#80549 - 05/03/06 05:25 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
Some examples of soft tissue fossils included the mammoths.
Those are among the ones I was thinking of.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80550 - 05/03/06 05:58 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Okay, to attempt to summarize in regard to fossilization:
1) It has not been observed to be currently in process.
2) The most recent fossils are alleged to date from the Holocene epoch (within the past 10,000 years roughly.)
3) Vast numbers date from the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion.'
4) It is not possible to accurately date the fossils themselves beyond 10,000 years because of the limitations of C-14 dating.
5) Scientists assign dates to fossils, based on the age of the geological strata in which the fossils are found, using radiometric dating (other than C-14).
6) Intense pressure and an anoxic environment are thought to be conditions required for fossilization to occur.
I would point out that assigning ages to fossils based on the geological strata in which they are discovered, would seem to be subject to error. It is very possible that the strata themselves are much older than the organisms found in them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80551 - 05/03/06 06:21 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
1) It has not been observed to be currently in process.
2) The most recent fossils are alleged to date from the Holocene epoch (within the past 10,000 years roughly.)
3) Vast numbers date from the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion.'
4) It is not possible to accurately date the fossils themselves beyond 10,000 years because of the limitations of C-14 dating.
5) Scientists assign dates to fossils, based on the age of the geological strata in which the fossils are found, using radiometric dating (other than C-14).
6) Intense pressure and an anoxic environment are thought to be conditions required for fossilization to occur.
1) is false.
2) is true
3) is misleading - there are many fossils from many periods
4) is false, the inadequacies of C-14 dating is irrelevant because there are other ways of doing it
5) is false (see below)
6) is false - some of the fossils are obviously fragile and would not have survived such treatment. Instead they have been protected in sedimentary rock. The leaching and other mechanisms can occur at room temperatures and pressures.
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/Whatisafossil.htm
Let us be clear about WHAT is important about fossils.
1) Within particular regions of rock, only a small subset of the huge range of fossilized animals are found.
2) This same subset is found in rock that is widely separated by distance
Let us also be clear about dating rock. Rocks are NOT dated by either fossils OR by C-14. C-14 is completely irrelevant for this discussion, since it only applies to systems which interchange CO2 with the atmosphere. Rocks are dated by
1) Radioactive processes OTHER than C-14
2) Chemical and thermo-mechanical processes
3) Meteor impacts
4) Volcanism
5) Continental drift
6) Erosion
7) Magnetism
8) Placement with respect to other rocks
9) and other methods
Look at the Hawaiian Islands - they are formed by the movement of a plate over a hot-spot. No fossils OR C-14 needed to see this is a long-term process.
Look at the mid-Atlantic ridge.
Look at the similarities between Sth Am and Africa.
Look at the geology around Uluru.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80552 - 05/03/06 06:48 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Mandy]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
I'm also not sure how the dating of fossils based on the strata within which they lie is subject to error: the fossils are very tightly incorporated into the solid rock, so it's hard to imagine how they would have got like that and still be a different age from when the rock was formed... Do you want to explain that further?
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80553 - 05/03/06 06:51 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Mandy]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
bevin said:
1) It has not been observed to be currently in process.
1) is false.
Bravus' articles did not contain any reports of fossilization observed to be in process. Do you have any cites?
Quote:
4) is false, the inadequacies of C-14 dating is irrelevant because there are other ways of doing it
Item #4 from my list, pertained to the dating of ORGANIC material, organisms. You referred to other forms of radiometric dating for ORGANIC material, did you? If so, please identify them.
Quote:
Let us also be clear about dating rock. Rocks are NOT dated by either fossils OR by C-14.
Perhaps it would be good to review #5 from my list:
5) Scientists assign dates to fossils, based on the age of the geological strata in which the fossils are found, using radiometric dating (other than C-14).
I did not suggest that either C-14 or fossils are used to date rocks. As for the age of the rocks, the earth itself, I personally have no problem with the concept of an old earth, based on the Hebrew words in Gen. 1:2. The issue has to do with the recent Creation of life on this old earth, by God. So, the age of the rocks is not an issue in this discussion.
Quote:
6) is false - some of the fossils are obviously fragile and would not have survived such treatment. Instead they have been protected in sedimentary rock. The leaching and other mechanisms can occur at room temperatures and pressures.
That is believed to be the case, but has not actually been observed.
Quote:
2) This same subset is found in rock that is widely separated by distance
That would be consistent with a GRGF.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80554 - 05/03/06 07:09 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
the fossils are very tightly incorporated into the solid rock, so it's hard to imagine how they would have got like that and still be a different age from when the rock was formed... Do you want to explain that further?
Please identify the types of rock in which the fossils have been found.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80555 - 05/03/06 07:44 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Perhaps I should clarify. Are we talking about igneous rocks, such as granite? Sedimentary rocks? Metamorphic rocks? Generally speaking, what types of fossils have been found in these several types of rocks?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80556 - 05/03/06 08:09 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Fossils are only ever found in sedimentary rocks.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80557 - 05/03/06 08:16 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80558 - 05/03/06 08:28 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Perhaps I was too brief in my response. Permit me to illustrate it with an example. Let's say that there was once a small village in Italy, near present-day Napoli. Suddenly, one night, unexpectedly, a massive mudslide engulfs the village, and it is buried beneath thousands of tons of mud and rock. Four thousand years later, due to local shifting of the land, the village is exposed, and archaeologists investigate. They attempt to determine the age of the village. They use radiometric dating of the rocks surrounding the village, and come up with a figure in the billions of years. They conclude that the village MUST be the same age, BECAUSE it was encased in the rock and earth. Were they correct?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH OUR SITE
|
|
This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
|
|
|
60 registered (aldona, Beryl, Bravus, Bruno, c freeland, carolaa, CoAspen, Coulsty, Curly, darlene, dgrimm60, Dottie, fca, fccool, Gerry Cabalo, Gladussee, Jerry D Thomas, John317, Kevin H, Kountzer, lazarus, LifeHiscost, Lineman, Liz, Loren Fenton, LynnDel, max, Maxi, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Nan, Neil D, Nightingale, Norman, olger, pkrause, Planey, Redwood, Robert, Sapphire, SMAN, Taylor, vern, 17 invisible),
423
Guests and
234
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 03/17/00
Posts: 1135
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
