Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: TerryDon79

But your evidence is not evidence as C-14 dating will not be accurate after 50,000 years.

Based on the presumption that dinosaurs are MYA, which is why historically so few people have carbon dated their remains. Surely enough, scientists began trying it, and they found significant amounts of C-14, ranging approximately from 4,000-40,000 years old for dinosaurs.

The C-14 dating done on those objects were not only done to prove a point (badly), but also didn't use any other techniques to date them.

Proven poorly because it goes against contemporary scientific dogma? What other techniques would you have used to date them - Why use a technique with lower precision to attempt to correct a technique with higher precision? Unless we're talking about dendrochronology, the most reliable source of organic dating, which found the oldest proven organism was around 5,000 years old Prometheus Tree

Again, C-14 isn't used as it will give false readings.

Ahh do you see how the tables have turned? Now all of a sudden C-14 is unreliable because it demonstrates a younger earth.

Genesis does not say that evolution is false. Saying someone isn't a Christian because they understand, support, study and confirm evolution is not only wrong (see my previous points), but it's down right ignorant.

Would a true follower compromise the teachings of the leader? Nope.

So, what evidence (besides your proven false dinosaur, coal and diamond) have you got to prove evolution is wrong?

You disproved nothing. What's the point of presenting more evidence? All evidence given will be arbitrarily deemed incorrect because it does not match with your ignorant presuppositions.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh have I, go list them, and how I have misrepresented them. Go on. In depth.

As for religion? Its already come up in this thread, thus it is on the table.

a reply to: cooperton

There is no credible evidence dinosaurs are only thousands of years old. Indeed the ONLY people who advocate that are young earth creationists, by definition, Christians.

Now show evidence that evolution did not happen. It is very hard to prove a negative, especially when there is much evidence it did (despite what you wish to admit).

a reply to: cooperton

The reason that Dinosaur remains (aka fossils) are not C14 dated, is really REALLY simple. There is generally no carbonaceous material left in them (the process of fossilization replaces them with things like silica), that coupled with the fact that there will be almost no C14 left to reliably date, means other methods are used. You know other radio-isotopes are used right? OR is this me misrepresenting things again? (sarc)

a reply to: cooperton

Way to twist what I said. You are dishonest and, obviously, happily ignorant.

I said C-14 dating isn't used. That was about dating dinosaurs.

You pick and choose your information to fit your fantasy. You use articles to prove a tiny point, but don't prove your point in the slightest. You're against evolution, but I bet you use a doctor, X-Ray's, medication, computers, and a whole list of other things that wouldn't be around if it wasn't for the related sciences.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Oh have I, go list them, and how I have misrepresented them. Go on. In depth.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

YOU are saying by your statement that evolution is randomness causing creation of consciousness. I (and science) am saying that evolution is the ongoing process of change in species, through the build-up of mutation.

Here you contradict yourself. You claim evolution has no random aspect to it, but then go on to say it occurs through the build-up of mutations. But, mutations are a random process, perhaps expedited by various external causes, but random nonetheless.

We've observed evolution.

This is untrue. We have observed adaptation. Adaptation and epigenetic mechanisms are often confused with evolution, yet this semantic ambiguity has rendered evolution to be thought of as dogma. When the sons of Japheth migrated north through the caucus mountains, giving rise to the caucasian race in europe with significantly lighter skin pigment than the southern civilizations, did they evolve? Of course not, they adapted to a region with less annual sunlight by producing less melanin. The same with the South African Bantu, they can synthesize their own Vitamin C into adulthood, this is not evolution, this is them adapting to an environment with scarce vitamin C availability.

fossils tend not to be full of any sort of carbon

This is the misconception that should be dead by now. Our supposed oldest fossils have been found to contain soft tissue in them. Mary Schweitzer, among many others now, have found an abundance of it. Because the secularist dogma is so strong, they refuse to believe these results and are now scrambling to adjust for these discrepancies by saying that the decay process may take longer than we thought. Just like everyone has done so far, any time the many heels of Achilles are exposed regarding evolution, there is heinous backtracking that ensues. This is why it is futile for me to try to put these ideas into your head - it has to be your genuine search of the truth that makes you realize that random mutation is not going to lead to the endless complexity of the human brain, let alone consciousness.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Way to twist what I said. You are dishonest and, obviously, happily ignorant.

