Real Science Friday: What Museums Aren't Showing You

[fool]

Thanks for the info.
So, we see different eco systems and habitats as we move thru the layers?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

It's encased within rock, probably relatively well sealed. I don't know about baking, it was probably cool most of the time since any soil or rock that is under the earth a few feet stays relatively cool (ever been to a cave?). If it did actually bake very hot it would have been destroyed. But what does your, or Bob and Fred's personal opinions have to do with anything?

So you think the pigments could survive 150 million years, and all the climatic conditions over time that entails?

And? It's not like the squid is still squishy and it's not like a modern squid, it's a member of an entire group that is extinct. It still has a relatively large phragmocone unlike any of living cephalopods.

What makes you so sure we've discovered all the living cephalopods?

Is that why you told me that Dorudon can't possibly be a whale because it has feet?

Never heard of any other whale that had feet.

Even though in every other respect it looks exactly like something you WOULD call a whale?

Its nostrils are in the wrong place too. A whale's blowhole is on the top of its head, not in the front of its face.

There are so many things spread all across the earth that simply can't be explained by a few thousand years.

Sure they can. You just reject them because they don't fit within your paradigm. Which leads you into accepting scientific nonsense such as biological pigments lasting 150 million years without breaking down.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I'm no geologist but I do know the K/T boundary isn't there. The youngest rocks are from the Permian era, the K/T is between the Cretaceous and Tertiary. All the Cretaceous, Jurassic and later rocks have been eroded away.

Must have gotten a lot of storms back in those days.

 

[Alate_One]

So you think the pigments could survive 150 million years?

Why not? You've yet to give me a satisfactory explanation as to WHY you would think they would necessarily break down in a sealed container.

What makes you so sure we've discovered all the living cephalopods?

I'm not sure but I know that we find many things as fossils that no longer exist today. And we find them in a particular order.

Never heard of any other whale that had feet.

Other than all the fossil ones . . .

Its nostrils are in the wrong place too. A whale's blowhole is on the top of its head.

Except what you *would* call an ancient whale has it's nostrils in the exact same place as Dorudon.

There's a nice progression of where the nostrils are located in the fossil record.

Sure they can. You just reject them because they don't fit within your paradigm. Which leads you into accepting scientific nonsense such as biological pigments lasting 150 million years without breaking down.

No they can't, trust me I tried. It simply does not work. Why is pigment lasting 150 million years nonsense? Because you said so? What is nonsense is telling me all the layers of the Grand Canyon and all the mountains of the earth formed within a year's time. What is nonsense is telling me the universe is 10,000 years old and then coming up with crazy explanations for why we can see stars that are millions of light years away. I'm no fan of this guy's attitude but his explanation is very easy to understand. . . .

history of the universe

Creationist explanations are like the dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike. Eventually the pressure will become to great.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Except what you *would* call an ancient whale has it's nostrils in the exact same place as Dorudon.

When have I ever said I considered basilosaurus to be a whale? I think it's the same kind of animal as dorudon. In fact, I believe the dorudon might be a neotenous version of the basilosaurus.

 

[Alate_One]

When have I ever said I considered basilosaurus to be a whale? I think it's the same kind of animal as dorudon. In fact, I believe the dorudon might be a neotenous version of the basilosaurus.

So, you think these animals lose their legs as they grow? But you're not willing to accept the fact that modern whales do that as well? And frankly if Basilosaurus isn't a whale, what is it?

or that modern whales are sometimes born with hind limbs?

You, sir are simply full of contradictions.

Do you have an answer for the 4 layers of stromatolites (interspersed with non-fossiliferous layers) on top of one another at the bottom of the Grand Canyon?

 

[DavisBJ]

RSF: What Museums Aren't Showing You

This is the show from Friday April 15th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

* Squid Ink Correction: Bob Enyart starts the show with a correction about the allegedly "150-million" year old squid fossil which did NOT have liquid ink as Bob had erroneously stated. …

I think this is admirable on Bob’s part. It is a start. But in his capacity as a pastor, I wonder what he would do if someone came to him and admitted to an extramarital affair, yet Bob know there had been multiple affairs, and that they were on-going.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

So, you think these animals lose their legs as they grow?

Why would I think that? Basilosaurus and dorudon both had hind limbs, and I've seen no evidence suggesting they lost them as they grew.

