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.

 

What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 16
3
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   
This is just on whales and it's a lot of information. I'm trying to be concice, but I don't think I'll make that--I'll probably edit this 2-3 times:
Oh great, now I get to make a paper!
We’re dealing with a link that amantine brought up, on whether or not Whales evolved from land mammals.
www.talkorigins.org...
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence is the name of the article I’m going to unravel. I’m choosing to do so from the end and work my way to the beginning of it—it’s just easier for me to see.

Conclusion Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. … nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals. The power of evidence …makes refutation by special creation scenarios, personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, or "intelligent design" scenarios entirely unreasonable. The only plausible scientific conclusion is that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals.
If they are that independent, I’ll have to tear them apart individually, with thought.
9.) Chronological evidence:

…why the whales originated when they did. Evolution is a response to environmental challenges and opportunities.
Now, for this to be reasonable evidence, first, evolution had to think out the possibilities and choose this direction of growth.
But seriously, there is doubts as to how quickly all these were to have happened. See, this particular “die-off” is often purposed to be caused by a meteor, btw. The reason they believe that the meteor did it is because of the iridium found across much of those layers. Everyone knows how this supposedly killed the dino.’s pretty quick, but look at this:

First, iridium may have resulted from volcanic processes. Igneous rocks include traces of iridium, especially when derived from the deep mantle. Second, the Deccan Traps region of India experienced massive volcanism at the same time as the alleged extinction of the dinosaurs, resulting in basaltic lava (containing iridium) that covered over 180,000 square miles. Third, evolutionists’ own fossil record does not substantiate an instantaneous demise of the dinosaurs. Some allegedly died out within the Cretaceous period, while others apparently survived well into the Tertiary period (millions of years later, according to evolutionary dating methods). Fourth, why did the impact kill off dinosaurs, while many other forms of life remained healthy and alive? Some of the least mobile creatures (tortoises, crocodiles, etc.) survived, as did vast numbers of plants, according to the fossil record. Fifth, in the fossil-rich state of Montana, the iridium layer is found two-three inches above the highest dinosaur remains, which suggests that the dinosaurs actually disappeared before any impact event (see DeYoung, 2000, pp. 26-30).
A reminder, this iridium layer marks the end of the Cretaceous period. The Eocene epoch is part of the Tertiary Period in the Cenozoic Era, after it. Anyway, this does not prove that the “dino-like thingies” in the water did or didn’t die out, but we still have big salt water crocks, and we are often finding things that were supposed to be extinct are still alive. This is not that strong to stand on. Also, it has long been held that large mammals did not walk with the dinosaurs, as a part of this chronological order:

Another highly important feature of Dr. Hubbard’s report is the discovery of fossil footprints of both the three-toed carnivorous dinosaurs and the imperial elephants in the same locality. If, as it appears, both of these creatures left their footprints in the river’s sand or mud at approximately the same period, then we must assume that the dinosaurs continued to survive for millions of years later than scientists would have us believe, or else that the imperial elephants appeared on earth millions of years before their supposed arrival. But it seems highly preposterous, and entirely contrary to all known laws of evolution, to assume that these highly developed pachyderms were inhabiting the earth long ages before more primitive types of mammals (1954, pp. 155ff., emp. added).
Make what you will, but apparently, something’s a bit off with the argument that the Chronological Evidence supports the evolution of Whales, or, for that matter, anything. It's having a hard time supporting itself.

8. Paleobiogeographic evidence

We would expect terrestrial species to have a more restricted geographic distribution than marine species, which have essentially the whole ocean as their geographic range.
This proves nothing but maybe the fact that Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus were inland animals, whether land or aquatic, and that Basilosaurus and Dorudon were probably ocean mammals. Now, that they were found in only those seas, doesn’t mean much other than that’s where we found them. Next year, we may find them in Iowa. We’ve just proven that the “later whales” out of that mess liked to congregate in schools that traveled the same areas—as they are seen to do to this day. Still proves nothing as far as their evolution is concerned.




posted on May, 13 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
7. Paleoenvironmental evidence Now, this on is going to be pretty easy, for me.

