For a scientific theory to be confirmed, it must predict something which can be verified, and one of the most important predictions of the evolution theory is that the geological column will show fossils of increasing complexity, from most ancient to modern.
I've said it this way: you will not find elephants mixed with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs in Precambrian rocks -- not ever. And, so far as I know, that is an undisputed fact.
Note this carefully, schaef21 -- if that prediction of evolution theory were ever proved untrue, it would completely overturn the biological sciences as we know them. But to my knowledge, the prediction has never even been challenged, much less proved wrong.
****For a scientific theory to be confirmed, it must predict something which can be verified, and one of the most important predictions of the evolution theory is that the geological column will show fossils of increasing complexity, from most ancient to modern.****
As mentioned before, try reading something besides Eugenie Scott.
Even evolutionists, caught in a weak moment, will admit that the geologic column does not show what you say it does:
Stephen J. Gould, from an article in Natural History magazine, Feb. 1984...
“I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling facet of the fossil record”
Tom Kemp, from an article in New Scientist Magazine, Dec. 1985:
“In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be ‘wrong’. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well it would, wouldn’t it?
Here’s my take, BroJoe....sometimes they use the fossils to date the rocks and sometimes they use the rocks to date the fossils....it depends on which one is more convenient.
If you’d like to discuss the methods used to date the rocks or the fossils, let’s have at it. In fact, consider this question:
The volume of ice in a glass of water is twice as much as the volume of water. How long did it take from the time the glass was filled until now to reach the current state?
Is it possible to answer that question without more information? Obviously not.
Here’s another one. Potassium decaying to Argon is one of the commonly used dating methods, so lets see if we can solve this problem:
Black rock was examined that had been formed as a result of lava flow from a volcanic eruption. There is twice as much Potassium as there is Argon in the sample. How long did it take to reach the current state?
It’s really the same question, isn’t it. You need more information to answer it. In this example however, since science doesn’t have it, they will go ahead and assume the following:
The starting volume of potassium
The starting volume of argon (usually assumed to be zero)
Decay rate is constant (they can’t know that...argon, as an example, is a gas and can diffuse.)
Nothing has been added or subtracted from the sample.
These are all assumptions that have to be made....you can’t date a sample without these assumptions...because that information is not available to them empirically.
****I’ve said it this way: you will not find elephants mixed with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs in Precambrian rocks — not ever. And, so far as I know, that is an undisputed fact.
Note this carefully, schaef21 — if that prediction of evolution theory were ever proved untrue, it would completely overturn the biological sciences as we know them. But to my knowledge, the prediction has never even been challenged, much less proved wrong.****
Not only is it not undisputed, it’s got more holes than a 10 lb. block of swiss cheese. I suggest you do some more reading on it.....would you like some suggestions?