Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The Oldest Fossils

Paul,
Here's something to get you stared.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm

But even if the earliest fossils were in the Cambrian, it would not be a blow to the theory of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

"Im not ignorant , and your generalized statement above is false"
You're not aware of your ignorance, which makes you foolish, as well.

"you must percieve yourself as being ignorant "
Yes. I am ignorant.

"assume that all people are ignorant."
A reasonable conclusion to reasonable people.

"if science is wrong about something and can be overturned"
You were saying previously that science only accepts things that are not erroneous. Can I assume we have at least gotten past that hurdle?

"bring on the massive amounts of data that evoloution built there foundation on !!"
The information is on the net. If you were to look at something other than creationist websites, you would be able to find it yourself.

There is nothing bad about being wrong. False does not mean evil or bad or stupid. But falseness does not adequately describe creationism. It is not just wrong, but stupid.

so if some gullible person that thinks that life such as this..

[img][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/LeggedTrilobite2.jpg/180px-LeggedTrilobite2.jpg[/img] [/img]

evolved , instantaineously everywhere on the earth from this



and of course here is our amazing little microscopic
fossilized colony of bacteria.



then ...



well we now have the massve amount of evidence for evoloution.

and it was a instant , worldwide , outbreak of evoloution !!!

that is what is stupid , but stupid is , stupid does.


LOL ... from microscopic to something you can actually see...

instantly !!!


here are pictures that relate the amazing feats of evoloution.

picture 1 - bacteria

you will need your microscope for viewing picture 1 as this is a life sized image.

picture 2 - trilobites

the image below has been scaled in size to fit your screen.



AHHHHH ... the wonders of evoloution .

What a FARCE !!!

"evolved , instantaineously everywhere on the earth"
No scientists say or imply that the myriad of life forms evolved instantaneously. Hundreds of millions of years is not "instantaneously."

"instantly !!!"
The problem isn't that you are merely ignorant.

Besides which this specifically refutes your claim that the oldest fossils are only ~500 My old. Furthermore, even if there were no fossils older than that, the evolution since that time has still not been refuted.

The fossil evidence of evolution is not the existence of fossils, but the ordering and dispersion of the fossils in time and space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

true , but in geological time frames , how about 5-10 million years!!

excerpt from your previously chosen web site.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm


on the fifth day of Creation
Genesis 1:20


you further lessen your readability with these wild exagerations
when you transition 5-10 into hundreds!!!

but I suppose 5-10 million years would have sounded too dramatic...or instantaineous.



how could refuse refute refuse !

" how about 5-10 million years!!"
Also not instantaneously.

"you further lessen your readability with these wild exagerations"
Are you a complete idiot or are you intentionally trying to misrepresent what I said? The main jump took place over 10s of millions of years. But - contrary to your previous assertions that life just started about 500 million years ago - life started long before that and evolution was taking place far longer than that.

"how could refuse refute refuse !"
I don't hold much hope that you are capable of understanding what you read. Your primary references to date seems to have been Carl Baugh and Adnan Oktar, neither of whom is a scientist, both of whom have been thoroughly and devastatingly refuted by real scientists, and neither of whom is particularly knowledgeable of science as even an amateur.

To Ellis,

I'm not sure whether we should call "evolution" a science in itself. OTOH, I'm not sure it's important. It is a theory that ties together many disparate observations from many disparate disciplines - biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, physics.

Evolution is an observed fact. We see it clearly in the fossil record and we have witnessed macro-evolution in the life-span of human beings. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

tff



10s of millions would place the period from 20my - 90 my

5 - 10 my is not 10s of millions of years.




so now you have graduated evoloution into a fact vs a theory.

ipso facto

"5 - 10 my is not 10s of millions of years."
Poor recollection on my part. 5 to 10 is still not "instantaneous."

" fact vs a theory."
Theories do not graduate into become facts.The germ theory of disease is still a theory, even though it is a fact that some germs cause some diseases.

The word "theory" does not reflect any level of certainty - any more than the word "law" does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTaiP04UlxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un-I0mRq8Dw

There is no "graduating" into facts and there is no opposition between fact and theory.

FF- Paul does not understand the meaning of the word 'theory' nor does he understand the word 'science'. You are correct, no word reflects certainty, (I'm on home ground here!), and we each bring our own interpretation to help us to understanding. However maybe it is Paul's individual interpretation of information that is so dogmatic, rather than the actual science involved.

The problem with evolution is, scientists can be never sure about it. Now they're speculating, for example, the life has come into Earth from Ceres planetoid.
.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090305-am-ceres-earth-life.html
.
Such speculation could explain every great species explosion, including the formation of human species.

Zephir wrote:

"The problem with evolution is, scientists can be never sure about it."

