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

[teddyv]

13 minutes ago, Sparks said:

To what end?  What am I supposed to explain away?

Can you explain people finding gold chains, bells, and dolls in 'layers' of coal that 'trillions of years old.'  How about trees that appear to pass through many strata, as if they, too had grown for 'trillions of years?'

Can you ever answer a question?

[Sparks]

10 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Can you ever answer a question?

What am I supposed to be amazed by, or have to explain about a deposit?  What thrills you about those walls, or makes fossils in a flood impossible?

[Sparks]

47 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

I was not aware of that, please include a link to the source of that information that I might familiarize myself with it.

It was a man who was buried in a coffin and a modern crypt and water began to flow slowly through the crypt.  They dug him up to place his wife's crypt next to his, and they noticed water, so they exhumed his grave.  He had turned into a fossil, within 14 years under those perfect conditions.  Probably less time.

It may help to know you can make a fossil in a lab in just 24 hours.  It does not take trillions of years, and if one took a few years to form and someone dug it up, I am pretty sure scientists would still fall for the millions of years, trick, by assumption.

They found a fossilized foot still inside a modern boot, for that matter.   The boot and foot were probably from the 1950s.

47 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

And then please enlighten me as to what science is.

Science is observation and testing, much like you see in the scientific method.  When you say things like "science says" or stare at your iPhone and say "I love science" when you really mean technology, it's a common error.  'Science' does not have opinions, and even if you mean scientists have opinions, their opinions are not science.

[one.opinion]

38 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I don't play fetch the stick.

I think what you really mean is "I don't want to read, please spoon-feed me". However, you have not yet exhausted my patience. In summary, scientists approach the question of age of a rock sample very carefully. They take multiple samples and test with multiple isotope sets. This independent verification allows scientists to be strongly confident in the age estimates that they publish.

45 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Thanks.  It is a 'thing' which makes the 'fossil record' irrelevant.

You are again displaying a reluctance to actually read what is written. We agree that irreducible complexity is real. We disagree that irreducibly complex structures cannot evolve. I have shown you evidence that supports my opinion. You have not.

46 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Hydrologic sorting 'is a thing.'  Don't discount it when you can make an example in your own kitchen.

Hydrologic sorting cannot pick and choose small, simple fossils to go on bottom, and increase in complexity as they arise. Hydrologic sorting cannot separate plesiosaur fossils from cetacean fossils. Hydrologic sorting cannot separate T-rex fossils from mastodon fossils. These are just a small sampling of the type of sorting that you think could have occurred in a single flood, but the evidence just plain does not support it. That level of sorting is best explained by many fossilization events over long periods of time.

[Sparks]

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I think what you really mean is "I don't want to read, please spoon-feed me". However, you have not yet exhausted my patience. In summary, scientists approach the question of age of a rock sample very carefully. They take multiple samples and test with multiple isotope sets. This independent verification allows scientists to be strongly confident in the age estimates that they publish.

Thanks for not being lazy and writing up your ideas.  I don't like to play fetch the stick.  People too often send you on a wild goose chase when they should summarize, and then post a link to back it.  Nothing is worse than "go read this link."

So, here are my readings using ⁴⁰Argon/³⁹Argon dating.  How old is the sample?

	248.7	1.6
	252.5	3.0
	252.7	1.5
	254.6	4.0
	249.5	1.2
	249.3	2.9
	251.0	2.3
	260.9	4.4
	259.1	3.0
	250.1	2.0
	251.2	2.1
	251.0	2.2
	249.7	2.3
	260.7	3.8

 

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You are again displaying a reluctance to actually read what is written. We agree that irreducible complexity is real. We disagree that irreducibly complex structures cannot evolve. I have shown you evidence that supports my opinion. You have not.

You have displayed a link, not shown evidence. 

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Hydrologic sorting cannot pick and choose small, simple fossils to go on bottom, and increase in complexity as they arise.

Sure it can.  I think you are making an assumption about the Geologic Column looking just like the artist renderings in books.  It does not look that way, in reality.

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They found a fossilized foot still inside a modern boot, for that matter.   The boot and foot were probably from the 1950s.