Evolution makes other predictions about the history of taxa based on the "big-picture" view of the fossils in a larger, environmental, context…. Pakicetus probably spent a lot of time in the water in search of food. Although the mammalian fauna found with Pakicetus consists of rodents, bats, various artiodactyls, perissodactyls and probiscideans, and even a primate (Gingerich and others 1983), there are also aquatic animals such as snails, fish, turtles and crocodilians. Moreover, the sediment associated with Pakicetus shows evidence of streaming or flowing, usually associated with soils that are carried by water. The paleoenvironmental evidence thus clearly shows that Pakicetus lived in the low-lying wet terrestrial environment, making occasional excursions into fresh water.
I live in south Louisiana. It is not generally known, but we hunt black bears IN THE FREAKING SWAMPS here in the south. Now, because they are outside of the environment that they were designed for (i.e. a rather dry forest), they tend to not grow quite as big as the Northern end of the same species (like a size difference between a 1st world country citizen and a 3rd world country citizen—has, often, more to do with what we eat than a genetic drift). During the hurricanes, these creatures sometimes die in the swamps and are covered pretty quickly with stirred-up sediments—as I suspect they did before the founding of this country, since they hunted them here, even then. Over these generations, several hurricane related layers of sludge have compressed down on these dead bears. Now, to unearth these many bones (mayhap even fossilized—depending how far back this goes), we’d have to a.) dry out the swamps, b.) lower the water table, c.) raise the land in a separate cataclysmic event. Now, when we unearth these bears, we would find that they have a waterbed, almost completely aquatic foods (if not all—oh yeah, they eat rabbits), and no real difference from other black bears but their size. They have no webbing, nothing that separates them but size from their northern brethren, and would have descendants that would grow a bit bigger, if they were sent up north. PALEOENVIROMENTAL PROVES NOTHING! All it proves is that particular find was near and sometimes in the water, just like the black bear of south Louisiana. (I could have proven my point with: white-tailed deer, rabbits, rats, gophers (poor things don’t do well here), countless birds, bobcats, squirrels (those are bigger here), and one monkey in Raceland that was stuck on a wet Golf Course, with all the police out looking for it). Common sense would tell ANY south Louisiana hunter that these bears are just bears. They fall within the range of the SAME SPECIES.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   
6. Geochemical evidence

The earliest whales lived in freshwater habitats, but the ancestors of modern whales moved into saltwater habitats and thus had to adapt to drinking salt water. Since fresh water and salt water have somewhat different isotopic ratios of oxygen, we can predict that the transition will be recorded in the whales' skeletal remains - the most enduring of which are the teeth. Sure enough, fossil teeth from the earliest whales have lower ratios of heavy oxygen to light oxygen, indicating that the animals drank fresh water (Thewissen and others 1996).
Hey, guess what; I don’t need to go anywhere for this, either! Some creationists hold to the thought that the water in the oceans became saltier with time. If this is so, and the whale was always a whale, then the same evidence would be seen! Oh my goodness, something else that proves nothing! Remember, if the polar caps melted (it’s not saltwater ice), then the oceans would become less salty—there are tropical fossils in Antartica, btw.

5.) Embryological evidence
Hehehehe! The science built upon what Ernst Haeckel first started in human embryos!


To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit “to show their similarity” (Bowden, 1977, p. 128).
Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:

I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. …Haeckel’s reply to these charges was that if he is to be accused of falsifying drawings, many other prominent scientists should be accused of the same thing...” (Davidheiser, 1969, p. 76).
Evolutionist H.H. Newman of the
They are still used as proof, guys!
www.apologeticspress.org...&r8102a.htm
You read!
www.apologeticspress.org...&r9409a.htm
Now, this does not make the allegations in this segment go away—I am very aware of it! But this is where the evolution-oriented study of embryos started from. Now, note how the allegations don’t tell how they disappear, nor where, and since there’s really little out there on this, yet, I somehow doubt that it’s been studied all that well. Kinda’ like putting the cart before the horse. (I also personally think that whales fetuses have fur, just to prove that they are mammals. If they didn’t, someone would use that argument, believe me!)



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
4. Vestigial evidence
To prove evolution, evolutionist often bring the idea of vestigial organs, bones, whatnot, to prove that the “evolved” creature lost the need for something, so it a.) shrank, b.) became deformed … Now, if there is some use for the organ, it is no longer vestigial, but more likely fully functional for what it was designed to do. Now, one of them—the pelvic bones is described above. They have a function. Remember a dork that big needs support, as does a baby.

[National Geographic] However, the article contradicts itself. The caption on the last picture, a modern sperm whale, stated: “Today’s sperm whale has vestigial hind limbs,” (p. 73) and yet in the paragraph above the picture the author admitted that the bones do, in fact, have a purpose. We know these bones act “as an anchor for the muscles of the genetalia” (p. 73).

Now as for the others, I can think of some reasons for them.
vestigial olfactory nerves —you need those to taste—test to see if whales can taste what they eat. Prove that they are not being used. This is not proved yet. auditory meatus (the exterior opening of the ear canal) is closed—for God’s sake, they dive beyond what an open canal can handle! Observe how much water enters their heads in cases where the canal is perforated. These creatures HEAR underwater. Small muscles devoted to nonexistent external ears —Are we sure that they don’t use that to affect the direction of the rest of the ear—muscles that are not used atrophy—if they NEVER use them, they should be practically impossible to find. Diaphragm— It separates the guts from the lungs, making for compartmentalized fishy. Now, I am a music major, and I know a little something about diaphragms. It is natural for humans to breathe using their diaphragm, leaving their intercostals more like the “vestigial”. Now, in most people, they learn to breathe wrong over time—just to support a better-looking physique (no belly sticking out). In most people, their diaphragm is pretty weak, but in a “proper” music singer, not only is the diaphragm used, it is often abnormally large (like mine). The fact is that for whales the “proper” breathing is through their intercostals muscles, but it does not mean that the diaphragm is totally useless. When exhaling, the intercostals muscles contract., squeezing the ribcage onto the air. If the diaphragm wasn’t there, the air might not go out that tiny little blowhole, but “out” into the inner bowels. The diaphragm is needed.rudimentary ear pinnae— Does the ear cause THAT much drag on the whale? Their eyes are bigger than their ears. Just because they don’t have an open canal doesn’t mean that it is not useful. It just means they don’t work the way we are used to our ears working.

