Evolution is NOT stupid.

[Scrotum]

Is not pride one of the Decalogue´s ?


And is not claiming to be the Center of the Universe quite Prideful? So whats the deal here? Explain it to me, clearly i missed something as an atheist.....

If you are a ´Evolutionist´ (biological) we have once been what we could define as ´ape like´ creatures. And we are changing (thats what evolution means, NOT GETTING BETTER, ONLY CHANGE) all the time. We are not the final product of the Universe, we are only one current product, of the contemporary Universe.


So being a ´Evolutionist´ is the opposite of Pride, whiles Creationism (or denial of Biological Evolution) is pride in its full glory.


Comments and perhaps a debate about this?

[Grumpy]

UNIquelyCanadian

If you base the age of a rock on the fossils it contains no wonder you only find "old fossils" in "old layers". Otherwise how do you date a rock?

Ever hear of carbon dating, radioisotopes, geology???The age of rocks can reliably and accurately be determined by one of the 40+ methods that,by the way, agree with each other remarkably well and indicate the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, that multi cellular life is ~800 million yo and that man's first known ancestors were walking the Earth some 5 million years ago.

Grumpy

[UNIquelyCanadian]

Ever hear of carbon dating, radioisotopes, geology???The age of rocks can reliably and accurately be determined by one of the 40+ methods that,by the way, agree with each other remarkably well and indicate the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, that multi cellular life is ~800 million yo and that man's first known ancestors were walking the Earth some 5 million years ago.

Grumpy

Hmmm?

With a "half life" of approx. 5,700 years the ratio between c14 and c12 becomes so small that anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.

How does this show this rock is billions of years old and our ancestors go back some 5 million years with reliability and accuracy?

[Goat]

It does seem odd that so many modern fossils are missing the old layers.
If creationism is right as they say then you should have some place where all the animals lived. What seems to be missing in old layers is modern animals and the old ones are missing in our time.

Aren't those statements based on circular reasoning?

If you base the age of a rock on the fossils it contains no wonder you only find "old fossils" in "old layers". Otherwise how do you date a rock?

...Obviously a layer on the bottom would usually be somewhat older then one above it. I mean other then that.

Keep it wheel,

The point you are missing is that the age of the rocks are not based on the fossils. It just so happens that certain age rocks have certain fossils, and not other types of fossils. Before the 20th century, the age of rocks was assumed that the older rocks would be underneath the younger rocks in an environment that did not go through geological upheavel. In the 20th century, radiometric dating was developed, and this not only confirmed the assumptions via a different methology, but was able to figure out the age of a specfic rock if the sample was in good enough condition. It turns out that rocks of the same age and the fossils that were able to be discovered had a 1/1 corrospondance to it.

Prior to the development of the radiometric dating, yes, the only way to figure out the 'age' of a rock was via the older layer on bottom, and newer layer on top. This obviously was not as accurate (although 'years' could be measured by the layers).

[UNIquelyCanadian]

It does seem odd that so many modern fossils are missing the old layers.
If creationism is right as they say then you should have some place where all the animals lived. What seems to be missing in old layers is modern animals and the old ones are missing in our time.

Aren't those statements based on circular reasoning?

If you base the age of a rock on the fossils it contains no wonder you only find "old fossils" in "old layers". Otherwise how do you date a rock?

...Obviously a layer on the bottom would usually be somewhat older then one above it. I mean other then that.

Keep it wheel,

The point you are missing is that the age of the rocks are not based on the fossils. It just so happens that certain age rocks have certain fossils, and not other types of fossils. Before the 20th century, the age of rocks was assumed that the older rocks would be underneath the younger rocks in an environment that did not go through geological upheavel. In the 20th century, radiometric dating was developed, and this not only confirmed the assumptions via a different methology, but was able to figure out the age of a specfic rock if the sample was in good enough condition. It turns out that rocks of the same age and the fossils that were able to be discovered had a 1/1 corrospondance to it.

Prior to the development of the radiometric dating, yes, the only way to figure out the 'age' of a rock was via the older layer on bottom, and newer layer on top. This obviously was not as accurate (although 'years' could be measured by the layers).

Wouldn't you wonder at the many assumptions necessary in using the decay rates to determine age? Is it possible that current conditions remained constant over the past billions of years?

People love to point out when the various radiometric dating techniques give numbers which could not possibly be correct. I'm sure you may have read some webpages that list quite a number of them? Such as http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... dating.asp How do you explain the messed up results?

But this is off topic, originally I was responding to the fossil/layers reference.

[Grumpy]

UNIquelyCanadian

Hmmm?

With a "half life" of approx. 5,700 years the ratio between c14 and c12 becomes so small that anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left.

How does this show this rock is billions of years old and our ancestors go back some 5 million years with reliability and accuracy?

Let's take a look at what I said, shall we?

Ever hear of carbon dating, radioisotopes, geology???The age of rocks can reliably and accurately be determined by one of the 40+ methods that,by the way, agree with each other remarkably well and indicate the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, that multi cellular life is ~800 million yo and that man's first known ancestors were walking the Earth some 5 million years ago.

We have carbon dating for ages less than 50,000.

We have 40+ different radioisotope methods (which agree with each other) for determining ages greater than 50,000.

Geology gives important clues(example, volcano eruptions which are dated and which covered a fossil).

Now do you understand my WHOLE post??? Is further repitition needed???

Grumpy

[Goat]

It does seem odd that so many modern fossils are missing the old layers.
If creationism is right as they say then you should have some place where all the animals lived. What seems to be missing in old layers is modern animals and the old ones are missing in our time.

Aren't those statements based on circular reasoning?

