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.

 

New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
I think carbon dating is going to be an integral part of discerning the truth of the matter. Dinosaurs which were carbon dated were shown to be between 4,000-40,000 years old according to C-14 data:

Carbon dating dinosaur fossils

Insistent data is obviously required, but this is a curious empirical observation. Finding DNA and other soft tissues in dinosaurs indicate these organisms are not millions of years old, and carbon-dating agrees with such a conclusion.


Ah yes, ye ol' Carbon Dating argument.

Radiocarbon dating isn't used to date Dinosaur fossils, and the reason for that is because Carbon has a half life of 5,730 ± 40 years. We don't use radiocarbon dating to date dinosaur fossils because there isn't any carbon to date.

That fact alone makes your link just ridiculous.

Radiocarbon dating cannot date anything over 50,000 years because of that.

We can, however use other methods, by using the isotopes such as uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.

Of course, we can also determine general age simply by the sediment that the fossil is found in as well, which cross-confirms those other methods used, among other things.

To determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

Furthermore, we have other techniques that can determine the age of sedimentary rock, which include analyzing amino acids and measuring changes in an object's magnetic field. Scientists have also made improvements to the standard radiometric measurements. For example, by using a laser, researchers can measure parent and daughter atoms in extremely small amounts of matter, making it possible to determine the age of very small samples.

I wasn't lying when I said "everything we observe in nature on and around Earth goes against a young earth/universe"

For more information, please visit this link




posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
I find it hilarious how the theory of evolution is constantly evolving to suit it's own needs and attempt to cover up its own mistakes...


I find it bewildering that even after 5-10 posts in this very thread you continue to take part in, posts that directly explain why science in general (not exclusively evolution) doesn't deal with absolutes. The conclusions we come to are based on our current best observations, subject to change upon more observations.

What 'needs' does the theory of evolution have, exactly?

What 'needs' does Atomic theory have, exactly?

What 'needs' does the theory of general relativity have, exactly?

What 'needs' does the heliocentric theory have, exactly?

It's not science that has this major conspiracy that surrounds it, it's simply a matter of you not being capable of comprehending what science is. Sorry, but your view on it is pure delusion.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Rather funny how you assume to know how most think and feel about thier faith and what is literal or symbolic...


You mean just how you make false assumptions like the sentence before this one of yours?


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
But then again it's no real surprise coming from one who prescribes to a science filled with little more then assumption itself...


This misconception has already been explained to you several times before


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Perhaps you would find the bible more realistic if it was re written on a daily basis then it too could be a work of evolution for you just like the science of evolution...


Yes, actually, I would have a lot more respect for the bible if it molded to our current understandings of things rather than continue holding falsehoods that make up the entirety of the context within that fictional book.

Do you still believe the Earth is flat? The bible does...



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Ah so you realize that man actually walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs then...

Seeing as you believe the sediment dating is accurate... the sediment the fossils are contained in have also revealed footprints of man and dinosaurs side by side...

And surely burial pits which contain both human and dinosaur fossils elude to the same thing...

How does evolution back peddle to refute this evidence?

Does it assume to have an answer for this as well?

If so do you consider this to be factual also?
edit on 6-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: edit



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Ah so you realize that man actually walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs then...


How does a person even come to this conclusion?

Citations please.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Seeing as you believe the sediment the fossils are contained have also uncovered footprints of man and dinosaurs side by side...


Citations please.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
And surely burial pits which contain both human and dinosaur fossils elude to the same thing...


Citations please.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
How does evolution back peddle to refute this evidence?


Perhaps if you provide more information to back up your claims, I can refute them for you.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Oh I dunno off the top of my head...

Thinking on it*

The doheny expedition and the paluxy riverbed for example
If that's how it's spelled come to mind...



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Oh I dunno off the top of my head...

Thinking on it*

The doheny expedition and the paluxy riverbed for example
If that's how it's spelled come to mind...


Do you really expect me to go out and find your own citations for you? Why are you even here?

If you want to partake in a discussion back up your own claims. I can go out and find anything that relates to that topic and it could be the wrong information because I'm not you, I don't know what point you're trying to make on the information you saw.

Come back to me when you want to put more effort in your position.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

So the fellow who had limited knowledge of earth in ancient times who observered the land before him as flat was less correct then a man who makes a false observation in the name of science?

Or are you willing to admit they would both be wrong?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

What about cave paintings and hyrogliphics depicting humans with dinosaurs?

How about the book of Enoch did he believe the earth was flat?

Do you believe that some of the people who comprised and edited the books of the bible were as proud and foolish as some scientists who peddle evolution and choose how and what information they portray?

And would you agree that further observation shows the errors of thier findings and claims?



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
What about cave paintings and hyrogliphics depicting humans with dinosaurs?

How about the book of Enoch did he believe the earth was flat?


I don't find a book consisting of hearsay-only to be a reasonable source to conclude anything as factual.

Just because it's written in a book does not make it valid. More than words are needed in order to actually prove something (hence my constant request for your citations)


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Do you believe that some of the people who comprised and edited the books of the bible were as proud and foolish as some scientists who peddle evolution and choose how and what information they portray?


Yup, absolutely. The only difference is that no matter how proud of foolish any scientist is, what matters is the evidence they have to support the claims they make. For the theory of evolution, it is in excess and is open for all to test (I have directly tested the theory myself for years)


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
And would you agree that further observation shows the errors of thier findings and claims?


We don't see that, actually. Further observation confirms the original concepts with evolution. More modern observations certainly add to it, but the original conception isn't therefor dead, but rather, made more accurate.

You still have a great misconception on how Science and therefore the theory of evolution actually function.

