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.

 

Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

page: 21
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: wisvol

www.nature.com...

science.sciencemag.org...

www.pnas.org...


Genetic similarities among phenotypically similar organisms does not prove descent with modification. An intuitive genetic code would contain similarities among similar animals. This proves neither evolution or creationism.

Ponder this: Does randomness or a creator generate code?



Start there.


Spare us your patronizing. Evolution is not a difficult concept to understand, they teach it to 12 year olds. Explain why coal, diamonds and dinosaurs are all carbon dated as being thousands of years old:

Carbon-dating facts


edit on 21-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Exactly. Homo sapiens reached that region at roughly 45,000 years ago. Floresiensis were there 13,000 to 95,000 years ago. So it's not completely absurd to think they saw and interacted with each other. Then stories over the years got distorted (Chinese whispers type of thing) and that spread with the further spread of Homo sapiens.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Because c-14 dating is only accurate to roughly 50,000 years (within a margin of error). This has been explained in this thread multiple times.

C-14 dating is generally not used passed the 50,000 year mark. Also, C-14 dating is never used by itself. The same as any dating technique.
edit on 2132016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Us? You have more than one person using your account?

Just because you don't understand how a molecular clock works, does not mean it does not. You made a statement which proves you do not understand it too. "Genetic similarities among phenotypically similar organisms does not prove descent with modification". I am going to have to assume you mean mutation leading to evolution? Otherwise you are going to have to start over with that paragraph.

(a) Chimps and Humans are genetically related NOT descendant/ancestors of one another.
(b) Phenotype is controlled by genetics (both in the normal sense and in the epigenetic sense), we have very reliable measures of how fast differences occur (viz molecular clocks).
(c) Going way back into this discussion and others on here. We've observed evolution. You don't have to acknowldge it, nor do you have to be correct
.


Sigh, you don't understand Carbon dating based on that statement neighbor. We don't carbon date dinosaurs, as all the carbon 14 has gone by that stage (do you know what a half life is?), similarly coal, graphite, and diamonds are not carbon dated. What IS carbon dated is organic matter in the age range of 0 to 50K years. There are examples of things 50K years old dated too, which blows younger earthers out of the water.

Stop throwing typical creationist dogma into this, no seriously. IF you are going to talk about the science (to prove or disprove it), you need to understand it. You just proved that you do not understand radio carbon dating, let alone other forms of radiative dating of materials.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




So explain how a molecular clock is not scientific.


Molecules differ in non mechanical ways: the same clock dates today's rabbit as being seventy eight trillion years removed because its DNA is significantly different.

From wikipedia's molecular clock page: en.wikipedia.org...


The notion of the existence of a so-called "molecular clock" was first attributed to Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling who, in 1962, noticed that the number of amino acid differences in hemoglobin between different lineages changes roughly linearly with time, as estimated from fossil evidence


The amino acid differences (structural) vary with generations and since a grandchild is less similar than a child genetically, linearity through a few generations is roughly assumable.

However, when comparing species, this process is nonsense because the amino acid differences between a man and a monkey today are as wide as with monkey bones from supposedly millions of years ago.

Inference in linear regression is not a scientifically acceptable method of inference in such cases obviously, as professionals will teach you step by step here: www.stat.yale.edu...




While this is a place, it is also a species H. neanderthalensis aka the neanderthal.


No
Words have meaning, species means species.

Everyone is free to have any sort of opinion they see fit.

Mocking isn't a valid source of knowledge.

It makes you feel superior, which chemically is comparable to the actual feeling you get when you confirm a hypothesis, but it's not the same effect.

Now for that proof you talked about.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

And because fossils tend not to be full of any sort of carbon



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Oh I know that. But there's "information" on creationists websites that have carbon dated diamonds, dinosaurs etc. What they have actually done is carbon date the contamination from the surroundings that has gotten into the bones through cracks etc.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Us? You have more than one person using your account?


