Posted on 07/30/2007 2:01:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Geologists have found the remains of a huge underground rainforest hidden in a coal mine in Illinois. The fossil forest, buried by an earthquake 300 million years ago, contains giant versions of several plant types alive today.
...
Also surprising is the presence of remains from mangrove-like plants. "It was always assumed that mangrove plants had evolved fairly recently," says Falcon-Lang.
(Excerpt) Read more at bioedonline.org ...
LOL
Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premise.
Sure it does. Molecules to man Darwinism is false, and therefore will continually be proven wrong by the facts. One might even say they entire project has the seeds of its own undoing built right in.
Thanks for the ping!
It just means that the “older fossils” may not be so old.
If one time line of mangrove evolution is shown to be
not consistent with what is currently believed, the
idea of dating a particular stratum can be thrown up for
grabs...
what would actually be enlightening, would be to carbon date
the mangroves, and C14 date the coal. The explanations for
the differences in their C14 dates, or the explanations for
the reason for their C14 dates being the same would be an
interesting lession in what assumptions are used to arrive
at a conclusion.
As you know, having been told dozens of times by multiple posters on this site, evolution doesn’t cover the origin of life.
Perhaps you should review what your religion says about the spreading and telling of lies and untruths.
Tell that to Richard Dawkins.
One person doesn’t speak for an entire group of people.
Would it be fair for me to use Jack Chicks words as proof that all Christians are insane?
I have that video, and it is not about science per se,
but a paen to some 30,000 year old being named “Ram” or
something like that...At first, it seems interesting,
cause it tries to make the macro physics world behave like
a Plancks length physics world, and though it points out
that there is lots we don’t know, it gives very little historical
evidence for the 30,000 year old being...save for a very shall
we say “funkay” female spokesperson..It also likes to
point out that we say to ourselves can change our
world...i.e. “perception is reality”...clearly not something
western scientists tend to accept..we usally like to
find out the “reality” behind the perception...no?
I know a philosophy profesor who used the video to help
open the eyes of her usually mentally sedentary students as
to how ideas, thoughts, facts, and perceptions can mix it up
a bit, but she herself knows the video is not really about
demonstrating the Plancks length physics scenario...
When I speak of molecules to man I am referring to the Church of Darwin. Their numbers are in the millions, and their chief spokesman is Richard Dawkins. BTW, my statement still holds true if you assume a common, non-human anscestor.
Just need red-ox reactions, lots of heat, long chain capable
atoms, method of capturing and distributing heat,and
electrons, protons, spatial proximity so that chemical reaction
products don’t get diluted away, reproductive techniques,
motility...yeah, doesn’t need much...
I think the study of the products of random chemical
reactions is called geology.
what would actually be enlightening, would be to carbon date the mangroves, and C14 date the coal. The explanations for the differences in their C14 dates, or the explanations for the reason for their C14 dates being the same would be an interesting lession in what assumptions are used to arrive at a conclusion.
What would be interesting is for you to learn something about radiocarbon dating.
That method goes back only some 50,000 years. It is not used to date many-million-year-old fossils! (Other forms of radiometric dating are used for that.)
You have blown your whole argument, and your credibility, by making a mistake which would have been avoided by an astute high school science student.
This is why scientists generally pay little attention to creationists: they are willing to make grand pronouncements on science, and to lecture experienced and accomplished scientists, without even learning the basics.
If you have made a simple mistake, please let me know. That can sometimes happen -- we all make mistakes from time to time. I have done a lot of radiocarbon dating, and would be glad to help you understand more about the technique.
But if you were truly as ignorant of radiometric dating as your post suggests, I recommend that you devote some years to study before pontificating on the subject again.
To get you started, here are some good links:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Touchy, touchy. But then, that’s what happens when you’re on the defensive. LOL
Sorry, son, but that's what happens when a poorly-studied amateur seeks to make pronouncements in a field where he/she/it is clearly and obviously ignorant.
What am I to do? I have studied this field for 35+ years, and here somebody comes along and has the "magic bullet" to destroy fossil dating using radiocarbon dating -- a "magic bullet" that is totally wrong?
What did you expect me to do, kiss him?
Do you have some sort of posting history with this individual...because the thrust of his/her (not “it”) post was innocuous at best. Jeez, with opponents like you, who needs friends!
Thanks. ;’)
Supporting evidence in the harder sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.) is much closer to the mathematical standard than the softer sciences like biology. There is even less of a standard in the historical sciences like geology, archeology, and paleontology. It is far easier to admit situations on which science is not clear in the hard sciences than the softer and historical sciences.
What kind of rifle is that penguin holding?
Coyoteman, you can do better than that. Your statement is worth a good laugh, however.
Not really - any fool can come up with a series of equations. The trick is showing that these equations actually mean something in the physical world. Take string theory for example. No one is disputing the mathematical correctness of it. It's just that no one has been able to find any way of generating testable predictions from it.
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.