It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 31
6
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

The assumption here is that C14 dating does not lose accuracy the further you go back in time. Is this not the case? I'm asking because I've not personally worked with it. I hear a few thousand years is pretty on-point, but the further you go back, the less reliable it becomes in working with the radioactive isotope with half-life and all. My thing was Biology, not Physics so if someone wants to help me out here, I'm all ears.

I do like Hitchhiker's Guide by the way, great work of fiction. I'll disagree with the general populus of fans though and say "Mostly Harmless" was the best book in the series with the best character - Random.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by saint4God]


Boy, am I tired of seeing this one.


Tell me, Saint, are other dating methods, like uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc., not very reliable as well?




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'll be damned if anyone tells me something other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster created mankind. It says so right here:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Created Mankind


Link

No matter what evidence you think you have, TFSM already told me you were a liar and not to believe you, so there.





note: This was my attempt to sound as closed minded and hard headed as possible. Just as one shouldn't use a single web page as evidence for anything, relying on one book for all of your facts is very simple minded. WAY too simple minded for a being as complex as we are. If God didn't want us to learn about the world, and ourselves, why would he put us right in the middle of it?


Can I get a RA-MEN from the congregation?

i think it's somewhat sad that people actually NEED a note when talking about the flying spaghetti monster



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   


The assumption here is that C14 dating does not lose accuracy the further you go back in time. Is this not the case? I'm asking because I've not personally worked with it. I hear a few thousand years is pretty on-point, but the further you go back, the less reliable it becomes in working with the radioactive isotope with half-life and all. My thing was Biology, not Physics so if someone wants to help me out here, I'm all ears.


It's really got nothing to do with biology or physics, it's got everything to do with common sense, and accepting the reality of the world we live in.

There are many other elements we can see that we can show the world to be of a great age:

Such as oil, natural gases, rock formations, mountains. These were formed over 'millions' of years.

The thing is that some people just can't accept the world we live in. Oil takes millions and millions of years to form, that's why when we run out.. we've RUN out.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Boy, am I tired of seeing this one.


So you're saying your answer is... ? If you have a simple answer, then please by all means, help a friend out here. I ask questions because I do not have answers. Kind of pointless for me to ask if I already know, yes?


Originally posted by truthseeka
Tell me, Saint, are other dating methods, like uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc., not very reliable as well?


Dunno, my major was life science, not things long dead. Again, how 'bout helping a friend out here. Or, don't you do that?

[edit on 13-7-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby


The assumption here is that C14 dating does not lose accuracy the further you go back in time. Is this not the case? I'm asking because I've not personally worked with it. I hear a few thousand years is pretty on-point, but the further you go back, the less reliable it becomes in working with the radioactive isotope with half-life and all. My thing was Biology, not Physics so if someone wants to help me out here, I'm all ears.


It's really got nothing to do with biology or physics, it's got everything to do with common sense, and accepting the reality of the world we live in.


Melatonin stated:


C-14 dating is only good for 50,000-60,000 yrs, so it is of little consequence for ToE. But yeah, it is due to the half-life of the carbon isotope.


Is this correct or not? I disagree that "common sense" is the answer here. How about turning this into a True/False and answer.



There are many other elements we can see that we can show the world to be of a great age:

Such as oil, natural gases, rock formations, mountains. These were formed over 'millions' of years.

The thing is that some people just can't accept the world we live in. Oil takes millions and millions of years to form, that's why when we run out.. we've RUN out.


What does erosion and chemical break-down have to do with evolution? Evolution is a building up, not tearing down last I checked but welcome additional information.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Carbon dating isn't used for materials over 50,000 years old. This, of course, isn't enough time to measure any real evolution, which is why it isn't used to date fossils. I've never heard of a paleontologist using carbon dating to date anything. They usually are able to find the date of something's existence by where it is found in the surrounding strata.

I really hate it when IDers bring up carbon dating. It has nothing to do with the science behind evolution, but maintain that sciences can't be trusted because of the C14 inaccuracies at ages over 50,000 years.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Carbon dating isn't used for materials over 50,000 years old. This, of course, isn't enough time to measure any real evolution, which is why it isn't used to date fossils. I've never heard of a paleontologist using carbon dating to date anything. They usually are able to find the date of something's existence by where it is found in the surrounding strata.


Thank you, this answers my question.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I really hate it when IDers bring up carbon dating.


I don't think the person who brought it up is an "IDer" unless I'm reading this wrong:


Originally posted by neformore
You have religious people saying C14 dating is inaccurate - if thats the case you best discount anything on the Dead Sea Scrolls as fake, forget all about the Shround of Turin and also throw out any religious relics that have been found



Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It has nothing to do with the science behind evolution, but maintain that sciences can't be trusted because of the C14 inaccuracies at ages over 50,000 years.


Again, I don't think this address is for me, but am curious to neformore's response.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Melatonin stated:

C-14 dating is only good for 50,000-60,000 yrs, so it is of little consequence for ToE. But yeah, it is due to the half-life of the carbon isotope.


Is this correct or not? I disagree that "common sense" is the answer here. How about turning this into a True/False and answer.


i'm saying you don't need to be a biologist or a physicist or have some sort of higher education in either of those to be able to understand or look around and see that the earth is of a great age.



What does erosion and chemical break-down have to do with evolution? Evolution is a building up, not tearing down last I checked but welcome additional information.


it wasn't me who was bringing up the 'we can only carbon date to around 50-60 thousand year ago'.. i was pointing out that even without carbon dating, you can 'look' at certain things and be able to understand that the earth is millions of years old.

and oil and mountain ranges forming has 'everything' to do with evolution, because it shows the earth to be millions of years old, and therefore leaves enough time for evolution to occur. i was pointing out this, as some people actually believe the earth is about 6000 years old, which wouldn't leave enough time for evolution. so i'm sorry if i was trying to show that the earth is millions of years old for evolution to be able to occur, and completly not discussing evolution.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i'm saying you don't need to be a biologist or a physicist or have some sort of higher education in either of those to be able to understand or look around and see that the earth is of a great age.


I can agree with that. I think we lose perspective though the further back we go. We can fathom a decade, a hundred years or perhaps a few thousand. Beyond that I think it begins to look like a number.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
it wasn't me who was bringing up the 'we can only carbon date to around 50-60 thousand year ago'..


Nope, it was neformore and articles published about carbon dating explaining evolution. I was only questioning what they were saying.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i was pointing out that even without carbon dating, you can 'look' at certain things and be able to understand that the earth is millions of years old.


I think I understand what you're saying.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
and oil and mountain ranges forming has 'everything' to do with evolution, because it shows the earth to be millions of years old, and therefore leaves enough time for evolution to occur. i was pointing out this, as some people actually believe the earth is about 6000 years old, which wouldn't leave enough time for evolution. so i'm sorry if i was trying to show that the earth is millions of years old for evolution to be able to occur, and completly not discussing evolution.


Aha, I get ya now. I didn't see how the two points connected. Makes sense to me as you've put it here. That, in determining the long breakdown periods of oil and geological changes, there may be time for evolution to occur (if it does occur). Conversely if the earth is 6,000 years old, there's no time for evolution. I can agree that much time is needed for evolution to even be considered. Although, I haven't heard the thought that yes the earth is 6,000 years old and yes evolution occurred in that 6,000 years. Personally, I don't think it is either one. I don't see evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old Biblically or otherwiwse (and in fact see evidence against that thought) nor do I see evidence that the earth is billions of years old and evolution occurred during that time. So saint4God, what are you saying? I'm saying we can play guessing games all day or merely except the data that's given while recognizing we don't know until we do have data. My affinity is for the latter. I'm and evolution skeptic as well as a new earth theory skeptic. I believe dinosaurs lived on the earth, died, became fossil fuels and that mankind was presented the earth to utilize (not abuse!) as a good steward for resources and prosperity. Can I prove it with data? Absolutely not, nor am I claiming my thinking on it as fact...unlike evolution.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Considering the fact that finches on the Galapagos Islands are currently EVOLVING, i'd have to say we have our proof that it is true.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by m_w_0_8_0]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Not finding billions of fossils does not constitute “Proof” that something did not exist

The conditions needed for something to become fossilized are rare.

MOST living organisms DO NOT fossilize.

It is not surprising to scientists if ANY species does not leave behind a plethora of fossils.

We have fossilized remains of an animals we call “T-Rex.” However, we do not have Billions of T-Rex fossils.

Still, even without billions of T-Rex fossils, it would be pretty lame to claim, “see, they could not possibly have existed!”

Saying something could not POSSIBLY have existed because we do not have billions of fossilized examples IS NOT a valid argument.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by m_w_0_8_0
Considering the fact that finches on the Galapagos Islands are currently EVOLVING, i'd have to say we have our proof that it is true.


Yeah? Mind helping me out with that proof? Regarding Galapagos I've only read Origin of Species (Charles Darwin) and Diversity of Life (Stephen Gould) and neither bothered to establish the proof of evolving. I wonder why they chose to leave such important data and details out of their books.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by m_w_0_8_0
Considering the fact that finches on the Galapagos Islands are currently EVOLVING, i'd have to say we have our proof that it is true.


Yeah? Mind helping me out with that proof? Regarding Galapagos I've only read Origin of Species (Charles Darwin) and Diversity of Life (Stephen Gould) and neither bothered to establish the proof of evolving. I wonder why they chose to leave such important data and details out of their books.