Us: those battling the textbook parrots.


Just because you don't understand how a molecular clock works, does not mean it does not. You made a statement which proves you do not understand it too. "Genetic similarities among phenotypically similar organisms does not prove descent with modification". I am going to have to assume you mean mutation leading to evolution? Otherwise you are going to have to start over with that paragraph.

(a) Chimps and Humans are genetically related NOT descendant/ancestors of one another.
(b) Phenotype is controlled by genetics (both in the normal sense and in the epigenetic sense), we have very reliable measures of how fast differences occur (viz molecular clocks).
(c) Going way back into this discussion and others on here. We've observed evolution. You don't have to acknowldge it, nor do you have to be correct
.


You're just stroking your ego with semantic self-gratification. Mutation IS descent with modification.



Sigh, you don't understand Carbon dating based on that statement neighbor. We don't carbon date dinosaurs, as all the carbon 14 has gone by that stage (do you know what a half life is?), similarly coal, graphite, and diamonds are not carbon dated. What IS carbon dated is organic matter in the age range of 0 to 50K years. There are examples of things 50K years old dated too, which blows younger earthers out of the water.


You're right with the approximate 50k range, which is exactly why we CAN successfully carbon date dinosaurs coal and diamonds - They all have traceable amounts of C-14 that are beyond background noise... We even see a predictable distribution where the age of dinosaurs > coal > diamonds. They are not millions of years old. You would think finding Soft Tissue and DNA in dinosaurs would've stopped this old-earth fallacy.



Stop throwing typical creationist dogma into this


Ahh classic, you praise science until it disagrees with your conclusion.


edit on 21-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yeah sadly there are a couple of my fellow Kiwi's involved in that nonsense. Its embarrassing, mind you they LEFT the country, probably as they are an embarrassment to us
One hangs around with Kirk Cameron.

But back on topic.

Until creationists understand half lives (and what that implies) .... they are NOT going to get very far with arguing about radio dating
I will be nice.

Half life means half the material has stopped being a particular isotope. So for Carbon 14 it is 5,730 ± 40 years, thus after 50 000 years its been almost ten half lives, ie its a LOT less full of carbon 14 folks.

You can tell a creationist, they cite the same debunked data, but don't really cite it, they cut and paste, and refuse to discuss it, as well they can not (they don't try to understand, just parrot it).



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You know "soft tissue" in fossils isn't actually soft tissue, don't you?

Also, you know that soft tissue in fossils is actually more rare than fossils themselves?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yeah sadly there are a couple of my fellow Kiwi's involved in that nonsense. Its embarrassing, mind you they LEFT the country, probably as they are an embarrassment to us
One hangs around with Kirk Cameron.

But back on topic.

Until creationists understand half lives (and what that implies) .... they are NOT going to get very far with arguing about radio dating
I will be nice.

Half life means half the material has stopped being a particular isotope. So for Carbon 14 it is 5,730 ± 40 years, thus after 50 000 years its been almost ten half lives, ie its a LOT less full of carbon 14 folks.

You can tell a creationist, they cite the same debunked data, but don't really cite it, they cut and paste, and refuse to discuss it, as well they can not (they don't try to understand, just parrot it).


Your ears are already shut. At least I tried.


originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

You know "soft tissue" in fossils isn't actually soft tissue, don't you?

Also, you know that soft tissue in fossils is actually more rare than fossils themselves?


It is impossible to have a scientific conversation with you. You just mock any counter-evidence to your point. So whats the point?

edit on 21-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I was asking if you know that what is called soft tissue isn't actually soft tissue and that to find it in fossils is harder to find than fossils themselves. If questions are mocking then I'll mock all day long.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Ooo an ad homenin attack. Text book parrots? By this you mean someone who actually is trained in, and understands the science? Someone who has performed research in the sciences? Oh or perhaps someone who spends his working day committing science? Ahh yes guilty as charged, I understand and work in the sciences neighbour. You however don't understand them.


Next

I'm not stroking my ego. Or using semantics. I am using the correct terminology. You should try it. Evolution is about mutations. Use the term, or be shown to be someone who does not know their arse from their elbows


Next

Carbon 14 dating is used almost exclusively for (and I will belabor it) "dating organic materials". Do you understand the chemistry of what happened to dinosaur fossils? Here is a hint.. Permineralization replaces the organic material (where the carbon is) with silica, calcite or pyrite etc. You might note the lack of carbon in those substances. QED Carbon dating is of no use. Similarly the carbon dating used on coal is as already mentioned used in conjunction with other radioactive dating techniques, and those show an antiquity well beyond creationist claims.

Lastly

No I am attacking the pseudoscience of creationism. As I repeatedly point out, I'm a religious person, my path is not Abrahamic, and does not need it's ego stroked by arguing with science, indeed science is of no threat to it. So one has to assume arguing with science makes creationists feel better over their fragile faith.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

I was asking if you know that what is called soft tissue isn't actually soft tissue and that to find it in fossils is harder to find than fossils themselves. If questions are mocking then I'll mock all day long.


Yes, soft tissue shouldn't be there at all if its millions of years old. Yet, once scientist knew how to find it, it turns out its very common. Soft tissue cannot last millions of years, yet here we see:
Soft Tissue in a T-Rex Fossil



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Ears shut? No I've done these experiments myself. Perhaps you don't get how University training works? At least in commonwealth countries, but we DO science. So let me make this clear. Christian faith (and the other Abrahamic ones) are not my fatih. I have my faith, one name for it is nDraíocht. It does not hold the same tenants your path does. For example, I'm not trying to prove anything. Faith is faith, it does not need to be proven, it simply is. I hold that evolution is evident through the evidence of scientific investigation.

So ears shut? The same could be said of yours neighbour. Welded shut/



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So you use an article that says a 68 million year old T-Rex has soft tissue, yet you don't actually understand that it is really proving my point?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton
Your source:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
www.smithsonianmag.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

www.livescience.com...

It has been explained, and it was new evidence, which will be embraced. Sorry to deflate your lead ballon



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Let us not forget that it appears that cooperton was arguing that dinosaur fossils, coal and diamonds are not very very old too!



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton
Your source:

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
www.smithsonianmag.com...



Secularist propaganda is just as strong as religious propaganda was back in the day. There's no misrepresenting the data, we found soft tissue in a "MYA" dinosaur fossil.




I'm not stroking my ego. Or using semantics. I am using the correct terminology. You should try it. Evolution is about mutations.


I never said you were using incorrect terminology, in fact, what I said in 2 sentences took you about 10 to say the same thing (Not going back and actually counting).



Carbon 14 dating is used almost exclusively for (and I will belabor it) "dating organic materials". Do you understand the chemistry of what happened to dinosaur fossils? Here is a hint.. Permineralization replaces the organic material


Ugh, aren't you supposed to be a teacher of the law? the C-14 accumulation occurs during the life of the organism - for dinosaurs they accumulate it in their tissue from consuming C-14 from their food (which ultimately can be traced to a plant that photosynthesized it into their tissue). coal, which is old plant matter, Was at one time alive and was photosynthesizing atmospheric C-14 into its tissue. The C-14 present in both of these living organisms decays predictably through its half-life. There should be NO C-14 left in any of this once-living tissue if it is millions of years old - but surely enough, it is found.



No I am attacking the pseudoscience of creationism. As I repeatedly point out, I'm a religious person, my path is not Abrahamic, and does not need it's ego stroked by arguing with science, indeed science is of no threat to it. So one has to assume arguing with science makes creationists feel better over their fragile faith.


Its always beneficial discussing this stuff (But - do you know creationist theory and how it is proposed to work? Surely if I know the theory of evolution you should know the theory of creationism)
edit on 21-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join