Is science being divided?

[Atla]

Good. Give me a description of these fossils please. Some links to some authoritative site would be enough for me. Let us be specific.

You know exactly what fossils are, or how to do a Google search, or how to start with the Wikipedia page about fossils which is here.

Thank you Atla. Of course I know what is a fossil, but first I had to ascertain that we are talking about the same thing! Take it easy Atla, there is no need to worry!
Now from the article on wikipedia, it is said:

The oldest fossils are from around 3.48 billion years old to 4.1 billion years old.

My question now, how were these fossils dated and found to be 3 to 4 billions of age? What method was used to date them and how reliable are these methods?

You have evaded my question for about the fifth time. How did all the billions of fossils get there, irregardless of their age?

[QuantumT]

I can't see how Darwinism and fossils are within the subject of this thread. Both/all major branches agree about evolution!

Darwinism and fossils has nothing to do with the scientific community becoming divided!

[Dubious]

Good. Give me a description of these fossils please. Some links to some authoritative site would be enough for me. Let us be specific.

You know exactly what fossils are, or how to do a Google search, or how to start with the Wikipedia page about fossils which is here.

Thank you Atla. Of course I know what is a fossil, but first I had to ascertain that we are talking about the same thing! Take it easy Atla, there is no need to worry!
Now from the article on wikipedia, it is said:

The oldest fossils are from around 3.48 billion years old to 4.1 billion years old.

My question now, how were these fossils dated and found to be 3 to 4 billions of age? What method was used to date them and how reliable are these methods?

Do you know you can do searches on the internet?

Here is one that where all I had to do is enter "How are fossils dated" among the many that came back. Not that your kind could ever be convinced; if the Koran is right the science must be wrong isn't that right or have no credibility? What's your definition of willful ignorance?

https://www.fossilera.com/pages/dating-fossils

[Averroes]

You know exactly what fossils are, or how to do a Google search, or how to start with the Wikipedia page about fossils which is here.

Thank you Atla. Of course I know what is a fossil, but first I had to ascertain that we are talking about the same thing! Take it easy Atla, there is no need to worry!
Now from the article on wikipedia, it is said:

The oldest fossils are from around 3.48 billion years old to 4.1 billion years old.

My question now, how were these fossils dated and found to be 3 to 4 billions of age? What method was used to date them and how reliable are these methods?

You have evaded my question for about the fifth time. How did all the billions of fossils get there, irregardless of their age?

Not regardless of their age! So you do not know the methods used to date these fossils and how reliable they are, yet you present these fossils as evidence of evolution! As I was saying those who believe in evolution have no clue of the details of their unscientific beliefs.
I have not counted these fossils, so I cannot ascertain whether there are in fact billions of them. But those that I know of, I will speak of! Now that I know what fossils we are talking about, I can reply purposefully to your question! I do not know when and how these fossils got there, because I was not there when it got there! Do you know how and when they got there? If so how do you know?
__________

To anyone reading this.

Does anyone know how these fossils were dated and how reliable are these dating methods? Please come forward!

Of course, I already know and I have authoritative references on this! From here no Darwinist will dare answer that question because they smell the rat from afar!

[Averroes]

You know exactly what fossils are, or how to do a Google search, or how to start with the Wikipedia page about fossils which is here.

Thank you Atla. Of course I know what is a fossil, but first I had to ascertain that we are talking about the same thing! Take it easy Atla, there is no need to worry!
Now from the article on wikipedia, it is said:

The oldest fossils are from around 3.48 billion years old to 4.1 billion years old.

My question now, how were these fossils dated and found to be 3 to 4 billions of age? What method was used to date them and how reliable are these methods?

Do you know you can do searches on the internet?

Here is one that where all I had to do is enter "How are fossils dated" among the many that came back. Not that your kind could ever be convinced; if the Koran is right the science must be wrong isn't that right or have no credibility? What's your definition of willful ignorance?

https://www.fossilera.com/pages/dating-fossils

Thank you for replying Dubious. But you have answered only one part of my question. On the link you provided there is the following relevant information:

While people are most familiar with carbon dating, carbon dating is rarely applicable to fossils. Carbon-14, the radioactive isotope of carbon used in carbon dating has a half-life of 5730 years, so it decays too fast. It can only be used to date fossils younger than about 75,000 years. Potassium-40 on the other hand has a half like of 1.25 billion years and is common in rocks and minerals. This makes it ideal for dating much older rocks and fossils.

So the isotope used to date these fossils alleged to be 3-4 billions of age is Potassium-Argon isotope. That is correct. Awesome. But now how reliable is this dating method according to the authorities themselves in this field? That is the crucial part of the issue!

[-1-]

I too think that Darwinian evolution is solely a question of belief.

5. A series of mutations that help the individuals survive better and have more offspring gives rise to new species.

Thank you for replying -1-. Please what definition of a species are you using? And show me empirical evidence of one species becoming another through evolution.

Why? I agreed with you. Wholeheartedly. Darwinism is a question of belief. Which part of my belief do you want me to show you?

Can you show me your belief in Jesus the Christ, or in transsubstantiation? Or can you show me your belief in Christ turning water into wine?

So why do you ask for me to show you my belief? It's a BELIEF!! You can't show a belief.

[Atla]

Of course I'm familiar with several dating methods and their different levels of accuracy, and how in the first billion years of life dating is less accurate than say in the past 600 million years. But whether something actually happened say 602 million years ago instead of 600 million doesn't change the big picture.

But that's beside the point. I was just here for the laughs:

I have not counted these fossils, so I cannot ascertain whether there are in fact billions of them.

I do not know when and how these fossils got there, because I was not there when it got there!

Thank you.

[Averroes]

5. A series of mutations that help the individuals survive better and have more offspring gives rise to new species.

Thank you for replying -1-. Please what definition of a species are you using? And show me empirical evidence of one species becoming another through evolution.

Why? I agreed with you. Wholeheartedly. Darwinism is a question of belief. Which part of my belief do you want me to show you?

So we are agreeing that there is no empirical evidence for one species becoming another and it is just a question of belief which has no scientific basis. This is great. Thank you for your honesty.

[Averroes]

Of course I'm familiar with several dating methods and their different levels of accuracy, and how in the first billion years of life dating is less accurate than say in the past 600 million years. But whether something actually happened say 602 million years ago instead of 600 million doesn't change the big picture.

How do you know something happened allegedly 602 millions of year ago instead of 600 millions of age? So you are saying that the accuracy of Potassium-Argon isotope is ±2 million years? How did you assess that? What are your references for this accuracy?

[QuantumT]

Averroes, I have previously accused you of deraling subjects (with spam postings), that contradict your islamic faith.

By derailing this one with anti-darwinism, wich is neither the intention nor the subject of the thread, you are proving me right!

[Averroes]

Averroes, I have previously accused you of deraling subjects (with spam postings), that contradict your islamic faith.

By derailing this one with darwinism, wich is not the intention with the thread, you are proving me right!

That is your interpretation. If you find that the subject has been derailed then refer the matter to an impartial judge and let them decide if the subject has been derailed. You cannot be the plaintiff and judge at the same time. This is philosophy, you cannot impose your will on free thinkers. As I have told you numerous times before, we are no longer in the western middle ages. You have to get used to the spirit of philosophy. I find that the subject was spot on topic and others have expressed similar positions on this thread. You have from now on to anticipate severe opposition in philosophy. This has been the case for more than 2000 years, and it is not you who is going to change the spirit of philosophy. Get used to it now.

[QuantumT]

That is your interpretation. If you find that the subject has been derailed then refer the matter to an impartial judge and let them decide if the subject has been derailed. You cannot be the plaintiff and judge at the same time. This is philosophy, you cannot impose your will on free thinkers. As I have told you numerous times before, we are no longer in the western middle ages. You have to get used to the spirit of philosophy. I find that the subject was spot on topic and others have expressed similar positions on this thread. You have from now on to anticipate severe opposition in philosophy. This has been the case for more than 2000 years, and it is not you who is going to change the spirit of philosophy. Get used to it now.

Who? The stiffs we call mods? They hardly have a pulse! JK

I'll leave it for the people to assess you actions.

[Averroes]

That is your interpretation. If you find that the subject has been derailed then refer the matter to an impartial judge and let them decide if the subject has been derailed. You cannot be the plaintiff and judge at the same time. This is philosophy, you cannot impose your will on free thinkers. As I have told you numerous times before, we are no longer in the western middle ages. You have to get used to the spirit of philosophy. I find that the subject was spot on topic and others have expressed similar positions on this thread. You have from now on to anticipate severe opposition in philosophy. This has been the case for more than 2000 years, and it is not you who is going to change the spirit of philosophy. Get used to it now.

Who? The stiffs we call mods? They hardly have a pulse! JK

I'll leave it for the people to assess you actions.

You have no other choice!

[Greta]

- So, this is empirical evidence of Darwinism?

Here is someone friendly to ask: https://io9.gizmodo.com/ask-biologist-m ... -508314397

Marlene, who are we, where do we come from, and where are we going?

Why change the questions now?

Just ask about evidence for evolution. Surely it makes sense to ask a person who has studied the subject rather than online randoms.

[Greta]

That is your interpretation. If you find that the subject has been derailed then refer the matter to an impartial judge and let them decide if the subject has been derailed. You cannot be the plaintiff and judge at the same time. This is philosophy, you cannot impose your will on free thinkers. As I have told you numerous times before, we are no longer in the western middle ages. You have to get used to the spirit of philosophy. I find that the subject was spot on topic and others have expressed similar positions on this thread. You have from now on to anticipate severe opposition in philosophy. This has been the case for more than 2000 years, and it is not you who is going to change the spirit of philosophy. Get used to it now.

I'll leave it for the people to assess your actions.

Assessment: The guy is a creationist fanatic trying to rationalise his thread hijack. Yes QT, he has ruined the thread as you noted - it is now completely off course. Digressions, of course, are fine and lateral thinking is a potent mental tool. However, the beliefs of the naive and deluded have nothing whatsoever to do with possible divisions in science - between learned people. Those are divisions in society, which is an entirely different question.

Divisions in science are usually readily sorted out; one side or the other is proved wrong, for instance, Einstein was wrong about QM's "spooky action at a distance". One proved wrong, he did not fight or go into denial - he wanted to simply understand how it could be.