13 Sep 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobArchaeopteryx?
So what you're telling me is that 150yrs of scientific investigation into evolution, natural selection and all the dating techniques we have are all wrong. We've made a big mistake.
[b]Get the point?
No.
Archaeopteryx?[/b]
What about it? Are there not many animals on the earth today that have looks of other animals? Can God not create an animal to look however he wants?
13 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat are you going on about you strange man. What is up with you? You don't seem to hav the ability to follow a simple thread.
i am asking you to reconcile it, i never made the claim, you have made the claim, therefore you had better offer some sort of reconciliatory answer for this seeming anomaly. if humans have lived for as long as you say, then why have they only recently, as recently as five thousand years in fact only started to write things down. did language only develop as recently as five thousand years?
I asked you some questions, which you answered with a question going way off on a tangent as per usual.
I'll spell it our for you again.
You stated your belief humans have only been around for 6,00yrs. I then ASKED you how do you reconcile evidence for human existance before 6,000yrs. You havne't answered that question, but just gone off on a tangent about language and writing.
did language only develop as recently as five thousand years?
No.
13 Sep 09
Originally posted by galveston75By: Ikedi Ani-okoye.
Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains. As scientists will often claim something to be millions or billions of years old (ages that do not conform to the Biblical account of the age of the earth), Christians are often left wondering about the accuracy of the carbon-14 method. The tr ...[text shortened]... is only accurate for the past few thousand years.
I have alot more info if you want it???
Carbon dating explained
This is how carbon dating works: Carbon is a naturally abundant element found in the atmosphere, in the earth, in the oceans, and in every living creature. C-12 is by far the most common isotope, while only about one in a trillion carbon atoms is C-14. C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen-14 (N-14) is altered through the effects of cosmic radiation bombardment (a proton is displaced by a neutron effectively changing the nitrogen atom into a carbon isotope).
The new isotope is called "radiocarbon" because it is radioactive, though it is not dangerous. It is naturally unstable and so it will spontaneously decay back into N-14 after a period of time. It takes about 5,730 years for half of a sample of radiocarbon to decay back into nitrogen. It takes another 5,730 for half of the remainder to decay, and then another 5,730 for half of what's left then to decay and so on. The period of time that it takes for half of a sample to decay is called a "half-life."
Things that cant be Carbon dated
Yes. The method doesn't work on things which didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures, since their carbon might (for example) come from dissolved carbonate rock. That causes a dating problem with any animal that eats seafood.
We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.
We can't date oil paints, because their oil is "old" carbon from petroleum.
We can't date fossils, for three reasons. First, they are almost always too old. Second, they rarely contain any of the original carbon. And third, it is common to soak new-found fossils in a preservative, such as shellac. It is also standard to coat fossils during their extraction and transport. Acetone is sometimes used while extracting fossils, because it dissolves dirt. In short, unless you have evidence to the contrary, you should assume that most of the carbon in a fossil is from contamination, and is not originally part of the fossil.
We also can't date things that are too young. The nuclear tests of the 1950's created a lot of C14. Also, humans are now burning large amounts of "fossil fuel". As the name suggests, fossil fuel is old, and no longer contains C14. Both of these man-made changes are a nuisance to carbon dating.
CONCLUSION
Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).
13 Sep 09
Originally posted by galveston75Right, i'm going to spell it out for you one time, clear and simple, because i don't think it's really that hard to grasp what i'm asking.
Archaeopteryx?
What about it? Are there not many animals on the earth today that have looks of other animals? Can God not create an animal to look however he wants?
But one needs to remember the scriptures at Genesis that say's God created then according to their kinds. There can be variances within their kinds but still they do not change from one spieces to another.
This is what you stated and also this.
Each layer of fossils still show complete and indentifiable groups, no missing links.
Archaeopteryx has half the features of a dinosaur and half the features of a bird. To be precise, it preserves a number of avian features, such as a wishbone, flight feathers, wings and a partially reversed first toe, and a number of dinosaur and theropod features. For instance, it has a long ascending process of the ankle bone, interdental plates, an obturator process of the ischium, and long chevrons in the tail.
It is a half species, a transitional fossil, a missing link as you call them. You have stated that they don't exist, clearly they do.
How do you reconcile this.
13 Sep 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobI already answered you on this.... Look back at the other post.
Right, i'm going to spell it out for you one time, clear and simple, because i don't think it's really that hard to grasp what i'm asking.
But one needs to remember the scriptures at Genesis that say's God created then according to their kinds. There can be variances within their kinds but still they do not change from one spieces to another. ...[text shortened]... em. You have stated that they don't exist, clearly they do.
How do you reconcile this.
13 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75an excellent post! and highly recommended!
By: Ikedi Ani-okoye.
Carbon dating explained
This is how carbon dating works: Carbon is a naturally abundant element found in the atmosphere, in the earth, in the oceans, and in every living creature. C-12 is by far the most common isotope, while only about one in a trillion carbon atoms is C-14. C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitr half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).
