Defending the Tale of the Whale

[Rhythmic_supercat]

[Heh Peter, nice to hear from you again.

quote=“peterkp, post:182, topic:43863”]
I’ve been away for a couple of days and boy is there a lot to catch up on… I’m impressed that you’ve hung in there.
[/quote]

Don’t be impressed with me staying here. If the last 10 yrs has anything to say, this will be a temporary visit and then onto what’s next, whatever that may be. I’ve found I have these doors open for me to look into to gain an understanding of what’s behind them and I interact with those folks to gain their view and when it’s time to wind it up I find myself moved on to something else. That’s a very basic overview, but it’s been reasonably consistent. The 1st door I was taken into was the nephlim giants,and that was fascinating. That was about 10 yrs ago, I spent a couple of years researching that, watching Roger Spurr and his claim he found the giants. Anyway this was also the beginnings of verification and belief thing I’m on and challenging people about it. That may change in time. we’ll see as it is all part of my journey I’m on.

@peterkp

I think you are wrong, but it’s not your science that is wrong. It’s your Christianity.

I have no issue’s with that. i accept 100% I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong on so many things I wish I had a $ for each one, that’s just par for the course with religion as well and what’s been my life in general, so Yep i accept that. That is actually what I am trying to put across is not to hang onto dogmatic views.

1 John 2:15: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.”

Let’s look at those other scriptures.
Just to say, I do try to keep away from to much scripture, but now you brought some of them up. Let’s have a look.

@peterkp

John 8:32: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

What truth do you think Jesus is saying here. And how will we know when we find that truth. It isn’t something we can dig up is it? It isn’t a piece of archeology or a verse in the bible. It is something that science can test in a lab. It’s something internal. That is where you will find that truth, but you also mentioned that i’ve read

@peterkp

John 14:6: I am the way, the truth and the life

That is jesus truth about himself. He knew who he was.

John 20:28-29 Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

Thomas gave an eg of verification didn’t he. He needed to place his fingers in the wounds to verify Jesus was in fact resurrected. That is what I’m doing atm.

@peterkp

You have said more than once: The bible is a belief. And I say to you, What do you believe about it? For my part, I first of all believe that it is true. And I believe that my belief is based on good, rational, sufficient reasons.

You said it yourself. I accept and believe it to be true as well, But I also accept I could be wrong, but I know the spirit I follow is true and real. My 30+ yr testimony verifies that truth, but I accept and believe it is the holy spirit as described in the bible, but on the flip side it maybe a product of evolution in the spiritual form, but I understand the biblical explanation of the holy spirit, so I am more confident in believing in the biblical explanation of the holy spirit, than anything I’ve read about human evolution and the conscience and subconscious mind, which very little I’m confident in.

@peterkp

So my question to you is, What do you mean by the word belief, and how does it relate to reason and wisdom?

I ve explained my understandinding of belief, which is always on a knife edge.
Wisdom comes from those experiences I hope and decisions I have made be it good or bad, right or wrong. You have to live with them I use whatever wisdom i’ve gained over the years wisely and in a correct manner, the best I can. Time will tell on that. It’s a bit like coming to T section on a road undecided which way you’re going to turn, until it’s time to make a decision. You find out later if you made the right turn

Not sure what you mean by reason. Do you mean what are my reason for the way I conduct myself or my belief? nay need to expand on that

[St.Roymond]

@paleomalacologist

But rapid water movement is part of many YEC models. It is also implied by all YEC models. Cramming most plate movement into the Flood would cause massive global tsunamis if all the water didn’t evaporate from the heat first. Water will not move slowly when it’s on plates travelling at 30 miles per hour.

Systemic thinking is not an aspect of YEC thinking; the emphasis is on ad-hoc explanations for all the separate phenomena without ever recognizing that there are no separate phenomena, that all are interlinked.

@Rhythmic_supercat

That is a bit of ignorance there on your part.

How is asking about a disability I’ve encountered before “ignorance”? The only “ignorance” involved is that I don’t know if you have that rare disability.

@Rhythmic_supercat

The reality of the world is that not everyone has the same learning capacity or the same ability to learn as others do.

Which is why I asked.

@Rhythmic_supercat

understanding sheet music was easy as well

Interesting. I would have thought sheet music qualified as a type of chart but apparently your brain doesn’t think so!

