannot use it to prove evolution. it supports the concept to some extent, helping show how creatures might have changed throughout time; however, the concept of evolution is still theory, (which is also subject to being wrong at times - see Law of Gravity). isotropic dating is far closer to being considered accurate at this point in human scientific study, so yes...the age of the fossil and the rocks around it are highly accurate. did the creature evolve (in a traditional Evolutionary sense), that is not able to be determined with this finding.
now, do I lean toward Evolution or Creationism? I am able to grasp how the two are one in the same...just not on the time scale proposed by Bible Thumpers nor the pure randomness proposed by non-spiritual Scientists. Neither group makes sense to me.
- Thread Author
- #3
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,990
admitting one is not an expert in a field of science is a whole different kind of ignorance from believing the Earth is 6,000 years old in this day and age.
And I don't see how the fact that radiocarbon or isotropic dating (whatever you want to call it) might be off 1MM years is significant when comparing the numbers here.
even if it's off by 10MM years, it's obviously a lot older than 6,000 years, which is the point.
Jackass.
Way to totally not comprehend a single thing I said. Wow. I mean, you scored an absolute 0% on accuracy.
1. I did not even remotely state the idiot claiming Earth to be 6000 years old is correct.
2. The author was attempting to use Geology to prove something in Biology. Geology =/= Biology. Geology is about studying rocks, biology studies living things. They are two very different areas of study. Now, while you can use geology to support creature A lived during a certain span of time, you cannot say that just because creature B looks similar and comes from a later span of time that the process of Evolution is proven. Evolution is a Biological Process. To be proven, it must be demonstrated via Biological evidence that is able to independently verified by others. Yes, there is evidence from the studies of genetics/gene splicing/gene manipulation and other similar areas...but those are BIOLOGY based, not GEOLOGY based.
3. The quote that I bolded referenced the authors ASSUMPTION that isotropic dating cannot be in error by tens of millions of years. It actually depends on the isotrope/element being analyzed. It is actually possible to be off by far more than 10 million years when analyzing extremely long half-life istotropes/elements.
So, while the author is more intelligent than the person the article is about, he is NOT a scientific source for valid information, and his journalistic/research ability is greatly in question when he makes wild ass assumptions and uses science incorrectly. The fact that you take his info as absolute gospel is no better than the moron the story was written about taking as gospel that Earth is 6000 years old.
I get that I'm not the best at explaining things, so by all means, get Gulo involved in this, or turok, or anyone else who has scientific understanding to maybe explain it better than I can. You are immediately biased by anything I say, so by all means, get someone else and then maybe you will have a clearer understanding of the points I was making.
The "jackass" comment was completely disrespectful and uncalled for by the way. You need to consider that when you do not understand something, maybe there is miscommunication that needs to be clarified, but that does not make me a jackass. If anything, it just demonstrates what an absolute internet bully you try to be. It really is sad that someone with your intelligence continually attempts to use such kindergarten tactics to win arguments.
Maybe I needed to explain it in these terms. While French Law and US Law may have similarities, one cannot be used to prove innocence or guilt of someone on trial in the other.
Geology and Biology are similar, but you cannot use one to prove something in the other.
Hope that helps clarify my point on that in terms better understood for you. I'm sincerely trying to help by adding some context, I'm not looking to get feedback about this not being equitable or some other similar put down.
Geology and Biology are similar, but you cannot use one to prove something in the other.
Hope that helps clarify my point on that in terms better understood for you. I'm sincerely trying to help by adding some context, I'm not looking to get feedback about this not being equitable or some other similar put down.
- Thread Author
- #7
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,990
I'd like to take a nap, but am having trouble falling asleep.
oh good, a new zyxt post
zzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz...
Gulo Blue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 13,502
I don't think there's a scientific issue here. MC wants to talk about how dumb the guy that found the fossil is. You're disappointed in the sloppiness of the writing. MC thinks you're a jackass for not focusing on the guy that found the fossil. (I'm not interested in the guy that found the fossil either, so maybe I'm a jackass too. I'm disappointed there are so many young earthers out there, but they all know about fossils whether they found them or not.)
- Thread Author
- #10
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,990
I also quibbled with his characterization of the writing as being that sloppy to begin with, but I think you've more or less hit the nail on the head.
- Thread Author
- #11
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,990
Also, I ignored this point in his first post, because I thought it was such bullshit it didn't need to be addressed, but since you think there's no scientific issue here, I guess I better address it now too.
This is so idiotic. First of all, she didn't come out and say this find and isotropic dating prove evolution; there's obviously much more evidence out there, and I don't think she needed to spell out the entire case for evolution in an article about this idiot and his rock. Second, evolution is not just a theory. We've observed species evolve in the present time. It HAPPENS. It's not just a theory, any more than the existence of the Moon in the sky is just a theory.
Obviously, it is impossible to go back in time and observe exactly what happened to past or extinct species. but you really think there was some alternative explanation to why species changed in the fossil record then? Now species evolve, but throughout history something else happened? all those other species we see in the fossil record... well, that can only support the concept of evolution "to some extent" to use your words?
brilliant reasoning there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gulo Blue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 13,502
Well, the writer did get it wrong with that bit about "at least not on the order of tens of millions of years of error". It doesn't change the point of the article, but it is technically incorrect.
Gulo Blue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 13,502
OK. I can budge on this second part; there is some science here. You can't prove evolution through isotope dating on it's own, but it's a strong piece of evidence as to why people believe it.
- Thread Author
- #14
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,990
yes.
also, evolution is a theory as well as a fact. He was wrong about that too. That's science as well.
Just typing that feels good:
Evolution is a fact.
Deal with it, creationists and zyxt.
TheVictors
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 14,220
Hey, God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve ...
you know what I mean?
you know what I mean?
According to every scientific document written to date, The Theory of Evolution is still listed as a Theory. Prove me wrong with evidence from a legit scientific organization.
Furthermore, I never said I disagree with many aspects of the theory, I only have issue with a small percentage of the concept. I do not believe all life began from a singular chemical reaction that was given life from a bolt of lightning. I believe there were a large variety of life forms created throughout the earlier times on Earth and that such events still take place today (zero reason to believe it only could have happened back then, the processes shoukd be happening even now). This is why I believe different species exist. Evolution attempts to say species morph into multiple species. I believe species were initially created from different elements and molecules, that the source of energy was different, and these differences are hiw different species came to exist.
The traditional Theory of Evolution, IMHO, is only partially right but science is going to bear out what I have stated here in time.
But I don't want to bore you with my scientific opinion. Just keep labeing me a Bibke Thumper....its easier for you.
Gulo Blue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 13,502
Normally, discussions about this get into what is meant by the word fact, and the way most people use the word, evolution qualifies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
But I think in this case there might be actual disagreement over what the theory of evolution includes. Did you mean that bolt of lightning thing literally?
Then, there's clearly things here I haven't really heard of elsewhere. If I understand correctly, you think it's coincidence that so many species fit into genuses and phyla with genetic similarity? They arose separately in separate environments, but mostly matched genetically?
TheVictors
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 14,220
I didn't get the Bolt of lightning thing either
That sounds like something God would do.
That sounds like something God would do.
Evolution currently assumes everything started from one moment of perfect bliss that transformed inorganic material into organic and everything evolved from that.
Yes, I am 100% opposed to that aspect of the theory. I believe the fact scientists have been able to create life in the lab verifies my opinion more than the current theory.
To claim only one moment of creation is more in line with Biblical Creationism. The fact atheists like champ are thumping that as "fact" (none of us were there to witness it) is pure irony.
Many theories abound about what caused that singular moment. I'm of the scientific opinion that all of those could have caused a lifeform. The surrounding elements, temperatures/pressures (champ won't understand how those are related, but you do), radiation spectrum exposure, and numerous other factors resulted in different DNA structures being created. All life has a somewhat similar structure, but differences are too numerous IMO. Fish suddenly are no longer fish, they are amphibions does not seem nearly as logical as two microorganisms were created at roughly similar times, one became fish, the other amphibions. The difference was due to the different conditions at each one's creation. Also, there were more than one singular microorganisms created in each of these times, multiple ones were created in that moment. Some microorganisms have less DNA in the beginning, some more.
And I believe this process continues today. The microorganisms today could evolve into future species. This is more logical than the still unobserved change of a large species becoming something else (gorilla to chimp to man).
The conditions for life had to be such that the process could be repeated, IMO. I would think atheists would embrace that, not ridicule the idea. But champ holds dear to me being a Bible Thumper in order to feel superior.
Yes, I am 100% opposed to that aspect of the theory. I believe the fact scientists have been able to create life in the lab verifies my opinion more than the current theory.
To claim only one moment of creation is more in line with Biblical Creationism. The fact atheists like champ are thumping that as "fact" (none of us were there to witness it) is pure irony.
Many theories abound about what caused that singular moment. I'm of the scientific opinion that all of those could have caused a lifeform. The surrounding elements, temperatures/pressures (champ won't understand how those are related, but you do), radiation spectrum exposure, and numerous other factors resulted in different DNA structures being created. All life has a somewhat similar structure, but differences are too numerous IMO. Fish suddenly are no longer fish, they are amphibions does not seem nearly as logical as two microorganisms were created at roughly similar times, one became fish, the other amphibions. The difference was due to the different conditions at each one's creation. Also, there were more than one singular microorganisms created in each of these times, multiple ones were created in that moment. Some microorganisms have less DNA in the beginning, some more.
And I believe this process continues today. The microorganisms today could evolve into future species. This is more logical than the still unobserved change of a large species becoming something else (gorilla to chimp to man).
The conditions for life had to be such that the process could be repeated, IMO. I would think atheists would embrace that, not ridicule the idea. But champ holds dear to me being a Bible Thumper in order to feel superior.
Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen in a jar with a jolt of electricity has created microorganisms. In Nature, that artificial jolt of electricity would be a bolt of lightning.
Other theories exist too, including ones involving volcanic vents in the ocean providing the necessary heat. I just used the bolt of lightning as a reference to the most common held belief/opinion/non-fact (because no one was there to observe it)
Affiliates
