Scientists piece together human ancestry

[The Power Hour]

I traced my Roots years ago.

[The Power Hour.]

Carbon dating aside there is no evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth 2-4k years ago. According to your "couple thousand years ago" theory wouldn't Jesus have mentioned a holy raptor or a serving of Triceratops with sundays wine.

You may have to scroll back I clearly said I don't read the bible or attend church I am just responding to show how flawed Carbon dating is.
Also I feel the dinosaurs where here around approximately 20 50 thousand years ago that is 18 to 48 thousand years before Jesus. So I don't get your point.

Perhaps the greeks might have do ented something...you know how much they loved their historians. 300 would have been a much better movie if a massive T-Rex would have made a guest appearance. Early Egyptian records seem to be void of a few brontosaurus tales.

I never said dinosaurs walked the earth during the times you mentioned, I just stated the earth in my opinion is not Millions of years old and according to you and others you claim it's Billions of years old.

To me that is a theory and without any solid proof and any sort of flawless dating system to confirm it, and a fossil chart that has been debunked years ago, it shows your argument is very weak.

You're arguing against something with zero supporting evidence outside of carbon dating inaccuracies. So the very thing you find inaccurate is the basis for your argument?

I said Carbon dating has flaws, and I posted the links.I don't see where you get zero supporting evidence from. Why not Google Carbon Dating flaws see what you find.

Doesn't sound too intelligent.

Saying the earth is 4 billions years old and man evolved from a fish sounds even worst.

[The Power Hour.]

Lets go over what we do know as facts........................

Chances are you and your children have read in many Science books over the years that stalac es and flowstones take Millions of years to form.

That is Lie #1 the truth is...they can form in less that one hundred years.

The picture was taken in late 1987 at level 5 workings in the lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa, in north-western Queensland, Australia.



At that time, the mine itself was only about 55 years old, which therefore is the absolute maximum age for all these stalac es.
About 55 metres (180 feet) above this level there is an aquifer (water source) in fairly porous dolomite, a rock that is usually quite dense. Slow, continuous seepage of lime-saturated water into the old level 5 workings was responsible for these formations.

[z0sa]

Carbon dating aside there is no evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth 2-4k years ago. According to your "couple thousand years ago" theory wouldn't Jesus have mentioned a holy raptor or a serving of Triceratops with sundays wine. Perhaps the greeks might have do ented something...you know how much they loved their historians. 300 would have been a much better movie if a massive T-Rex would have made a guest appearance. Early Egyptian records seem to be void of a few brontosaurus tales.

This is the very problem with the "missing link" found in the article this thread was created upon. Accurately dating life forms according to evolutionary theory is impossible. Rather than admit the fossils they find are more than likely just specifically adapted living creatures (or recent extinction), they use circular reasoning to "prove" the fossil lived 47 million years ago, just because of where they dug it up at.

Very disconcerting to think scientists routinely state their personal opinions - really, their beliefs - as unquestionable fact. Only one such instance like this almost makes you not want to trust anything they have to say that isn't easily verifiable. Kinda makes you realize these scientists are prone to error and bias as any human, not the veritable demi-gods atheistic agendas make them out to be.

So the evolutionist can decide, without true knowledge, whether "ida" is simply a lemur with a broken hand from a few thousand or less years ago (what objective scientists may still conclude), or some huge discovery just because there's a total lack of fossils backing up evolutionary theory.

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

So far, rocks older than 3.0 billion years have been found in North America, India, Russia, Greenland, Australia, and Africa.

[z0sa]

So far, rocks older than 3.0 billion years have been found in North America, India, Russia, Greenland, Australia, and Africa.

source

[DarkReign]

source

I only wish to ask you a question and one question only. I will not attempt to berate you or belittle your opinion.

Do you honestly believe Earth is not ~6 billion years old?

If so, how old is it?

[z0sa]

I only wish to ask you a question and one question only. I will not attempt to berate you or belittle your opinion.

Not to be an ass, but herein lies the problem. How about this: I won't berate you or belittle you for believing we evolved from Ida. Or that the fossil record shows anything other than fully formed species as opposed to many transitional forms that would have been killed off and destroyed due to their inadequate nature throughout history.

The fossil record should show vast graveyards of transitional forms in various ages - emptiness. The ground is empty, devoid of the fossils Darwin's theory initially was predicated upon. In order to overcome this incredible fallacy in the theory, they say every fossil is a transitional form now - circular reasoning, for there is no do ented proof of transitional forms even now.

Do you honestly believe Earth is not ~6 billion years old?

Yes.

If so, how old is it?

180 years of steady calculations of our magnetic field proves the earth cannot be more than tens of thousands of years old.

[Blake]

+/- this thread: 6 pages

whoever bet the overs is looking to be in good shape

[LnGrrrR]

More importantly: Is there a source other than the Bible whose evidence zosa would accept?

[Blake]

180 years of steady calculations of our magnetic field proves the earth cannot be more than tens of thousands of years old.

source please.

[z0sa]

source please.

150* years, my bad.

http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.p...ask=view&id=38

this explains the process of measurement and its decay more explicitly.

[Alex Jones]

So far, rocks older than 3.0 billion years have been found in North America, India, Russia, Greenland, Australia, and Africa.

How many were found in your head?

[DarkReign]

@ z0sa

Fine then. Another question, if I may.

Do you or do you not believe that evolution does in fact happen? That is, speciation and the like?

[phyzik]

Not to be an ass, but herein lies the problem. How about this: I won't berate you or belittle you for believing we evolved from Ida. Or that the fossil record shows anything other than fully formed species as opposed to many transitional forms that would have been killed off and destroyed due to their inadequate nature throughout history.

The fossil record should show vast graveyards of transitional forms in various ages - emptiness. The ground is empty, devoid of the fossils Darwin's theory initially was predicated upon. In order to overcome this incredible fallacy in the theory, they say every fossil is a transitional form now - circular reasoning, for there is no do ented proof of transitional forms even now.



Yes.



180 years of steady calculations of our magnetic field proves the earth cannot be more than tens of thousands of years old.

The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an en y out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

3. Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical en y.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

[z0sa]

@ z0sa

Fine then. Another question, if I may.

Do you or do you not believe that evolution does in fact happen? That is, speciation and the like?

microevolution is a do ented fact. The scientific method has been used countless times to record this natural phenomenon. But macroevolution is impossible.

Take this sentence example.
Now this sentence.

Now this sentence.

Try randomly splicing in and out letters from the alphabet on any random line and space to see how long the sentences are coherent - without putting any letters on the blank line by chance, just for starters. This is literally the exact procedure that must be used to evolve on a major scale. Microevolution requires no such splicing - all the information necessary for this species to possibly survive has already been coded in! This is why evolution can be coupled with many different sciences for accurate results.

[DarkReign]

microevolution is a do ented fact. The scientific method has been used countless times to record this natural phenomenon. But macroevolution is impossible.



Try randomly splicing in and out letters from the alphabet on any random line and space to see how long the sentences are coherent - without putting any letters on the blank line by chance, just for starters. This is literally the exact procedure that must be used to evolve on a major scale. Microevolution requires no such splicing - all the information necessary for this species to possibly survive has already been coded in! This is why evolution can be coupled with many different sciences for accurate results.

So, correct me if I am wrong, you purport that speciation does not happen?

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

source

There are many out there.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalr...age_earth.html

http://ncseweb.org/evolution/science/how-old-is-earth

My main source is my own scientific studies.

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

How many were found in your head?

How many rocks have you smoked?

[Blake]

How many were found in your head?

probably not as many as there are mouse trolls

[DarkReign]

BTW, z0sa, dont think I am trying to "set you up" or anything with my line of questioning. I dont have the patience, time or cunning for such games. I am truly just trying to grasp your position here.

If you reject common scientific understanding (age of Earth, carbon dating, evolution, etc), then my question is, what is your position exactly?

"I dont know" is not an acceptable answer, to me and me alone. Because thousands of people dedicate their lives, studies, paychecks, grants, education and personal worth on the scientific work you so easily trounce as untrue and patently false.

Basically, what makes you and mouse so incredibly smarter and more informed than the Universities from here to Japan and beyond that all offer undergrad/postgrad curriculum in the fields of study you so easily dismiss?

Youre either incredibly brilliant, blinded by bias or contradictory for contradictions sake.

This is what I am trying to pin down.

[BacktoBasics]

probably not as many as there are mouse trolls

Here we go again with the "mouse trolls". Not every troll is mouse for sake. Dude doesn't have a tenth of the trolls you think he does.

[DarkReign]

Here we go again with the "mouse trolls". Not every troll is mouse for sake. Dude doesn't have a tenth of the trolls you think he does.

Not true, sir. Especially the few that have shown in this thread.

[Blake]

Here we go again with the "mouse trolls". Not every troll is mouse for sake. Dude doesn't have a tenth of the trolls you think he does.

alex jones is a mouse troll for sake

[Blake]

150* years, my bad.

http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.p...ask=view&id=38

this explains the process of measurement and its decay more explicitly.

a biased creation website........hooray.

thanks for nothing.