The so-called "fossil record"

[Idolater]

Half-life carbon-14 c. 5700 years. So modern organic material has 100% of new carbon-14, and 5700 years from now, it will have 50% of that. In another 5700 years it will have 25%, and another 5700 years would bring it down to 12.5%. Another 5700 years would bring it down to c. 6.3%, and that is about 23,000 years. At about 40,000 years all that's left is 0.8% of the original 100%, but even this is detectable in carbon-14 laboratories.

 

[marke]

Half-life carbon-14 c. 5700 years. So modern organic material has 100% of new carbon-14, and 5700 years from now, it will have 50% of that. In another 5700 years it will have 25%, and another 5700 years would bring it down to 12.5%. Another 5700 years would bring it down to c. 6.3%, and that is about 23,000 years. At about 40,000 years all that's left is 0.8% of the original 100%, but even this is detectable in carbon-14 laboratories.

The unknowns in dating include original carbon content of old specimens and the possibility of varying rates of decay due to unknown factors in the ancient past.

 

[Idolater]

The unknowns in dating include original carbon content of old specimens and the possibility of varying rates of decay due to unknown factors in the ancient past.

Right. idk what factors might accelerate for example radioactive decay of rocks, or carbon for that matter, but it's possible.

 

[Derf]

Right. idk what factors might accelerate for example radioactive decay of rocks, or carbon for that matter, but it's possible.

Less carbon 14 in the atmosphere when the dinosaurs were alive would skew the results to the older side.

 

[Nick M]

Radiometric dating shows the age of rocks and fossils and shows that life on Earth has evolved over millions of years. The geological time scale shows the history of life including the advent of major events such as mass extinctions and also the beginning of new species.

No mention of dating, only the factual observations. Take a view and come back.

 

[Right Divider]

Right. idk what factors might accelerate for example radioactive decay of rocks, or carbon for that matter, but it's possible.

Lookup Z-pinch and shock collapse.

This video has some very good explanations of things that can cause accelerated decays.

Specifically here:

 

[Idolater]

That's not an argument. Saying it's false doesn't make it so. It just makes you look inadequate.



Nonsense. Each isotope has a known half-life, which allows scientists to calculate the age of a sample based on the ratio of parent isotopes to daughter isotopes. Learn some basic science before you engage in such discussions.



Again this is not an argument just the childish naysaying of anything you don't like.

Certain fossils, known as index fossils, are particularly useful for establishing the relative ages of rock layers. These fossils are typically widespread, easily recognizable, and existed for a relatively short geological time. Examples include:

• Trilobites: These marine arthropods were abundant and diverse during the Paleozoic Era, particularly in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods.
• Ammonites: These mollusks are found in many Mesozoic strata and are used extensively for dating and correlating Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks.

Basic geology.




Dear oh dear. If there are fossils all lying within one geological layer followed by very few afterward then that would indicate an extinction level event such as the Great Flood or the Permian-Triassic extinction or the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction. If there are subsequently found loads more fossils in more recent geological layers then clearly life has continued evolving beyong the extinction level. If the fossils in another layer then all disappear shortly afterward then that most certainly indicates another extinction event. This is what scientists observe. There are numerous geological layers, all over the world showing numerous extinction level events. A flood could certainly be one of them, but one worldwide flood doesn't and can't explain the prior or subsequent extinction events. Those are the facts.

You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.



Patently untrue. There are in fact at least 5 large extinction level events that have occurred which are:

So confident! Let's see:

(The auto-numbering in the code is broken, ignore the numbering, I just quoted the post and broke it up by clicking Enter.)

1. Ordovician-Silurian Extinction (about 443 million years ago)
   • Causes: Likely caused by

They don't know.

1. • a combination of climate change, glaciation, and a drop in sea levels.
   • Impact: Approximately 85% of marine species went extinct, including many trilobites and brachiopods.
2. Late Devonian Extinction (about 359 million years ago)
   • Causes: Potential causes include

"They don't know."

1. • changes in sea level, climate change, and possibly asteroid impacts.
   • Impact: Around 75% of species, particularly marine life, were lost over a prolonged period.
2. Permian-Triassic Extinction (about 252 million years ago)
   • Causes: This event is thought to have been caused by

They don't know.

1. • massive volcanic eruptions (Siberian Traps), climate change, and ocean anoxia.
   • Impact: The most severe extinction event, with about 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species going extinct.
2. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction (about 201 million years ago)
   • Causes: Likely caused by

They don't know.

1. • volcanic activity, climate change, and possibly asteroid impacts.
   • Impact: Approximately 80% of species went extinct, paving the way for the dominance of dinosaurs in the Jurassic period.
2. Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction (about 66 million years ago)
   • Causes: Widely attributed to

They don't know.

1. • a combination of a massive asteroid impact (Chicxulub crater) and volcanic activity (Deccan Traps).
   • Impact: About 75% of species, including the non-avian dinosaurs, went extinct.

Again you can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.

Same to you. You gave absolutely no support for your brash confidence.

Nope. It's scientific fact, nothing to do with my personal opinion.

It's worse. It's a claimed fact. It's a lie, iow. You said this is a fact, but it's not a fact at all, as far we can tell. They don't know what happened, even though whatever it was involved enough energy release to cough up the whole ocean up on top of the continents, where all these fossils are being found, all around the World. On the continents, and in the middle of the continents even. The sea came through Wyoming! That's just one example. They find tyrannosaurs in China, and in Wyoming! That means that whole stratus was laid down at once, meaning the sea came up and over Wyoming AND China at the same time.

Yep and that's evolution



Yep it certainly does and it creates those billions of fossils in the same geological layer, it has to if it's a worldwide flood. If it were the only extinction event of its kind in history then we would not find other examples of billions of fossils in prior or subsequent geological layers.

Prior or subsequent geological layers show distinctive difference in them, generally the deeper you go the more marine you get, and the more shallow, the larger the remains with the largest at or near the top.

Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what scientists/geologists observe.




Nope. I'm going from the facts and science. You're going from religious dogma and blinkered adherence to words in documents not to actual evidence.

You just quoted for us proof that it is unknown what caused the fossil record /geologic column. That means the fact is, the scientific fact, is it's an open question.

Brainwash
"to make someone believe something by repeatedly telling them that it is true and preventing other information from reaching them"

Your beloved scriptures (human documents going back only a few hundred years) are no match for real science which can reveal what occured millions of years ago. You allow yourself to be brainwshed when you fail to change your stance when presented with new evidence.

Isn't it odd to find soft tissue in fossils supposed to be tens of millions of years old? To find detectable carbon-14 in fossils? These things are surprising, no?

 

[marke]

This is nonsense. The fossils demostrate how each type of animal existed whilst it was alive. The fossils show how the creature was skeletally designed, whether it had legs, arms, wings and so on. Plus they offer DNA samples which can be compared between evolutionary forms which show common ancestry. The fossil record serves as irrefutable evidence of evolution through its documentation of transitional forms, its integration with genetic data and its predictive capabilities.

Billions of intermediary links between species are missing from the fossil record, just as Darwin noted.

 

[7djengo7]

The fossils show how the creature was skeletally designed, whether it had legs, arms, wings and so on.

According to Retardwinists, wings are arms. So, why say "wings" in a list when you already said "arms" in it? That's as silly as a list of produce such as "...bananas, apples, oranges, strawberries, Granny Smith apples, kiwis..."

And, I always like it when you God-haters admit (as you do here) that creatures are creatures, and that things that are designed are designed. No creature is creator-less, and nothing designed is designer-less; and I get that your insane cognitive dissonance has you denying this elementary fact. But it's always amusing how y'all can never respond rationally to the question as to why you call things "creatures" while denying their Creator, and why you call things "designed" while denying their Designer.

 

[Nick M]

Billions of intermediary links between species are missing from the fossil record, just as Darwin noted

It is worse than what Darwin surmised. I just said quoted this the other day.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record

​

 

[Avajs]

It is worse than what Darwin surmised. I just said quoted this the other day.

​

 

[Avajs]

That is a quote from Stephen Jay Gould. If you rely on that to suggest Gould
did not accept evolution you have not
read much of his work.
Quote mine much?

 

[7djengo7]

That is a quote from Stephen Jay Gould. If you rely on that to suggest Gould
did not accept evolution you have not
read much of his work.
Quote mine much?

Retardwinist, suppose you describe for us exactly what it is you are saying someone "accepts" when they do whatever it is you call "accept[ing] evolution"?

 

[Right Divider]

That is a quote from Stephen Jay Gould. If you rely on that to suggest Gould
did not accept evolution you have not
read much of his work.
Quote mine much?

Stephen Jay Gould came to the conclusion that Darwinian Gradualism does not work.
That is why he favored punctuated equilibrium. That mysterious evolutionary feature that leaves no evidence!