Although this list is by no means exhaustive, it is nonetheless clear that the whales have a wealth of vestigial features left over from their terrestrial ancestors.
Of course it’s not going to be exhaustive, but they haven’t PROVEN that these things are VESTEGIAL. Our tonsils , tailbones, and gall bladders were called vestigial for years before we found out that they were perfectly useful. Just because you call something vestigial doesn’t mean that MACRO EVOLUTION happened. Anyway, if the could pinpoint a true vestigial organ, they’d found something to support devolution—a creationistic concept, where we don’t change for the better, overall. This does not prove evolution.
Here we are, mankind, sitting around saying what has to work in just this one way on a whale because it works this way in us, and other land animals. This is an aquatic mammal—something we ain’t—and we don’t fully know ourselves yet. This doesn’t prove anything, for either side.

3. Molecular biological evidence

These studies examined myoglobin, lens alpha-crystallin A, and cytochrome c in a study of 46 different species of mammals.
Until they do a complete DNA study on a whale and one of the Artiodactyls, they can’t prove crap, nor will they ever. So, a few things match up. Taking a look at other aspects of DNA, we may prove that they are related to south Louisiana black bears. This proves nothing.



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
2. Morphological evidence
Has anyone ever seen what disease does to bones? Does anyone know the variances you can have between one species when it comes to their bones? Remember that some of the bones found for some of the whales that are proclaimed ancestors were scull fragments, pieced together by imperfect people.
Now, this is a bit off subject—it was in an argument over the “first bird” argument:

Writing for Science News, Richard Monastersky observed:

Mongolian and U.S. researchers have found a 75-million-year-old, bird-like creature with a hand so strange it has left paleontologists grasping for an explanation.... Paul Sereno of the University of Chicago notes that Mononychus had arms built much like those of digging animals. Because moles and other diggers have keeled sternums and wrists reminiscent of birds, the classification of Mononychus becomes difficult, he says (1993, 143:245).
Now, in this we find that the bone structure of one bird happens to be like that of a mole—something that birds had no logical reason to evolve from. Apparently bones being similar is not enough to prove ANYTHING!

Another problem evolutionists silently dismiss is the pelvis of the Ambulocetus. The anatomy of a whale demonstrates a backbone that continuously descends from the “back” (vertebrae) right into the tail, without any pelvic bone. The backbone of the Ambulocetus, however, ends at a bony pelvis with powerful rear legs extending from it.


Douglas Chadwick (author of the article) stated:

What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination—the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull—are absent in other land animals but a signature of later Eocene whales (2001, 200:68).
So, from mere dimples in teeth and folded ear bones, this animal somehow “qualifies” as a walking whale?


The skeletons of Pakicetus published by Thewissen et al. …[stated] “All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and…indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground” (see De Muizon, 2001, 413:260).[/qote]

. An examination of the actual skeleton (see Carroll, 1998, p. 335) quickly dispels the notion that the rear legs performed as obligatory fins. The legs on Ambulocetus were not fins at all, but rather legs made for walking and supporting weight.

1 Paleontological evidence What can I say? They were found in order. That’s just it; all you can say is that they were found in order.

This is where this mess was taken from:

www.apologeticspress.org...
www.apologeticspress.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.apologeticspress.org...



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Now, here’s one for y’all to figure out. WHAT CAN EXPLAIN HUNDREDS OF FOSSILIZED WHALES? Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
www.apologeticspress.org...

Imagine scientists’ surprise when they realized they had uncovered not just a couple of fossilized whales—but literally hundreds. While discovering 346 fossilized whales is quite impressive, the fact that this particular preservation is so complete, and in such a pristine condition, indicates that normal degradation did not occur. In fact, the whales had to have been buried rapidly. This amazing discovery is featured in the February 2004 issue of Geology. Commenting on the unique find, Leonard Brand and coworkers observed that their collection included “abundant whales preserved in pristine condition (bones articulated or at least closely associated), in some cases including preserved baleen” (p. 165, parenthetical item in orig.).


This is a bit too much for me. I can't keep up with y'all AND enjoy the rest of the cite. I'll get back to this later!



posted on May, 13 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Bears are found both in mountains and near coasts. The ancestors of whales are only found near coasts. Your example is flawed.


Hey, guess what; I don’t need to go anywhere for this, either! Some creationists hold to the thought that the water in the oceans became saltier with time. If this is so, and the whale was always a whale, then the same evidence would be seen! Oh my goodness, something else that proves nothing! Remember, if the polar caps melted (it’s not saltwater ice), then the oceans would become less salty—there are tropical fossils in Antartica, btw.


You place a causal link between salinity and oxygen isotopes, while this is not present. Salt doesn't cause the oxygen isotopes to change. The differences is caused by the percentage of the water that comes from evaporization (rain). Light O16-isotopes evaporate easier than the heavier O18-isotopes. Fresh water, which usually comes for a large percentage from rain, has more O16 than sea water. The salinity just represents a similar gradient today, but salinity doesn't cause the difference. Variations in salinity and oxygen isotopes.

We can perfectly date layers through radiometric dating when there is any problem with normal geological dating. That's how we know that the animals lived in a certain order in time.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
One point seems obvious: if it takes the concerted efforts of a small army of designers, engineers, and construction workers to assemble the large motors seen in power plants for example, then what about these submicroscopic protein motors that evolutionists call sophisticated, having superb accuracy? How can something so complex be such an accidentJust a question.

like i said. evolution is just improbable. not impossible. there's a difference. even though there's a 1 in a trillion chances that something like this would ever happen, there's still a chance.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
Yes, and viluses like the two you use in your example, have been used to show how they have been created, and that their extreme abilities to adapt and mutate etc. could "never" have been like they are unless they were deliberately programmed for that.

omfg......genetic engineering doesn't prove that they were created by a higher being. it only proves that WE are capable of this. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD!



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by silQ
like i said. evolution is just improbable. not impossible. there's a difference. even though there's a 1 in a trillion chances that something like this would ever happen, there's still a chance.


Yes there is a chance, however there is a better chance that you will slip through the earth than for that to happen. Until another theory is proven I will beleive in a creator whoever that may be.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
We can perfectly date layers through radiometric dating when there is any problem with normal geological dating. That's how we know that the animals lived in a certain order in time.


This is hardly a scientist speaking. To say the stuff you just said here, is just plain stupid. Your methods work. For you. It doesn't have to be correct or true, just because it fits into the pictire science has created for themselves, which by the way is so full of holes and inconsistencies that the Bible looks like a multiplication table in comparison. You don't know anything, for you refuse to hear the testimony of those who kept records. Unless you have written proof, or witnesses' testimony, you only have a hunch. And it's concistency and correctness is highly relative to the interpreter. There are many factors here. Among other things, there seems to have happened something around 5000 years ago there was a giant flood, or maybe even a space voyage from a doomed Ma'adim, a giant ship without rudder. And just a couple of generations after that, the Earth was divided or split. The continents drifted appart, as a direct result from the enormous flood which had happened not long before. The surface mass of the Earth stabilised and distributed itself.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Sure, evolutionists can accuretely date fossils! That is the biggest load of crap ever and I did not expect you to try that argument at all Amantine. You should have known better than to open yourself up to that flame pit. As Camel said scientists just use the information that fits because of the unreliable dating methods.

What about Radiodating isn't it accurate? NO!! There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the "parent" or original radioactive substance, gradually decays into "daughter" substances and this process is irreversible. The theory asserts that by measuring the amount of parent and daughter elements in a given sample and knowing the decay rate, one might be able to calculate the time elapsed from its formation.

Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates. A very good example of how scientists interpret the results of their radiodating method is presented in reference .


L.R. Stieff, T.W. Stern and R.N. Eichler, "Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages", U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, No. 414-E (1963):

"The most reasonable age [from among the many conflicting "dates" offered] can be selected only after careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations."


They select only the "most reasonable" dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach!

These special dating methods are seriously flawed: too many assumptions are made without any factual evidence. We can easily show the problems arising from the disregard of the following:

1. The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during their long decay process underground. For the results to be accurate, the systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn't happen in nature.

2. Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this. It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive mineral.


3. The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure, changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high temperatures influence it. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.

4. Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.


5. Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.

A few examples of the accuracy of this method:
1. Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than two centuries old have been dated at up to 3 BILLION years old!

2.Laboratories that "date" rocks insist on knowing in advance the "evolutionary age" of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as "reasonable" and which to ignore.

Well What about radiocarbon dating? Wollard F. Libby discovered the carbon 14 method in 1946, while working at the University of Chicago. This was considered to be a great breakthrough in the dating of plant and animal remains of earlier times. It is the special method used by scientists to date organic materials not older than a few thousand years.

The radioactive carbon isotope (C-14) called radiocarbon is generated in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. Living organisms accumulate radioactive carbon from the atmosphere via carbon dioxide (CO2) during their lifetime. This accumulation ceases at the death of the organism and the radiocarbon starts decaying into inert carbon. By measuring the ratio of radioactive and stable carbon in an organic material, and ASSUMING what the original ratio was, one can calculate the time of death of that organism.

Let's hear from those people, who actually use this method, how its results are interpreted:


J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?", Pensee, Fall 1974, p.44.:

If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it.


The accuracy of this method is just catastrophic . Just consider the following ridiculous findings[7]:
1. mortar from the 785 year old Oxford Castle in England was dated at 7,370 years old

2. freshly killed seals were dated at 1,300 years and seals dead for 30 years at 4,600 years

3. living snails being dated at 2,300 years old

4. new wood cut from growing trees after few days was dated at 10,000 years

5. muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk was dated to 24,000 years, while the the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb was established to be 17,200 years—a rather long living animal as it appears!

We cannot just assume that the C-14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle has always been constant, that the cosmic ray flux has always been the same. and that no contamination of the sample occurred. These assumptions are obviously erroneous, otherwise how can one explain that hair from a mammoth has been dated at 26,000 years while the peat right above the carcass at only 5,610 years?
Because of the short half-life of C-14, this method is only suitable for dating relatively young samples. Practically, any organic material would be left with an undetectable amount of radioactive carbon after 10 half-lives of C-14. This means that most of the fossils claimed to be millions of years old, would have to show an "infinite" age. It is not so. Radiocarbon dating of coal deposits gave ages less than 50,000 years, when the evolutionary theory claimed them to be millions of years old.

After the discovery of the radiocarbon dating method, scientists tried to correlate their results with the dates "established" a century before. But they have not been able to do so. Of thousands of measurements, they have been able to correlate only three. These three successes were enough to make the original century old fossil/strata dating "scientific". It is on this basis that evolutionists claim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Bears are found both in mountains and near coasts. The ancestors of whales are only found near coasts. Your example is flawed.

I pointed out that they live practically everywhere. I’m aware of how flawed you’d choose this to be. They have only found the bones in one place…hmm. Methinks you missed the point—the fact that you’d find an animal’s bones in water—how many sets of skeletons do they have? It’s not like there’s millions of these skeletons being pulled up right and left—not a lot to go on. All that you can prove from it is that you found these bones here and nowhere else, and that these types of possible “food sources” were nearby—you can’t honestly prove that they ate the stuff, even—we just make educated guesses. You happened to pull up bones of anything in South Louisiana and say that it was half-aquatic like they did you’d need more than the proof that they are offering—with the bear, it’s obvious. I used something that you would see was a bit ridiculous, like the bear (btw, that’s what Darwin thought they had evolved from) to show what happens when you only look at the history of one small area, like only a part of coastal ASIA.
It’s like, in the year 3000, pulling up the one existing tape of the Rams v.s the Saints, which happened to be played on a Monday (with the assumption that football is played no more, this is now a historical document), and deciding that ALL games were being played on Mondays by every team ever to be in existance. All you could tell from the reel is that it was played on a Monday, and it’s likely that the Saints lost.
Did you know that the easiest areas to fossilize animals in IS the REALLY wet areas? Mummification happens in the desert, and things just rot in a normal forest. The whole point is that you just can’t prove that this supports that a.) this thing lived ONLY in the water it’s whole life, and b.) certainly as hell can’t prove that they evolved based upon this. It is NOT proof for evolution. That, and the bone structure of it’s feet were built for land, LIKE the blasted bear’s are—that was covered in a separate section.
I was trying to point out the foolishness of trying to make this, by itself, stand up FOR evolution, and if it’s dependant, you have to use it to back up what can stand on it’s own.



You place a causal link between salinity and oxygen isotopes, while this is not present. Salt doesn't cause the oxygen isotopes to change. The differences is caused by the percentage of the water that comes from evaporization (rain). Light O16-isotopes evaporate easier than the heavier O18-isotopes. Fresh water, which usually comes for a large percentage from rain, has more O16 than sea water. The salinity just represents a similar gradient today, but salinity doesn't cause the difference. Variations in salinity and oxygen isotopes.

We can perfectly date layers through radiometric dating when there is any problem with normal geological dating. That's how we know that the animals lived in a certain order in time.

The timeframe? HAH! I already pointed out earlier that they DON’T always do the testing with those DAMN things—often they just look at other fossils in the strata, i.e. the circular thinking of Geology. The whole point was that if you could vary the salinity in the sea, you change the rates that the sea does. Now, as for this:

Water molecules with 16O atoms evaporate more easily than water molecules with 18O atoms, so the relative numbers of 16O and 18O atoms that remain in the water change as evaporation occurs. Water from which 16O atoms have preferentially evaporated has a higher ratio of 18O to 16O atoms than water that has experienced less evaporation. As salinity also increases as evaporation occurs, we can generalize the relationship to state that water with an increased 18O to 16O ratio is saltier than water with a lower 18O to 16O ratio.
It’s a constant change, like what happens in “younger” bodies of water to “older,” right? So the amounts have more to do with when they lived AS WELL as where. Did you know that off the coast of Cuba, in the gulf, there is a .5 mile radius (approx,) of fresh water from a fresh water spring in the sea, a bit further out, you have brackish water, and even further, where it is perfectly habitable for salt-water mammals, this water would test as having less evaporation over time, and things that live in it’s wake would have that variance in their teeth. There are many under-sea springs, not having been exposed to evaporation that would throw this off. Remember, the sea is not that consistent. Also, there’s a difference in evaporation rates between the upper and lower levels of the sea (since evaporation only occurs at the surface), and there is variance in the rates between the two systems. And, as for the radiometric dating thingy:
www.radiometric-dating.com...
www.uniformitarianism.net...
www.catastrophism.net...
www.creationism.org...
www.creationism.org...
www.creationism.org...
www.icr.org...
www.icr.org...
www.icr.org...
www.icr.org...
www.icr.org...
www.icr.org...
actually read the three assumptions, and think of this: if something measures constantly and efficiently the same thing, over and over again, can the measurement still be screwed up by faulty reasoning—and if the same faulty assumption is applied the whole time, would you get the same discrepancy thoroughly repeated to the point that it seems to be irrefutable?



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlc163
There are many under-sea springs, not having been exposed to evaporation that would throw this off. Remember, the sea is not that consistent. Also, there’s a difference in evaporation rates between the upper and lower levels of the sea (since evaporation only occurs at the surface), and there is variance in the rates between the two systems.


