What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information

[ARGOSY]

https://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1771/print/

A further article disputing radiometric dating and the age of the earth, based on the Purdue studies.

[ARGOSY]

Anyway, my general point is that if radiometric dating cannot be trusted, and the fossil record shows nearly every major phyla appearing suddenly in the Ediacaran and Early Cambrian, the evidence points to a biological creation event that could be more recent than science gives credit.

Not only that, the order of discovered fossils of vertebrae is better explained by observed changes to the environment than evolution.

 

[one.opinion]

This article (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php) helps explain many of the misconceptions about radiometric dating. It does not address the specific examples of Silicon 32 and Chlorine 36 that you have mentioned, though. But this is probably because neither of these are used for radiometric dating.

38 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

the fossil record shows nearly every major phyla appearing suddenly in the Ediacaran and Early Cambrian

What time frame do you consider "suddenly"? To a paleontologist, this term means something very different than it would mean to you and I. Do you know hypothetically how long the Cambrian explosion actually lasted?

[ARGOSY]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This article (http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php) helps explain many of the misconceptions about radiometric dating. It does not address the specific examples of Silicon 32 and Chlorine 36 that you have mentioned, though. But this is probably because neither of these are used for radiometric dating.

What time frame do you consider "suddenly"? To a paleontologist, this term means something very different than it would mean to you and I. Do you know hypothetically how long the Cambrian explosion actually lasted?

Well the timeframes are largely irrelevant now, because of the doubt on radiometric dates.

But one wouldn't expect to see everything fossilised at the same time, just the fact that they all appeared then without precursor is sufficient to favor creationism over evolution

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

But one wouldn't expect to see everything fossilised at the same time, just the fact that they all appeared then without precursor is sufficient to favor creationism over evolution

The premise here is somewhat oversimplified. Even though there is evidence of new groups of organisms that arose during the Cambrian period, there are definitely precursors. Read here for more - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Additionally, the paleontology is highly inconsistent with the hypothesis that virtually all fossil were generated by the flood of Noah's time.

[ARGOSY]

18 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The premise here is somewhat oversimplified. Even though there is evidence of new groups of organisms that arose during the Cambrian period, there are definitely precursors. Read here for more - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Additionally, the paleontology is highly inconsistent with the hypothesis that virtually all fossil were generated by the flood of Noah's time.

Im referring to creation, not the flood.

 

I believe the flood is better represented by the "Great Death" in the fossil record. The extinctions surrounding the PT boundary. It possibly extends from the disarticulated fossils found during the late Permian until the early Triassic

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Im referring to creation, not the flood.

The fossil record strongly appears to be inconsistent with instantaneous creation, as well. The time frame for the Cambrian explosion is estimated anywhere from 5 to 40 million years, so the progression of the fossil record suggests that creation did not occur within a 144-hour period.

[ARGOSY]

10 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The fossil record strongly appears to be inconsistent with instantaneous creation, as well. The time frame for the Cambrian explosion is estimated anywhere from 5 to 40 million years, so the progression of the fossil record suggests that creation did not occur within a 144-hour period.

I have covered this point already

1) we can no longer trust radiometric dates

2) not every organism will fossilise at the same time.

Also every layer has not been fully uncovered for that we would have to strip the planet layer by layer, an impossible task. What we do find however is more consistent with creation than evolution. 

[one.opinion]

Just now, ARGOSY said:

1) we can no longer trust radiometric dates

Will errors occasionally occur? Yes. Can we still trust the consistency of the dating methods? I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm sorry, but you'll really need more than what you have presented thus far to support your hypothesis.

2 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

2) not every organism will fossilise at the same time.

Until there is evidence indicating that radiometric dating is completely worthless, I'll stick with the conclusion of those that know what they're talking about that the fossil record indicates samples separated by billions of years. The evidence is strongly against the hypothesis that creation occurred in a 144-hour period somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

[ARGOSY]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Will errors occasionally occur? Yes. Can we still trust the consistency of the dating methods? I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm sorry, but you'll really need more than what you have presented thus far to support your hypothesis.

Until there is evidence indicating that radiometric dating is completely worthless, I'll stick with the conclusion of those that know what they're talking about that the fossil record indicates samples separated by billions of years. The evidence is strongly against the hypothesis that creation occurred in a 144-hour period somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

Of course. I wasn't expecting you to change you mind just because I proved doubt. 

But to the neutral observer, there is now doubt on radiometric dating and nearly every major phyla appeared abruptly in the fossil record in the late Ediacaran and really Cambrian without any fossil evidence where they came from.