The unearthing of whale skeletons in a desert ignites a debate of creationism versus evolution.

reply to post by edmc^2

I love to see what science say about the true age of them "bones ans seashells" instead of just wild guesses on the age of the mountains.

Besides were talking Science here - NOT a guessing game barcs - 400 myo, 200 myo, 130 myo, 70 myo, 40-50 myo, 10-12 myo -

know what I mean?

Who's playing a guessing game? The age of the fossils will vary depending on the type of species, when they lived, and when the fossil layers were formed. If you can find evidence to suggest any of the fossils found were from the past 10,000 years, I'd love to see it. You keep asking silly questions and making diversions like "What if the fossils are younger than the mountains". They aren't. What if a giant pink unicorn created the earth in a mega fart? Assumptions and hypothetical situations aren't factual, and acting like they are is a logical fallacy. If the great flood were true and the fossils are simply from a recent ocean rising 5000 feet, they wouldn't appear in fossil layers that date millions of years old. The only reason we even see the fossils is because those layers are exposed by the earth's crust being forced up when the mountains were created. No magical great flood or creator necessary.

reply to post by nixie_nox



I think this is where people get confused - they think that fossil (bones/shells) are millions and millions of years old because the minerals that replaced the soft tissues are millions and millions years of old, but in fact the actual specimen is only hundred / thousands of years old.

U said:

That is just silly. We know they are old because they do not exist today and are found in ancient rock layers. The burial and preservation of the fossil can be fast, which is why we find intact skeletons, but the actual fossilizatio process itself takes a very long time. Or else we would find fossils that are only a few thousand years old. The minimum to be considered a fossil is 10,000 years.

I don't think it's silly - but it's a fact.

Like u said - "We know they are old because they do not exist today and are found in ancient rock layers".

SO in actuality we are dating the rocks or to be precise the minerals that the fossils were buried / entombed in - not the actual specimen. Thus the age of the fossil is based on the age of the rock. The older the rock the older the fossil will be.

And like I said - I have no problem with the earth being 4byo - if that's the case.


But if we actually date the specimen - an intact seashell for example - one that is not affected by it's environment through the process of fossilization then we will get a different result imho.


Of course that's impossible to achieve since fossils are just the way they are - fossilized.

(note: even this one too - is highly susceptible to error due to the life of carbon present in the specimen)

Also, I might add that the earth's mantle / crust - as explained by scientists - is continually being renewed due to the movement of the plates. So a million years later the crust that was once on the surface is now miles beneath the earth's crust - until a million years later will get recycled again - and again. So old will become new and the new will become old.

But the crust that are in between opposing plates will be pushed ever upward - like in the Himalayas. Thus a million years later it becomes a towering mountain -like the Everest.

It is the fossils that are now sitting on top these towering mountains - that did not went through the recycle process - that's the part I'd like to know. Even the ones found at 5000 feet elevation. How old are these artifacts?

But if you believe them to be 200 - 70 myo - then so be it, all I'm saying is I'd like to know the correct (not guessed) age.

Well your own sources says 20-15 million years ago. The mountains rose 15 million years ago. So I fail to see what the problem is here. Whales hit the sea about 50 millon years ago so there is no problem there either.

Would be good if this can be confirmed - that them whale bones are some 50 myo - older the mountains themselves.

And this brings me to this fact - that IF - the "The mountains rose 15 million years ago" to their present heights - then the area was no doubt under water, correct?

The area from which these mountains rose was an ocean or a sea populated by whales, correct?

Thus at one point in time the earth or a large part of it was under water - correct?

Otherwise Pangea is another possibility.

Bottom line - lot of these fossil dates being thrown around are really not based on solid facts but just best guesses - at least that's my guess. What about you?

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I love to see what science say about the true age of them "bones ans seashells" instead of just wild guesses on the age of the mountains.

Besides were talking Science here - NOT a guessing game barcs - 400 myo, 200 myo, 130 myo, 70 myo, 40-50 myo, 10-12 myo -

know what I mean?

