Sculpture on walls of 800 year old (about) Angkor Wat temple in Cambodia.
Explain that.
Posted on 01/24/2014 8:50:18 AM PST by fishtank
Not a fan of evolution, but your circular graph is not correct and not helpful.
Yes, some fossils are dated by the strata they are in.
But the strata are dated by intervening strata (above or below) of rocks containing radioactive materials, typically volcanic ash.
The compounds formed by volcanic ash hitting the atmosphere decay at set rate and time-line can be established that way.
So, yes, there are potentially holes in their theories, but at least represent their theories correctly.
Sculpture on walls of 800 year old (about) Angkor Wat temple in Cambodia.
Explain that.
“How do they date rock that doesn’t have any fossils in it?”
Rock without fossils is often volcanic and can be dated using radioactive decay.
(The strata that contains fossils — unless you have a Pompeii-like situation generally is not datable in that fashion.)
That's pretty funny, your Creationists friends make up a plastic model out of imagination then claim it a picture of the real thing.
It looks like one of those toy boats that Godzilla sinks. talk about hoaxes
You mean that picture of the dog they had for lunch?
As an old earth “creationist”, I agree with your chart as it can pertain to strident young earth creationist. However, do not believe for one moment that evolutionary biologist are purist and fall on the left side of your chart. As we know many claim to used the Scientific Method to support wonderful “facts” such as global warming and ozone depletion. Keep in mind the evolutionary biologist can start on the right side of your chart with the process box, “evolution is a fact”.
Creationism ISN’T science. It’s faith.
However, just because you believe that the Universe was created by an intelligent, divine intellect doesn’t mean it has to be at odds with science.
In fact, the more they dig up in the desert, generally the more evidence there is to support the events written about in the Bible canon.
Now, the issue I have with evolution is the same as the one I have with AGW - there’s no science behind it whatsoever.
There is more physical evidence supporting the existence of extraterrestrials than there is for evolution.
Again, mountains of evidence for adaptation, nothing for evolution. Creationism? It’s faith - pure and simple.
Can rock with fossils be dated using radioactive decay, and if it can, do they do that?
“Can rock with fossils be dated using radioactive decay, and if it can, do they do that?”
Some, but not most, no.
It would have to be a fossil formed by volcanic ash or some similar traumatic event. (Think Pompeii for a recent example.) These are very rare, but do exist in a couple of examples.
Sedimentary where you normally get fossils typically doesn’t work for any kind of radiometric dating, so you have to date those sedimentary layers by layers of other kinds of rock above or below, or by certain events that are consistent world wide so you have a really distinctive marker (e.g., the KT line) that has been dated elsewhere.
So what those little circular things are depicting is a fallacy of over-simplification?
Or is that "different?"
When Creationist propose teaching “virgin birth” in biology science class and claim its not religion but biology I will ridicule that idea too, but right now I am having enough fun with this.
Yes.
In fairness, often there is no top or bottom bracketing volcanic ash or other igneous rock to where you find a fossil, so you can be in a situation where you can say “it’s no older than X” or “not younger than Y” or have a situation where you have no bracketing igneous rock, but some sort of wide spread fossil that appears for a short time that is well-bracketed and you base the age on the previously-determined age of the other fossils.
In that circumstance, the circle is kind of correct, but omits the fact that the age of fossil was determined somewhere else.
I would say that those evolutionists who claim that things that may have happened millions of years ago are ‘facts’ they are being arrogant, clearly they cant be facts, without completely redefining the word 'fact'.
But that still doesn't put them anywhere near the level of dishonesty and unseriousness of Creationists who claim Creationisms is non-religious science then do nothing but play rhetorical got-ya games.
As it should be, I am fine with that, it's this I ridicule:
Why Teaching Creationism in the Public Schools is Not Teaching Religion( March 23, 2006)
They are ridiculous.
With respect to the ‘origin of the species’, they should simply state ‘Science has no idea.’
Which should be OK, since science doesn’t know how a lot of thinks you’d think they should know work.
Lightning. It only happens 1.8 million times a day, transferring thousands of billions of watts of power that goes exactly nowhere.
Science has no idea, even though a ball with a metal core spins on an axis inside of a magnetic field called the ‘magnetosphere’.
Not a clue.
However, we are convinced cow farts are driving us to the brink of extinction.
There are pockets of science going on here and thee, but for the most part its an enormous, very expensive boondoggle.
“Are you telling me that humans who built the pyramids couldn’t have built the ark??????”
Not if everyone on earth had just been killed in a flood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.