Another Darwinistic Plot? Scientists Find 450 Million Year Old Fossils in Quarry

It appears that scientists will not stop at anything to fabricate fossils older than 5,000 years old — the rough age established by the Bible according to some creationists. The scientists found the fossils in a quarry that date back to the Ordovician period. The range of the fossils is considerable from sponges and worms to nautiloids.

The quarry in Wales is well-known for fossils but this layer appears to have been missed. They were once part of an ocean that existed between Scotland and England/Wales. Now there is only a cultural ocean.

The find includes a new range of organism never previously found from this period.

Source: BBC

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.

57 thoughts on “Another Darwinistic Plot? Scientists Find 450 Million Year Old Fossils in Quarry”

  1. @ Blouise yes that is why I put a / in between god and religion. Though a monotheistic view of the divine is based on religion.

  2. I think it comes down to those who believe in God but not evolution worship a very small version of God. It seems to me that any being capable of creating the world and the universe we live in is perfectly capable of producing life that adapts to change and become more suited to it’s environment. That is the definition of evolution IMHO. Further it seems to me that the God if he/she/it exists would rather watch a world and a species that develops rather than a static system otherwise it would be boring. As a father I was happiest watching my child grow and learn things in her own way and time rather than rigidly guide her. I can’t imagine a deity that could feel differently about their creations. The Christian religions in my experience worship a small God that is easy for them to manipulate and control for their ends. These Christians swing their small God by around his feet and use him to beat up all the people around them in an effort to control what they fear and can’t understand. This is why I will never be able to embrace the Christian faith system that exists today.

  3. “Mike, the fundamental difference between the [climate change] deniers and the reality based scientists is the manner of approach. It is basically an error of methodology and logic. The [climate change] denier starts with a predetermined set goal, . . . [t]hen they grasp at every fact presented and try to force fit it into the belief.”

    In both camps, the claimed plethora of inaccuracies and contradictions of standard scientific explanations (i.,e., “Theories” with a big “T”) occur at the fringes.

    It’s like when my wife and I bought our house — it was the right size, the right style, the right conditions, the right amenities, and the right price. But some carpet had to be replaced. Tile replaced the linoleum. Security features were enhanced. A little paint was splashed around. But the minor improvements did not did not materially change the substance of our purchase.

    Also, those who point to legitimate inaccuracies and contradictions in certain hypothesis as proof that science doesn’t work or can’t be trusted don’t know a damn thing about science. Such inaccuracies and contradictions are assumed. That’s the whole reason for the existence of the scientific process — to locate and improve or even demolish invalid concepts concerning the measurable matters in our four dimensional space.

    Science is about facts, what can be known. Religion is about faith, believing in that which cannot not be known. To attempt to use one to prove or disprove the other is a house of matter built on sands of anti-matter — it doesn’t work.

    That the “faithful” doggedly attempt to do so seems to indicate they don’t know a damn thing about faith either.

  4. Anyone who has actually read the Bible (and I have) knows there are two different creation stories in Genesis – TALK ABOUT INCONSISTENCIES! The second, less famous one comes right after the first so its not hard to find. You will see it lists a different set of events in a different order.

    There are no such inconsistencies in science. There is new information, tested and verified that is then applied as our understanding grows. What scientists though 100 years ago was different than what they think now because of all the things that have been learned since then. As knowledge increases and tools get better the answers get more precise. If the American Taliban had its way science would consist of opinions on the number of angles that can dance on the head of a pin.

    BTW – I blame myself for the trolls here. In a earlier thread I mentioned the absence of she who will not be named again. Her theological kin arrived.

  5. Otteray Scribe 1, December 20, 2011 at 12:18 am

    Mike, the fundamental difference between the religious based deniers and the reality based scientists is the manner of approach.
    ===========================================
    One area of significant likeness in the two is the mythical definition of “knowledge”, when compared to the actual definition of knowledge.

    In society it boils down to a belief in another person who says they know something.

    The import of this fills many journal pages.

    The journals quoted in my link point out that very few people in society can take the time to actually prove for themselves everything they “know”, which renders what they “know” into a belief.

  6. commoner

    It is possible to believe in god/religion and believe in evolution.

    —————————————————————–

    Yes, for a belief in God does not necessitate an adherence to any religion.

  7. ‘Fringe’ scientists are usually the ones who overturn conventional thoughts, and revolutionize science. We want out-of-the box thinkers, not to ostracize them.

    The data itself of light speed change has been published by a long string of eminent scientists over history. So the light speed change is clearly obvious to any reader of scientific historical data.

    The skeptics do not dispute that light speed change. Whether that change can be attributed to nature of testing instrument is debatable.

  8. Using carbon dating, a tool that works at best, a maximum of 50,000 years to date a cretaceous fossil, is like using a feather to cut a pipe. The tool is very inadequate for the job.

    I wouldn’t use the argument of carbon dating vs. philosophers for date accuracy….

    Carbon dating as a tool actually disapproves million year ages. All carbon dates tested & published are less than 50,000 years.

  9. Theoretically & tidily nice to start with a null hypothesis. In practice that never happens. Reality based God affirmers recognize the pre-suppositions, and account for it; while the pro-evolutionary theory scientists don’t see nor acknowledge their own blindspots.

    Real believers are responsible for scientific advances which constantly revolutionize & overturn scientific blindspots over the centuries.

  10. Mike, the fundamental difference between the religious based deniers and the reality based scientists is the manner of approach. It is basically an error of methodology and logic. The faith based denier starts with a predetermined set goal, such as the firm belief the earth is only a few thousand years old. Then they grasp at every fact presented and try to force fit it into the belief.

    The true scientist starts out with a null hypothesis. That is, that we do not know what the result will be and assume the experiment or observation will yield no information at all. Then when the study is done and it deviates from the null, they look for an explanation. Usually none is forthcoming until the observations are repeated (replicated) many times. After so many observations with all the variations a series of observations may take, usually a working theory will emerge. More observations may confirm the theory is a scientific law. Sometimes there are too many variables and it remains a theory in practice, but is a law in application. Gravity has its laws, but there are a few things, such as what happens to information at the event horizon of a black hole, where the laws of gravity change from what we are familiar with to something else. The best brains in physics are still toying with that one. Not based on a predetermined belief of what it ought to be, but trying to sort out the mathematical proofs.

    And that is the difference between science and theology. And that is how problems of ecological validity arise.

    1. OS,
      You’re right. What I also don’t get is what they even find inspirational in Genesis, save the mistaken attribution of “Original Sin” to it.

    1. Raff ,

      You’ve persuaded me of the error of my ways. Got to go now, I’m joining a monastery and taking the oath of submission, suffering and abstinence, after I flog myself in abjection for an hour.

  11. The red shift is understood. The “science” of the speed of light slowing down is not to be found in serious scientific journals but in religious type publications and blogs. And in the fevered imaginations of a small handful of fringe physicists. When one of them wins a Nobel for their theories, let me know. On the other hand, light can be manipulated and slowed down momentarily as slow as automobile speed.

    It is true that carbon dating has its limits. So does geological strata dating. But that technology is a hell of a lot more accurate than philosophers and theologians studying religious texts for answers.

  12. And a key constant used in the carbon dating equation, is the speed of light. Scientists have shown that the speed of light is slowing down.

    Lightspeed used to be much faster. If confirmed true, then all the carbon dating has to be changed to account for that.

    Then all the dates listed in the ‘carbon dating’ journal should be much younger. Maximum 50,000 should then be a maximum of 5,000.

    1. One can attack the basis of all scientific dating to their hearts content, but. in the end the creation story in Genesis is self contradictory. It only makes sense as allegory. If the story doesn’t make sense than neither does 6,000 years.

  13. You think carbon dating as being “scientifically accurate’?
    Go to any university library that carries ‘Carbon Dating’ Journal, and search all the back issues. Nothing is dated older than 50,000 years.

    Any scientist that used carbon dating to prove Jurassic or Cretaceous period dating is laughed out of the corps.

    Also, geological strata dating is circular reasoning …like a dog chasing it’s own tail.

  14. During geologically turbulent massive floods, those waters are so enormously massively heavy, they gouge deep canyons and move mountains, obliterate mountains, or create new ones.

    Additionally, earthquakes and volcanic activity create mountains in short order (volcano on land creating a mountain of itself within a brief period of time. Also see youtube video of a new island being formed rapidly in minutes in the South Pacific).

  15. What I want to know is if the whole world flooded, who would have to sit at the back of the ocean?

  16. I got an email from Jesus of Mars who said that if the water-ice at the poles on Mars melted, the planet would experience about a 32 foot depth in water.

    That would not cover all the mountains, but it would be sweet, and would make some artsy looking continents. If the underground ice then melted, another dramatic rise in water level would occur.

    He also mentioned that there is more water on Saturn’s moon Enceladus than there is in the Earth’s oceans.

    I only “know” what the experts tell me they know, ’cause that is how society does stuff.

Comments are closed.