@Rhythmic_supercat

I have to stop and go back to songwriting or currently filmmaking for a music video to remove the clogging up of information…

That I understand; there are posts (with technical terms and such) here where my reading rate drops from several hundred words a minute to sometimes less that sixty! And for some of the long ones I have to take breaks or my thoughts get ‘clogged up’ (though my breaks tend to be to play five or ten minutes of a strategy game).

@Rhythmic_supercat

Hope that makes a bit more sense for you.

Definitely.

@Rhythmic_supercat

There is nothing in the dictionary that says a bone or bones will repurpose them selves to become another function. We don’t see that in animals to day.

I’m not so sure. I’m thinking of a video I watched about dogs that were born crippled, whose bones bore different loads and thus different functions than in normal dogs. That demonstrates that the body will adjust to different configurations by using bones (and muscles) for different purposes – so if small changes in bones was genetic, then over time the dogs born with those differences would undergo adjustment of musculature to support the change in the bones.

So it may not be in the dictionary, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

Which reminds me of something one of my ANE language professors once told us: just because a meaning isn’t listed in a lexicon doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist; lexicons are shortcuts to understanding language while the real meaning is found in the use.

@rsewell

exaptation.

I haven’t seen that word since I was student teaching high school science!

[St.Roymond]

@paleomalacologist

Of course, in just making something up, it’s not impossible to happen to hit on a truth.

“Making something up” generates hypotheses!

@paleomalacologist

Of course, believing “one says one thing and one another” is a major propaganda goal of those promoting bad science.

And bad politics, and bad theology, and bad advertising . . . .

@paleomalacologist

we can identify what seems to be plausibly on the right track and what doesn’t.

Exactly what politicians and advertisers and cult leaders don’t want people to do.

@beaglelady

@Rhythmic_supercat

Your fight with yec is between you and them, I don’t have any affiliation with them nor do I support all their claims.I’m not against them either.

No affiliation at all. None at all. Sure, we believe you.

Actually I do. It reminds me of a guy in high school who scored in the top ten of his class on IQ tests: his grades in science and literature classes were lousy, but when it came to music (and some math) he was brilliant – enough so that as a high school junior he was earning what worked out to $125/hour playing drums on weekends. It’s quite possible to grasp things in some areas superbly but be utterly incompetent in other things.

Such inbalances are sometimes regarded as learning disabilities, which is unfortunate when it is assumed that having such a disability in one area means the person has it across the board. I worked with a student when I was student teaching whose reading comprehension bordered on dismal and thus most of his grades suffered, but when he got to geometry and then algebra he blew everyone away; his brain was weak in language skills but to him math was as simple as putting together LEGO bricks was to most people.

@Rhythmic_supercat

if we actually knew how the planet was formed,[not guessing]

Ah – here’s a problem: science isn’t guessing, it’s hypothesizing, investigating, and concluding things. This is where the notion of “historical science” is blown to smithereens: there is theoretical science, and there is analytical science, but the difference is not whether someone was there, it is whether the conclusions rest on measurements and resultant calculations. My favorite example (because I’ve done lab work in the area) is using physical methods to date rocks: we know due to lab measurements how fast various changes can happen in rocks under various conditions, so when we observe the results of such measured change in rocks from the field we can set minimum dates – and the only assumption involved is one that comes from the Bible, namely that the laws of nature do not change willy-nilly but (as God Himself) are constant (“yesterday, today, and forever”). By such measurements we know that the Himalayas and other uplifted mountains are at the very least hundreds of thousands of years old – not guess, but know. It’s like a baker who, knowing the ingredients, can look at a cake or cookie and tell how long and hot it was baked without having to have watched it go into the oven and come out again.

@Rhythmic_supercat

as we don’t see planets forming from nothing to something, then we will only be guessing at best

Figuring out how planets form is not guessing. The guessing comes at the level of forming hypotheses, but then it is math and measurement and application of things we experience regularly (e.g. gravity) and/or can observe and measure (e.g. the behavior of lava, and the behavior of astronomical material).

Think of Sherlock Holmes: the stories themselves may be fictional, but the methods are those used by detectives everywhere (in fact I used some of them when I caught a kid lying about what he had done after school; I looked at the dirt on his rear bicycle wheel and how it sat, and knew what route he had taken and that he had stopped for ten minutes or more along the way); without having been there, Holmes can conclude, often in substantial detail, what events and actions had occurred. He isn’t just guessing, he’s using a scientific approach of making hypotheses and eliminating them until he reaches the truth.