Exactly! That's the whole point! Only Creationists are sure about things--to the point of dogmatic usually. Scientists can never be sure of anything, that's why they work so hard to discover what is the most likely explanation. And who knows, having landed here the little green men from Ceres may have started evolving like mad into all the things we know and love. Or their microbes and bits would have formed the much-loved SF plot device, "primordial soup", and happily evolved from that! The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life on earth, but the origin of the SPECIES of life on earth. There is a difference.

"scientists can be never sure about it."

Scientists are not so sure of the particulars, but of the general theory, they are as certain as they are that the germs cause disease or that electrons exist.

"we have witnessed macro-evolution in the life-span of human beings."

Macroevolution...Not macro-evolution. Example, please? I did not know that we have witnessed macroevolution.

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1GwkFmylY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU

Of course many creationists reject macroevolution outright, almost always by attempting to redefine the meaning of the term.

you sound pretty sure about that , but I guess not!



there must not be any practicing scientist that post on this
forum then , because from what I've read they are all prety sure
that creation is wrong , they have no evidence , they are just sure that there sure ...

tff


I watched the darwhinist videos you posted , and I though all
this stuff was more or less common knowlege , such as the different dog species that were bred from wolves.

and all of the different rodent species , and flowers , and
insects and such .

I noticed that the person who made these unregistered videos
didnt take the time to research what he was opposing , the video
seems to think that there were only two of each kind...

Genesis 7:2



in the videos he stated that if only two of each species of
insect was in the ark , the ark would sink.

now Im sure you realize that if the ark were filled with only the original species and not the multitude of diversities that have appeared since the time of the flood , that the insects
could easily have fit into just the roof and walls of the ark
and there were three ceilings inside , along with three floors
when you add in the walls , there was plenty of space for the insects.

Genesis 6:16


Im not sure why this person seems to rely on evoloution to fullfill his needs and deny evoloution at the same time by making this type of claim as his videos depicts rapid evoloution
in insects.

the ark was 100 cubits [L] x 50 cubits [W] x 30 cubits [H]
as for the size of a cubit the cubit has changed or evolved
over the years itself.



1 cubit = .5 meters or 523 millimeters = 0.523 meters



1 cubit = 1.2 meters or 120 centimeters = 1.2 meters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit

Granted that Moses wrote Genesis , what was passed down to him
through memory as a measurement of lenght ie.. the cubit , could
have over thousands of years or longer before he wrote it down
been a measurement much like the roman 4 foot cubit.

judging from the size of the window.

so the ark could have been apx 1/2 a football field
or well over a football field in lenght
and width.

120 meters = 131.23... yds

using dogs as a basis , how many different breeds / species are there today?

and supposedly all these species/ breeds came from a single species of "wolf" in a not so distant past.

but back to the sinking of the Ark by just the insects...

does this person realize that the Ark could have displaced
over 566 million pounds of water?

which is the weight of 3.7 million - 150 lb men !!!

how many pounds does an insect weight?

just thinking about this , I could most likely carry several million ants or more myself , in a grocery bag !!


how many species / breeds / variations of animals / insects were there back before the flood?

one video or program I have watched recently states that 98% of all species that have ever lived on the earth are now extinct.



I must not be the average creationist , I dont try to re-define things , I just try to re-create the scenario or try to find if the scenario is or is not possible.

and when something doesnt seem quite right I dont just fall in line with everybody else who thinks its right.

"Granted that Moses wrote Genesis".....?

------ when was this curious suggestion made? Who decided this?

It's unfortunate that the video poster spent time referring to the ark which wasn't directly relevant to the point. The genesis story is beautiful literature and nothing more. It's so patently absurd as to be unworthy of serious attempts at refutation.

The central point of my posting those links was to provide examples of speciation. Speciation, by definition, is an example of macroevolution. Macroevolution has been observed.

Moreover, while it is convenient for the sake of the political debate over evolution that humans have witnessed macroevolution, it's not necessary from a scientific standpoint. That is, we could accept macroevolution with reasonable certainty without anyone ever having witnessed it.

Ellis,

We use words like 'sure' and 'certain' in ambiguous ways. I think scientists have reasonable certainty about things, but they don't have absolute certainty. Science can't give us absolute certainty.

Not just theories, but laws, facts, etc. are always open to re-investigation and questioning. Even something as strongly held as the 1st law of thermodynamics is questioned. Are there constraints on the 1st law of thermodynamics? For example, does the existence of virtual particles violate the 1st law?

Ellis

most Bible scholars believe that Moses wrote the first
five books of the Bible , and when Moses wrote these first
books , including the first book Genesis he was writting the
history of the Hebrew people , history that had been passed down
generation after generation.

http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/moses.html

Moses was the adopted son of a Egyptian Pharohs daughter.

He at length became “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians”
as he attended universities, and at one of which, probably that of Heliopolis, his education was completed.

Heliopolis

He probably would have studied the engineering techniques and the sciences that were available in Egypt at the time.

He became a General in the Egyptian army , and was in service
durring the war between Egypt and Ethiopia.


who wrote the first five books , the Bible.

he caught someone mistreating one of the Hebrew slaves and
moses being a Hebrew himself , killed him then burried him in the sand.

Rameses II found out and wanted to kill moses so he left town and moved to sinai.

he came back later and freed the Hebrew slaves , and they all left Egypt , pretty interesting stuff.

here is a link to an online reference where you can read these
books.

this link is to a online copy of the king james version of the Bible.

the bottom two links are to the Hebrew Bible
and the latin vulgate version of the Bible.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/

tff



It is unfortunate that creationist and evoloutionist are always
squabling at each other , myself included.

I think there are many things that science could learn from the Bible , even if it is just a hint or a clue here and there
that might lead them to a discovery or help to explain a discovery , although much of the information passed down to Moses
might have very well been lost or missinterpreted , even so the Bible should be considered as one of our oldest history books.

I myself consider the Bible as the Word of God.

however , I also try to use the Bible as a guideline and a major reference to ancient times.

For the Creationists in this discussion I have 2 questions:

Q1. You mention Moses and the freeing of the Hebrews. Is there any record of the Hebrew slaves in writings in Egypt?

Q2. During the Deluge the world was covered with water. Which fish survived: trout or shark? One lives in fresh water and the other in salt water. Were the oceans fresh or salty during the Deluge?

stereologist



significant physical evidence can be found in the below link.

http://www.zaqen.info/evidence.html


a tablet mentioning the departure of Israelites from Egypt


slaves were always depicted naked so that they would not be confused as egyptians.

a list of slaves , including Hebrew.

.........................................................



http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html







according to the Bible , before the flood , there was no rain.

a mist came up from the earth , not rain , this mist is what we now call dew , that still occurs throughout the earth durring the night or when conditions allow.

we dont know the date that the flood occured , however
we can put pieces of geological evidence together to determine
what might have been a close date.

what the fountains were , could be that the earth passed through a hydrogen cloud , a comets trail , or the earths mantle might have heated up enought to evaporate massive amounts of water from the crust.

every day the history of events in the Bible are being found to be actual events that occured , and not myths as many believe or think them to be , and as knowledge increases these findings increasingly support the validity of the Bible.

The "Israel Stele" mentions the Hebrews, but not their presence in in Egypt at all, let alone in any numbers.

The picture of the slaves doesn't indicate they are Hebrews.

A list with some Hebrew names is hardly the number the Bible talks about.

Also, consider this:
We can use satellites to locate sites where 2 or 3 people camped the night in the desert 5000 years ago - and there is no evidence that 100s of thousands of people wandered about the desert for any length of time. Of course, that doesn't actually prove anything, since God could have cleaned up after them. That's the thing with miracles. We can always use them to explain discrepancies.

I think most serious scholars doubt there was any great number of hebrews in Egypt. This, of course, does not entirely discount the story. It's possible that something happened and the story was elaborated and exaggerated before being written down.

As I pointed out and you agree by showing flimsy evidence, there is an amazing lack of evidence for the exodus and events leading up to exodus.

I read the web link. The equivocal nature of the writing of the text says, "we have no idea" quite clearly to me.
1. Many organisms can adapt - many don't
2. "We do not know how salty the sea was before the flood" - sorry it is possible to estimate ancient salient
3. "the flood must have been associated with massive earth movements" - why isn't this explained?
4. "because of the weight of the water alone, which would have resulted in great volcanic activity" - this makes no sense to me

That's a lot of conjecture and guessing without facts.

Ever try to figure out how much water we are talking about to flood the entire earth? How many Atlantic oceans of water do you think it takes?

stereo


I dont recall you pointing anything out ! not in this thread.

unless the egyptians have striken it from the record , you have only input the following , so far.



your reply to my post was 2 questions.



it seems that there is more evidence of egyptian cover ups.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos




You asked if there were any records , I posted physical evidence
of records of egyptian's slaves.

perhaps you know more about these records than those who study
them.



are you refering to this web link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

because if you are then I agree.
"we have no idea" quite clearly sums it up.


You could probably find a ancient artifact written in modern english with ancient videos alongside it , and a users manual
on how to play the video in the video player that you also found alongside it , which just so happens to be sitting on top of a complete set of ancient encylopedias.

thats how its done right?

to listen to you guys , why do we even bother to find anything
ancient if it is ignored just because it might tend to validate the bible.

and let me set you straight.



No ! I dont agree.



Yes ! I agree.

You can learn to understand however , then things will make much more sense to you , try basic physics , but first you should get common sense down pat.




http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html

hmmm.



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUSM.M42A..04S

That ought to about cover it.

this might even be
"the fountains of the great deep"
spoken of in Genesis.


this is the way I see it.

it was all recorded in the Bible , then it was FOUND by science.