‘Ardi’ and Human Evolution - Show tonight on Discovery Channel

[Phenomanul]

Answer.

No.

Even though I didn't say it was a sign of concession.

....and well you did cop out.

You chose to enter the thread and respond. You engaged here. I offered opinion, insight and questions pertaining to your posts and others. Your response was that (in so many words) I was beneath you so I shouldn't expect you to acknowledge my remarks. Specifically because you don't approve of my style of writing.

You could leave the thread and not come back. Its an option. I'm not going to stop asking my question though. Any of them.

I haven't been a third of an ass as half the participants here.

You're writing style is fine... it's the at ude you could do without (in this type of discussion anyway).

Like I said, the discussion itself is futile because you've made it perfectly clear you really don't care to consider alternative viewpoints that don't jive with your own... your history here states as much, no matter how loudly you want to convey otherwise.... and your questions or other's for that matter aren't really questions. In some way, form or fashion they are all 'bait'. So here you are, trying to harrass me into a discussion, under what pretense? Genuine curiosity???

And I made comments on two posts; one by boutons_deux and the other by Blake. I didn't engage you, you quoted my response to Blake with all sorts of random assumptions about my position... notice also that I didn't respond to tlongII's googled 'rebuttal' even though I could have harped on many of the conclusions from his list... It never fails to surprise me however, how my refusal to tread down those paths is seen as condescension? All this talk about your perceived slight about being beneath me???? Seriously? Why would I willingly want to spend my time discussing to no end, while having to take a lashing of insults hurled at my position? Again, that is a futile effort if I ever saw one and an unwise use of my time.

Having said that, I'll address your question... the one that seems to have you all worked up... what was it again?

[mouse]

what lies? show what exactly you are talking about.

.

Did you know that the geological column was devised before carbon dating, rubidium dating or other methods used for dating rocks. Fossils were placed in time periods such as Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic etc. The dates of these time periods were just pulled out of thin air.

Many index fossils from millions of years ago have been found alive!

Graptolites have recently been found alive in the south pacific. ( source: Earth Magazine Sept. 1993 )

Lobe Finned fish were found still alive in 1938, called the coelacanth ( I hope you don't need a source for this one )


hear are some links!

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=1013


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...tbooks&spell=1

[nuclearfm]

Even the ones that worship the Sun?

[Phenomanul]

I may not be able to answer 'til I get out of work.... Peace!

[nuclearfm]

I figured my OP would cause a storm of morons. Next thing we'll hear is how the Grand Canyon was carved during Noah's great flood.

[BacktoBasics]

You're writing style is fine... it's the at ude you could do without (in this type of discussion anyway).

Like I said, the discussion itself is futile because you've made it perfectly clear you really don't care to consider alternative viewpoints that don't jive with your own... your history here states as much, no matter how loudly you want to convey otherwise.... and your questions or other's for that matter aren't really questions. In some way, form or fashion they are all 'bait'. So here you are, trying to harrass me into a discussion, under what pretense? Genuine curiosity???

And I made comments on two posts; one by boutons_deux and the other by Blake. I didn't engage you, you quoted my response to Blake with all sorts of random assumptions about my position... notice also that I didn't respond to tlongII's googled 'rebuttal' even though I could have harped on many of the conclusions from his list... It never fails to surprise me however, how my refusal to tread down those paths is seen as condescension? All this talk about your perceived slight about being beneath me???? Seriously? Why would I willingly want to spend my time discussing to no end, while having to take a lashing of insults hurled at my position? Again, that is a futile effort if I ever saw one and an unwise use of my time.

Having said that, I'll address your question... the one that seems to have you all worked up... what was it again?

I've read your posts for a few years here. Specifically in these types of threads. I think I understand your stance pretty well. Nothing presumptuous about it.

However you seem to think you have a pretty good grasp on my stance which you don't. Did you read my first post in this thread. I think I'm relatively fair in stance as to my perception on things. But I clearly pointed out that I'm always willing listen and always willing to consider the idea of ID. You've painted me in a corner with the other Darwinfolk. Unfairly I would say.