Why you continue to dismiss the information pointing out your misconceptions about it, regardless of how much evidence backs that information, is beyond my understanding.
edit on 6/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

So the fellow who had limited knowledge of earth in ancient times who observered the land before him as flat was less correct then a man who makes a false observation in the name of science?


The observation of earths shape is that it's spherical. Are you calling that false?


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Or are you willing to admit they would both be wrong?


No, I fully accept that the current understanding of the shape of the Earth, backed by scientific evidence, is Spherical.

Flat is wrong, spherical is right. That's my conclusion over the matter



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




I think carbon dating is going to be an integral part of discerning the truth of the matter. Dinosaurs which were carbon dated were shown to be between 4,000-40,000 years old according to C-14 data:

Carbon dating dinosaur fossils

Insistent data is obviously required, but this is a curious empirical observation. Finding DNA and other soft tissues in dinosaurs indicate these organisms are not millions of years old, and carbon-dating agrees with such a conclusion.


You really should bone up on your research skills. There's no excuse not to understand how C14 dating works - there is a massive amount of literature out there that has confirmed the mechanism 1000 times.

Here's a C14 dating calculator - I even filled in the blanks for you! You might want to read the link - it could change your life!



dwb4.unl.edu...



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Ah so you realize that man actually walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs then...

Seeing as you believe the sediment dating is accurate... the sediment the fossils are contained in have also revealed footprints of man and dinosaurs side by side...

And surely burial pits which contain both human and dinosaur fossils elude to the same thing...

How does evolution back peddle to refute this evidence?

Does it assume to have an answer for this as well?

If so do you consider this to be factual also?


Sediment cannot be dated directly. We can date metamorphic and igneous rocks to determine if sedimentary rocks are older or younger and compare layers. Secondly, there is no evidence for what we classify as dinosaur existing past the KT boundary which is dated at 65mya. There is no evidence of primates before 65 mya. Obviously small organisms were able to survive and fill the open niches but to suggest they lived together is not true. The footprints have been debunked several times over.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

You really should bone up on your research skills. There's no excuse not to understand how C14 dating works - there is a massive amount of literature out there that has confirmed the mechanism 1000 times.

Here's a C14 dating calculator - I even filled in the blanks for you! You might want to read the link - it could change your life!


Stop your childish insults and pay attention.

The percent modern carbon found in dinosaurs has been readable and consistently demonstrates it is younger than 40,000 years old, and 4,000 years old at its youngest. Not only are these consistent readable levels of C-14, they demonstrate these organisms are not millions of years old. Here is a summary:

Carbon-14 comparison in Dinosaurs

"You cannot carbon date things that are millions of years old" -that is correct, which is why we are able to successfully carbon date dinosaurs coal and diamonds; they are not millions of years old.


edit on 6-2-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Reply:

Contamination
Standard deviation and standard error calculations still put a small amount of C14 at zero.
Diamonds are not pure carbon - they contain nitrogen - nitrogen is the decay product of C14.
EVERYTHING has some amount of all carbon isotopes - this was demonstrated with isotopic fractionation.

The rate of decay remains the same:

(Drumroll please)




Sorry - no banana



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
I find it hilarious how the theory of evolution is constantly evolving to suit it's own needs and attempt to cover up its own mistakes...


Then we're even because I find it hilarious that you believe in the magic of gods and all sort or creature from hell or whatever version you go with.

Good that we got that out right away I suppose.


Rather funny how you assume to know how most think and feel about thier faith and what is literal or symbolic...


I don't need to know nor do I assume anything. What I know is that everyone has their own slightly different version consisting of the parts they know/like/dislike/etc. I don't need to assume once you know that.


But then again it's no real surprise coming from one who prescribes to a science filled with little more then assumption itself...


It's got nothing to do with science. I don't need science to tell me what a storybook is and the similarity between our current one and the thousands that came before it.


Perhaps you would find the bible more realistic if it was re written on a daily basis then it too could be a work of evolution for you just like the science of evolution...


That's not a bad idea as we both know it needs some corrections just to be consistent let alone possible. But it's not my choice anyway, it's your book of rules not mine.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

Ah so you realize that man actually walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs then...


Cool, now you just have hard evidence to prove it.


Seeing as you believe the sediment dating is accurate... the sediment the fossils are contained in have also revealed footprints of man and dinosaurs side by side...


Hoax or mistake. Unless you have some new one that we haven't seen already. Which were not real btw.


And surely burial pits which contain both human and dinosaur fossils elude to the same thing...


Only if you think it's impossible to bury a body with some old dinosaur bones. If we find old bones I'm sure other people have in the past. Probably make good tools and other tools too.


How does evolution back peddle to refute this evidence?


A couple theories and no actual credible evidence at all is not evidence. It's just you saying some stuff that may or may not mean anything.


Does it assume to have an answer for this as well?

If so do you consider this to be factual also?


I don't think anything you're saying is a fact though. That's just it. I've looked at the stuff you point to as evidence and they've been proven hoaxes. The rest of what you mention isn't evidence at all, it's just you explaining why you think they're important.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

So somebody faked fossilized footprints long long ago...
OK gotcha..



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

No, I'm saying someone either faked them or they're mistakes. Unless you have a new one, in which case present it to the world and be the guy who proved evolution wrong. You'll be famous, I'll be looking for you in the news.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
dbl
edit on 7-2-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
The percent modern carbon found in dinosaurs has been readable and consistently demonstrates it is younger than 40,000 years old, and 4,000 years old at its youngest. Not only are these consistent readable levels of C-14, they demonstrate these organisms are not millions of years old. Here is a summary:

Carbon-14 comparison in Dinosaurs

It's absolutely mind boggling that there are still people stupid enough to believe this sort of trash. For those who haven't clicked on the link, don't bother. It's a direct link to a PDF from one of the CRSEF lunatics. Credibility: zero.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join