I said C-14 dating isn't used. That was about dating dinosaurs.

But it is, successfully, and it shows dinosaurs are 4,000-40,000 years old. Find me an article that only finds background C-14 levels in dinosaur remains and I'll consider your counter-claims.

You pick and choose your information to fit your fantasy. You use articles to prove a tiny point, but don't prove your point in the slightest.

Yet you have still not disproved this "tiny point".

a reply to: cooperton

No I do not claim that evolution has no random aspect to it. I was specifically very clear on what I said neighbor. I said that the aspect not involved was consciousness. YOUR statement implies that it is directed that way, I am not implying that there is a direction, beyond evolutionary pressures, in that a mutation which gives no benefit, is less likely to be passed on, and one which causes a removal of one certainly would not.


I reiterate we have observed evolution, though I am sure you will try the macro vs micro gambit I shall start with antibiotic resistance in bacterium, then there peppered moths, three toed skinks giving live birth (vs egg laying), etc etc etc. SO yes we have seen evolution. Indeed we can also date when we squired certain evolutionary advantages, such as lactose tolerance.

What you do not get is that "adaption to the enviroment" via mutation IS evolution. And you accuse ME of semantics....

Then you say this "
This is the misconception that should be dead by now. Our supposed oldest fossils have been found to contain soft tissue in them. Mary Schweitzer, among many others now, have found an abundance of it. Because the secularist dogma is so strong, they refuse to believe these results and are now scrambling to adjust for these discrepancies by saying that the decay process may take longer than we thought. Just like everyone has done so far, any time the many heels of Achilles are exposed regarding evolution, there is heinous backtracking that ensues. This is why it is futile for me to try to put these ideas into your head - it has to be your genuine search of the truth that makes you realize that random mutation is not going to lead to the endless complexity of the human brain, let alone consciousness. "

That is in no way connected to my comment on fossils, rather you use this as an excuse to rant. You ignored what I had posted in response.

But no, you just had to have a rant about "secular dogma", and "scrambling to adjust for discrepancies". You call science honestly re-evaluating based on new evidence, "heinous backtracking" when in reality it is science being honest. Which is what I feel irks you the most. You are stuck in a dogmatic system that can not change, while science has and shall change when new evidence appears.

a reply to: cooperton

Try THIS PAGE

The part of interest is...
"Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation proceedures."

It appears we have reached the semantic gray zone - can adaptations culminate into macro-evolution (had to say it, no other word for it ) on such a scale that it could generate the diversity of life?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
You are stuck in a dogmatic system that can not change, while science has and shall change when new evidence appears.

This is why it concerns me that soft tissue and thousand year old C-14 dates for dinosaur remains doesn't concern you. I think its an exciting new aspect, which instead of exploring, you refuse to look into because it challenges dogma. I understand you'd be hesitant to agree with such conclusions because it would insist on a younger earth, but we should look for facts - we all want the truth, but sometimes our bullhead gets in the way of discerning it (this is a reference to everyone, not just us two).

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Try THIS PAGE

The part of interest is...
"Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation proceedures."

Yes this is a common issue, but they found the original soft tissue of the organism, which is comprised of carbon from the intended fossil. Most interesting is the readings on coal - nothing should be contaminating that stuff deep in a coal shaft.


Was a pleasurable mental exercise debating with you two, but it's getting late
(Research human and dinosaur coexistance plz)

a reply to: cooperton

You use the term macro-evolution the wrong way (or you appear too), you can't have macro, with out macro. It is part of the whole, and just a different level of granularity. Much like a setting on a microscope. If you are looking in close, you miss the big picture, if you are too far out, you miss the detail. None the less it IS a single thing. So with evolution it does not matter if it is a small change (say lactose tolerance) or a big change (a cell wall).