To clarify. My point is that I think ID and evolution could potentially fit together if you guys were willing to stop and acknowledge that science can and has had the ability to find world altering information. The kind of information that wouldn't jive with a modern day religious stance on creation when/where/how long ago but proved to be factual nonetheless.

You still don't have to respond.

and I was never worked up. I like to type a lot.

[tlongII]

You're writing style is fine... it's the at ude you could do without (in this type of discussion anyway).

Like I said, the discussion itself is futile because you've made it perfectly clear you really don't care to consider alternative viewpoints that don't jive with your own... your history here states as much, no matter how loudly you want to convey otherwise.... and your questions or other's for that matter aren't really questions. In some way, form or fashion they are all 'bait'. So here you are, trying to harrass me into a discussion, under what pretense? Genuine curiosity???

And I made comments on two posts; one by boutons_deux and the other by Blake. I didn't engage you, you quoted my response to Blake with all sorts of random assumptions about my position... notice also that I didn't respond to tlongII's googled 'rebuttal' even though I could have harped on many of the conclusions from his list... It never fails to surprise me however, how my refusal to tread down those paths is seen as condescension? All this talk about your perceived slight about being beneath me???? Seriously? Why would I willingly want to spend my time discussing to no end, while having to take a lashing of insults hurled at my position? Again, that is a futile effort if I ever saw one and an unwise use of my time.

Having said that, I'll address your question... the one that seems to have you all worked up... what was it again?

Dude, I don't find you condescending at all. Just mis-guided. Apparently you have a problem with "googled" rebuttals. The www is an excellent source for information. You should try it sometime.

[mouse]

George Carlin was raised in Roman Catholic faith (which he describes anecdotally on the albums FM & AM and Class Clown)


I wonder what would happen if you ask George about God now that he is dead? I bet he may take back his joke.

[mouse]

I figured my OP would cause a storm of morons.

People like this are the reason the smart Evolutionist's that want real debate can't be taken serious. Funny how many Atheist feel the need to insult others, kinda like that kid down the street that was jealous your bike was better so he keeps making fun of it.

[mouse]

B2B and others who want to chime in I have a few questions of my own, I think I answered almost all the ones I saw directed at me so I deserve to ask a few don't you think?....here goes......

First off if anyone knows of or finds a group I can check out or maybe join that consist of people who don't use the bible and creation and at the same time don't believe in Darwin's Evolution theories please let me know I am tempted to start one if none exist


Why can't a non believer of the Bible have the choice of not believing Darwin's Evolution theories? Why is that so hard for people to comprehend? That is what Intelligent design is really about. it's an alternative from Evolution and not have to turn to the Billy Graham's and the Angel_luv's of the world?

Are people who won't eat Sushi vegetarians? All people who don't exercise really want to be fat? People who smoke really want Cancer? Then why is it someone who doesn't but into the snail to man after the big bang theory have to be a Bible thumper? Are atheist really that narrow minded?

personally I could give a rats ass how we got here, just take out the lies in the text books and maybe I can die a happy man.


Extra credit if you address these....

3. Embryology -

Embryologists like to claim that the embryos in the body go through the four stages of evolution Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Mammal. They use this as evidence for evolution.



* They use "gill slits" as evidence for this, saying that a fetus goes through a fish stage with gill slits. While it is true that the unborn have folds of skin at one point. They are NOT gill slits! Those folds of skin develop into the Mandible, Sternocleidomastoid, and the Masseter muscle.
* In 1859, Darwin's book came out and strongly influenced Ernst Haeckel. The only problem was, they had no evidence. 10 years later they still had no evidence, so Haeckel decided to make some! In 1869 Haeckel took drawings of a human fetus and a dog fetus and he changed them to look exactly alike. Nobody complained so after a while he drew more and changed them all. Later somebody decided to check his "research" out to see how accurate they truly were. Haeckel's Lie was exposed and his concept was proven to be false. He was taken to court at his own university and admitted to lying. He was convicted of fraud in 1874. Haeckel confessed to lying 130 years ago, yet his concept is still being taught in textbooks up through college today.

