SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[Tristen]

2 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Apparently "I think" is not a reliable source.  

If "I think" that no fossil is over 10,000 years old, as proven by true honest scientists,

most all the world will not believe it still.

I suspect you have misunderstood my point. "I think" I provided "impressive" examples against the secular narrative (i.e. fossils found over 1 billion years out-of-place according to the secular story). One knows I am a young-earth, Biblical creationist.

[simplejeff]

Just now, Tristen said:

I suspect you have misunderstood my point. "I think" I provided "impressive" examples against the secular narrative (i.e. fossils found over 1 billion years out-of-place according to the secular story). One knows I am a young-earth, Biblical creationist.

COOL GREAT WONDERFUL AND YES !   (I mis-read that post)......

Since Yahweh Says He Created all things and all life, as is confirmed by ALL of HIS WORD,  it is so.  There is nothing that can ever change that.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Tristen said:

you no longer have that strategy at your disposal

My "strategy" was to check with someone that I figured would know more about the fossil record (particularly from a young earth creationist perspective) than I do. If that strategy is no longer available, I'll somehow survive.

The Shu paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/46965) does make a stronger case for your point than the Young paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/383810a0). Moving back the earliest vertebrates into the early Cambrian makes an even larger shift. I'm sure this argument has been raised, so looking for your thoughts -- Is this shift in dates simply a product of a new discovery in an incomplete fossil record of the time? Paleontologists are still making discoveries of fossils that they attribute to the alleged Cambrian period, so it seems to make sense that new discoveries would mean that adjustments would have to be made to the existing collected information.

[one.opinion]

On 12/19/2017 at 8:48 PM, Tristen said:

Here's an example where the supposed rise in eukaryotic cells was pushed back "more than a billion years"(http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.9123&rep=rep1&type=pdf).

I was going to take a look at your eukaryotic cell paper, but hit a snag. Do you have another url, or just a citation? This one is broken.

[Tristen]

On 12/29/2017 at 8:21 AM, one.opinion said:

My "strategy" was to check with someone that I figured would know more about the fossil record (particularly from a young earth creationist perspective) than I do. If that strategy is no longer available, I'll somehow survive.

The Shu paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/46965) does make a stronger case for your point than the Young paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/383810a0). Moving back the earliest vertebrates into the early Cambrian makes an even larger shift. I'm sure this argument has been raised, so looking for your thoughts -- Is this shift in dates simply a product of a new discovery in an incomplete fossil record of the time? Paleontologists are still making discoveries of fossils that they attribute to the alleged Cambrian period, so it seems to make sense that new discoveries would mean that adjustments would have to be made to the existing collected information.

The reason to discuss the Fossil Record is to address the secular impression of ubiquitous, overwhelming agreement enabling us to generate a completely unified, unequivocal story of the history of life on earth. That is the impression I had from my secular education at school and uni, and from watching secular documentaries and reading secular books on the subject. But that is not the impression you get when following the research. Every couple of weeks there is at least one report of a fossil discovery warranting some change to the story. You don't hear about those in school, or university, or in secular documentaries. After all, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

In creation v evolution debates, creationists are often challenged to provide an example of even one fossil out-of-place. But when you consider the process, every revision of the Fossil Record story starts with an out-of-place fossil, followed by a changing of the place itself (a.k.a. a range extension) where possible. That's why the pollen spores are such a good example. A range extension to that degree for complex pollen would mess up the secular evolution story too much to be acceptable.

People with the impression of the fossil record representing some great, unifying, largely-unchanging suite of evidence, and in overwhelming agreement with itself across the planet, tend not to realise how accommodating the story can be to new discoveries. New finds can be explained away as mere “adjustments”. But the frequency and scale of these "adjustments" doesn't make it into the secular narrative; leaving the world with a false impression. That's what makes my eukaryote example so important – i.e. an “adjustment” of “more than a billion years” can be acceptable if it doesn't impact the secular evolution story too much.

You have been wise enough to engage beyond the secular narrative – and so are becoming increasingly aware that the fossil record isn't as solid an evidence as we were once led to believe. With your affinity to the secular back-story, I suspect you still view these examples as rare anomalies that can be somehow discounted. But I am confident that will change if you continue looking into the facts (as it did for me).

Of course the new discoveries can be explained away as “adjustments” or range extensions – they clearly are; often. And who knows? - maybe one day we'll have a plausible explanation for how the pollen found its way deep into billion year old, impermeable rock hundreds of feet below the superseding layers. Since historical claims are unfalsifiable, there forever remains a possibility of an explanation being found for any awkward fact. But that's not really the point – which is, that the Fossil Record is not the great and exalted bastion of agreement, as often promoted by secularists, where the only reasonable interpretation is the secular story. For example, fossils are found out-of-place, on varying scales; often.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I was going to take a look at your eukaryotic cell paper, but hit a snag. Do you have another url, or just a citation? This one is broken.

Try this one.

http://shrimp.anu.edu.au/people/jjb/JJB publications/1000 Brocks 1999 Science.pdf

[Enoch2021]

On 12/28/2017 at 4:21 PM, one.opinion said:

The Shu paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/46965) does make a stronger case for your point than the Young paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/383810a0).

Well since this is "SCIENCE", i.e., follows The Scientific Method:

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon ...?
Step 2: Lit Review ...?
Step 3: Construct Formal Hypothesis ...?
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT ...?
Step 5: Analyze Data ...?
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis ...?
Step 7: Report Results ...?
 

Can you please post the answers to Each (...?) from each Paper?

If not, then aren't the "Papers" above worth The Same as these "Papers"...

http://www.the-office.com/bedtime-story/classics-alice-1.htm

http://princess.disney.com/cinderellas-story

?????

 

Quote

Paleontologists

Paleontology isn't a Scientific Discipline.

 

regards

[MorningGlory]

8 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

 

Paleontology isn't a Scientific Discipline.

 

regards

Paleontology IS a scientific discipline with many subdisciplines according to National Geographic.  From the article:

Subdisciplines of Paleontology

The field of paleontology has many subdisciplines. A subdiscipline is a specialized field of study within a broader subject or discipline. In the case of paleontology, subdisciplines can focus on a specific fossil type or a specific aspect of the Earth, such as its climate.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/paleontology/

[Enoch2021]

15 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Paleontology IS a scientific discipline with many subdisciplines according to National Geographic. 

So let me get this straight:  paleontology is a "Science" because National Geographic  says it's Science??

A Thing isn't that "THING" unless it contains Inherent Characteristics of that "THING"...not because someone/organization says so; Ergo, Non Sequitur Fallacy.

Ya see, to "BE" something you have to exhibit the Characteristics/ Traits of that something. Follow?  Bananas grow on trees, they are: green, yellow, red, purple, brown, contain complex/simple carbs, chock full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6.  
That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries.  It's how we differentiate between Tumbleweeds and Texas Toast.  
It's the same with "Science".  
"Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, "The Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science".  Science without Hypotheses then Experiment--(Hypothesis TESTS) is like Water without Hydrogen...it's painfully Non-Sequitur.

So, show ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis ever constructed in the entire history of paleontology...?

or

Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?  

 

regards

 

[MorningGlory]

1 minute ago, Enoch2021 said:

 

 

Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?  

 

regards

 

I will go with National Geographic's info.  I don't pretend to be a scientist so I feel no obligation to explain Paleontologists' methods or hypotheses to you.  You must have learned these things in college, Enoch.