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.

 

Scientists discover single gene mutation which led to multi-cellular animal life

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Just stop seeking the truth? You can go ahead and remain complacent, forfeiting your ability to post anything that can explain why C-14 dates are consistently young (Harvard: A comparison of Ten Cretaceous dinosaur bones), Just don't drag others down to your lethargy.


That paper does not address age. It is looking at absorption rates of carbon or iron and it's role is preserving soft tissue during fossilization. It has nothing to do with dating the age of dinosaurs. As has been said, dinosaurs cannot be dated using C14. They are dated by analyzing the surrounding rock strata and in cases where the encasing rock cannot be dated, we use principles such as the law of superposition. If you wanted the truth you wouldn't disregard the most basic geology that is taught in high school.
edit on 13-1-2016 by Cypress because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

If science is not absolute why do we put so much faith in it?


Who puts faith in it? We might 'trust' that a given scientist knows what they are talking about based on certain criteria, but anyone who understands the way science works knows that ' absolute truth' is not a scientific concept. The idea that science is somehow about certainty is a misguided one. The revisionist nature of science is its greatest strength - it continually improves upon itself.



That's also it's greatest flaw. It's a complex concept that I'm not going to go in now but to put it succinctly, the ability for science to claim auto correction leads to built upon fallacy and human nature prevents it from being over ridden the more complex and specialized that it gets.

Unfortunately, the greater an accumulation of knowledge, the greater the necessity for more specialization.

That's not even accounting for the granting and publishing processes that limit what "truths" can be told...

Jaden



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
The research in the op and the science of evolution do not hinge on carbon dating. If you creationist ever bothered to look at modern evolutionary synthesis, you'd have noticed the complete absence of references to carbon dating. But, I suppose actually admitting that would put a damper on your C14 strawman construction efforts.

Besides, Kent Hovind already played the C14 trick with the mineralized dinosaur fossil, getting the resultant age of 50,000 years instead of millions of years. Oh! No!...
Sorry.. we all know the half-life of C14 is short, so the oldest age that you can possibly get would be 50,000 years! This game is meant to fool the gullible, I think you guys are way out of your league in here with this sophomoric crap.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
The research in the op and the science of evolution do not hinge on carbon dating. If you creationist ever bothered to look at modern evolutionary synthesis, you'd have noticed the complete absence of references to carbon dating. But, I suppose actually admitting that would put a damper on your C14 strawman construction efforts.


You are wrong, The implications are relevant. If life is less than 40,000 years old (as indicated by Harvard analysis), there is no way evolution could have occurred in such a small time frame. Therefore, if these conclusions are true, any talk of evolutionary theory is obsolete.



Sorry.. we all know the half-life of C14 is short, so the oldest age that you can possibly get would be 50,000 years!


That is not true. Read the abstract: Harvard analysis



That paper does not address age.


Yes it does, it cites the various researchers who found dinosaur ages in the range of 10's of thousands of years. They then go on to say this could not be machine error, because diamonds registered about 80,000 years olds. If it were machine error, both would have registered as the same date (since both should have no C-14 left). You can find each individual experiment by typing in the citations in the abstract of the harvard paper above.
edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton


I already posted it, you just don't read my responses, you let your knee jerk reflex do the talking.


Not at all. My knee is straight as a narrow. I asked you for evidence, you posted an abstract from a paper that wasn't actually peer reviewed, it was submitted at the 2014 American Geophysical Union's annual conference. I asked for a peer reviewed paper proving your stance. You haven't delivered it.



Show the pictures to anyone without bias, they will open your eyes.


Or better yet, show them to an educated person who knows what they're talking about. A paleontologist perhaps?



Just stop seeking the truth? You can go ahead and remain complacent, forfeiting your ability to post anything that can explain why C-14 dates are consistently young


Once again, the dates are not anywhere near as young as you claim. You have the audacity to tell posters to show pictures to people with no bias, yet your source is as biased as they come. You posted an abstract of a write up that was NEVER published or peer reviewed and written by members of CRSEF, the creation research science education foundation. They have never published in an academic journal.

For the record, I'm actually quite familiar with this joke and just so you know... Nobody has ever read "the paper" because it doesn't exist. There is only an abstract. The paper was never even submitted for publishing let alone published or peer reviewed. Why? Because it never existed. Your citation is simply a reprinting of a poster hanging on the wall outside of a conference room at a convention. But everyone else is biased except for you, right? Hugh Miller is a quack of the highest order.