4. Vestigial organs-

* Textbooks say that the appendix is vestigial. Well vestigial means it is no longer needed. While it is true that you can live without you appendix, you will have a much higher chance of many diseases. Just because you can live without something does not mean you don't need it. It is possible to live without both legs, arms, and eyes! Hopefully however, everyone will agree with me that you do indeed need them. Your appendix is part of your immune system and is not vestigial.
* The textbooks will tell you that whales have a vestigial pelvis. This is pure propaganda. The whales pelvis is used during mating. Several tons of animal in the water might need a little help getting some babies
* It is also said that snakes have vestigial rudimentary hind "legs" that they lost when their lizard-like ancestors went under ground. They are talking about little claws near the tail end of a snake. These are also used during mating, after all, no arms and legs could make getting baby snakes a little difficult.
* Coccyx is yet another suggested "vestigial" part of the human body. In fact there are nine little muscles that attach to it and without it you will not be able to do certain functions. It also acts as a shock absorber.

I think that these lies should not be taught to our kids since they are lies. If you think they should then you are also either confused or a liar! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say your dumb. I would hate to think you would approve of lying to our children, just to promote your theory.

There are no vestigial organs. It used to be said that there were over 200! just because you don't know the function, do not assume that it has none. Even if there were vestigial organs, That is the opposite of evolution! You are going backwards. How exactly does knowing an organ is disappearing explain how it got there?



Bad Science

[nuclearfm]

B2B and others who want to chime in I have a few questions of my own, I think I answered almost all the ones I saw directed at me so I deserve to ask a few don't you think?....here goes......

First off if anyone knows of or finds a group I can check out or maybe join that consist of people who don't use the bible and creation and at the same time don't believe in Darwin's Evolution theories please let me know I am tempted to start one if none exist


Why can't a non believer of the Bible have the choice of not believing Darwin's Evolution theories? Why is that so hard for people to comprehend? That is what Intelligent design is really about. it's an alternative from Evolution and not have to turn to the Billy Graham's and the Angel_luv's of the world?

If you take that as true. Why can't a believer in creationism/intelligent design be a non-believer in the bible and/or religion? If you really want to be literal about it, the bible was written by man, not "god".

Are people who won't eat Sushi vegetarians? All people who don't exercise really want to be fat? People who smoke really want Cancer? Then why is it someone who doesn't but into the snail to man after the big bang theory have to be a Bible thumper? Are atheist really that narrow minded?

personally I could give a rats ass how we got here, just take out the lies in the text books and maybe I can die a happy man.


Extra credit if you address these....

3. Embryology -

Embryologists like to claim that the embryos in the body go through the four stages of evolution Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Mammal. They use this as evidence for evolution.



* They use "gill slits" as evidence for this, saying that a fetus goes through a fish stage with gill slits. While it is true that the unborn have folds of skin at one point. They are NOT gill slits! Those folds of skin develop into the Mandible, Sternocleidomastoid, and the Masseter muscle.
* In 1859, Darwin's book came out and strongly influenced Ernst Haeckel. The only problem was, they had no evidence. 10 years later they still had no evidence, so Haeckel decided to make some! In 1869 Haeckel took drawings of a human fetus and a dog fetus and he changed them to look exactly alike. Nobody complained so after a while he drew more and changed them all. Later somebody decided to check his "research" out to see how accurate they truly were. Haeckel's Lie was exposed and his concept was proven to be false. He was taken to court at his own university and admitted to lying. He was convicted of fraud in 1874. Haeckel confessed to lying 130 years ago, yet his concept is still being taught in textbooks up through college today.

