The notable layering can be from something else. Say for example you take a sample of ice, and you have 30 layers in it. No good scientists will say we have 30 years of sample here, but he might say we have as many as 30 years.
You have to carefully look at each layer. Something else can cause the layering to occur. There might be less than 20 of those layers as annual layers, maybe 28. It's unlikely that all the layers are annual layers though.
But what you just said is not in the text books!
I think many of you in this topic are so amped up on putting the bible thumper's in there places you forget why I am here.
I am here to discus the text books and lies. I don't give a rats ass how we got here i want to enjoy every minute of it. Just don't lie to the students.
Let the text books show the controversy, let the text books show the embryonic chart was faked. let the text books show the lost squadron and how you can't always use ice layers as a means to age the earth.
What is so wrong with presenting all points of view, all the different theories and than let the students decide on their own?
You want to tell kids H2O is water and you want them to believe science is a never ending learning experience that is fine. Just don't make science into a Markism propaganda machine that has an agenda and is out to make kids not believe in their own beliefs or creation theories.
Let science show facts and have foot notes. for example
Scientist believe the earth is 4 billion years old from studying the fossil record and the earths rocks using carbon dating methods,etc...
(Side note: Carbon dating has know to have flaws and there are others who claim the earth may not be 4 billion years old.)
Scientist believe man evolved from a primate type creature 60 million years ago
from the data they have studied and from Darwin's theories.
(side note: Darwin's theory is just that it is not 100% accurate and is subject to criticisms
You see the big picture, or do you need another chart?
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
Man did not evolve from apes or snails.
[QUOTE=mouse;3768297][snarky comment removed by author. RG]
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-24-2009 at 06:57 PM.
Much better.
Scientists believe, actually, that modern humans evolved from our most immediate ancestor as little as 200,000 years ago, if memory serves.
Genetic distance. Given below the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is roughly 2%, or 20 times larger than the variation among modern humans.
Temporal remoteness of the most recent common ancestor. Rough estimates are given above the diagram, in millions of years. The mitochondrial most recent common ancestor of modern humans lived roughly 200,000 years ago, latest common ancestors of humans and chimps between four and seven million years ago.
The embryonic chart was simply a bad idea, unsupported by data. That is why it was ultimately removed.
Your problem is that the age of the earth the biblical literalists want is 10,000 years, because that is what some monk in the middle ages calculated it to be based on HIS interpretation of the bible.
We have so many things telling us the age of the earth is older than that.
Red-shift of light
genetic drift
ice core samples
radiometric dating
continental drift
etc.
etc.
etc.
For the bibilical literalists to be right about this monk's calculation requires entire FIELDS of science to be completely based on absolute bunk.
Chemistry
Physics
Geology
Genetics
All of which are based, if biblical literalists are to be beleived, on bad science.
Every measurement of any data that indicated an age any older than 10,000 years MUST be wrong somehow.
Chemistry can refine petroleum into tens of thousands of different useful things, mix metals, produce new millions of new compounds, is somehow wrong when it indicates that the age of the earth/universe is older than 10,000 years.
Physics can accurately launch a space craft into orbit of a planet millions of miles away, it can accurately predict the eletrical field strength of a given current, it can accurately predict the very make-up of matter, measure the speed of light in super-cold mediums, split atoms, is somehow wrong when it indicates the age of the earth/universe is older than 10,000 years.
Geology can be trusted to tell us where to look for coal/oil/gold/iron, can tell us how deep to sink foundations for skyscrapers, where to find water, can't be trusted when it says that the age of the earth is older than 10,000 years.
Genetics can map out the entire genome of dozens of creatures, tell us how to modify the very building blocks of life to produce glow in the dark cats, drought resistant crops, vaccines, is somehow completely off-base when it suggests that genetic material changes, and that rate of change can be measured to produce an overall age for ANY creature's DNA older than 10,000 years.
In short, all of modern science is good enough to do all manner of wonderful things for us, but when it comes to actually producing good enough data to hazard a guess about the age of the universe... they just ALL completely failed to get it right.
That is what you would have me believe?
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
Then take it out of the text books!
you asshole!
You just got owned! I post that shows your wrong and "it's just "bad data"?
You say I post that is wrong and "It's lies!"?
You better pull that banana eating Darwin loving head out of that 4 billion year old ass of yours before you come back with some lame ass like this again
when was the last time you read a school book?
Show us this data you speak of.
While your out in Google country find a rebuttal to this.
Ocean Sediment
A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of ac ulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gifShow us this data you speak of.
While your out in Google country find a rebuttal to this.
Ocean Sediment
A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of ac ulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.
weeeeeeeeeeeeeee
That cheesy link you provided is from the National Geophysical Data Center. (NGDC)
An organization that has an agenda and has been proven wrong and has many flaws.
If your going to pull out more false evidence to prove Darwin's half baked theories? at least try to find a credible organization, not the NGDC
Weeeeeeeee
Those pics show no such thing. Prove your contention please.