I don't normally like to go after the person as opposed to the data, but there is no data. There is no way to determine the methodology, verify it or check the data based solely on his abstract. That's not science. So in Hugh's case, I'm going to make an exception. See, there are rules for submitting materials to professional conferences of this nature. A lead author can only submit one paper or abstract to the conference. To get around this, Hugh wrote several abstracts but listed others as lead authors yet Hugh was the only one who showed up to the conference. This is not playing by the rules and he was doing little more than trying to slip in as much YEC propaganda as possible and then put legit scientists on huge spot to try to snag them in a "gotcha moment". But no... You're not at all biased are you? That's why you didn't post the links to his creationist website, you posted something that makes it look like this paper is associated with Harvard. That makes you nearly as big a fraud as your hero Hugh.

Your entire premise is based in willful ignorance of how science is actually conducted and they you try to pretend you're simply seeking the truth when the real truth of the matter is your doing nothing more than fulfilling the manifest destiny of your own confirmation bias. Do you think the posters in this forum are incapable of knowing a charlatan?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
That's also it's greatest flaw. It's a complex concept that I'm not going to go in now but to put it succinctly, the ability for science to claim auto correction leads to built upon fallacy and human nature prevents it from being over ridden the more complex and specialized that it gets.

Unfortunately, the greater an accumulation of knowledge, the greater the necessity for more specialization.

That's not even accounting for the granting and publishing processes that limit what "truths" can be told...

Jaden


You're too hung up on the idea of absolute truth. This is just a dogmatic and limited way of thinking. You should never just accept something as 'absolute truth' and move on. Always question, and never take anything for granted.

Changing one's mind about something when new information comes to light is in no way a weakness - it's just pure common sense.

The best science recognises the basic uncertainty of human knowledge and thus frees itself from the dogmatic belief that once a problem is solved, it is solved for good.

Part of the problem here is that both pro and anti science people often tend to think of 'science' as some magical thing in itself, to either be held up on a pedestal or to be hated and ground into the dirt, depending on whether the answer it gives fits with their own personal beliefs and worldview. In reality, it's just a method of finding an answer about some part of the natural world - it's not an answer itself.

It's a systematic and logical process - not a magical word that implies truth.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You're being extremely dishonest with naming your hyperlink "Harvard analysis". Harvard merely catalogued the joke abstract. Harvard did not do the "research". They simply archived and catalogued the jokey call an abstract. Your abstract can claim to date diamonds all day long but the truth of the matter is that you absolutely can not date a diamond via 14C even with an AMS. Diamonds can be dated, just not by 14C. They Re dated by analyzing the crystals within the diamonds. By dating the crystals, which had to exist before the formation of the diamond, you can ascertain the maximum age of the diamond. But 14C? Not a snowballs chance...



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Good god dude!

How many times do you have to be told???

C-14 dating for diamonds doesn't work.

C-14 dating for anything older than 50,000 years would most likely give a false positive because of the half life and other contamination.

C-14 dating IS NOT the be all and end all of how scientists date historical objects.

C-14 dating on fossils just isn't used for anything past 50,000 as it doesn't give a consistent reading.

There are so many other ways to test how old something is (the rocks around the fossil, the sediment layers etc) that traditional C-14 dating can't do.

I actually did a search for C-14 dating on diamonds as you peaked my interest. Guess what? The ONLY sites that say ANYTHING about C-14 dating diamonds to be accurate is Creationist sites. Funny that.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Good god dude!

How many times do you have to be told???

C-14 dating for diamonds doesn't work.

C-14 dating for anything older than 50,000 years would most likely give a false positive because of the half life and other contamination.

C-14 dating IS NOT the be all and end all of how scientists date historical objects.

C-14 dating on fossils just isn't used for anything past 50,000 as it doesn't give a consistent reading.

There are so many other ways to test how old something is (the rocks around the fossil, the sediment layers etc) that traditional C-14 dating can't do.

I actually did a search for C-14 dating on diamonds as you peaked my interest. Guess what? The ONLY sites that say ANYTHING about C-14 dating diamonds to be accurate is Creationist sites. Funny that.



Goodness gracious dude
They can manufacture diamonds in a lab superior to natural diamonds nigh on instantly.

Surely its ludicrous to thing natural diamonds take billions and billions of years to form anymore after what man can produce so effortlesly.

Scientists got it wrong then and you are still drinking their kool aid

How can you deny simple logic after the evidence clearly teaches you otherwise

There is now no evidence it takes millenia to create diamonds



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
it was noticed that, when radiocarbon dated, wood grown in the 20th century appears more ancient than wood grown in the 19th century. That the increased industrial use of fossil carbon in coal and in oil changed the ratio between the dead carbon C12 and the C14 (radiocarbon) in the atmosphere and therefore also in the biosphere. In centuries to come a body of a man or animal who lived and died in the 20th century would appear paradoxically of greater age since death than the body of a man or animal of the 19th century, and if the process of industrial use of fossil, therefore dead, carbon continues to increase, as it is expected will be the case, the paradox will continue into the forthcoming centuries.

varchive.org...



