Tree of life not real (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 20, 2014, 05:45 (3907 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> 
> Tony:I'm not denying layers exist. 
> See: http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments-nature-finally-catches-up and 
> http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Floods/description_floods.html
> http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/hazards/primer/move.html
> 
> Layers and their contents are not good indicators of absolute chronology. -You are straining. I don't accept creation sites,because I know the true translation of Genesis. 'Yom' is any segment of time, not simply a day, and Christian creationists are confused by the KJV misinterpretation of yom. I've been on the Canyon and at rapid Lava Flow there is some jumbling, but not the other 220 miles. So I admit where appropriate volcanism can confuse layers, but lots of the world has identified layers which is why the great unconformity is identified at the canyon. Sorry, but I'm sticking with the generally accepted geology which I have been taught and seen and the general aging concepts.
> 
> Tony An example of WHY I don't trust dating techniques:
> 
> New 40K-40Ar and fission-track ages from volcanic ash partings in coal beds of the Eocene Puget Group of western Washington indicate a time span of about 41.2 ± 1.8 to 45.0 ± 2.1 (2σ) m.y. for the 1,890-m section of sediments exposed in the Green River area. These age data do not entirely support the previous early Eocene through early Oligocene paleobotanical age estimates for this section and for the four paleobotanical stages defined within it. Radiometric dating of floras assigned to the same stages outside the type section appears to be partially inconsistent with radiometric ages from the type section.(Turner, Frizzle, Tripplehorn, Naeser, 1983)-Two-three million years gap does not confuse the overall time lines. And besides this is an area where the Pacific plate and the North Americal plates are in a subduction zone where things get very jumbled. I've been on a river in that area where it was jumbled and the petrolium geologist with us was quite clear about that reasoning. And you are quoting a 1983 link. When was drift and subduction zones recognized finally, 1950's or 60's? And this link is 20 years later. Sorry, won't buy the complaint in the referrence which is just an isolated area. 
> 
> TONY: This depends on how we define species, as DHW pointed out, and I am not in agreement with the common usage because it does not differentiate between breedable and non-breedable groups, only between those that DO breed, and those that don't. In an environment where the choice is present, individuals tend to stick to those most similar to themselves, which does not preclude them from mixing if the choice is removed.-Absolutely agreed. The definition of species is fuzzy. but my point is the same. 99% of all species are gone. Not all the exiting species are identified. More are found every month. Species appear and disappear. Therefore, despite the inadequacies of the Darwin theory to explain it, speciation occurs. I think God helps it along. What is your point? It still is fuzzy to me. Your and I still have 3.5 billion years of life to deal with or are you still implying YEC or OEC to try and fit into a mistraslation of Genesis?