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

[BeyondET]

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

Since we know that the bones said to be of a cyclops were actually of a fossil elephant, we have sufficient evidence to conclude that is where story began.

 

certainly i would agree that mistakes can happen like what you mentioned but that doesn't imply the condition doesn't happen or happened back in the day. cyclopic does happen. so who knows they might of found actual bones of someone who lived more than a few hours after birth is what I am saying.

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

certainly i would agree that mistakes can happen like what you mentioned but that doesn't imply the condition doesn't happen or happened back in the day. cyclopic does happen. so who knows they might of found actual bones of someone who lived more than a few hours after birth is what I am saying.

I don't doubt that happened; I'm merely noting that it wouldn't explain the giant cyclops story.

 

[teddyv]

51 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I cannot imagine it.

If God made it all in 6 days, it's effectively all the same age.   God said He stretched out the universe, and the stars, so the assumption that it took a gillion light years for the star light to reach us, is not even a factor. 

By the way, we cannot even correctly gauge distance to those stars because we only have 16 minutes to work with, using Trigonomic Parallax.  But again, it means that the light we see, even if it really were extremely far away, was stretched to us according to God.   Better put, it means we saw the light of the stars, long before it would take light to normally reach us over those vast distances, so distance is not a factor in telling age, anyway.

Cepheid Variables, Magnitude (color and brightness of stars), and Inverse Square techniques all have huge assumptions behind them at these distances (kind of like age/dating methods which also don't work).  I don't think they can really measure to 16 billion light years using those assumptions.  Do you?

I can tell you that Inverse Square works perfectly on a dark night, telling the distance to a light bulb as seen across a lake.  But 16 billion light years?

As Biden would say, "Come on man!"

 

Minor point: Parallax has been extended quite a bit with the use of the ESA/NASA Gaia satellite launched some years ago. It can determine distances to several 10's of thousands of light years. Hubble Space Telescope can also use a methodology up to 10,000 ly.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by teddyv

[BeyondET]

23 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I don't doubt that happened; I'm merely noting that it wouldn't explain the giant cyclops story.

 

Or they exaggerated on the giant part hehe. but there was giants in the past rather they had one eye or two who knows. Sultan Kosen is 8'3 now that is giant level least to me it is at only 5'8 lol.

Edited April 29, 2021 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Minor point: Parallax has been extended quite a bit with the use of the ESA/NASA Gaia satellite launched some years ago. It can determine distances to several 10's of thousands of light years. Hubble Space Telescope can also use a methodology up to 10,000 ly.

 

They may claim that, but I really don't believe that.   The problem is that those satellites and even Hubble deals with the same 16 minutes angle.   They cannot get around it.

Now they recently used a photo from Voyager 1, I hear.  That would expand the base of the triangle considerably, but it's still not dealing with 16 billion light years.

[teddyv]

7 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They may claim that, but I really don't believe that.   The problem is that those satellites and even Hubble dealswith the same 16 minutes angle.   They cannot get around it.

Now they recently used a photo from Voyager, I hear.  That would expand the base of the triangle considerably, but it's still not dealing with 16 billion light years.

Regarding Gaia:

"On Jan. 8, 2014, Gaia entered its operational orbit around the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point, about 932,000 miles (1.5 million kilometers) from Earth, when its engine fired to boost the spacecraft into a 163,000 × 439,000-mile (263,000 × 707,000-kilometer) halo orbit with a period of 180 days."

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Couldn't happen; magma is melted mantle material, which is much denser than the rock that forms continents.   You can get some islands forming from volcanoes.   Anak Krakatoa is one that formed in human history, but Iceland, the Hawaiian Islands, and others are so formed.

 

Surtsey is the only one currently that is expected to last, llha Nova is now connected to Faai island, and newly created landmass adjacent to Nishinoshima is now connected to Nishinoshima and became one large landmass.

Edited April 29, 2021 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

48 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Regarding Gaia:

"On Jan. 8, 2014, Gaia entered its operational orbit around the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point, about 932,000 miles (1.5 million kilometers) from Earth, when its engine fired to boost the spacecraft into a 163,000 × 439,000-mile (263,000 × 707,000-kilometer) halo orbit with a period of 180 days."

 

Maybe you don't understand?   With the satellite, you are talking about a puny 932,000 miles like that is some great distance.  

In the graphic above and without the named satellite, you see that we are riding on the Earth itself, and we can take two photos of the same object (Star A) 6 months apart, one in July and one in January, making the distance of our triangle base about 186 million miles apart.   With that massive distance, we still cannot measure much past the closest stars (4 light years Alpha Centauri), and surely not 10,000 light years away.  I will give you 100 light years with computer correction, but Parallax cannot do much with our present angular limitations, and 100 light years is more of a fantasy. 

Right now, Voyager 1 is about 143,130,908,168 miles away and counting, which is why I say the distance between us and Voyager 1 shows a promising triangle base, but it's still not going to touch billions of light years worth of measurement. 

[teddyv]

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

 

Maybe you don't understand?   With the satellite, you are talking about a puny 932,000 miles like that is some great distance.  

In the graphic above and without the named satellite, you see that we are riding on the Earth itself, and we can take two photos of the same object (Star A) 6 months apart, one in July and one in January, making the distance of our triangle base about 186 million miles apart.   With that massive distance, we still cannot measure much past the closest stars (4 light years Alpha Centauri), and surely not 10,000 light years away.  I will give you 100 light years with computer correction, but Parallax cannot do much with our present angular limitations. 

Right now, Voyager 1 is about 143,130,908,168 miles away and counting, which is why I say the distance between us and Voyager 1 shows a promising triangle base, but it's still not going to touch billions of light years. 

I am not trying to suggest that we can use parallax to the ends of the universe. 

My initial point was that our parallax baseline is bigger than what it has been and we can now extend that - hence why I just prefaced that post with "Minor point:...". You made the additional point that Voyager can also help out, which is cool. That's all I was doing. I know it's only a small increment.

The further we can measure with parallax is a good thing.

[JohnR7]

12 hours ago, Sparks said:

Below is proverbs, translated into modern English. 

You did not answer my question: What or when is the "perfect day"?