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

It just gets tiresome when every single science related thread gets jacked by creationists spewing the same ol' nonsense they spew in every thread, derailing it off topic into oblivion. Nobody is even addressing the topic. You have Mr Cooperton fundamentalist over there claiming that art in the past is somehow a more reliable measure than modern science when it comes to objectivity, and flat out telling lies about how fossils are dated.


I just wanted to point out a few flaws in this theory.

So then point them out! You haven't even talked about study, you merely cited semantics about terminology. What are the few flaws?

This isn't the first study on multi cellularity and it won't be the last. If you really want to learn, read more on the subject. Google Scholar is great for that.


And no sadly science did not create the Internet or phone, people did, they utilized science.


Science is a method, of course it's not a conscious entity. It is an objective method of fact discovery. The knowledge gained from science led to everything above and much much more. Even evolution is applied in modern medicine today. Countless inventions of science make our lives better. It is downright disrespectful to scientists to dismiss a research project like that via semantic arguments. Sorry, but their standards are a bit higher than that.

And your argument about the diamonds is completely wrong. Just because they can make diamonds in a lab, does not mean that natural diamonds are made the same way OR that the science behind the dating is wrong. The 2 things are not connected in the way you wish them to be.


edit on 1 13 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I have seen nothing proven, just more sensationalism and knee jerk reactions from those who need their respective faiths shored up by these reports.
Its not the first study and wont be the last, they might even prove something one day, who knows

One thing proven is that some will grasp at straws.

Enjoy your life Barcs, I doesnt bother me



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

i think there is no way i can really verify the truth about it because i dont understand it really.
that said, im a believer of science and absolutely anything that gets people away from explaining life through god/religion works for me

but 600 million years ago. gene mutation.
works for me


i will take that over the floating man any day


Sorry. But this reply is absolutely absurd. You equate God with a "floating man?" Weird, I don't believe in floating men either. The concept of a floating man seems absolutely irrelevant considering nobody in their right mind sees God that way.
Furthermore, you're essentially saying that you don't care what something is, what it says, or who claims it--as long as it isn't about God or religion, you believe it or at least approve of it, despite the fact that you don't even understand it.
......... No comment.
edit on 14-1-2016 by Achilles92x because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

If science is not absolute why do we put so much faith in it?


Who puts faith in it? We might 'trust' that a given scientist knows what they are talking about based on certain criteria, but anyone who understands the way science works knows that ' absolute truth' is not a scientific concept. The idea that science is somehow about certainty is a misguided one. The revisionist nature of science is its greatest strength - it continually improves upon itself.



Lol, that's faith. The word translated into "faith" in the Bible means "a deep rooted trust in someone or something that may not be true."



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Achilles92x
Lol, that's faith. The word translated into "faith" in the Bible means "a deep rooted trust in someone or something that may not be true."


No faith is believing things for no good reason, whereas the scientific method provides very good reasons.

And 'a floating man' is as good as any other description of a God as we've never seen one inorder to be able to give a definite definition.
edit on 14-1-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So because they can make man made diamonds it means all diamonds ages must be fake?

So instead of addressing the flaws that were pointed out to you about C-14 dating fossils and your general misperceptions about C-14 testing you just change the subject?

You are wilfully ignoring evidence based on what Creationist websites tell you. That's called confirmation bias. Something science doesn't do.

Science doesn't find an answer then try to ask the question. Science asks the question then tries to find the answer, whatever it may be. Religion has their answers and tries to find the questions that end with "God did it".

CONFIRMATION BIAS is strong with you.
edit on 142614/1/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)

edit on 142814/1/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

No it doesn't mean that, that's stupid to infer

I asked for evidence diamonds take millennia to produce

Don't put words in my mouth to hide your scientific impotence, show me evidence diamonds take millennia to produce

You can use any website you want, I am not biased
I don't see any evidence outside of you telling me I am wrong
That's opinion not science



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Thankfully, science allows and even INVITES you to criticise and pull-apart its theories.

And you won't be beheaded for doing so, which is far less than some groups of people.
edit on 14-1-2016 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well there's this wiki page WIKI

This livescience page LIVESCIENCE

This Berkeley article which also speaks about how they DONT use carbon dating BERKELEY

This science for kids page SCIENCE FOR KIDS

How many do you want?

Yes, we can have man made diamonds. But they are structurally different to naturally formed diamonds.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Also, it's only a poster (which are held to MUCH lower standards) in a conference (which typically aren't peer-reviewed). And, of course, nothing to do with Harvard in the slightest.

Cooperton is being very dishonest indeed.

Actually, I don't think he's being dishonest as such, rather he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
edit on 14-1-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join