Jesus has no game
You should so a little studying about the fossils they found in Vernonia, Oregon and other elevated lands where they found sea fossils. Vernonia sits at 630 ft. above sea level, and is on the other side of the ocean from a mountain range.
Oregon Fossils
Myself, I think Darwin is wrong about most things. However, it is intellectually dishonest to try to disprove something with bull .
Fossils found in elevated mountain ranges is just proof of a great flood!
You just score a touchdown for the creationist!
Then why is it still in the school text books?Myself, I think Darwin is wrong about most things.
Kinda like Evolutionist do with carbon dating?However, it is intellectually dishonest to try to disprove something with bull .
I am not a creationist, but feel free to post more proof of Noah's flood with your turtle found on top of mountain links I'm sure they would love it!
sorry almost forgot..........
Weeeeeeeeeee
Who are these many people? as many as 10?Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The science of Carbon dating only allows reasonable accuracy to about 50,000 years. By this time, the 14C is less than 0.4% of the original sample.
You have to use uncontaminated samples to carbon date. Fossils are a very poor choice for carbon dating to begin with.A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim
You know, if I were a scientist willing to fudge such information, I would find fossil samples near any radioactive source that emits neutrons. This would change some of the remaining nitrogen in the bone to carbon 14.
Another possibility is these bones were found in an area that would have been frozen since they dies, and unfrozen since the last ice age. Bacteria feeding in the pours would leave traces of 14C.
I cannot believe such things you say to be true. there is so many other types of supporting evidence.
Another explaination yet is that some dinosaurs may have survived until our forefathers killed all the dragons!
What you offer is data suggesting proof of everything, when too many unknown factors exist.
Do you know for a fact that all dinasaurs were extinct about the same time period?
Why does the article say bone, and not fossilized bone?
Come on man. Use your own head instead of propaganda material.
This same web site is just propaganda. They intentionally mislead the reader, so why do you trust them?
The penguin dated at 8,000 years? Give me a break. This is exactly the type of misleading propaganda that proves this site has an agenda and lies. The food chain of the penguin is sea life, getting CO2 from the sea, not the atmosphere. Starting with the plankton, diatoms, etc. the CO2 they absorb can be in the ocean for tens of thousands of years. Any such samples are known to be invalid by any scientist who knows carbon dating. Why do you quote a site that lies?
Keep up the propaganda posting Mouse, and you will end up on my IGNORE list.
Please verify the validity of the sites, instead of posting complete and utter nonsense.
Ignore lists are for pussy's. Sorry if I don't say what you want to hear. To bad the world can't be Cobratized!
Why even enter a debate if your going to and moan about links and quotes that don't suit your beliefs?
So what if my links and quotes are not to your utmost standards. I as an American can post them and believe in them just as you believe in your 4 billion year old theories.
Don't bother with the ignore feature I doubt I will waste valuable debating time with someone who can't handle the other side of an argument.
Why would I? so you can get offended again and threaten to put me on double secret Ignore? Funny thing is your not new to ST why would it take you this long to put me on Ignore?Please verify the validity of the sites, instead of posting complete and utter nonsense.
The following is for anyone else who wants to take over where cobra left off....
That picture no more shows that man evolved from snails than it does man evolving from modern dogs.Then take it out of the text books!
If you look down the "Tree" you will see that the line ultimately leading to humans and the line ultimately leading to snails to intersect at some point in the past.
THAT is the theory of evolution. At some point in the very distant past, the BRANCH that eventually came to give rise to humans and the branch that eventually gave rise to snails today intersected at a common ancestor.
You would be better off saying:
Humans evolved from primitive slugs.
Which is the correct statement according to modern understanding of evolution.
We didn't evolve from apes, but DO share a common ancestor. Modern snails are very very very distant relatives of humans, as almost all life on the planet is.
Jesus has no game
Au contraire... Jesus Saves
Then take it out of the text books!
That is my point! Evolution teaches all matter evolved from a single source.If you look down the "Tree" you will see that the line ultimately leading to humans and the line ultimately leading to snails to intersect at some point in the past.
It all goes back to the soup!THAT is the theory of evolution. At some point in the very distant past, the BRANCH that eventually came to give rise to humans and the branch that eventually gave rise to snails today intersected at a common ancestor.
Slugs,Bugs,rugs,....does it really matter? It's all the same from hot rocks! (according to Darwin and your Scientific friends)You would be better off saying:
Humans evolved from primitive slugs.
Which is the correct statement according to modern understanding of evolution.
Then take the evolution charts out of the text books.We didn't evolve from apes,
That is like saying Your not Mexican but your great grand father was Pancho Villa. Come on your splitting hairs.but DO share a common ancestor.
And my very very very very very distant grandmother was from mars making me part Martian.Modern snails are very very very distant relatives of humans, as almost all life on the planet is.
Well at least you have the sac to admit man did come from Snails. And It's more than Chump and cobra will admit to!
More Bull in the text books!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