For full disclosure:

In any case, Baugh's website essay also stated that only the contents of the boot are fossilized, not the boot itself, "demonstrating that some materials fossilize more readily than others." However, it seems very implausible that bones and flesh would be "petrified" while the boot, reportedly made of mostly of leather (another organic material), remained virtually unaltered. In Fig. 3 one can even see the stitching threads, which also look completely modern and unaltered. These inconsistencies alone would warrant that reliable independent investigators be allowed to closely examine the contents of the boot to evaluate Baugh's claims.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm

1. Fossils can form quickly and scientists are fully aware of this.

2. This "evidence" against the standard interpretation of the paleonotology record is spurious, at best.

Conclusion - the "fossil" foot does absolutely nothing to refute the standard scientific interpretation of the fossil record.

[Riverwalker]

9 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It was a man who was buried in a coffin and a modern crypt and water began to flow slowly through the crypt.  They dug him up to place his wife's crypt next to his, and they noticed water, so they exhumed his grave.  He had turned into a fossil, within 14 years under those perfect conditions.  Probably less time.

It may help to know you can make a fossil in a lab in just 24 hours.  It does not take trillions of years, and if one took a few years to form and someone dug it up, I am pretty sure scientists would still fall for the millions of years, trick, by assumption.

They found a fossilized foot still inside a modern boot, for that matter.   The boot and foot were probably from the 1950s.

Science is observation and testing, much like you see in the scientific method.  When you say things like "science says" or stare at your iPhone and say "I love science" when you really mean technology, it's a common error.  'Science' does not have opinions, and even if you mean scientists have opinions, their opinions are not science.

A top down view of the boot shows  that the bone is still bone. This hardly passes the smell test of evidence. 

As to "Science Says" there is a set of factual , tested and verified facts which are established (non of which contradict creation) and then there is the subset of maybes and and surmisals. It is the first set I am referring to.

This will be my last response to you, as there seems to be an impasse

 

[Sparks]

Just now, one.opinion said:

For full disclosure:

In any case, Baugh's website essay also stated that only the contents of the boot are fossilized, not the boot itself, "demonstrating that some materials fossilize more readily than others." However, it seems very implausible that bones and flesh would be "petrified" while the boot, reportedly made of mostly of leather (another organic material), remained virtually unaltered. In Fig. 3 one can even see the stitching threads, which also look completely modern and unaltered. These inconsistencies alone would warrant that reliable independent investigators be allowed to closely examine the contents of the boot to evaluate Baugh's claims.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm

1. Fossils can form quickly and scientists are fully aware of this.

2. This "evidence" against the standard interpretation of the paleonotology record is spurious, at best.

Conclusion - the "fossil" foot does absolutely nothing to refute the standard scientific interpretation of the fossil record.

You're looking at a picture of it.

[Sparks]

1 minute ago, Riverwalker said:

This will be my last response to you, as there seems to be an impasse.

OK.  Thanks for chatting.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

So, here are my readings using ⁴⁰Argon/³⁹Argon dating.  How old is the sample?

	248.7	1.6
	252.5	3.0
	252.7	1.5
	254.6	4.0
	249.5	1.2
	249.3	2.9
	251.0	2.3
	260.9	4.4
	259.1	3.0
	250.1	2.0
	251.2	2.1
	251.0	2.2
	249.7	2.3
	260.7	3.8

Where did your "evidence" come from? Do you have a link to show that scientists have determined the age of a particular sample using this precise data set?

5 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You have displayed a link, not shown evidence. 

I have given an explanation, which is a type of evidence. Show me an example of something you believe could not have evolved into the irreducibly complex state that it is today, and I will supply specific evidence that it could.

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Sure it can.

Completely unsupported guesswork. Otherwise, explain a mechanism by which hydrologic sorting could keep humanoid fossils completely separate from velociraptors.

8 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I think you are making an assumption about the Geologic Column looking just like the artist renderings in books.

Book drawings are often oversimplified, particularly for younger audiences. Sometimes, the "column" does get a little messy. However, you cannot explain with any sort of credulity why plesiosaur/cetacean, T-rex/mastodon, human/velociraptor fossils segregate as they do. Any sort of thorough investigation shows that hydrologic sorting of this type is complete nonsense.