We may not “see planets forming” but we have observed different astronomical phenomena that match what calculations based on things we have seen and so conclude that the results of those calculations are valid.

@Rhythmic_supercat

It’s more interesting when you watch everyone looking from the outside in.

What people are saying is that if you can’t tell the difference between what actual scientists and YECists are doing then you’re not watching very closely. That overlooks the possibility that to you the operations of science may be as opaque as the plays in basketball were to me as a high school freshman.

@Rhythmic_supercat

Discovery of “Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale” Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story | Evolution News

That illustrates something a number of my university science professors shared: one reason they loved science was finding things that overturned accepted ideas.

Which is a trait common enough to destroy the idea that scientists believe evolution without evidence – a large portion of scientists are absolutely delighted with overturning existing ideas/theories.

[St.Roymond]

@peterkp

I believe that you have a bad understanding of what it means to believe.

You have quoted John 3:16 more than once: …So that whoever believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.

I had the same thought briefly but skipped over it – but from a different angle: We translate πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν (piss-TYOO-own eis ow-TOHN) as “believing in him”, but the phrase is one used in secular literature (and in the LXX IIRC) to mean “giving allegiance to him”. It isn’t a propositional statement, it’s a relational one, and as a relational one the choice isn’t about choosing to regard certain items as true, it’s a choice of where, i.e. in whom, to put the rulership of one’s life. (This is why to Paul “Jesus is Lord” is not secondary to “Jesus is (my) Savior” but is foundational to it!)

@peterkp

So my question to you is, What do you mean by the word belief, and how does it relate to reason and wisdom?

Whoa – my Introduction to New Testament I professor asked our class the first part of that question one day and pursued it with the rest, and boy did people squirm! For most of us it was the first time we’d actually been asked to examine our faith.

@Rhythmic_supercat

watching Roger Spurr and his claim he found the giants.

I’d never heard of him so I went and spent a chunk of time checking it out. Given that he cites Enoch and Mohammed as eyewitnesses I have to agree with the commenter who said “Spurr is bat-sh*t crazy”.

THese are contradictory:

@Rhythmic_supercat

I do try to keep away from to much scripture

@Rhythmic_supercat

I know the spirit I follow is true and real.

Think about it.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@St.Roymond

Systemic thinking is not an aspect of YEC thinking; the emphasis is on ad-hoc explanations for all the separate phenomena without ever recognizing that there are no separate phenomena, that all are interlinked.

I think you are quoting from someone else. I didn’t write what you’re responding to. That came from paleomalacologist.

@St.Roymond

How is asking about a disability I’ve encountered before “ignorance”? The only “ignorance” involved is that I don’t know if you have that rare disability.

My apologies then.
I can’t say I have a disability, never diagnosed. My childhood days had a lot of distractions in it, so sitting in classrooms didn’t help the anxiety to well and made concentrating on anything difficult. As a youngster, sport allowed some freedom within my thinking, so that became a big part of life and then eventually music and making music clips through to today.

@St.Roymond

Interesting. I would have thought sheet music qualified as a type of chart but apparently your brain doesn’t think so!

It isn’t a chart, it is more of a language that requires a physical interaction to bring the written notes to sound. I reached a certain level, but nothing to high. Like most things, the further you up the ladder, the more difficult and complex it gets. I reached level 5 in theory, which is slightly above basic. That took me about 2 years to achieve and that was 30+ yrs ago. Most of that knowledge is gone and I have to start from scratch again if I want to go further, which I don’t.

@St.Roymond

That I understand; there are posts (with technical terms and such) here where my reading rate drops from several hundred words a minute to sometimes less that sixty! And for some of the long ones I have to take breaks or my thoughts get ‘clogged up’ (though my breaks tend to be to play five or ten minutes of a strategy game).

We maybe not that much different then. I’m just glad I was able to find something I could gell with [music], even if it doesn’t go anywhere for me, but it has helped me to find how I do learn, even if it’s in bits and pieces and small doses. certainly a lot better then what it was when I was at school and after I left.

@St.Roymond

That demonstrates that the body will adjust to different configurations by using bones

You’re describing a type of adaptation, which is a reality. If that dog was to reproduce though, do you think those pups will be born with the same afflictions?
What is being describe in repurposing bones from one ability to a brand new ability is what we don’t see. It maybe true that, that does happen, but there is no documented proof from eyewitness that this has ever occured. From one set of functioning bones to another completely new set of functioning bones happens in the imagination.

@St.Roymond

Which reminds me of something one of my ANE language professors once told us: just because a meaning isn’t listed in a lexicon doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist; lexicons are shortcuts to understanding language while the real meaning is found in the use.

But in this a case a new word was invented for this particular scenario and the word is “exaptation”, so in this particular eg the word was not found in use, but given to what might be true, but not proven to be true and actually functioning in the world.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

Although we can’t watch the whole process of planet formation for any one planet, and our views are distant, we can see planetary systems in various stages of formation.

Evolution News is an attempt to spin science news stories into purported problems for evolution. It’s not reliable but the real stories are often interesting. Finding a fully aquatic whale somewhat earlier than some of the semi aquatic whale fossils is not a problem for evolution. It would simply mean that some of the semiaquatic cousins were still around when others were more fully aquatic. Which is expected evolutionarily.

[beaglelady]

@Rhythmic_supercat

Not normally mentioned though is the fossil jaw bone of a fully fledged whale dated somewhere between 46 to 49 mya, depending on who you read, so this is a bit of a spanner in the works. Here’s the article. from evolution news. Discovery of “Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale” Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story | Evolution News

Why would I listen to anything coming from the Intelligent Design junk science people?

@Rhythmic_supercat

Just remember you are only reading what scientist say, which I do accept could be true, but how much of whale evo have you personally dug up and experimented and proven that one species of animal evolved to become a completely different species of animal with different anatomical feature [eg leg’s to flippers and nasal passage at the tip of the snout moving to the top of the head] that didn’t exist before… No-one has ever visually seen this happen.

So now things have shifted and I have to dig up fossils myself? bwahaha!!! For what it’s worth, I have seen an impressive number of whale fossils. Something you are too lazy to even look at.

@Rhythmic_supercat

proven that one species of animal evolved to become a completely different species of animal with different anatomical feature [eg leg’s to flippers and nasal passage at the tip of the snout moving to the top of the head] that didn’t exist before… No-one has ever visually seen this happen.

We can observe the snout moving to the top of the head in the embryonic development of modern whales and dolphins .Evolution of the blowhole in whales and dolphins.

Woopsie!

And in embryonic dolphins we can observe limb buds forming and then disappearing.

.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

beaglelady, beaglelady, that link is from a evolutionary science news. It isn’t ID. The jaw bone is a fact. Just have a look at it so at least you know about it. This is common knowledge. Here’s the link again. the report was from 2011. I’m not sure how long ago they found the bone. Main stream scientist basically said that the evolutionary process just happened faster.

@beaglelady

So now things have shifted and I have to dig up fossils myself? bwahaha!!! For what it’s worth, I have seen an impressive number of whale fossils. Something you are too lazy to even look at.

That’s good, I’m glad you have seen some. I’m not sure if that proves whale evo. Do you know much about the sigmoid process on ambulocetus?. That one I’m curious about

@beaglelady

We can observe the snout moving to the top of the head in the embryonic development of modern whales and dolphins .Evolution of the blowhole in whales and dolphins.

Woopsie!

And in embryonic dolphins we can observe limb buds forming and then disappearing.

Is that your assertion that whale evo is a fact because the blow hole is observed during the embryonic stage and observing limb buds forming on dolphins and disappearing.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@St.Roymond

Ah – here’s a problem: science isn’t guessing, it’s hypothesizing, investigating, and concluding things.

Yes, this what they do usually with a computer simulation for visual effect. The reality is we don’t have any conformational science for their hypothesizing, investigating, and concluding of things.

My favorite example (because I’ve done lab work in the area) is using physical methods to date rocks: we know due to lab measurements how fast various changes can happen in rocks under various conditions, so when we observe the results of such measured change in rocks from the field we can set minimum dates.

What changes are you talking about.
Have you dated known ages of rocks along side billion yr old rocks. Are the procedures carried out the same for both eg?

@St.Roymond

We may not “see planets forming” but we have observed different astronomical phenomena that match what calculations based on things we have seen and so conclude that the results of those calculations are valid.

what astronomical phenomena have you observed, that could be used to compare possible planetary formation from nothing but dust.

@St.Roymond

What people are saying is that if you can’t tell the difference between what actual scientists and YECists are doing then you’re not watching very closely.

I watch both closely. What can tell you is one is a belief, so I accept that at face value, the other is not regarded as a belief, so I want to see what I can verify or what ends up being a belief.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@St.Roymond

I’d never heard of him so I went and spent a chunk of time checking it out. Given that he cites Enoch and Mohammed as eyewitnesses I have to agree with the commenter who said “Spurr is bat-sh*t crazy”.

THese are contradictory:

He flies in the face of main stream, so depending who you listen to you’ll get the appropriate comment. I found flaws in some of his logic and put forward some questions, but his responses didn’t answer the questions. It was just a response. It was interesting information for some future battle I engaged with in r/e to the mudfossil movement. It is a bit cult like in those circles.

@St.Roymond

Think about it.

Think about what? That’s an open ended comment

[St.Roymond]

@Rhythmic_supercat

What changes are you talking about.
Have you dated known ages of rocks along side billion yr old rocks. Are the procedures carried out the same for both eg?

Physical changes, primarily deformation of crystalline structure. Unless geologists have improved the process, it doesn’t apply to things older than hundreds of thousands of years – but that is plenty to show that uplifted mountain ranges are that old.

@Rhythmic_supercat

Think about what? That’s an open ended comment

Here–

@St.Roymond

These are contradictory:

@Rhythmic_supercat

I do try to keep away from to much scripture

@Rhythmic_supercat

I know the spirit I follow is true and real.

Think about it.

[Roy]

@Rhythmic_supercat

beaglelady, beaglelady, that link is from a evolutionary science news. It isn’t ID.

This link?

@Rhythmic_supercat

Not normally mentioned though is the fossil jaw bone of a fully fledged whale dated somewhere between 46 to 49 mya, depending on who you read, so this is a bit of a spanner in the works. Here’s the article. from evolution news. Discovery of “Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale” Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story | Evolution News

“Evolution news” is published by the Discovery Institute. It consists mainly of articles by members of the Discovery Institute. It is ID. The site name is a deliberate deception aimed at fooling people like you into thinking what they are posting is science, not ID.

It worked.

Meanwhile:

@Rhythmic_supercat

There’s no if, there is a gap. Pakecetus is dated at 49-50 mya and ambulocetus is approx 47-48-49 mya. I’m sure you can count the difference between the 2.

I can. The difference between the lower bound for Pakicetus and the upper bound for Ambulocetus is 49mya - 49mya = 0mya. And that’s for the specimens we have found, which will not cover the entire span of those two gerera. There may be no gap.

If conversation with you is degenerating, it’s because you are combining ignorance and condescension.

[peterkp (Peter Kirkpatrick)]

@Rhythmic_supercat

@peterkp

John 8:32: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

What truth do you think Jesus is saying here. And how will we know when we find that truth. It isn’t something we can dig up is it? It isn’t a piece of archeology or a verse in the bible. It is something that science can test in a lab. It’s something internal. That is where you will find that truth, but you also mentioned that i’ve read

I didn’t quote this verse to start a detailed analysis of it. I quoted it as an illustration of my point that you seem to have a one sided view point here. Jesus talks about faith, but he also talks strongly about truth. I’m not seeing that balance in your posts. For example, your whole insistence on dividing belief and verification. Unless I’ve misunderstood you, you have been saying that we can verify some truths, and other truths we have to believe/accept. Which means, those truths are unverified. We believe them for no reason. We believe them whether they are rational or irrational.

Is that what you mean? I for one could never live that way.

@Rhythmic_supercat

@peterkp

John 14:6: I am the way, the truth and the life

That is jesus truth about himself. He knew who he was.

John 20:28-29 Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

Thomas gave an eg of verification didn’t he. He needed to place his fingers in the wounds to verify Jesus was in fact resurrected. That is what I’m doing atm.

In fact I don’t see you doing that. How are you verifying your Christian beliefs the way Thomas did? That’s effectively what I was asking before.

@Rhythmic_supercat

You said it yourself. I accept and believe it to be true as well, But I also accept I could be wrong, but I know the spirit I follow is true and real. My 30+ yr testimony verifies that truth, but I accept and believe it is the holy spirit as described in the bible, but on the flip side it maybe a product of evolution in the spiritual form, but I understand the biblical explanation of the holy spirit, so I am more confident in believing in the biblical explanation of the holy spirit, than anything I’ve read about human evolution and the conscience and subconscious mind, which very little I’m confident in.

The biblical explanation of the holy spirit? I don’t understand what that means. You’re contrasting it with anything I’ve read about evolution. So I’m guessing you are talking about what you think the bible says about origins. I’m stressing that word because our reading of the bible needs to be tested as well. There are reasonable and not so reasonable approaches.

@Rhythmic_supercat

@peterkp

So my question to you is, What do you mean by the word belief, and how does it relate to reason and wisdom?

I’ve explained my understanding of belief, which is always on a knife edge…
Not sure what you mean by reason. Do you mean what are my reason for the way I conduct myself or my belief? nay need to expand on that

I meant, Do you consider your beliefs to be reasonable? Is there a connection between the things you believe and the reasons for believing them? Does that matter to you?

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@Roy

“Evolution news” is published by the Discovery Institute. It consists mainly of articles by members of the Discovery Institute. It is ID. The site name is a deliberate deception aimed at fooling people like you into thinking what they are posting is science, not ID.

It worked.

My point wasn’t to deceive or be deceived, but to show that piece of information about the jaw bone. It seemed beaglelady hadn’t heard of it and I wanted to inform her. What she does with it is her business. Same for you. if you think it’s fake or real is your business. Do what you want with it. I’m sure there are more recent updates to it. The latest I came across was a debate between Jackson row [evo] and LSS [long story short/creation] that was about 5 years ago and the video may of been about 7 yrs old.

@Roy

If conversation with you is degenerating, it’s because you are combining ignorance and condescension.

Then I will be more respectful towards you. Does that sound ok? and I will continue to learn

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@St.Roymond

Physical changes, primarily deformation of crystalline structure. Unless geologists have improved the process, it doesn’t apply to things older than hundreds of thousands of years – but that is plenty to show that uplifted mountain ranges are that old.

Are able to determine the original conditions of the rock and if there was contamination during it’s time before you examine it, if the parent daughter rates are a constant.
I don’t know a lot about geology, but these questions are usually raised with the skeptics, so I thought I’d see what you say about it. Thanks.

@Rhythmic_supercat

I do try to keep away from to much scripture

@Rhythmic_supercat

I know the spirit I follow is true and real.

I thought that’s what you might of been referring to. My point for “keeping away from to much scripture” was about this blog. I didn’t want to refer to scripture like I see in a lot post. I try to keep it as simple as possible, plus my main reason here was to see if people are able to verify personally what they think is true. I was trying to keep religion out of the conversation as much as possible, but sometimes you get pulled into it.

Scripture has been vital for me to help me understand the spiritual world. If it wasn’t for the bible, I’d probably be one of those fruit cakes running onto sporting field in the middle of a game declaring I am jesus.

[T_aquaticus]

@Rhythmic_supercat

Are able to determine the original conditions of the rock and if there was contamination during it’s time before you examine it, if the parent daughter rates are a constant.

If they are due to contamination, how is it that ages based on completely independent parent/daughter isotope pairs return the same age? This would require very specific and controlled contamination which simply isn’t believable.

“There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.”

Radiometric Dating Does Work! | National Center for Science Education

So you have 4 different isotope pairs. U/Pb concordia/discordia uses two different isotope pairs for two different U isotopes that have different half lives, and yet those dates agree with one another in the same sample. You also have K/Ar which agrees with both U/Pb systems. There is also Rb/Sr isochrons which don’t even depend on the absence of daughter isotope. All of these completely independent systems with different half lives all agree with one another. This can’t happen with contamination.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@peterkp

I didn’t quote this verse to start a detailed analysis of it. I quoted it as an illustration of my point that you seem to have a one sided view point here.

I reason I used john 3:16 because it is the simplest of verses to highlight where I am coming from and I didn’t want to be putting scripture into the forum if I can avoid it. My main objective was to see if i could personally verify and prove a claim eg whale evo or do I have to accept and believe it, based on the explanations of the scientist of the fossils they found…
Up until the age of 40-45 I did accept and believe in evo and without question even years after I became a christian. It wasn’t a case of one over the other I just never heard of yec until I was in my mid 40’s. I was shocked with what I heard and thought it was a joke, but no they were deadly serious, so I decided to listen to understand their argument and reasons behind it.

@peterkp

Unless I’ve misunderstood you, you have been saying that we can verify some truths, and other truths we have to believe/accept. Which means, those truths are unverified. We believe them for no reason. We believe them whether they are rational or irrational.

You have misunderstood me. I’ll go through Pakecetus and ambulocetus. I know the reasons behind the scientist claims for these being part of the evolutionary line fto whales, the main kicker being the inner ear. i fully understand the reasoning behind it. and no you’re not believing without reason.
What I am however and maybe a bit pedantic about, is the transition of certain bones that are their to observe eg the “sigmoid process”. of Ambulocetus and that of a modern day dolphin, they are clearly different. My question is do we see any changes during the existence of ambulocetus indicating it has started to change or transitioning to become a different animal. [I’m zeroing in on this particular eg of the sigmoid process of the inner ear as there is a clear before and after shot of it]. I understand they probably don’t have any other ambulocetus inner ear fossils to see if small changes have started, but the fundamental process should work across all animals.
This has been the same pattern that I have noticed is the changes are only in a different animal never any new changes from the 1st animal. Hope that is making sense.

What I do see and can confirm and verity is that 2 different animals once existed and died out. I have never seen any evidence of small changes from one animal while it was a live. It only ever looked the way it did.

@peterkp

In fact I don’t see you doing that. How are you verifying your Christian beliefs the way Thomas did? That’s effectively what I was asking before.

I’m not trying to verify my Christian belief, I’m trying to see if evolution for me is a belief or something that can be verified., I’m using the eg of Thomas who needed to see and touch Jesus to verify the claim Jesus was resurrected. Do you think Thomas would’ve accepted Jesus being resurrected, if Jesus wasn’t there for thomas to observe his wounds?

@peterkp

The biblical explanation of the holy spirit? I don’t understand what that means. You’re contrasting it with anything I’ve read about evolution.

Sorry it is difficult to explain. Maybe I’ll ask you your understanding of the holy spirit and does it guide you? Do you hear it’s voice. Maybe I can interact with your comment and expand upon what you say.

@peterkp

I meant, Do you consider your beliefs to be reasonable? Is there a connection between the things you believe and the reasons for believing them? Does that matter to you?

Yes 100%. my testimony alone is what gives me that confidence in my walk and it matters because of my life before God came into it and the difference between the 2. What I’ve read and understood about the holy spirit was the 1st main takeaway from the bible for me as it gave me understanding of what it was guiding me. Understanding the death and resurrection and John 3:16 connecting that all together is now the main thing for me about the bible. Everything hinges on understanding that, so you can make that ration decision.

I

[Rhythmic_supercat]

Thanks for your reply, but we have pretty much gone full circle now and I’m not understanding what you’re saying or explaining
As it was with the whale evo eg, Is there anyway I can verify and prove out those results without having to pay for an education and years of study?
I’m changing lanes abit

Do you think the average joe in the street accepts and believe’s what scientist say about the age of rocks, whale evo or does he know because he trust the scientist word on it and that’s good enough?

[Roy]

@Rhythmic_supercat

@Roy

“Evolution news” is published by the Discovery Institute. It consists mainly of articles by members of the Discovery Institute. It is ID. The site name is a deliberate deception aimed at fooling people like you into thinking what they are posting is science, not ID.

It worked.

My point wasn’t to deceive or be deceived, but to show that piece of information about the jaw bone. It seemed beaglelady hadn’t heard of it and I wanted to inform her.

Bovine faeces. You were trying to tell @beaglelady that you weren’t posting ID material, and you were doing so condescendingly:

“beaglelady, beaglelady, that link is from a evolutionary science news. It isn’t ID.”

You were hilariously mistaken.

@Rhythmic_supercat

What she does with it is her business. Same for you. if you think it’s fake or real is your business. Do what you want with it.
…
Then I will be more respectful towards you. Does that sound ok? and I will continue to learn

You aren’t going to learn anything if you ignore what people tell you and don’t acknowledge mistakes.

You can tell a lot about some-one’s character by how they respond when shown to be wrong. You just failed that test.

Welcome to the point-and-laugh category.

[Roy]

@Rhythmic_supercat

@St.Roymond

Physical changes, primarily deformation of crystalline structure. Unless geologists have improved the process, it doesn’t apply to things older than hundreds of thousands of years – but that is plenty to show that uplifted mountain ranges are that old.

Are able to determine the original conditions of the rock and if there was contamination during it’s time before you examine it, if the parent daughter rates are a constant.
I don’t know a lot about geology, …

Not even enough to parrot creationist nonsense.