4. Vestigial organs-

* Textbooks say that the appendix is vestigial. Well vestigial means it is no longer needed. While it is true that you can live without you appendix, you will have a much higher chance of many diseases. Just because you can live without something does not mean you don't need it. It is possible to live without both legs, arms, and eyes! Hopefully however, everyone will agree with me that you do indeed need them. Your appendix is part of your immune system and is not vestigial.
* The textbooks will tell you that whales have a vestigial pelvis. This is pure propaganda. The whales pelvis is used during mating. Several tons of animal in the water might need a little help getting some babies
* It is also said that snakes have vestigial rudimentary hind "legs" that they lost when their lizard-like ancestors went under ground. They are talking about little claws near the tail end of a snake. These are also used during mating, after all, no arms and legs could make getting baby snakes a little difficult.
* Coccyx is yet another suggested "vestigial" part of the human body. In fact there are nine little muscles that attach to it and without it you will not be able to do certain functions. It also acts as a shock absorber.

I think that these lies should not be taught to our kids since they are lies. If you think they should then you are also either confused or a liar! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say your dumb. I would hate to think you would approve of lying to our children, just to promote your theory.

There are no vestigial organs. It used to be said that there were over 200! just because you don't know the function, do not assume that it has none. Even if there were vestigial organs, That is the opposite of evolution! You are going backwards. How exactly does knowing an organ is disappearing explain how it got there?



Bad Science

These topics can be readily addressed using the internet. PubMed and many journals are good sources. You have a search option, use it.

[mouse]

These topics can be readily addressed using the internet. PubMed and many journals are good sources. You have a search option, use it.

I know this may be hard for your mountain dew educed mind to absorb but I may be looking froward to what some posters in the club have to say about the subject, And who said I didn't already have the answers? Besides shouldn't you be in the politics forum helping your nick at night pal ChumpDumper on finding some new youtube links to show why WTC7 came down so fast?


If the geologic column existed, it would be a hundred miles thick in one area!

There is no place on earth where the geologic column is found, except the text books.

[nuclearfm]

Carbon dating accuracy: what are the flaws of carbon dating

http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/ca...ingac_szhq.htm

The flaws of Carbon Dating (Science and Technology)

http://jubilationlee.blogspot.com/20...ience-and.html


Scientist discovers flaw in Oceanic Carbon dating

http://ceffyl.net/wordpress/arch/sci...carbon-dating/

These posts are really poor. Yes, there are flaws in carbon dating but in general, it is a good dating technique for ages up to 50,000 years. The anomalies you site cannot add up to the gaping inaccuracies you imply. Even with errors acknowledged suggests that carbon dating is consistently shown 90% accurate.

You fail to site (or are just ignorant of) the many alternative dating techniques which back up the majority of the original carbon dated dates.

[nuclearfm]

I know this may be hard for your mountain dew educed mind to absorb but I may be looking froward to what some posters in the club have to say about the subject, And who said I didn't already have the answers? Besides shouldn't you be in the politics forum helping your nick at night pal ChumpDumper on finding some new youtube links to show why WTC7 came down so fast?


If the geologic column existed, it would be a hundred miles thick in one area!

There is no place on earth where the geologic column is found, except the text books.

Know the answers? Wakeup? You must be god. This is why I chose not to response in detail to you. It would be like talking to a dining room table.

For the record, I don't care for 9/11 conspiracies.

[Phenomanul]

You still don't have to respond.

I will for you, since you promised to behave.

I've read your posts for a few years here. Specifically in these types of threads. I think I understand your stance pretty well. Nothing presumptuous about it.

However you seem to think you have a pretty good grasp on my stance which you don't. Did you read my first post in this thread. I think I'm relatively fair in stance as to my perception on things. But I clearly pointed out that I'm always willing listen and always willing to consider the idea of ID. You've painted me in a corner with the other Darwinfolk. Unfairly I would say.

Fair enough... perhaps I lumped you with the wrong crowd prematurely... this time around.

To clarify. My point is that I think ID and evolution could potentially fit together if you guys were willing....

Sure, those two spheres of thought can co-exist for many people... it all depends on which definition of "evolution" people suscribe to. Ultimately however, the theory itself doesn't address the issue of origins. It is on that front that their use of the evolutionary theory to justify their philosophical belief-set breaks down.

