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

[Sparks]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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.

It's really a matter of taking a reading of Isotopes, and then apply a fake formula that has the same assumptions as the candle problem I presented (which you have not solved).

[teddyv]

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It's really a matter of taking a reading of Isotopes, and then apply a fake formula that has the same assumptions as the candle problem I presented (which you have not solved).

Now the radioactive decay rate formula is fake? I thought it was all calibration issues.

[Sparks]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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?"

Yes, they are all lying.  Creationist sites show the two side by side, and the embryos don't match.  You have to remember, Haekle was found to be a fraud by his own contemporaries.  It's the modern day people who don't get that.

Oh, I like that you act like you have read every school text book and claim they ALL use photos.  That's very scientific.  Photos are typically of plaster casts by the way.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

Well, if you look at the photo of the bones found, there are no feet, nor hand, and a pulverized skull.  That's the real Lucy bones.  Then look at the artist rendering with hands, feet, and a nice little face.  

If you cannot see the problem, you are not being honest with yourself.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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.

No, it was not found with the body, and that's coincidentally what allegedly made her a missing link.  The rumor was that Johanson was about to run out of grant money, and so he ran off and found a leg.  But you keep missing the point that the incomplete skeleton was faked into that creature that you see made by an artist.

If Johanson was about to fabricate a missing link for further grant money, if true; do you think he would include it in his book? 

If you don't think the scientists won't go to great lengths to fake, just look up Nebraska man.  He was a find they have been trying to forget, but remember their rendering of Nebraska man (and his wife) was made by just one tooth that they later, embarrassingly, discovered was a pigs tooth (or a close relative called a peccary).  

Remember they made a whole humanoid based on a tooth, alone.  What a fib! 

Based on a single tooth, we get this?

[Sparks]

28 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Now the radioactive decay rate formula is fake? I thought it was all calibration issues.

That is the issue, converting values from isotopes to time. 

How do you calibrate your instrument to measure time?  You need something allegedly older to calibrate to.  How do you know it's older, except by assumption?

Candle problem.  Instrument problem.  Same.

What is the isotope-value-to-date-conversion formula, anyway?

[Sparks]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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.

Yes, I know things can interfere with the dates, mainly that it's fake.  But you can get some good grants for using your expensive instruments to produce results that impress the crowds.  Not that dating works.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

I thought you knew that knowing the historical date before they began to 'date' with the instrument was the issue.  It allows you twist your formula to fit history.  You know, cheat.  You just adjust your formula until it fits a close range. 

How about a 'double-blind' type study, where we know the date, but those with the instruments don't know where the samples were taken from, and they don't know the date?

[Guest kingdombrat]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Accurate, too.

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?"

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

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

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

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

 

 

Over one mile away?

I can collect remains from a one mile radius and create several new Specie.  That is quite the [s-t-r-e-t-c-h] connecting a knee one mile away from where the [[rest/actual]]  remains were discovered.   That's reasonably a difficult explanation to accept without an [agenda].

 

I love how [common sense], forget the idealism of God here for a moment, but the use of sound reasoning and common sense alone is well than more then enough to see right through this facade'.

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Over one mile away?

I can collect remains from a one mile radius and create several new Specie.  That is quite the [s-t-r-e-t-c-h] connecting a knee one mile away from where the [[rest/actual]]  remains were discovered.   That's reasonably a difficult explanation to accept without an [agenda].

 

I love how [common sense], forget the idealism of God here for a moment, but the use of sound reasoning and common sense alone is well than more then enough to see right through this facade'.

Without seeing the layout of the find, it is completely plausible to assign that bone to the rest of the remains if there is a consistent dispersal pattern.

As far as collecting remains within a 1 mile radius to make a new species , I'd have to ask where do you live?!

[Guest kingdombrat]

10 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Without seeing the layout of the find, it is completely plausible to assign that bone to the rest of the remains if there is a consistent dispersal pattern.

As far as collecting remains within a 1 mile radius to make a new species , I'd have to ask where do you live?!

From the time of where this Specie died till now, had there never been other mammalia to exist within this 1 mile radius, I would jump on board.   But to think the existence of multiple mammalia to [NEVER] wonder/live/roam/exist within this 1 mile radius for the past 10 million years is ridiculous at best.   I have no doubts this is multiple Specie being assigned as one.   It's as obvious as life itself!

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

From the time of where this Specie died till now, had there never been other mammalia to exist within this 1 mile radius, I would jump on board.   But to think the existence of multiple mammalia to [NEVER] wonder/live/roam/exist within this 1 mile radius for the past 10 million years is ridiculous at best.   I have no doubts this is multiple Specie being assigned as one.   It's as obvious as life itself!

The idea of the femur being found over a mile away, is a hoax by a prominent creationist, Tom Willis.  Paleontologists are very careful to document exactly where each bone is found,and the data shows it to have been found on that site.   The claim:

"Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. "

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.

The claim originated with Tom Willis, head of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, in an article he wrote for the Bible-Science Newsletter (1987). In his article, Willis reported on a lecture by Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. 

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

 

[The Barbarian]

12 minutes ago, Walter Goraj jr said:

The discovery uncovered multiple details about the species, including that dinosaurs were nurturing to their offspring.

"Though a few adult oviraptorids have been found on nests of their eggs before, no embryos have ever been found inside those eggs," Dr. Matt Lamanna, CMNH lead dinosaur paleontologist and another researcher in the study, said in the release.

"In the new specimen, the babies were almost ready to hatch, which tells us beyond a doubt that this oviraptorid had tended its nest for quite a long time," Lamanna said. "This dinosaur was a caring parent that ultimately gave its life while nurturing its young."

Cool.  It had been speculated for a long time that bird behaviors, as well as bird anatomy, had been inherited from the dinosaurs they had evolved from.  But until this, no one had actually any evidence to show it.  

It's getting harder and harder to find anything by which birds differ from dinosaurs.   Thanks for the link.