Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[Sparks]

3 hours ago, teddyv said:

Just to be clear because somehow I think you did not read it correctly, I don't see compelling evidence of a truly global flood, but I do think that the Flood narrative may be referring to a major flood event coming out of the last ice age.

Well you answered in the affirmative to the global flood, in the above post. 

If it was regional, don't you think God would have simply asked Noah and his family to move, rather than take over 100 years to built the ark?

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Well you answered in the affirmative to the global flood, in the above post. 

Not to belabour the point, but you asked "Do you doubt the great flood?", so the affirmative response indicates that, yes, I doubt the global flood.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

If it was regional, don't you think God would have simply asked Noah and his family to move, rather than take 600 years to built the ark?

I feel the Flood story has far more implications to theology than a factual historical account (at least as we view history in our culture).

Minor point: Noah took less than a 100 years to build the ark (The Bible states he was 500 when he became father of his sons and 600 at the Flood itself).

[Sparks]

40 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Minor point: Noah took less than a 100 years to build the ark (The Bible states he was 500 when he became father of his sons and 600 at the Flood itself).

Yep, sorry.  Typo.  Will fix.

Still, why not walk for 100 years if there is a local flood?  God asked them to build a big boat.  It seemed God knew what was coming, and He would always seem to be right.

[Sparks]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, that assumption was invalidated by the accurate dating of the Pompeii eruption.

 A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.

With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.

"Argon-argon dating is by far the most important technique in documenting the history of human evolution, and this new result is an important validation of the technique," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics here and director of the privately funded Berkeley Geochronology Center.

The center has now used the argon-argon method to date many recent important fossil finds, from the highly touted human ancestor dubbed "Lucy" and the major Ethiopian discoveries of Berkeley anthropologist Tim White to Homo erectus remains from Java.

Argon-argon dating also has been used to establish the age of meteorites several billion years old, mass extinctions, climate changes and other geologic events in the last several hundred million years.

The new results were published in the Aug. 29 issue of Science magazine. Renne's co-authors are Warren D. Sharp and Alan L. Deino of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, and Giovanni Orsi and Lucia Civetta of the Department of Geophysics and Vulcanology at the University of Naples. Civetta also is head of the Vesuvian Vulcanological Observatory.

Orsi and Civetta are working with the center to obtain argon-argon dates for numerous past volcanic eruptions in the Campi Flegrei or Phlegraean Fields surrounding Naples, in search of clues to the periodicity of activity that might allow prediction of future eruptions. Naples and vicinity, with more than two million inhabitants, is one of the world's most vulnerable populations to volcanic hazard.

According to the Roman historian Pliny the Younger, Vesuvius erupted in the afternoon of Aug. 24, 1,918 years ago, destroying Pompeii, Herculaneum and other Roman cities.

The certainty of the date tempted the team to test the ability of the argon-argon dating technique to establish the age of recent historic events. If it gave an accurate age for the pumice thrown out by the volcano, it would be the youngest rock ever dated by the technique.

The most common method for obtaining the age of objects as young as this is carbon-14 dating, a technique limited to organic material such as wood or bone.

To everyone's surprise the date given by the argon-argon dating technique was 1,925 years ago-off by only seven years. The scientific error on the estimate was plus or minus 94 years.

https://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1997/0924/dating.html

 

It works, and was demonstrated to work on a real-life case.  There are more such cases.  Would you like to learn about some of them?

Sorry, but there are many, many examples in which it does not work.  Like I said, this 'science' needs a double-blind study applied against known historical events.

[Sparks]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There are a number of different methods that geologists use to check for loss/gain and these are incorporated into most analyses (isochron methods, stepwise degassing etc).  If radiometric decay rates are not constant and rocks behave as open systems, it would be the exception, rather than the rule, for ages to agree with one another.    Here are a few examples in the recent literature of radiometric age determinations on the same rocks (using different isotopic methods^a).

I am sorry you don't understand the problem.  The candle and the instruments have the same issue in that something is missing that makes the formula incomplete. 

You can sure assume, though, in both scenarios.  And that's what they do:  assume

[Sparks]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, that's a testable belief.   Let's take a look...

Three examples of pelvis.   One human, on chimpanzee, one Australoptithcine (like Lucy).    Two of them have a wide pelvis, and an angled trochanter  on the femur, permitting a human-like stride.  Can you guess which two they are?

Yep.  Human and  Australopithecine.

Let's look at feet...

Two of these feet have an arch, a large heel, and a sturdy big toe, to permit easy bipedal walking.  Can you figure out which?

Yep.  Human and Australopithecine.

 Let's look at skulls:

Top is human, next is Australopithecine, bottom is chimpanzee.  Notice Australopithecine skulls are more humanlike than chimpanzee skulls.

So how do we know all this with just Lucy?   We don't.   We know it from many, many Australpithecine fossils.  Don't believe everything they tell you.   This was just one of many.

 

 

Yep.  These sure are some mighty fine drawings.  I can draw, too, but do you know who also liked to draw?  Earnest Haekle!  Yes, he drew up fake embryos.  It was basically fraud that his university charged him with, and he was debunked in 1860, if memory serves.  Strange his fake work is still taught as if it was real, based on those drawings. 

If a scientist draws it, it must true, eh?

But maybe you missed the point?  Lucy was a fake, and she was the alleged missing link.  Her femur is not even her's.  If you look at artistic Lucy, and then compare her the actual bones found, you can see the problem. 

She was faked.

[The Barbarian]

44 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Yep.  These sure are some mighty fine drawings.

Accurate, too.

46 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Strange his fake work is still taught as if it was real, based on those drawings. 

Show me one textbook in which his drawings are used for anything but an example of error.   In fact, creationists are often outraged that modern textbooks use photos of real embryos that show the same things.  You have anything but "they're all lying?"

48 minutes ago, Sparks said:

But maybe you missed the point?  Lucy was a fake,

Even honest creationists admit that Lucy is not a fake.   That won't work for you, either.

49 minutes ago, Sparks said:

and she was the alleged missing link. 

No, that's "missing lynx."   And it's been found:

http://www.fossil-treasures-of-florida.com/bobcat-fossil.html

50 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Her femur is not even her's.

You've been misled by a dishonest creationist who just made up that story.  He pretended that the femur was from a separate Australopithecine fossil found several kilometers away.  The femur was found with the rest of Lucy's body.

"Creationists have been making the claim that Donald Johanson found the knee joint of "Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (Willis 1987). They have sometimes gone on to add the claim that "Only under questioning did [Johanson] admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared in print!" (Willis 1987; emphasis in original; Also see Brown 1989a, p. 44) The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. (Even if it were true, it would not demonstrate (b), for reasons given in Lippard (1989-90)--the knee joint is not the only evidence of bipedality in A. afarensis.)

The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Sorry, but there are many, many examples in which it does not work. 

There are entire books written on things that can interfere with accurate dates.   This is why one can't just grab a rock and date it without careful analysis of the site.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Like I said, this 'science' needs a double-blind study applied against known historical events.

The date that Pompeii was buried by the volcano is known.   I thought you knew.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I am sorry you don't understand the problem.  The candle and the instruments have the same issue in that something is missing that makes the formula incomplete. 

Nope.   You don't understand how it works.   Perhaps if you described how say Uranium thorium dating is done,we could see what your problem is.  Tell me how you think the process works.

 

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Last person was kinda reluctant to show us links to that kind of thing.   What do you have to show us?

 

This claims it was due to an asteroid, but any catastrophe could have caused this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/03/29/fossils-show-world-wide-catastrophe-day-dinosaurs-died/

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/fossil-school-fish/

 

*There's more examples, but it's obvious you really were hoping for nothing at all.