If you base the age of a rock on the fossils it contains no wonder you only find "old fossils" in "old layers". Otherwise how do you date a rock?

...Obviously a layer on the bottom would usually be somewhat older then one above it. I mean other then that.

Keep it wheel,

The point you are missing is that the age of the rocks are not based on the fossils. It just so happens that certain age rocks have certain fossils, and not other types of fossils. Before the 20th century, the age of rocks was assumed that the older rocks would be underneath the younger rocks in an environment that did not go through geological upheavel. In the 20th century, radiometric dating was developed, and this not only confirmed the assumptions via a different methology, but was able to figure out the age of a specfic rock if the sample was in good enough condition. It turns out that rocks of the same age and the fossils that were able to be discovered had a 1/1 corrospondance to it.

Prior to the development of the radiometric dating, yes, the only way to figure out the 'age' of a rock was via the older layer on bottom, and newer layer on top. This obviously was not as accurate (although 'years' could be measured by the layers).

Wouldn't you wonder at the many assumptions necessary in using the decay rates to determine age? Is it possible that current conditions remained constant over the past billions of years?

People love to point out when the various radiometric dating techniques give numbers which could not possibly be correct. I'm sure you may have read some webpages that list quite a number of them? Such as http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ating.asp How do you explain the messed up results?

I always find it amusing that people use 'answers in genesis' as a resource about any kind of science. Let me explain it to you simple. AIG Lied. Pure and simple.

You see, when it comes to C-14, it is acknowledged that any date beyond 40 to 50 thousands is inaccurate. The fact they are trying to claim it is shows willfull ignorance.

Here is a resource page about some fo the claims (there is a lot of misinformation at AIG).

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_ra ... e_list.htm

[redneck22]

We have 40+ different radioisotope methods (which agree with each other) for determining ages greater than 50,000.

Geology gives important clues(example, volcano eruptions which are dated and which covered a fossil).

Now do you understand my WHOLE post??? Is further repitition needed???

Grumpy

Seems to be a "dating war" going here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... prints.asp or are they lying a

[UNIquelyCanadian]

We have carbon dating for ages less than 50,000.

We have 40+ different radioisotope methods (which agree with each other) for determining ages greater than 50,000.

Geology gives important clues(example, volcano eruptions which are dated and which covered a fossil).

Now do you understand my WHOLE post??? Is further repitition needed???

Grumpy

I still don't get what carbon had to do with your statements? You were talking millions of years, but included carbon dating as proof?

I always find it amusing that people use 'answers in genesis' as a resource about any kind of science. Let me explain it to you simple. AIG Lied. Pure and simple.

You see, when it comes to C-14, it is acknowledged that any date beyond 40 to 50 thousands is inaccurate. The fact they are trying to claim it is shows willfull ignorance.

Here is a resource page about some fo the claims (there is a lot of misinformation at AIG).

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_ra ... e_list.htm

While I'm glad you find it amusing, are you saying that there is nothing on AIG's webpage that is any use or value scientifically?

I can't figure out: "The fact they are trying to claim it is shows willful ignorance." You seem to be saying if someone writes an article supporting a scientific fact they are showing "willful ignorance." What did you mean?

I assume you have a problem with AIG's conclusions regarding origins, but what lies are they proffering as fact? No matter if you disagree with their interpretation of the facts, I have found AIG's science is sound, written on a popular level. Would you disagree?

Most likely I will be away from the computer for the next couple of weeks so I may not respond in a "timely fashion" unless I make more time tonight.

Bye for now!

[Goat]

We have carbon dating for ages less than 50,000.

We have 40+ different radioisotope methods (which agree with each other) for determining ages greater than 50,000.

Geology gives important clues(example, volcano eruptions which are dated and which covered a fossil).

Now do you understand my WHOLE post??? Is further repitition needed???

Grumpy

I still don't get what carbon had to do with your statements? You were talking millions of years, but included carbon dating as proof?

If you read the AIG site, they were pointing to some items that they claimed carbon dating dated to be millions of year s old . That is a misdirection, since any scientist would tell you that the theortical limit of Carbon dating is 50,000 years.

While I'm glad you find it amusing, are you saying that there is nothing on AIG's webpage that is any use or value scientifically?

I can't figure out: "The fact they are trying to claim it is shows willful ignorance." You seem to be saying if someone writes an article supporting a scientific fact they are showing "willful ignorance." What did you mean?

I mean they make invalid assumptions, and continue to do so, despite the fact it is pointed out to them. They reject anything that does not fit in with their religious presumptions.

I assume you have a problem with AIG's conclusions regarding origins, but what lies are they proffering as fact? No matter if you disagree with their interpretation of the facts, I have found AIG's science is sound, written on a popular level. Would you disagree?

Yes, I would disagree. For example, when it comes to the 'samples' that give invalid dates. The AIG used samples that would be KNOWN to give invalid results, because it did not meet the requirements of a good sample. They used them anyway, and were gleeful when, as expected, the results didn't come up properly. That is basicly deceit, since from a scientific point of view, those samples would not be proper to date with that methodlogy. That is 'willful ignorance', deciet' and not sound science. The entire site is rift with examples like that. So, no, their science is not sound.

[UNIquelyCanadian]

Goat!

"For example, when it comes to the 'samples' that give invalid dates. The AIG used samples that would be KNOWN to give invalid results, because it did not meet the requirements of a good sample. They used them anyway, and were gleeful when, as expected, the results didn't come up properly. That is basicly deceit, since from a scientific point of view, those samples would not be proper to date with that methodlogy."

How do you define a "good sample"? It sounds like a good sample would be only ones which give the dates you are looking for?