Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2015, 02:49 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 02:44 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I read it. It was a good lesson. It did confirm that Everest is believed to be around 470 million years old but it does not explain how a 3 million year old fossil was found on top of it.

Eagles.

Drinking Beverage
Or perhaps global warming is the culprit. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:44 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I read it. It was a good lesson. It did confirm that Everest is believed to be around 470 million years old but it does not explain how a 3 million year old fossil was found on top of it.

So, wait.. piles of rock that have been forming for 470 million years... and the fossil is 3 million years?

So.. at some point within the 470 million years the critter died, conditions were right and it slowly turned into a fossil.... while the mountains were being formed around/under them?

That still fits. We are talking millions of years. Don't know about you, but I find that a big number, though I've been told they get even bigger than that. Tongue

Now... if the fossil were, say, even older than the 470 million.. or maybe even a lot younger than the 470 million, yeah, maybe then you'd have your rabbit in the Cambrian example.

But... I can't see why this is a 'thing'? What am I missing? What bit of 'Really slow, but big changes happening over geological time' haven't I got? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
24-11-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:32 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 02:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, come on. Facepalm CITATIONS ARE REQUIRED.
I am trying to get the link. It was on science daily. I am working on it...jeeze.

I'm guessing that this is the article.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 02:58 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:53 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So, wait.. piles of rock that have been forming for 470 million years... and the fossil is 3 million years?

470my is an estimate of when what is at the top of everest now was at the bottom of the sea. The 3myo fossils were not found at the top. It wasn't until 50my ago that India collided with the region and began the major uplift and the fossils indicate that the area they are in was still under water 3my ago.

It is interesting, and may even indicate some revisions to the timeline are needed (I'll leave that to the geologists), but you are comparing apples and oranges.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
24-11-2015, 03:01 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:34 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 02:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  The fact that the bible mentions nephilim after the flood would lead someone to conclude that the whole story is bullshit. Drinking Beverage
Or the flood did not actually cover the entire earth.

Can't you read? It's the nephilim. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:49 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 02:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Eagles.

Drinking Beverage
Or perhaps global warming is the culprit. Wink

Oh, fuck. Are you one those idiots? Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 02:53 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 02:44 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I read it. It was a good lesson. It did confirm that Everest is believed to be around 470 million years old but it does not explain how a 3 million year old fossil was found on top of it.

So, wait.. piles of rock that have been forming for 470 million years... and the fossil is 3 million years?

So.. at some point within the 470 million years the critter died, conditions were right and it slowly turned into a fossil.... while the mountains were being formed around/under them?

That still fits. We are talking millions of years. Don't know about you, but I find that a big number, though I've been told they get even bigger than that. Tongue

Now... if the fossil were, say, even older than the 470 million.. or maybe even a lot younger than the 470 million, yeah, maybe then you'd have your rabbit in the Cambrian example.

But... I can't see why this is a 'thing'? What am I missing? What bit of 'Really slow, but big changes happening over geological time' haven't I got? Consider
It would be like someone discovering a poodle in the belly of a fossilized T-Rex.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 03:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 02:49 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Or perhaps global warming is the culprit. Wink

Oh, fuck. Are you one those idiots? Facepalm

Nah, he's a novel variety.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 03:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(24-11-2015 02:53 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So, wait.. piles of rock that have been forming for 470 million years... and the fossil is 3 million years?

So.. at some point within the 470 million years the critter died, conditions were right and it slowly turned into a fossil.... while the mountains were being formed around/under them?

That still fits. We are talking millions of years. Don't know about you, but I find that a big number, though I've been told they get even bigger than that. Tongue

Now... if the fossil were, say, even older than the 470 million.. or maybe even a lot younger than the 470 million, yeah, maybe then you'd have your rabbit in the Cambrian example.

But... I can't see why this is a 'thing'? What am I missing? What bit of 'Really slow, but big changes happening over geological time' haven't I got? Consider
It would be like someone discovering a poodle in the belly of a fossilized T-Rex.

I think you're reading way too much into it. The article states that the model for the uplift of the Tibetan plateau may need to be significantly revised. That's it.

Why are you going on about this anyway? How does it relate to Jesus/SuperGod and his... oh wait... don't tell me... global flood Facepalm

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(24-11-2015 03:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  It would be like someone discovering a poodle in the belly of a fossilized T-Rex.

No, that was my nod to the 'Rabbit in the Cambrian' distinction.

(24-11-2015 02:58 PM)unfogged Wrote:  470my is an estimate of when what is at the top of Everest now was at the bottom of the sea. The 3myo fossils were not found at the top. It wasn't until 50my ago that India collided with the region and began the major uplift and the fossils indicate that the area they are in was still under water 3my ago.

It is interesting, and may even indicate some revisions to the timeline are needed (I'll leave that to the geologists), but you are comparing apples and oranges.

Ah! So... some parts/areas/places/bits of the huge, geological area we're now talking about (Not just On'a-top Tongue) may/probably were doing their 'Reach for the sky' thing at different rates/times/etc. Hence, why it's all 'Geology'.

*Nods*

Cool, thank'e for the expansion/explanation. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: