More evidence mouse can't debunk.
Watch it. This blows your arguments out of the water mouse.
Seriously though, this was simply 7 minutes of a guy who doesn't understand evolution, badly misstating the theory of evolution, then leaping to his preferred explanation, using logical fallacies.
"I find [my explanation] to be more satisfying".
His explanation made him happy.
Not because that is what the evidence shows.
It makes him happy.
Does it make you happy to believe irrational things, mouse?
Who does? Pssssst! it's a theory.
Then debunk it.badly misstating the theory of evolution, then leaping to his preferred explanation, using logical fallacies.
And after all that's what its all about..."your" satisfaction."I find [my explanation] to be more satisfying".
What other explanation is there?His explanation made him happy.
So it was all by chance? Some random action? kinda like your big bang theory. For no reason nothing exploded and now we are here..Not because that is what the evidence shows.
Figured you'd miss the point.It makes him happy.
Being a Spurs fan from 1976 to 1998 I had no choice.Does it make you happy to believe irrational things, mouse?
Unless your against Evolution and debating RandomGuy your better be airtight. So now you get a pass?
All your ed up data can now be subject to "flaws"? Dude you crack me up, how many times are you going to move the goal posts?
Whats this "we" ? The only thing anyone has learned from this topic is not to post the earth is "Billions" of years old unless you want to look foolish.We learn a lot even so
Just as I predicted in earlier pages. When you debunk a weak Science Theory or catch Science in a lie all of a sudden it's "we are learning"
Hey I have an idea if your still learning then pull that fantasy Big bang fairytale out of the school text books.
Translation: Maybe next time I will not pull out the Carbon dating card unless I did my research first.I would lastly point out that this particular method is not a way to gauge the age of fossils.
Then take out all the puzzle pieces don't belong in the box before you criticize someone for not putting the puzzle together like you demand .You are, in essence, criticizing a puzzle piece for not creating a full picture.
RandomGuy you can't have it both ways. When you think I am wrong you get on your high horse and go on a major rant to try and expose me for a being a fraud but when your weak outdated debunked evidence is expose you start talking about marbles and Puzzle pieces?
If you understood what you were copying and pasting, you would realize that.
I realized that your no different then the other Imo's in this topic that have No evidence Man evolved from a rock and have yet to "properly" debunk any of the real evidence I have presented.
That video further proves the lack of Intelligence and demented thought process you need to believe in Darwin which you clearly possess an abundance of.
To bad you couldn't do it yourself.This blows your arguments out of the water mouse.
Meh.
Still not falling for it.
I haven't moved the goal posts. I have merely pointed out that the methods we use to date things have limitations. You don't use a hammer to fasten screws, or a screwdriver to drive nails. The methodologies we use to date things have similar aspects to them that are known and compensated for by people who know what they are doing.
Man did not evolve from "a rock". That is not what scientists have determined what happened.
Since that is not what the theory of evolution states, you are either lying and committing a strawman logical fallacy, or ignorant of what the theory actually states.
I think it is the latter.
You do not even understand the theory you are attempting to falsify.
I said you don’t understand what you are copying and pasting, and here is the proof.
The molecular clock method is not the Carbon dating method.
One gives you an estimate as to how long ago any given two species diverged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock
Carbon dating will give you the age of many (but not all) fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-07-2012 at 11:06 AM. Reason: being better to mouse than he is to me. snark redacted.
The age of the earth is in the billions of years, not because of Carbon dating, but because of uranium dating, among others.
Half-lives of these things are known, provable and reproducible.Uranium-uranium dating is a radiometric dating technique which compares two isotopes of uranium (U) in a sample: 234U and 238U. 234U/238U dating is one of several radiometric dating techniques exploiting the uranium radioactive decay series, in which 238U undergoes 14 alpha and beta decay events while decaying to the stable isotope 206Pb. Other dating techniques using this decay series include uranium-thorium (using 230Th/238U) and uranium-lead dating.
238U, with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, decays to 234U through emission of an alpha particle to an isotope of thorium (234Th), which is comparatively unstable with a half-life of just 24 days. 23
They are not up for debate. You could, if you understood what you were doing, find out for yourself.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.htmlThere is another way to determine the age of the Earth. If we see an hourglass whose sand has run out, we know that it was turned over longer ago than the time interval it measures. Similarly, if we find that a radioactive parent was once abundant but has since run out, we know that it too was set longer ago than the time interval it measures. There are in fact many, many more parent isotopes than those listed in Table 1. However, most of them are no longer found naturally on Earth--they have run out. Their half-lives range down to times shorter than we can measure. Every single element has radioisotopes that no longer exist on Earth!
Many people are familiar with a chart of the elements (Fig. 6). Nuclear chemists and geologists use a different kind of figure to show all of the isotopes. It is called a chart of the nuclides. Figure 7 shows a portion of this chart. It is basically a plot of the number of protons vs. the number of neutrons for various isotopes. Recall that an element is defined by how many protons it has. Each element can have a number of different isotopes, that is,
Table 2. Extinct parent isotopes for
which there is strong evidence that
these once existed in substantial
amounts in meteorites, but have
since completely decayed away.
Extinct Isotope
Half-Life
(Years)
Plutonium-244
82 million
Iodine-129
16 million
Palladium-107
6.5 million
Manganese-53
3.7 million
Iron-60
1.5 million
Aluminum-26
700,000
Calcium-41
130,000
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-07-2012 at 11:17 AM. Reason: being better to mouse than he is to me. snark redacted.
The "55 million year old mortar and pestle" thing appears to be from a paper published in the 1800's, based on one guy's limited understanding.[chest thumping omitted]
Since your lost on this point and have no evidence my data is false i will move on to another point.
Someone here wanted me to prove Science claims man has been around for over "25 Million" years. Many posters here keep whining about where is the evidence.
Here is all the evidence you really need. This "man made" tool or eating utensil was found buried under a mine 1880.
Notice the date the Scientist give the tool.
If a tool "made by man" was found to be buried in a layer of rock dated "55 Million" years old do the math.
It is held up by creationists who are looking a a huge mountain of evidence and cherry picking items they think support their assertion of how flawed the science is, when the science itself self-corrects when something erroneous is found, as this was OVER A CENTURY AGO.
http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=262
This is exactly what I mean by half truths.
Sure, SOMEONE thought this stuff was 55 million years old.
The other half of the truth is:
A professional evaluation of the evidence found the support for that claim to be wholly insufficient, and it was discarded over a century ago.
Your weak, outdated bull evidence was so obviously bull to real scientists it was discarded before your great-grandfather was born.
That is all you have.
you don't understand, and that has already been debunked, sometimes hundreds of years ago.
The websites you get this stuff from LIE TO YOU, because they either are as ignorant as you are, or actively lying and you are buying it, hook, line, and sinker.
huge mistake....
How old is the "oldest" comet?
And if it's under "one Million" years your bull ends here.
Likely on the order of about 5 billion years or so, as the comets we see are formed from the same materials as our solar system itself, i.e. supernova remnants.
We have already done the "oort cloud" thing before. Your argument on this, as with evolution itself is based on your flawed and incomplete understanding.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html
I told you everything you are putting forward has already been debunked.Claim CE261:
Comets lose material as they near the sun. If the solar system were very old, comets would long ago have evaporated.
Source:
Velikovsky, Immanuel, 1955. Earth in Upheaval. New York: Pocket Books, pp. 261-262.
Response:
The comets that entered the inner solar system a very long time ago indeed have evaporated. However, new comets enter the inner solar system from time to time. The Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt hold many comets deep in space, beyond the orbit of Neptune, where they do not evaporate. Occasionally, gravitational perturbations from other comets bump one of them into a highly elliptical orbit, which causes it to near the sun.
Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...ea.html#proof3
Further Reading:
Jewitt, David, n.d. Kuiper Belt. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/kb.html
What method would you use to tell? Non terrestrial objects will have different isotopic mixes than terrestrial objects if you use that method.
The very nature of the question implies that comets have different ages. They don't.
Comets are all of the same age. As I stated before, comets were formed out of the same material our solar system was formed, i.e. supernova dust and gas. Occasionally chunks of that get ever so slightly moved by the motions/gravity of the neighborhood stars and our own star into a very wide orbit. Old ones evaporate eventually, and new ones get captured every once in a great while.
Mouse, for his part, doubts the surrounding cloud of ice/gas even exists, because the creationist dumbasses that he gets his information from say it doesn't exist. The problem with that is the dumbasses are not scientists, and don't know that we have actually observed it. Mouse uses others' flawed understanding as a crutch, and his arguments fall over because he understands this stuff even less than the dumbasses do.
The question itself indicates a deep lack of understanding.
Why is it your flood theory cannot explain the evidence?
First off I don't know who Noah is and I have stated over the years I don't support the bible.
But I do support the earth was flooded around 6,000 - 10.000 years ago.
I will examine your cute you tube Tupperware experiment and give you my feedback in 45 minutes.
Your first video is about "sediments" And how certain sediments take longer to produce than what the Bible says.
Well like I have told you for many years and many postings "I don't support the bible"
Second your video has nothing to do with Science it's some Dr. Hovind hater who has to mention his name every 4 minutes. This man has an agenda he cherry picks his evidence and refuses to do a live debate with the very man he is trying to expose.
What does that say about a person who has to hide behind a youtube video?
In any case that video does not De-bunk the earth ever been under water it merely attacks "Noah" a person from the "Bible"
go look at the latest reply on the video.
Last edited by mouse; 11-14-2012 at 05:38 AM. Reason: spelling what else?
Your second video is the same as the first and the same person created it. The man uses a one sided argument and keeps attacking the same people.
he is out to disprove the Bible something I don't support once again.
Come on RandomLie bring something better to the table and do some research on the authors of the videos before you ruin your reputation on some God hater.
look at the last reply on his youtube link that says it all.
Last edited by mouse; 11-15-2012 at 08:21 AM.
Noah's flood, your flood, there is no evidence for any such global flood. If there were a global flood, how do you explain the existence of fresh water fish? The salty oceans rising would have killed them all off.
Dude are you really that misinformed or you just want to debate? There are clams found on some of the highest mountain tops you think they got there from falling from the sky?
Let me finish up a project I am doing in Austin I will address your question Sunday morning if not sooner if I can get a good WiFi signal.
If there were a global flood, how do you explain the existence of fresh water fish? The salty oceans rising would have killed them all off.
Your assuming the sea was salty already. Today’s oceans are about 3.6% salt. Between the salts washing in from ground water and the salts leaching in from subterranean salt domes, the oceans could have gone from fresh water to 3.6% in the 4,400 years.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
"nu-uh, oceans could have been entirely fresh water back then".
Ok, you aren't serious. Gotcha. Kinda knew that before, sorry to bother you.
Translation:
open mouth insert foot.
You have no "evidence" you know that you need to win in court?
Science has no evidence of water conditions 6 months ago to solve a homicide you think they can tell you the water conditions 4,000 years ago?
How far up your Ape ass is your thought process?
ease up on the bath salts.
According to NASA Scientists
The "moon" is drifting a way from the Earth at a rate of "4" inches a year.
This has been recorded Google this .
If the Earth is "4 Billion" years old how close would the Moon be?
And your head exploded....
Sokay, you aren't being serious, I understand that. Again, sorry to bother you.
This has been brought up before.
The drift rate changes. I'll bet there were times it drifted closer year by year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