13 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobno, what you consider as evidence, may be nothing of the sort, your claim that humans lived 100, 000 years ago i do not believe, the whole sphere of transitional beings is fraught with fraud, (Ramapithecus, Australopithecus) lack of evidence, and postulation and in some cases down right lies (piltdown man), the closest thing that you have to anything remotely resembling a human, is probably by your recollection about 10 to 12,000 years old, cro magnon, or neolthic. in this instance.
Are you going to answer my question?
i am afraid that i shall side with the bible, your dating techniques are suspect and prone to aberration, you could fit the number of fossils showing the so called transitional species on a coffee table, the fact that writing has not developed until fairly recently where in fact if humans had lived so long ago one would think that they would have a written history dating back tens of thousands of years, this is simply not the case, it all point to the same fact, humans are relatively new on the planet!
13 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo cave paintings, fossilised footprints, stone tools, the Venus of Hohle Fels, are not considered evidence.
no, what you consider as evidence, may be nothing of the sort, your claim that humans lived 100, 000 years ago i do not believe, the whole sphere of transitional beings is fraught with fraud, (Ramapithecus, Australopithecus) lack of evidence, and postulation and in some cases down right lies (piltdown man), the closest thing that you have to anything ...[text shortened]... a human, is probably by your recollection about 10 to 12,000 years old, cro magnon, or neolthic.
The arrogance you exude is clearly quite remarkable. The belief that scientists who have dedicated their lives over the last 150yrs investigating evolution, anthropology, paleontology etc have somehow all got it completely wrong is quite scary. Have you considered for one moment that maybe you might be wrong, or does that though not cross the indoctrinated theists mind?
But i will go to bed rest assured that you are a dying breed.
13 Sep 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhy must you always throw insults to most in all your postings? Do you live your life like this towards everyone? There really is no need for it.
So cave paintings, fossilised footprints, stone tools, the Venus of Hohle Fels, are not considered evidence.
The arrogance you exude is clearly quite remarkable. The belief that scientists who have dedicated their lives over the last 150yrs investigating evolution, anthropology, paleontology etc have somehow all got it completely wrong is quite scary. ...[text shortened]... the indoctrinated theists mind?
But i will go to bed rest assured that you are a dying breed.
13 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobthey may be considered evidence by you, but considering the past record of evidence in this field, i think we are entitled to be sceptical. this is not arrogance as you assume, on the contrary, we have minds of our own, and guess what, were prepared to use them. Science is all very well Noobster, simply because something is in a textbook, does not make it correct, for example Dr. Kenyons, widely accepted book, biochemical predestination, was widely accepted and acknowledged as proof that proteins and amino acids were mutually attractive, thus advocating natural chemical evolution, a view which he later retracted. was he arrogant to do so? did he show arrogance although the majority of his peers accepted it although he himself held a different view? au contraire, when one thinks for oneself one is free for religious dogma and scientific dogma, the sooner that you realise the limitations of science, the better.
So cave paintings, fossilised footprints, stone tools, the Venus of Hohle Fels, are not considered evidence.
The arrogance you exude is clearly quite remarkable. The belief that scientists who have dedicated their lives over the last 150yrs investigating evolution, anthropology, paleontology etc have somehow all got it completely wrong is quite scary. ...[text shortened]... the indoctrinated theists mind?
But i will go to bed rest assured that you are a dying breed.
sweet dreams noobster, hopefully you shall dream of living in paradise and playing me at cricket, so i can get you with some of my reverse swing!
13 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe sooner that you realise the limitations of science, the better.
they may be considered evidence by you, but considering the past record of evidence in this field, i think we are entitled to be sceptical. this is not arrogance as you assume, on the contrary, we have minds of our own, and guess what, were prepared to use them. Science is all very wekll Noobster, simply because something is in a textbook, does not ...[text shortened]... of living in paradise and playing me at cricket, so i can get you with some of my reverse swing!
Science comes from the Latin scientifica meaning knowledge.
The sooner that you realise the limitations of knowledge, the better.
What a silly thing to say and how ironic it comes from the theist.
Are there any other sciences you are sceptical of, or just the ones that contradict your Christain faith? I think we both know the answer to that question.
Pistols at dawn you nutcase.
13 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobnow now noobster, what may be knowledge today, may be overturned tomorrow, please there is no need to refer to semantics and arguments based on definitions, dont feel bad, i want you to be happy. Science is not the problem as we have already intimated, just , well you know, it has limitations. yes i am interested in refuting anything which limits our view of the causation of life to unintelligent causes. please dont feel bad 🙂
[b]the sooner that you realise the limitations of science, the better.
Science comes from the Latin scientifica meaning knowledge.
The sooner that you realise the limitations of knowledge, the better.
What a silly thing to say and how ironic it comes from the theist.
Are there any other sciences you are sceptical of, or just the on ...[text shortened]... stain faith? I think we both know the answer to that question.
Pistols at dawn you nutcase.[/b]
it is me who should feel bad, i just lost a piece to my friend from Germany, rated 1280 because of not giving attention to my game but focusing on yet another evolution v the bible argument, will it never end, if its not the stupid trinity , its evolution!