Posted on 03/05/2015 7:09:29 AM PST by WhiskeyX
Oh please, don’t tell me you are taking that club seriously? Flat earth tales centuries ago was akin to telling children about Santa Claus and the easter bunny or present day bigfoot clubs.
“I just love it when evolutionists say something like, the worm decided that in order to survive it decided to grow wings so it could find food better.”
It is no surprise you “love” inventing a false narrative so you can then knock it down with a false argument known as the Strawman Argument, a logical fallacy.
“They do this kind of crap all the time. That would be like man saying I wish to fly so I think I will grow some wings and take off.”
Since the “evolutionists” did not make such a claim, you are making a dishonest accusation. Dishonest accusations are hardly in keeping with the Old Testament’s commandments.
The jaw fragment, which includes five teeth, was discovered in pieces one morning in January 2013 by Chalachew Seyoum, an Ethiopian graduate student at Arizona State. He said he spotted a tooth poking out of the ground while looking for fossils.
That Geological Column is really strange.
The timeline is dependent upon the discovery of the fossils which establish the dates.
And the age of the fossils is determined by geological column, and age of the geological column is determined by the fossils, and the age of the fossils is determined by geological column, and age of the geological column is determined by the fossils, and the age of the fossils is determined by geological column, and age of the geological column is determined by the fossils, and...
Well ‘in the know’ archeology trained creationists have debunked the significance of ‘Lucy’. So I suppose this latest find is the latest goat screw version of ...
... Junk Science on Parade.
Actually, he is right if you substitute the word ignoramuses for scientists. He may be thinking of the same type of “scientists” who today believe carbon dioxide is a threat to the climate.
On evolution, I find it hilarious that when a scientist updates their conclusion based on data, the fundamentalists try to use it to convince people that science is to be ignored. They’re basically saying, “Well, if that jawbone is 2.5 million years old when scientists thought there wouldn’t be any over 2 million years old, then that’s one more supporting point for my absolute knowledge that the Earth is 5,000 years old.”
They apply Occam’s Razor (as adapted by Douglas Adams) - “if the simplest explanation for a phenomena tends to be the correct one, then let’s apply the simplest explanation - It’s a Miracle!”
No, that is not how it works. You’re using a half truth to invent and promote a falsehood. There is far more involved with dating than just the stratigraphic column.
‘in the know’ archeology trained creationists is an oxymoron the same as Global Warming scientists and Climate Change scientists.
The only “scientific method” some people will ever accept, is an assembly of scriptures from orally passed on stories with a time line based on Hebrew lineage.
Only someone who has never read the first few chapters of Genesis could hold such a position.
There is a timeline of creation which follows the sequence narrative of macroevolution (phylogenetic tree) pretty closely, and then there is an allegorical story about how mankind obtained morality.
Of course it was probably not a wise choice by the writer(s) of Genesis to juxtapose the two tangentially related stories, but the differences are plain to read and have been explained and understood sufficiently for millenia.
It’s obvious that Genesis does not begin to describe mankind until after agriculture is invented. It even details that metallurgy came after agriculture, not before, which is scientifically accepted.
But if you (or anyone, for that matter) are looking for a book strictly about science, the Bible (or the Torah, or the Tanakh) should not be your solitary source.
No, that is not how it works.
Your rebuttal shouldn’t be “nuh uh”. It should be a simple description of the process.
Otherwise, the argument as I have seen it online is a circular one.
Thanks!
“Your rebuttal shouldn’t be “nuh uh”. It should be a simple description of the process.”
That’s funny, because a poster in a prior thread complained by saying I was being “long-winded” for reply point by point, and now here you are in effect complaining that I’m too short-winded. It seems like no kind of response is ever going to be acceptable to the folks arguing creationism.
For what it is worth, there is no “simple description of the process”, because there are many processes involved in the assortment of dating methods, and many of those processes can be quite complex in their relationships to the other processes.
Take for example just the topic of stratigraphic columns so often criticized by creationists. One of the common creationist myths is the claim that older fossils must always be discovered lower in the stratigraphic column than newer fossils. While that is generally true when you can reasonably assume the stratigraphic columns have not been disturbed in a manner that alters the chronological succession, it is not true where erosion, faulting, folding, and other geological events have redistributed the fossils within the stratigraphic column. Recourse to principles and methods in geology, geomorphology, biostratigraphy, nuclear chemistry, and more may then needed to observe and correctly determine the natural alterations that were made in the stratigraphic column. In other words, the stratigraphic column is itself sometimes a difficult to master subject in ambiguous circumstances, and there are enough other geological, biological, chemical, physics, astronomical, and other disciplines that can be brought into play to assemble the pieces of the puzzle together.
“Otherwise, the argument as I have seen it online is a circular one.”
You haven’t even begun to touch upon the subject much less seen enough to make a reasoned judgment on such matters. It’s kinda like the paleface Easterner out in the vast landscapes of the American West saying he can’t see anything important, but the American Indian looks at the tracks and trail signs and proceeds to describe the animal or the man who made the tracks and trail signs right down to size, weight, being righthanded or lefthanded, age, habits, and what he is thinking next. Keen expertise in making observations and knowing how to understand their meanings can be a very powerful set of tools.
FR should have an upvote/downvote thingy like Disqus has.
The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein. --Psalm 111:2
Calculus through differential equations, chemistry, physics, geology, cosmology.... God has compelled me to love these too, so that when I go over (although I'm not impatient) I may ask Him about it All.
Molars: The Y-5 pattern.
What does that really mean? How does a previous unknown species spring from another?
You’re missing some fairly convincing differing methods of radiometric dating of various rock types, thus also, their sequencing within that same geologic column.
That’s funny, because a poster in a prior thread complained by saying I was being “long-winded” for reply point by point, and now here you are in effect complaining that I’m too short-winded. It seems like no kind of response is ever going to be acceptable to the folks arguing creationism.
#1 I haven’t argued creationism.
#2 I’m not the poster in the prior thread.
#3 I said “simple description”. That’s a proper rebuttal to a simplistic claim.
#4 If “no kind of response is going to be acceptable to the folks” you are trying to oppose, then you are wasting your time and energy and should put it to better use. Unless of course you’re hunting witches (see my first post in thread).
For what it is worth, there is no “simple description of the process”,
Sure there is, when you’re not being intentionally thick.
The proper rebuttal is there are two main methods for dating fossils:
#1 Index fossils, which has the circular argument problem.
#2 Radiometric dating, which is better but comes with other sets of problems.
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.