Here's one of many (not sure how to reduce link size, sorry)-

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=A9G_Rx3BobdEfVMACxgPLBIF;_ylu=X3o'___'A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

There are many more, but there's one for you. Evolution has occurred in front of our eyes for many, many years. It is simply adapting in a way so that particular species may survive. And, no offense, but with the limited resources available in the time that Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, you wouldn't have been able to establish solid "proof" of evolution either. He observed, recording exactly what he observed, and most seemingly nailed it on the head.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by m_w_0_8_0]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
All people who rely on Dr. Dino, you will have to go to jail to hear any more from him.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Funny ain't it?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by m_w_0_8_0

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by m_w_0_8_0
Considering the fact that finches on the Galapagos Islands are currently EVOLVING, i'd have to say we have our proof that it is true.


Yeah? Mind helping me out with that proof? Regarding Galapagos I've only read Origin of Species (Charles Darwin) and Diversity of Life (Stephen Gould) and neither bothered to establish the proof of evolving. I wonder why they chose to leave such important data and details out of their books.


Here's one of many (not sure how to reduce link size, sorry)-

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=A9G_Rx3BobdEfVMACxgPLBIF;_ylu=X3o'___'A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

There are many more, but there's one for you. Evolution has occurred in front of our eyes for many, many years. It is simply adapting in a way so that particular species may survive. And, no offense, but with the limited resources available in the time that Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, you wouldn't have been able to establish solid "proof" of evolution either. He observed, recording exactly what he observed, and most seemingly nailed it on the head.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by m_w_0_8_0]


yes, props, i'm voting you for way above

now, people who believe that evolution is bull, PLEASE TRY READING THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

tis a good book

and please recomend a book that refutes evolutionary theory



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
If that's what all this is about...and even if it isn't what this is all about, consider that nobody really knows what the Almighty (whatever it is) was up to when this happened, and for that matter if an entity was even involved.

Evolution exists. Period. I know this because as a kid we didn't have cable TV, but smarter monkeys had to come along to invent it. And they did. When I was a kid, you could only get a few frozen dinners at the store. A lot of smarter monkeys than me (who were born after I was, no doubt) invented ways of crisping up the crust on a microwave pizza so I could enjoy its flaky goodness.

Those are obvious examples. Let's just all get along people. If we were dropped here by and alien species, they still must have been a bit surprise when we got smarter, built condos and started selling things like convertible automobiles and helicopters and push-up bras.

You can't tell me that somewhere in the mix of 6 to 9 Billion people evolution ain't at work when I see the I-Pod being invented. You just can't.

Newtron



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
i'm not sure if the topic is 'technological evolution'..

and in response to dr.dino.. hahahaha.. bahbye now..

the problem with the 'theory of evolution', to anyone who doesn't 'really' understand what a scientific theory is, can find it hard to put their trust in it.. as some people see a theory as nothing more than a guess.. however, the explanation of a scientific theory could not be anymore further from a guess.. a theory is in the middle of a hypothosis and a law, but that doesn't mean it's any 'less' of an idea than a law.. nothing will ever change a scientific theory in to a law.. which i'm sure many people think needs to actually happen for evolution to be proven true.. however, you will never here the phrase 'the law of evolution'.. because no matter how much evidence and observation goes on.. it will always remain 'the theory of evolution'.

now i can understand the religious viewpoint of evolution, because it's not mentioned anywhere in scripture and doesn't tie in with creation.. therefore people of faith, unless a midground is met and you can say 'god made evolution possible'.. then otherwise evolution just isn't meant for people of faith..

today there is a overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest we shared a common ancestor with the apes of today, and there is the same amount of evidence to suggest that other animals have also evolved from lower species.. we have witness evolution happening before our own eyes.. now this all seems somewhat realistic.. however, it's when we go to even lower species.. and that everything at one point was just simple cells and that we therefore over time evolved from those.. and it's that concept that people can't accept.. maybe they don't realise, but humans are just that.. 'a whole bunch of cells'.. put it in context like that and it becomes understandable..



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Technology is a mirror of how life works, only specifically designed for use by people.

Why should I view evolution of life any differently than evolution of technology? Who are the ones creating technology? Therefore, what is the driving force allowing technology to advance - indirectly?


Just a curious sort of question to pose...



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
The tremendous difference between technology and biology is that the natural world operates such that it can 'design' things, thats the basic idea behind evolution via a mechanism of natural selection, new traits that 'address' 'problems' are the end result, thus, an appearance of design.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The tremendous difference between technology and biology is that the natural world operates such that it can 'design' things, thats the basic idea behind evolution via a mechanism of natural selection, new traits that 'address' 'problems' are the end result, thus, an appearance of design.


Wow.... how inspirational! Nygdan posts in the O & C forum... it makes me reminisce about the days of long ago...

8000 character posts... how inadequate


8000000 character posts is more like it.


Good to see you around... perhaps we can get into it in my blog sometime.

Happy moderatiing!




top topics



 
6
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join