Who's playing a guessing game? The age of the fossils will vary depending on the type of species, when they lived, and when the fossil layers were formed. If you can find evidence to suggest any of the fossils found were from the past 10,000 years, I'd love to see it. You keep asking silly questions and making diversions like "What if the fossils are younger than the mountains". They aren't. What if a giant pink unicorn created the earth in a mega fart? Assumptions and hypothetical situations aren't factual, and acting like they are is a logical fallacy. If the great flood were true and the fossils are simply from a recent ocean rising 5000 feet, they wouldn't appear in fossil layers that date millions of years old. The only reason we even see the fossils is because those layers are exposed by the earth's crust being forced up when the mountains were created. No magical great flood or creator necessary.

U said:

Who's playing a guessing game?

Not me. Evolutionits are the ones who keeps throwing dates - this is 200myo, that one is 130myo, that one is 70myo - etc.

To prove my point, here's what you said:

The age of the fossils will vary depending on the type of species, when they lived, and when the fossil layers were formed.

Where did they based the age? Was it based on solid facts or best guess? From what process?

As for:

Assumptions and hypothetical situations aren't factual, and acting like they are is a logical fallacy.

That's why evolution theory will never be a fact - because it's based on many "Assumptions and hypothetical situations".

For example where did they based the image below from?



Is it based on irrefutable facts or more on assumptions and imaginations?

Same thing with the fossil records - a lot of the claims are just that - claims.

As for:

The only reason we even see the fossils is because those layers are exposed by the earth's crust being forced up when the mountains were created.

Is that a guess? The Only reason?

I doubt it.

reply to post by AlreadyGone

Is great to have your cake and eat it too eh?

I wouldn't be too smurfy. Somebody is going to smack down hard on your "God created earth in 6 days." Oh sure, you can abandon that and go onto something else, but don't you get tired?

Always running, looking for a handhold, looking for a reason to believe.

reply to post by edmc^2

I'm referring to the ones just on the surface or just a few inches/feet below)

Fossils form in sedimentary rock. Sediments do not form on mountaintops.

Hopefully you can get hold of (Myers and Dawkins) i love to see the answers - to the question: How old them "bones and seashells?

I don’t plan to ask them any questions. I just plan to link them to this thread so that we can all laugh at you.

The answers to all your questions are well known. There is no mystery about them, except in the minds of baffled creationists.

Professor Astyanax

No-one needs to be a professor to answer your questions. Paying attention in grade school is all that is required.

reply to post by Astyanax


U said:

Fossils form in sedimentary rock. Sediments do not form on mountaintops..

But who's saying that? Any 5th grader knows that "Sediments do not form on mountaintops".

Where did you get such an idea - unless you're reffering to what barc's said:

That is -

The only reason we even see the fossils is because those layers are exposed by the earth's crust being forced up when the mountains were created

As for this:

I don’t plan to ask them any questions. I just plan to link them to this thread so that we can all laugh at you.

Of course people who do that only show the weakness of their platform.

So go ahead and laugh...at your own detriment.

The answers to all your questions are well known. There is no mystery about them, except in the minds of baffled creationists.

Except - to the question I asked you, that is

How old are the fossils that are on top of the Himalayan peaks?

And no - it's not baffleling but interesting.

And like I said - many if not all of the numbers provided by "experts" as to the ages of the fossils are just estimates, rough numbers - based on the age of the rocks that entombed them.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Old question - been answered so many times already.

Ha, ok thanks for the info...LOL
Let me guess is the answer about "God beeing outside of time and space?"

FYI that is not an answer, it's a travesty; the fact that you deflect that question, but urge people with a different view to produce evidence about heir claims, is really saying it all...

How old are the fossils that are on top of the Himalayan peaks

so here we go, we'll aply the same (lack) of reason and logic to your ridiculous questions:
Answer to your question is : "that's an old question, been answered many times..."

Originally posted by edmc^2
But who's saying that? Any 5th grader knows that "Sediments do not form on mountaintops".

So that answers your question, doesn't it? The fossils are as old as the rock they are encased in. Their age can be be determined by using well known Geological data.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Except - to the question I asked you, that is

How old are the fossils that are on top of the Himalayan peaks?

Asking the same question over and over, despite getting answers, is just showing you to be a typical God botherer who will ignore facts and figures that disprove your own wonky argument.

Originally posted by edmc^2
And like I said - many if not all of the numbers provided by "experts" as to the ages of the fossils are just estimates, rough numbers - based on the age of the rocks that entombed them.

So you've actually answered your own question! It would be impossible for a fossil to form from one time period but be buried in rocks from another, unless "the Devil put them there", lol.

And it isn't "estimates" or "rough numbers" like you're implying, it is actually quite precise (as much as it can be). I think you're really just trying to deflect because you either lack the knowledge to debate this topic well enough or you simply do not wish to acknowlegde facts that irrefutably disprove your nonsense.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Not me. Evolutionits are the ones who keeps throwing dates - this is 200myo, that one is 130myo, that one is 70myo - etc.

There's no such thing as an evolutionist.

Anyway, they're the dates you provided. Which were derived from geological data, as determined by geologists, not evolutionary biologists...

To edmc^2

D you use any electical devices?
Have you ever taken medication?
Is your house insultated against the heat or cold?
Do you own anything made out of plastic?
Have you ever seen a motor vehicle?
Did your mother die in childbirth (not long ago many mothers did)?
Are you older than 5 years old (not long ago many didn't make it that far)?

All of the above are a direct result of scientific investigation. Yet you deliberately attack the very method that science employs to bring you those things. One has to question why?

Originally posted by BagBing
To edmc^2

D you use any electical devices?
Have you ever taken medication?
Is your house insultated against the heat or cold?
Do you own anything made out of plastic?
Have you ever seen a motor vehicle?
Did your mother die in childbirth (not long ago many mothers did)?
Are you older than 5 years old (not long ago many didn't make it that far)?

All of the above are a direct result of scientific investigation. Yet you deliberately attack the very method that science employs to bring you those things. One has to question why?

edit on 30-11-2011 by BagBing because: (no reason given)

I love science - because of science I learned so many things about God's amazing creations.

How he put these things together in the most efficient way that man is now just learning how to copy the marvels of Creation - in fact I just created a thread talking specifically about copying Nature.

here it is in case you want to know: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway - it's not science that's in question here but it's about how science is being used in an unscientific way. Like for example - why do scientist use science as a guessing tool - without solid proof?

Then turn around and accept the "guesses or assumptions" as facts because it was based ON "science".

That's what I'm questioning.

Originally posted by BagBing

There's no such thing as an evolutionist.

I think you should let the Richard Dawkins Foundation to stop using that definition then.

"The Angry Evolutionist" you.

Anyway, they're the dates you provided. Which were derived from geological data, as determined by geologists, not evolutionary biologists...

Of course - geologist - evolutionist!

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by edmc^2
But who's saying that? Any 5th grader knows that "Sediments do not form on mountaintops".

So that answers your question, doesn't it? The fossils are as old as the rock they are encased in. Their age can be be determined by using well known Geological data.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Except - to the question I asked you, that is

How old are the fossils that are on top of the Himalayan peaks?

Asking the same question over and over, despite getting answers, is just showing you to be a typical God botherer who will ignore facts and figures that disprove your own wonky argument.

Originally posted by edmc^2
And like I said - many if not all of the numbers provided by "experts" as to the ages of the fossils are just estimates, rough numbers - based on the age of the rocks that entombed them.

So you've actually answered your own question! It would be impossible for a fossil to form from one time period but be buried in rocks from another, unless "the Devil put them there", lol.

And it isn't "estimates" or "rough numbers" like you're implying, it is actually quite precise (as much as it can be). I think you're really just trying to deflect because you either lack the knowledge to debate this topic well enough or you simply do not wish to acknowlegde facts that irrefutably disprove your nonsense.

u said:

So that answers your question, doesn't it? The fossils are as old as the rock they are encased in. Their age can be be determined by using well known Geological data.

That's exactly my point - what they are carbon dating is the rock itself - since the actual specimen no longer exist - unless it is the specimen.

DO you agree?

As for asking the q again - well I'm merely pointing that the answers at best are just guesses. That's is fact that I can't ignore. Don't you agree? But obviously it doesn't bother you.

Yet if I make a guess - it's a no no.

But you said:

So you've actually answered your own question! It would be impossible for a fossil to form from one time period but be buried in rocks from another, unless "the Devil put them there", lol.

And it isn't "estimates" or "rough numbers" like you're implying, it is actually quite precise (as much as it can be). I think you're really just trying to deflect because you either lack the knowledge to debate this topic well enough or you simply do not wish to acknowlegde facts that irrefutably disprove your nonsense.

Like I said already:

'Also, I might add that the earth's mantle / crust - as explained by scientists - is continually being renewed due to the movement of the plates. So a million years later the crust that was once on the surface is now miles beneath the earth's crust - until a million years later will get recycled again - and again. So old will become new and the new will become old.'

And by time geologists discovers the fossils it might have gone through several cycles already - thus the varying guesses.

So it's not a lack of knowledge but a lack of solid proof.

Like you said - "quite precise (as much as it can be)." - but up to what degree of precision? 5, 10, 20, 40 million years?


Yet when I present evidence of design supported by a very HIGH DEGREE of precision - it's not proof.

But when an evolutionary scientist / geologists say that "a fossil is 130 myo" it's precise.

Then I start questioning it - i'm told that I

either lack the knowledge to debate this topic well enough or you simply do not wish to acknowlegde facts that irrefutably disprove your nonsense

know what I mean?

Originally posted by XyZeR

Originally posted by edmc^2
Old question - been answered so many times already.

Ha, ok thanks for the info...LOL
Let me guess is the answer about "God beeing outside of time and space?"

FYI that is not an answer, it's a travesty; the fact that you deflect that question, but urge people with a different view to produce evidence about heir claims, is really saying it all...

How old are the fossils that are on top of the Himalayan peaks

so here we go, we'll aply the same (lack) of reason and logic to your ridiculous questions:
Answer to your question is : "that's an old question, been answered many times..."

edit on 30-11-2011 by XyZeR because: added stuff

Who created God? was your Q:

Answer - no one created him - He always Existed. Since God is the Creator of life - thus he has Life in himself and is able to share this life to his creations.

And yes you're are correct "God beeing outside of time and space".

Hove you ever think of where all of the energy in the universe came from?

There's only one answer - but I'll leave that to you to figure it out.

As for:

How old are the fossils that are on top of the Himalayan peaks?

no one really knows the precise age - but we can guess.

And guess what? Your guess is as good as mine.

reply to post by edmc^2

I love science.

In love with the unknown, eh?

It's not science that's in question here but it's about how science is being used in an unscientific way.

That is certainly how you are using it:

What they are carbon dating is the rock itself.

You can’t carbon-date rock, or anything else that doesn’t contain carbon.

The actual specimen no longer exist - unless it is the specimen.

Fossils form at the same time as the rock around them.

Slowly the weight of the sediment compacts the underlying areas, pressing the grains together, driving excess water out, and depositing minerals in the pores, and ultimately turning the soft sediment to hard rock - a process known as lithification.

Read the page from which I extracted that. It is written for junior readers and has plenty of nice pictures on it.

By time geologists discovers the fossils it might have gone through several cycles already.

Radiometric dating takes care of that issue. Rock dating.

How old are the fossils that are on top of the Himalayan peaks? No one really knows the precise age - but we can guess.

Give a radiometric dating lab a real fossil to work with and you will find out just how accurate the method can be.

reply to post by Astyanax

In love with the unknown, eh?

True Science - that is, not pseudo-science, as in evolution theory.

That is certainly how you are using it:

Exactly! Like asking questions as to what is pure guess and what is fact.

You can’t carbon-date rock, or anything else that doesn’t contain carbon.

And yet you say:

Radiometric dating takes care of that issue. Rock dating.

As for:

Read the page from which I extracted that. It is written for junior readers and has plenty of nice pictures on it.

Yes! I love pictures. thanks grandpa.

As for:

Slowly the weight of the sediment compacts the underlying areas, pressing the grains together, driving excess water out, and depositing minerals in the pores, and ultimately turning the soft sediment to hard rock - a process known as lithification.

So once" the soft sediment" turns into "hard rock" then you carbon-date it or to use the other terminology - you do the Radiometric dating. In other words you do "Rock dating" - I see, got it.

Give a radiometric dating lab a real fossil to work with and you will find out just how accurate the method can be.

Care to guess how accurate the reading will be or how precise it is?

I'm guessing within millions of years. Yes?

Now is that the science of how to accurately guess the age of a fossil?

will you date a fossil granpa?

reply to post by edmc^2

Originally posted by Astyanax
You can’t carbon-date rock, or anything else that doesn’t contain carbon.

Originally posted by edmc^2
And yet you say:

Originally posted by Astyanax
Radiometric dating takes care of that issue.

That’s right. Figure it out.

So once" the soft sediment" turns into "hard rock" then you carbon-date it or to use the other terminology - you do the Radiometric dating. In other words you do "Rock dating" - I see, got it.

You’re catching on – in spite of yourself.

Care to guess how accurate the reading will be or how precise it is?

I have already answered this question. Read the links.

I'm guessing within millions of years. Yes?

Why guess? Read the links.

reply to post by edmc^2


I believe god or the devil put those whale bones there 6,000 years ago to trick us!
Its a test of faith!

Jk, the only test of faith here is these darn creationists. Theyre worse than mosquitos

A creationist believing in a giant invisible space daddy for which there's ZERO objective evidence calls science "pseudo-science"...the irony is strong in this one

Oh, and just fyi, there's other radiometric dating methods than carbon dating...which is ecactly why we know how old the earth is

Please stop quoting everyone twice, it makes the thread hard to read. "U said". Yes that's how quotes work. You don't need to add that to every quote as if it makes a difference or I forgot that I said it.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Not me. Evolutionits are the ones who keeps throwing dates - this is 200myo, that one is 130myo, that one is 70myo - etc.

Um, different fossils date back to different time periods. If a species existed for 120 million years, than a fossil could date back to any time within that period. If you want specific examples, call a museum or go to the fossil museum website.

Where did they based the age? Was it based on solid facts or best guess? From what process?

That proves your point? How? You are asking questions that are very easily answered with a simple google search.

www.actionbioscience.org...

Read this. NOW if you have specific question, please quote it and ask them. Don't make a random general statement like, "but is that fact or theory?" Read the link and learn. I'm sure you are capable.

That's why evolution theory will never be a fact - because it's based on many "Assumptions and hypothetical situations".

www.talkorigins.org...

They aren't assumptions. Read it. If you have an issue with something please reference and tell me what it is.

For example where did they based the image below from?

Fossils.

Same thing with the fossil records - a lot of the claims are just that - claims.

The fossil record is not a person and doesn't make claims. Scientists that study them, do experiments and compare them to others to base their conclusions on that and what we already know about the fossil record, which is HUGE.

Is that a guess? The Only reason?

It's the reason for most of the ones in the Himalayas. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do some research, don't ask me vague questions about something you can find on google or find the answer out if you really want to know. The truth is, you don't really want to know, you want to attempt to trap people with semantics rather than scientific substance and evidence.