And there's also another thing which is often forgotten. Ice melting. Technically we are still living in an iceage actually, geologicallly speaking. When Ice melts, the ammounts of ice which once covered greater parts of the Earth, things happen to the ocean, to the Earth climate, currents turn, salinity drops and so on. Most of these things are difficult, some impossible, to predict. The only thing we know for certain, is that the Earth environment is in constant change. It transforms and mutates, reshapes and turns. Earth is not static. She's a living body, sustaining Life itself.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 04:14 AM
link   

1. The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during their long decay process underground. For the results to be accurate, the systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn't happen in nature.

2. Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this. It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive mineral.

3. The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure, changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high temperatures influence it. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.

4. Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.

5. Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.


1. How does a rock get contaminated with special isotopes argon or neodynium? I think you overestimate the amount of contamination possible in rock layers under huge pressure. If the contamination comes from other rock layers, geologists can spot these and warn us not too trust the samples too much. Gasses and liquids do not get to the rock layers that easily.
We can also identify rocks that might have been contaminated (source):

The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.


2. This depends on the material. In a non-porous rock, argon can obviously not have come for the atmosphere. If it is porous, we can check the difference between the amounts argon-39 and argon-40 to see how much argon came from the atmosphere. Other datings methods use extremely rare elements like neodynium and lutetium, which are very unlikely to have been present in the rock from the beginning.
Some other dating methods leave an entire string of isotopes with different decay rates. We can easily check here if there has been contamination recently.

3. Could you provide a link to that Westinghouse experiment because that doesn't sound like anything possible in physics? (source):

Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions.

(...)

Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.


Cosmic radiation is taken into account: (source):





Figure 9. Ratio of atmospheric carbon-14 to carbon-12, relative to the present-day value (top panel). Unlike long-term radiometric dating methods, radiocarbon relies on knowing the fraction of radioactive carbon-14 in the atmosphere at the time the object being dated was alive. The production of carbon-14 by cosmic rays was up to a factor of about two higher than at present in the timescales over which radiocarbon can be used. Data for the last 11,800 years comes from tree-ring counting, while the data beyond that age comes from other sources, such as from a carbonate stalagmite for the data shown here. The bottom panel shows the offset in
uncalibrated ages caused by this change in atmospheric composition. Tree-ring data are from Stuiver et al.,
Radiocarbon 40, 1041-1083, 1998; stalactite data are from Beck et al., Science 292, 2453-2458, 2001.


4. How does the water get into the rock? Rock kinds that are porous enough for water to flow through should not be used for dating.

5. Possible, but we have geologists that can take a look at the rock layers and tell us if that happened. I'm not a geologist so I don't really know how to do that though.


A few examples of the accuracy of this method:
1. Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than two centuries old have been dated at up to 3 BILLION years old!

2.Laboratories that "date" rocks insist on knowing in advance the "evolutionary age" of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as "reasonable" and which to ignore.


1. Well, if you use K-Ar or Ar-Ar dating the lava is easy to explain. Argon is a gas and is released when the rock is heated (and lava is heated). Other explanations might be that since the lava comes from the center of the earth, it has been contaminated by older magma there.

2. Ofcourse they need to know an approximate age, every dating method has its own range. I doubt they use that to select a 'right' answer from a few answers, unless that means using the right method.


1. mortar from the 785 year old Oxford Castle in England was dated at 7,370 years old

2. freshly killed seals were dated at 1,300 years and seals dead for 30 years at 4,600 years.


1. Was mortar once alive? You said yourself C14 dating is only for organisms. Heating, adding sand and water can contaminate a sample.

2. C14 dating is not for organisms that live in the water (source):

The method doesn't work on things which didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures, since their carbon might (for example) come from dissolved carbonate rock. That causes a dating problem with any animal that eats seafood.


3., 4. and 5. I cannot think of a easy explanation for these. They may have been contaminated. Maybe there are some things we don't know yet about carbon dating. Usually it is quite good and we know this because we can compare it to other dating methods (source):

Some corals can be carbon dated, and also dated by another radioactive material, Thorium-230. Pollen found in the Greenland icecap has been carbon dated, and also dated by counting ice layers. The three methods confirm each other.

Trees grow a thick ring in a good year, and grow a thin ring in a bad year. It is sometimes possible to match up tree-ring patterns between different trees. When enough suitable trees are found, living or dead, the matching is completely accurate. Then, we have wood for which we know the right answer.

So, carbon dating has been calibrated against the rings of California bristlecone pines, and Irish bog oaks, and the like. When this was first done, it turned out that carbon dating had been giving too-young dates for early civilizations. Apparently, the production of C14 by the Sun has changed by several percent across the last 10,000 years. We know (from other measurements) that the Sun hasn't fluctuated by more than 10 percent in the last million years. However, even this small an adjustment was a bit of a shock. For example, Stonehenge suddenly became older than the Pyramids, instead of younger.

Since then, several other calibrations have been done, which confirm and extend the tree-ring one. Some were done by finding lakes with atmospherically derived carbon in their annual layers of silt (called varves). In those particular lakes, the varves can be counted, and the varves can also be carbon dated. See below for details about the 45,000 annual varves in Lake Suigetsu.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
1. How does a rock get contaminated with special isotopes argon or neodynium? I think you overestimate the amount of contamination possible in rock layers under huge pressure. If the contamination comes from other rock layers, geologists can spot these and warn us not too trust the samples too much. Gasses and liquids do not get to the rock layers that easily.


I have long realised that you concider my opinions and arguments under your class. But I will continue to come with my criticism.

What you think here is irrellevant. What science says is relevant. The question isn't whether a rock can be contaminated with isotopes, but how contamination can manipulate these isotopes. Such as magnetic fields, "contaminate" with isotopes. There is nothing stopping any sediment from being contaminated, and there is nothing stopping the source from dissapearing over time. Your argumentation is flawed. The contamination source can be simply heat and water. Not to mention such things as Solar flares, polar shifts, great ammounts of water etc. Your "perfect" dating techniques are so far from perfect or accurate it can possibly be. When a three year old newly formed rock is dated to being billions of years old, why should we rely on any result found using these methods?

We don't need links and long explanations of field examples. We want to hear your explanations for how such a "perfect and flawless" method can be so terribly wrong, but still be concidered sound. We want to hear how you would explain how our arguments, all of them, are wrong.

[Edited on 15-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
What you think here is irrellevant. What science says is relevant. The question isn't whether a rock can be contaminated with isotopes, but how contamination can manipulate these isotopes. Such as magnetic fields, "contaminate" with isotopes. There is nothing stopping any sediment from being contaminated, and there is nothing stopping the source from dissapearing over time. Your argumentation is flawed. The contamination source can be simply heat and water. Not to mention such things as Solar flares, polar shifts, great ammounts of water etc. Your "perfect" dating techniques are so far from perfect or accurate it can possibly be. When a three year old newly formed rock is dated to being billions of years old, why should we rely on any result found using these methods?

We don't need links and long explanations of field examples. We want to hear your explanations for how such a "perfect and flawless" method can be so terribly wrong, but still be concidered sound. We want to hear how you would explain how our arguments, all of them, are wrong.


I never said those dating methods were perfect or that rocks can not be contaminated. All rocks will be contaminated a little bit (much smaller than 1 ppm). Magnetic fields don't influence decay or isotope concentrations. Solar flares can only influence it in the first thousands of years and usually have very little inpact because of our protective atmosphere. Traces of large amounts of water can be found in nearby rocks and should be taken into account. Some rocks will be contaminated more than other. What we do, is find out through experiments which minerals are contaminated more easily and try to avoid dating with those rocks.

No theory is perfect and I admit there probably are some rocks with special properties that get dated incorrectly. In most of the cases, the date we get from a few of the 40> radiometric methods (you can't use all of them at the same time, they are for different periods), ice layers, tree rings, stalagmite growth and other datings methods agree.

BTW, in good debates you don't use ad hominem.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackalYes there is a chance, however there is a better chance that you will slip through the earth than for that to happen.

o really......can u show me the exact probability that i'll slip through the earth with ur source?


[Edited on 15-5-2004 by silQ]



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
I never said those dating methods were perfect or that rocks can not be contaminated.


Well why did you then say...

Originally posted by amantine
We can perfectly date layers through radiometric dating when there is any problem with normal geological dating.

...just a couple of posts ago?


All rocks will be contaminated a little bit (much smaller than 1 ppm).


All rocks are contaminated, very well, but some more than other, but atleast 0-1 ppm. How do you calculate such contamination accurately enough to being able to perfectly calculate the age of such material?


Magnetic fields don't influence decay or isotope concentrations.


Not directly perhaps, but indirectly? Or are you saying that let's say ions or free radicals or whatever they're called could not lose electrons to radioactive isotopes because of magnetic fields and thereby interfere with the decay of the isotope? Even neutralise it? I'm deftly not an expert in this area, I hardly went to chemistry classes when I went to school.


Solar flares can only influence it in the first thousands of years and usually have very little inpact because of our protective atmosphere.


Which has been stable through all this time? Nope. The athmosphere has changed more than slightly over time. Or do you suppose the small nostrils of most dinosaurs etc. the fact that they were able to walk around freely with that enormous muscle mass, with it's need for oxygen etc. could have been like that unless there were something different with the atmosphere? Maybe even gravity? And hasn't the athmosphere been shaped over time? And isn't water, like in the flood which is discribed all over the world indipendently by many, perhaps even most ancient civilisations, directly related to athmosphere? Do you know exactly what the athmosphere looked like one billion, or even one million or for that matter 5000 years ago? Didn't think so.

We get another clue in the Flood story of the bible, though it could be nothing. The sign that God would never let such a flood come again was the rainbow, something that suggests that the rainbow wasn't visible earlier. The rainbow is only visible under certain athmospherical conditions. And it has to do with water and even gravity, since if the gravity was lighter, there would maybe be more heavywater around, and would a rainbow be visible through heavy water? I have no idea. Where did all the water come from? What kind of process or event could yield so much extra water? And how much water was added? Well enough to soak the whole Earth in water, and enough to make the rainbow visible. Some people suggest that the Earth at the time was encapsuled within an ice sphere. This may have been what was refered to as "the Firmament". The Flood and the first rainbow happened about 5000 years ago according to the story. But then again. The word Mabbuwl is mostly translated Flood, except for one other place, in Psalms 29:10 where it says "The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever". This verse, however, is better translated "YHWH governs the Seas of Heaven, YHWH is King forever!". Space. The "Flood" could indeed mean simply space, and the Ark of Noah could be a Space ship, and the material he made the ark from is called "Gopher Planks", We have no idea about what Gopher is. And we get another clue too. And the ark Noah created, had no rudder on it, which is rather strange, unless it was infact a space ship, you can't stear using a rudder in space. The Hebrew name for the planet Mars is Ma'adim.


Traces of large amounts of water can be found in nearby rocks and should be taken into account. Some rocks will be contaminated more than other. What we do, is find out through experiments which minerals are contaminated more easily and try to avoid dating with those rocks.


And waterlevel aso comes into the picture. And since most of the areas where fossils are found are earlier seafloors, these things are very much relative.


No theory is perfect and I admit there probably are some rocks with special properties that get dated incorrectly. In most of the cases, the date we get from a few of the 40> radiometric methods (you can't use all of them at the same time, they are for different periods), ice layers, tree rings, stalagmite growth and other datings methods agree.

BTW, in good debates you don't use ad hominem.


Well, I agree, but I am not a scientist, neither am I an educated guy, the knowledge I have is mostly aquired through personal studies, and through spiritual guidance, a term I guess you would scoff at, but which for me and a great deal of people is very real. I hope you can forgive my layman's approaches and my ad hominem remarks. If I have posted stuff which is completely irrellevant or directly wrong, you won't have to explain and use alot of energy to tell me why. Just say it's wrong, and I can search my way to better understanding on my own. Thank you.

[Edited on 15-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis

Originally posted by amantine
I never said those dating methods were perfect or that rocks can not be contaminated.


Well why did you then say...

Originally posted by amantine
We can perfectly date layers through radiometric dating when there is any problem with normal geological dating.

...just a couple of posts ago?


Well, English is not my first language, but I used perfectly in the sense of 'quite well', which is listed as the second possibility for 'perfectly' in my Concise Oxford Dictionary. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.



All rocks will be contaminated a little bit (much smaller than 1 ppm).


All rocks are contaminated, very well, but some more than other, but atleast 0-1 ppm. How do you calculate such contamination accurately enough to being able to perfectly calculate the age of such material?

I'm sorry for the confusion, but perfect within certain boundaries of error as in 'quite well'. The 0-1 ppm give a too tiny error to be of any influence, because there is always a uncertainty because decay is a random process.



Magnetic fields don't influence decay or isotope concentrations.


Not directly perhaps, but indirectly? Or are you saying that let's say ions or free radicals or whatever they're called could not lose electrons to radioactive isotopes because of magnetic fields and thereby interfere with the decay of the isotope? Even neutralise it? I'm deftly not an expert in this area, I hardly went to chemistry classes when I went to school.

Certainly not directly, indirectly is possible, but not of any influence. Theoretically you could smash a free electron, accelerated by a magnetic field, into the nucleus to make it merge with a proton into a neutron, but that takes a huge amount of energy. I doubt that ever happens.


Which has been stable through all this time? Nope. The athmosphere has changed more than slightly over time. Or do you suppose the small nostrils of most dinosaurs etc. the fact that they were able to walk around freely with that enormous muscle mass, with it's need for oxygen etc. could have been like that unless there were something different with the atmosphere? Maybe even gravity? And hasn't the athmosphere been shaped over time? And isn't water, like in the flood which is discribed all over the world indipendently by many, perhaps even most ancient civilisations, directly related to athmosphere? Do you know exactly what the athmosphere looked like one billion, or even one million or for that matter 5000 years ago? Didn't think so.

We can check our radiometric dating methods with our dating methods and we can callibrate them to changed atmospheric conditions. A different atmosphere leaves chances in rock and ice. If I'm correct, it doesn't matter that much what the exact composition of the atmosphere is when stopping cosmic radiation and particles from the sun. The magnetic field should usually take care of most charged particles and I think most particles will be stopped by any of the different gasses in the atmosphere.


And waterlevel aso comes into the picture. And since most of the areas where fossils are found are earlier seafloors, these things are very much relative.

It doesn't matter if the rock was once part of the seafloor, as long as the water never reached the rocks. Water doesn't reach the most of the seafloor, basicly everything 10 m below the sea floor. If the water did reach it, there are erosion and chemical traces (NaCl, CaCO3). I'm no geologist though, so my knowledge about this is not that large.


Well, I agree, but I am not a scientist, neither am I an educated guy, the knowledge I have is mostly aquired through personal studies, and through spiritual guidance, a term I guess you would scoff at, but which for me and a great deal of people is very real. I hope you can forgive my layman's approaches and my ad hominem remarks. If I have posted stuff which is completely irrellevant or directly wrong, you won't have to explain and use alot of energy to tell me why. Just say it's wrong, and I can search my way to better understanding on my own. Thank you.


It is always good if scientific theories are questioned. Sometimes mistakes are found that can be corrected and it always make you learn new things.




top topics



 
3
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join