But you're not willing to accept the fact that modern whales do that as well?

I've never seen a whale (modern or otherwise) with legs. I've seen a dolphin with an extra pair of flippers, but it didn't look like they were going anywhere to me.

And frankly if Basilosaurus isn't a whale, what is it?

What's a walrus? What's a manatee? It's just another aquatic mammal that isn't a whale.

You, sir are simply full of contradictions.

I haven't contradicted myself at all. Nor am I the one claiming that whales are born with legs and lose them as they grow.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I think this is admirable on Bob’s part. It is a start. But in his capacity as a pastor, I wonder what he would do if someone came to him and admitted to an extramarital affair, yet Bob know there had been multiple affairs, and that they were on-going.

Why don't you call up the show and ask him?

 

[DavisBJ]

Why don't you call up the show and ask him?

What would that accomplish?

 

[voltaire]

There are so many things
spread all across the earth
that simply can't be
explained by a few
thousand years. Go look at
the Grand Canyon and
explain why organisms are
so neatly ordered from
simple to complex, from
bottom to top. How could
you have no fossils at all on
the bottom, bunches of
marine trilobites and then
many feet up you have a
lizard-like creature
strolling along the beach
and have it's footprints
fossilized. You can't do that
in a single event.
How can you have layers of
rock that are tilted on their
sides and then have more
layers placed at an angle to
them? You can't do that in a
single event.
Why everywhere in the
world we see the same
pattern. Why species are
distributed the way they
are, why ancient forms and
their came to be scattered
across such distant
continents as South
America and Australia?
Nevermind all of the
evidence from stars
showing the universe (not
just the earth) is old . . .
You're dishonest with
yourself for even saying
the evidence supports YEC.
It simply does not in any
way shape or form. Only
cherry picking and wishful
thinking will lead anyone to
think it does.----- Alateone. While it is true that the evidence does not support a 6000 year old earth and it is impossible for the geologic column to be laid down in a year long flood, that same evidence doesnt necessarily support a 4.56 billion year old earth or a 14 billion year old universe or common descent from one ancestor or that evolution is random and undirected. I challenge you to show why any of the evidence you listed MUST only support the conclusions i listed.

 

[Paulos]

Voltaire,
are
you
and
Chrysostom
related?

 

[voltaire]

No paulos. Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you tell me what you object to in what i said.

 

[fool]

Voltaire,
are
you
and
Chrysostom
related?

Voltaire is shooting from his phone and can't format quotes from there.

 

[Stripe]

Cool!

Another fossil bearing strata with flattened out specimens. How do you reckon those formed, Alate?

 

[Nick M]

 

[Nick M]

I get the impression you two did not download the show. You would not have made the idiotic comment about the sabor tooth tiger.

 

[Alate_One]

I get the impression you two did not download the show. You would not have made the idiotic comment about the sabor tooth tiger.

I did listen to that portion of the show and it was almost as idiotic as your posts in which you've even managed to misspell sabre (or saber) tooth (nor were they tigers). You have absolutely nothing of substance to add and are far more ignorant than anyone else posting in these threads, which is really quite an achievement.

 

[Alate_One]

Cool!

Another fossil bearing strata with flattened out specimens. How do you reckon those formed, Alate?

I really don't see why you think this is a big deal. You may not have noticed but soil, sediment and rock are pretty heavy. It really won't take much of any of them to crush small animals, which is all we have talked about thus far.

 

[Alate_One]

While it is true that the evidence does not support a 6000 year old earth and it is impossible for the geologic column to be laid down in a year long flood, that same evidence doesnt necessarily support a 4.56 billion year old earth or a 14 billion year old universe or common descent from one ancestor or that evolution is random and undirected. I challenge you to show why any of the evidence you listed MUST only support the conclusions i listed.

Said evidence is consistent with a several billion year old earth. The age of the universe or the earth isn't calculated from the geologic column for obvious reasons. The evidence from the Grand Canyon alone does show a succession of creatures beginning from simplest to more complex. The geological column as a whole shows a much clearer picture of related organisms. However, I think the common descent argument is best supported by DNA evidence.

No biologist would call evolution simply "random". Undirected yes, but you can't actually disprove or prove supernatural direction of evolution, since the supernatural isn't truly subject to falsification.

The evidence I posted was in answer to an assertion that evidence that the earth is young is everywhere.