What's your religion?

[ArtDrake]

No! It does not need to be in igneous. It can be in sedimentary rock, and usually is.

Yes, you determine homologous structures by looking at similar fossils from times nearby, of similar species.

Yes, I have a source. Try

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2905_link.html

[bugfartboy]

All I see is text. Where is the visual proof? For all the rest of us know, you could have been making up the story.

[ArtDrake]

All I see is text. Where is the visual proof? For all the rest of us know, you could have been making up the story.

That's my attitude towards the Bible.

[bugfartboy]

Ah. That's where you are wrong. I have seen a report, with actual VISUAL proof of Egyptian chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea. And not just the bottom. The middle. Let me see if I can dig up the link again. To be edited... Look Here

[cyso]

If I understand correctly, scientist use carbon 14 for radioactive dating of fossils under 70,000 years old. After that, they must use volcanic ash to determine what time period the fossils around it. Here's the source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE1aAtomicclocks.shtml
Problem 1) If an animal dies in the bottom of a canyon which is eventually covered up, it is not in the appropriate layer. I find it somewhat hard to believe that everything from the same time period would die in the same layer. Sure, they might die beneath certain creatures, but if you are using volcanic ash to date layers, you are bound to run into problems.
Problem 2) Read this site, especially the bit about lava.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i11f.htm

By the way, here's you might find interesting.
Icons of Evolution-notes some of the problems in some of the popular icons used by scientist. I don't know how recent it is, but some of the icons are still in my science text book.

There was another one I was thinking about, but I forget the title. I'll see if I can find it.

[ArtDrake]

It's not all in the same exact layer. The creatures are only within the same layer within one stratum of rock, and that is usually enough. While it is true that certain areas have layers containing the same fossils at different altitudes than one another, scientists use easy-to-find index fossils to date other fossils found in rock layers.

Igneous rock is not all hardened ash; that would be mineral deposits. Igneous rock is literally "rock of fire", referring to its fiery origins -- lava.

I'll admit that radioactive dating with uranium is slightly dodgy at times, but that's not to say that it's completely inaccurate, and that everything determined with it is inaccurate. For the most part, findings stand up. So what if the fish-amphibian came 10 million years sooner or later?

And what other scientific theory is there that has as much sheer evidence and reason behind it as evolution?

[bugfartboy]

And nothing to say to me? I will take that as a surrender on your part.

[cyso]

The part about igneous rock was not referring to volcanic ash, it was just to show problems with radioactive dating. My fault for not being clear.

The fish amphibian is probably a coelacanth, possible an extinct one. They have little nubs that could be mistaken for developing feet. Due to genetic diversity inside the species, it wouldn't be too hard to label a creature a different species with nothing but a fossil to go with. I think scientist are a little too eager to point at a species and shout "Missing link!" I believe platypus have been called the missing link before. Why don't scientist call lungfish the missing link between amphibians and fish?

Read Icons of Evolution. Find the DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

[ArtDrake]

Buggy, that's not a surrender. I just wasn't interested enough in Egyptian chariots at the bottom of the sea to check back for a link when I wasn't even sure one was going to show.

I will edit this post with my response. I have to go decorate a fir for when I celebrate solstice. Not Christmas.

[bugfartboy]

Alright Ducky. You know what the axiom of all biology is right? Biogenesis. In short it states that life only comes from life. Not from nonliving matter. I'd like you to answer that before I ask my next question.

[ArtDrake]

No. That is the second part of one theory, predominant at the moment, called Cell Theory. Not all biology is based on cell theory, but as it is accepted at the moment, it would take a lot to shake down the theory, and much is based on it.

And while of course the first cell couldn't have come from a living cell, there are exceptions.

And by the way, how I finish answering the question will be determined by exactly what you plan to prove by this.

[bugfartboy]

Alright. What are those exceptions then? My other question can wait.

[ArtDrake]

Like the first cell. That's one exception. By its very definition. Unless, of course, you'd be willing to consider the possibility of the universe always having been here, and not being merely 5 or 6 thousand years old. Then there might not have been a first cell.

[cyso]

Just out of curiosity, and since this thread is the "What's your religion?" thread, I would like to know how much you or anyone else actually knows about Christianity. You could give me a summary of what you know about it if you don't mind.

[ArtDrake]

That's funny. I have no interest in spewing facts. Thanks, but I'll pass.