Creationism vs Evolution

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Still waiting for someone with a “scientific mind” to tell me in simple terms how a fossil is formed…

I would very much like to see you knock the satin teddy off BetaBerry (especially if she’s holding a camera at the time), so does your non-dodge apply to other “old Earth” evidence (Antarctic ice cores for instance) or is it limited to fossils?

OK, the Berry must be helping a customer try on one of these ^^^^ so YOU answer the “How are fossils formed” question. See if you can do it without using Google or a book. Try using your memory.[/quote]

Okay…Dead animal (or plant) that doesn’t get discovered by scavengers (so remains more-or-less intact). Rapid coverage by something inorganic and soft (like vocanic ash or mud) to aid the protection plus reduce oxygen levels to slow down rotting. Then the soft body parts will slowly be digested by the bacteria living in the gut of the animal to leave the hard bits behind. The hard bits will then take up mineral particles from the ash/mud/sand surrounding them as they slowly dry and break down. The original ash/mud/sand covering will be solidifying into rock all the while this is going on, due to pressure from above as more “stuff” builds up.

Or a dinosaur leaves footprints in a muddy riverbed that dries out, gets covered with soil/debris/ash and eventually becomes rock due to pressure of layers building up over time. Since nothing will try and eat a footprint they are more likely to survive in exposed areas.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
When the Berry PMs me some pics of her modeling some Secret girlie things you will be first on my list when it comes to forwarding said pics!

[/quote]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Why do you struggle against my nudging? The facts are, 100% of the time, the body (plant or animal), cannot decay before fossilization occurs. Right? C’mon, man, cough it up.

Or do you want to assert that a dead plant or animal can rot away into nothingness and then somehow, magically, a fossil appears out of nowhere? No, no, no, you don’t want to assert that. So tell me what ABSOLUTELY must happen for fossilization to occur. If you tell me that a dead, carbon based life form can just lay on the ground or in the water for millions of years and bacteria will not consume it while the gods of evolution work their magic…then…I am going to laugh at you far louder than you presume to laugh at the Flood.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this strawman from. Have I not already said that sediment covering an organism will preserve it, and told you about the mechanisms by which is does this? What about falling in to a tar bit, which causes quite rapid preservation? Or the example I gave above about old Darwinius? You know actually bits can decay before fossilisation occurs, which is why there are far more fossils of bones (which take freaking ages to decay) than soft tissues. Like I already said, it depends on the tissues and the circumstances. When have I ever even vaguely hinted that a “dead, carbon based life form can just lay on the ground or in the water for millions of years and bacteria will not consume it”?

Please, stop this duplicity, what both of us have written is on this board for anyone to see and you’re making a fool of yourself by conjuring up things I am supposed to have said.

You apparently think that there is one thing that must happen for fossilisation, and I’m pretty sure you think it was a global flood, which very rapidly covered animals with layers of sediment and pressure (please correct me if I’m wrong on this though). If that was so, where does coal from?

Settle down, friend. Your panties are wadded up so tightly in your ass crack that you are subject to your scrotum being fossilized from the heat and pressure. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Say, “I’m going to play in Push’s sandbox and behave myself for awhile.”

You did not emphasize until now that the body must be covered in mud quickly before scavengers or bacteria work their will. Then pressure and heat do their thing.

So, in the creationist model we have an idea, the Great Flood, that says if it did indeed occur we would expect to find millions of dead things, covered in mud, weighed down by water, all over the earth. What do we find on the terrestrial orb of ours, JabbyTightPanties? Voila! We find evidence of millions of dead things that at one time were covered in mud then weighed down by water all over the earth.

And the really cool thing is fossils have been known to form in a relatively short time, ~ 100 - 200 years. Want proof?

Coal can form rapidly too. Want proof? Huh?
[/quote]
You have serious reading comprehension problems. I’ve already said that I know that fossils can form in a short time. Please do enlighten me about the rapid formation of coal though.

I’m not entirely sure where you got the idea that I was unsettled from, but evidently someone who is so totally lacking in evidence feels the need to resort to childish taunts. That’s ok, you’ve done it before; I’d expect nothing less, or more, from you by now.

If the flood provided such perfect circumstances for fossilisation, why are fossils so rare? How do you explain geological strata and the ages of things? Surely you’re not suggesting that the majority of fossils we have today are from the same period of time? Did dinosaurs live with humans?

I’d really like you to provide me with some evidence for a global flood too. Pretty please.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
You never go full retard.

I noticed.

Hey Aragorn, that was a sly reference, right?[/quote]

Damn straight. Nice catch my friend. This thread is short on humor and high on stress…

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
BTW:

"Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.

Radio Halo

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. Squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. Orphan Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals."

Push this is from that crap article you posted earlier. If you remember correctly the author thought that evolution had something to say about comets, which was most amusing, in addition to many other flaws which I can through in further detail if you wish. Anyway, knowing that, I struggle to understand why you think it’s a credible source.

Anyway;

"
Polonium forms from the alpha decay of radon, which is one of the decay products of uranium. Since radon is a gas, it can migrate through small cracks in the minerals. The fact that polonium haloes are found only associated with uranium (the parent mineral for producing radon) supports this conclusion, as does the fact that such haloes are commonly found along cracks (Brawley 1992; Wakefield 1998).

The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments. Thus, all of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows. It is possible God created this appearance of age, but that reduces Gentry’s argument to the omphalos argument, for which evidence is irrelevant (Wakefield 1998).

Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes from which Gentry’s samples came, showing that living things existed before the rocks that Gentry claimed were primordial (Wakefield 1998)."

Which is from here; CF201: Polonium Haloes

Pushharder, you need to try harder.

Nothing wrong with debate on the issue. That’s what science is all about. Do you think Wakefield is infallible?

[/quote]

Nobody’s infallible, but I think his argument puts Gentry’s on the ropes.

Push: Can I get the name of the book again? The thread has blown up to epic proportions and I don’t feel like combing through it.

My new gym is about 5 minutes from the library, so I can pick it up soon. I’ll have a book title for you soon enough.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The great Flood of Noahâ??s day which destroyed a world full of life is the best explanation.
[/quote]

Oh boy. But I agree with you on one point, we all do make a leap of faith.

As the opening clips asks: Did we ever figure out if God ‘spake’ to Charles Darwin? ;>

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
pushharder wrote:
The great Flood of Noah�¢??s day which destroyed a world full of life is the best explanation.

Oh boy. But I agree with you on one point, we all do make a leap of faith.[/quote]

Yes, I agree: one must pick the hypothesis which they find most likely. As Socrates said, and I agree with this is, the one thing I know is that I know nothing at all. I would add “I know nothing for sure” to that statement because life is a journey where one tries to discover the truth.

Unfortunately (and this is a CONSTANT SOURCE of pain and frustration to me. you cannot imagine how happy I would be were this not so) many religious belief models have a very strong confirmation bias, which makes them very difficult to take seriously.

Confirmation bias is when you begin with a conclusion (The earth was created 10.000 yrs ago by God because some people in the Middle East said so) and then fill in the gaps by interpretting the information in a way which favours that confirmation. Contradictory evidence must be considered false/irrelevant.

The belief systems are actively built to support such thinking: Why do you believe in God? Because of the proof in the Bible. Why do you believe the Bible? Because it is the word of God. (I have met Christians who were open minded, but their faith has struck me more as a general theism rather than literal Christianity: which begs the question, what merit do those beliefs have?)