I am not worried by the new discovery of soft tissue on a fossil, its NEW. Science adjusts (no I don't refuse to look, I just take it for what it is, something new to be evaluated, and changes may or may not happen). It remains that science changes as we discover things. Newtonian physics vs Einstienian vs quantum. If you dragged a Victorian scientist into a modern lab, he'd be socked, but also willing to adapt, why? Because it is the first rule of science, go with the data, not the dogma.

a reply to: cooperton

You do know that as soon as anything a has C-14 it always will? The levels just keep dropping over time. Even dinosaurs still have C-14, it's just such a tiny amount that it is near impossible to get a reading.

That being said, you can C-14 date anything and get a date within 50,000 years. That does not mean the date is accurate.

As for what you said about looking for facts? You dismiss anything and everything to do with evolution. How is that looking for facts? Science is all about facts and evidence.

Clinging to the dinosaur, coal and diamond C-14 levels, after being shown how it's wrong (multiple times), you still use it as an argument. That's not looking for facts. That's dismissing facts.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79

Indeed that is why my Uncles Chemistry textbooks are just as valuable today to me, as the most recent journals. Nope I will never ever find new techniques, methods, or ideas in those rags ..... I mean I have no idea why other pharmaceutical manufacturers don't just pray that things are correct at the start of a reaction, set the jacket temperature to max, and wander off, trusting the Gods will show their will, and give me 100% yield 100% pure products at the end. OR I could just drive the demons of disease out with a stern exorcism right?

In all seriousness, I wish that these folk would just refuse to live with science in their life period

Clearly it is the devils tool.

In all seriousness, I wish you would leave science to scientists who do the science instead of those making wild assumptions and faith statements like every other preacher known

You don't own science, its a formula, its not a belief

Stardust and starwater, please

a reply to: cooperton

It appears we have reached the semantic gray zone - can adaptations culminate into macro-evolution (had to say it, no other word for it ) on such a scale that it could generate the diversity of life?

Actually there is another way to say it which I believes illustrates this concept even more clearly, since I personally consider macro evolution to be, for instance representative of how a lot of the biodiversity is now extinguished.

Can adaptation culminate into the origin of species as being other species?

I think not, because the only observed and reproducible genetic variations do not include species, at all, ever.

Of course, this would only be a reference to the evolution of species, because a pine code from a redwood becoming a hundred feet tree is also macro evolution.

Please not that redwoods growing from soup or raptor eggs have yet to be observed.

a reply to: wisvol

I think not, because the only observed and reproducible genetic variations do not include species, at all, ever.

Speciation has been observed.

Of course, this would only be a reference to the evolution of species, because a pine code from a redwood becoming a hundred feet tree is also macro evolution.

A pine cone growing into a tree has nothing to do with evolution.

Please not that redwoods growing from soup or raptor eggs have yet to be observed.

Those things occurring would actually be evidence against evolution.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour, what part of "I am a scientist" don't you get? I am qualified to speak about it. I have made no faith statements, rather I have stated the facts. These facts are ones you do not like, and as a consequence you are making this about me, not the science. QED you lost.

a reply to: iterationzero

All depends how you interpret the word "evolution".

It accurately also describes the changes occurring within individuals, as in the evolution of a thought process for instance.

This meaning predates the concept that the origin of species would be other species, and to those who don't see this notion as logical, this meaning is still prevalent. I also use "gay" as meaning "joyous" and "defence" as meaning "defence", as opposed to the DoD.

Speciation was not observed: many times links to articles claiming it has were posted here, and all contained a caveat paraphrased here:

If speciation does not mean speciation, we have evidence of it.

a reply to: wisvol

Do you undestand the time scale involved? Nope that statements hows that

a reply to: Noinden

Your understanding of time is flawed: it does not make species into other species.

Your example of a molecular clock is a perfect illustration of this: differences within generations, if taken in a linear regression model, necessitate billions of years to explain the biodiversity, even though linear regression modeling as a scientific tool does not apply to cases where variables include present diversity.

You conclude (or repeat, actually) that the world is billions of years old.

Circular reasoning isn't science, which requires reproducibility and observation.