Most don't understand that other theories are required to explain how the formation of immensely ordered, thermodynamically stable, biotic molecules... arose from a stew of small abiotic molecules. That other theories are required to explain how the information conveyed within the very structures of these molecules overcame the mathematical odds for their existence. Other theories still to explain how the simplest of these molecules manage to function with a defined 'purpose' where no natural agent prescribes such behavior - shouldn't they move in chaotic Brownian motion like everything else?? Other theories to explain away how the very first of these molecules managed to subsist long enough to create all the other stabilizing molecules that are required to prevent their thermal, chemical or solar induced radioactive decay/degradation. To top it off, we also need theories to explain how such molecules organized themselves to form the simplest single-celled organisms... On a side note, most molecular biologists have come to accept the notion that the formation of viruses (once thought to be simpler life forms) or prions came about after the existence of the cell, and not before - these truncated life forms came into existence after being 'spliced' off of original genetic cellular material. All of these processes defy the natural order, and insurmountable probability yet they had to occur before the process of evolution even entered the picture.

Anyway, at that point, we're no longer debating the issue of 'evolution'; we enter a debate on the issue of origins... What most people don't realize is that Science is inherently incapable of laying this particular debate to bed due to lack of 'original' evidence... Hence any theory that attempts to explain the issue of origins can propose only processes. No amount of testing or hypotheses, however, can actually put the issue to rest (unless a time machine were created). It is at this juncture that people get fussy, because many of them don't fully comprehend the limits of the scientific toolset; they can't understand why the Science that develops cures for diseases, why the Science that put a man on the Moon, why the Science that discovered the atom, why the Science that developed every sort of technological gizmo that makes our lives easier cannot answer such a "simple" question definitively, once and for all.

...to stop and acknowledge that science can and has had the ability to find world altering information.

That has never been in question... I've got a problem with people thinking science is the catch-all, be-all, end-all of our understanding of the universe and our place in it. By that same reasoning, I also have a problem with people who feel that they need to belittle/mock/alienate those scientists who don't subscribe to their particular philosophy or world view.

The kind of information that wouldn't jive with a modern day religious stance on creation when/where/how long ago but proved to be factual nonetheless.

Actually, FACTS can paint a picture of REALITY but don't necessarily reveal ultimate TRUTH(S) about the Universe. People convolute the terms all the time depending on what it is they wish to see from a set of data, revelation or some other informational medium.

For example, why do we assume that all radio-active carbon material in fossils/artifacts comes entirely from dietary consumption or the use of plants in clay or tools? Doesn't the very process of fossilization require the ingress of material into the object in question and a transitive process of crossmineralization from the surrounding sedimentary matter? This is a 'wildcard' parameter that we have no way of defining when determining the age of an object. Moreover, comparisons to objects discovered hundreds to thousands of miles away at this point becomes silly, and yet we do it all the time. Why? Because C14-dating techniques are 'established' methods that people don't bother to question at this point. Something as simple as this irrefutable observation can propagate many errors, and paint the wrong reality. Ironically, the use of other isotopes which to many people represented a triumph over many of the other do ented flaws in C14-dating, is inherently marred by the same principle.

As for which Scientific discoveries have affected the perception of philosophical truths.... can any of them really negate such beliefs definitively?

That line of reasoning begins with the presuposition that Science is capable of negating untestable beliefs... which clearly is not attainable.

Science inherently cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. So where do you begin? How is the GOD question even addressed? As I've said before, it is a gross mismatch of the tool and the task.

and I was never worked up. I like to type a lot.

Yeah... we all know this.

Disclaimer: I know my world view is not aligned with the prevailing scientific theories. What everybody and they're mommas learned as irrefutable 'truth.' I'm not going to sit here and address half of SpursTalk who may feel they are en led to hurling ill-placed insults in my direction. Or those who may feel that Google has got it all figured out... that somehow their pasted articles automatically present irrefutable evidence towards their viewpoint when they don't fully comprehend the intricacies of the bias at play... I'm sick of these debates and only addressed B2B's question due to the events leading up to my misunderstanding of his motives... I simply don't have the time to enter another long discussion with anyone... no matter how valid their rebuttals may be...

[mouse]

Carbon 14 Dating Mistakes with the Shroud of Turin (Updated in 2008)

It may well go down as the biggest radiocarbon dating mistake in history.
The reason is because, now, nearly two decades later, whenever carbon 14 dating is discussed in high school or college classrooms, students are likely to raise a hand and ask some probing questions: What about the Shroud of Turin? Was it dated correctly? If not, how could so many scientists from so many reputable radiocarbon dating laboratories screw up so badly?





Based on . . .

1.

Chemistry Today (vol 26 n4/Jul-Aug 2008), "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud,"
2.

Los Alamos National Laboratory findings (Ohio State Shroud of Turin Conference report (August 2008),
3.

Thermochimica Acta (vol 425 2005) and
4.

findings of Georgia Ins ute of Technology chemist John L. Brown,



. . . it can be stated that the 1988 carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin is invalid.



Note: This should not be confused with the speculative carbon monoxide proposal by Colorado physicist John Jackson, so widely reported in the press.



Current Quotes:



*

There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is certainly needed. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information. –Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (Mar 2008)

*

[T]he [1988 carbon 14] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case. –Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL who examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region. (Aug 2008)



See: The Biggest Carbon 14 Dating Mistake

[mouse]

oops! the hits keep on coming....



A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

Do entation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

This test was done on August 10, 1990

[mouse]

[nuclearfm]

oops! the hits keep on coming....



A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

Do entation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

This test was done on August 10, 1990

Nice insight!



My car didn't start one morning out of 10,000... is it now deemed unreliable?

BTW I'm talking about a 1980's M Benz with over 600,000 miles

It's a little unfair and hypocritical to ask for perfection of man, when religion created by man is far from perfect as well.

[mouse]

Volcanic ash has also been known to give dates much older than they actually were .

Lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand gave erroneous dates (from K-Ar analyses) ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years old. These rocks were "observed to have cooled from lavas 25-50 years ago".("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

The equipment was checked and the samples were run again to exclude the possibility of lab error but similar results were obtained.("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

Because the actual age of these rocks is known to be less than 50 years old, it is clear that these K-Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon which was inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth.("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

See also the video: Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe Dr. Steve Austin

[nuclearfm]

[mouse]

Nice insight!

You really feel like laughing? it gets better.

A freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)

Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age.

A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

[mouse]

Carbon dating is frequently an embarrassment to Scientists.
Here is a Carbon 14 date that was rejected because it did not agree with evolution

Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.


Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago. (1)

Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon still in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did.

[nuclearfm]

You really feel like laughing? it gets better.

A freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)

Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age.

A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

These anomalies are expected. The polar regions are subject to different Carbon-14 levels due a dynamic in solar and galactic radiation events. Do you know what aurora borealis is? Carbon dating isn't perfect nor universly applied via the same technique (why should it be?), but substantial backing evidence has been cited to support terrestrial carbon uptake and dating for non-artic and anartic areas.

You can correct for the differences at these polar regions and still come up with a good answer. However, if you don't tell them where your sample came from, you'll likey to get a wrong answer.


Like I posted earlier, you're either ignorant or ignoring substantial evidence on Carbon dating.

[mouse]

I would move to another topic save this thread from 2 more pages of quotes and links I have ready to post. Lets do something on the comets that still burn today billions of years after the big bang even though Scientist's say they have a life span of only 10,000 years.

I want to see you pull out the oort Cloud card.


Each time comets (including Tempel-Tuttle) passes close to the Sun they become smaller because the surface melts and sheds more dust and debris. Thus, the life-span of comets is relatively short. Dr. Fred Whipple, one of the most respected authorities on comets, estimates that a comet can only orbit the Sun about 200 times before it will burn out. Halley's comet, for example, has an orbit of 76 years on average, meaning that it must be, at most, 15,000 years old or so. The short life-span of comets provides a problem for those wanting to believe the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth.