Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Why do you think everyone that's taken the time to sit down and put some real effort into the learning process should take additional time to teach you because you're unwilling to do the work yourself?
I don't even buy your feigned willingness to learn. You started a thread with the sole purpose of arguing against evolution using arguments from ignorance and bare assertion.
Why should anyone try to tutor you when you don't want to learn?
It's as if someone were to argue that there are gnomes living inside your TV that hand draw the images because they don't understand how electricity works. If they aren't willing to learn how electricity works, how would you then explain the TV? You don't.
A person who is ignorant of a concept, is unwilling to learn it and still asserts expertise dealing with that concept, is a fool.
Dr. Michener agreed that the fossil nests looked like the clusters of chambers, or cells, that make up the nests of modern bees. But like other scientists, he cautioned that more research would be needed to confirm the findings. It is always possible that some insect no longer extant made bee-like nests back then. The best evidence, of course, would be to find some fossil bees associated with the nests, he said.
Originally posted by JPhish
Originally posted by newworld
“you are no not a sinner. It's probably that you don't completely understand the bible. It is possible to know about G*d and still believe in the basic principles of evolution. intelligent design i think is how christians of a scientific background call it.
If, however, despite all the evidence you still think G*d is BS, then I can't do anything but shake my head in sadness while the more agressive individuals start insulting you.”
i can tolerate the religious fanatics, but you people who THINK you are scientific yet really have no idea what you're talking about, really put me on edge. You're worse than they are . . .
star and flag for you OP, we have similar views, i think both fairy tales are ridiculous.
[edit on 10/3/2009 by JPhish]
dude, what the heck is your problem? are you implying I'm a fanatic? i placed effort to show as much evidence for my claims and show that evolution is in fact a well-supported scientific theory. and you go and say we have no idea what we are talking about?
check the info, educate yourself, and if you still make these ignorant statements then I simply lose even MORE hope of humanity
Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by John Matrix
Why thank you! I'm pleased to see that I'm not the only Christian on here that can find some scientific evidence to back up my claims.
I have so far seen some interesting (if not convincing) fossil evidence. Anyone got anything on the Man of War?
Originally posted by Alpha Arietis
Evolution? That's barely a hypothesis. It certainly doesn't qualify as a theory.
Why do our schools teach these things? Why do the general populace believe them?
Here's the true nature of the "evolution conspiracy" you speak of. It doesn't matter to the secular priesthood whether or not evolution is a true phenomenon.
All that matters is that the idea undermines the Christian ideology that has dominated western culture for the past umpteen centuries.
It's a power struggle between ideologies. Truth and science have nothing to do with it.
Dating rocks by radioactive timekeepers is simple in theory, but almost all of the different methods (except for the isochron methods - see below) rely on these few basic assumptions: 21
* Beginning Conditions Known
Interweaving the relative time scale with the atomic time scale poses certain problems because only certain types of rocks, chiefly the igneous variety, can be dated directly by radiometric methods; but these rocks do not ordinarily contain fossils.
* Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
* Constant Decay Rate
* No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
* All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
* There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes
The assumption for the K-Ar method is that all argon escapes at the time of rock formation because argon is a gas while potassium is not. Likewise, the other non-isochron dating methods, such as uranium-lead, also fall short because who is to say when the "zero date" was when there was only parent isotope and no daughter? Because of this problem, it might be a significant error to simply assume that all original isotopes present in a given rock were parent isotopes.
"The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based assumes zero 40Ar in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies. This assumption has been shown to be faulty." CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:342 1996
In summary, many scientists assume that since argon is a gas, all of it should have escaped from the lava before it cooled. Therefore, all the 40Ar in the rock should be the result of decay from potassium. Based on the measured potassium, argon, and the decay rate, they calculate an age. That is why it does not matter how long the magma was in the volcano before it erupted. They believe that when the volcano erupts, all the 40Ar escapes, and the atomic clock gets reset to zero. If all the argon escaped from hot lava of volcanoes that erupted long ago, then all the argon should escape from the hot lava of volcanoes that erupt in modern times too. But modern lava does have 40Ar in it. This is known as the "excess argon problem". Scientists are well aware of this problem and use various calibration methods to "correct" for this problem. However, how are these calibration methods established? Upon what basis are they validated?
A problem with fission-track dating is that the rates of spontaneous fission are very slow, requiring the presence of a significant amount of uranium in a sample to produce useful numbers of tracks over time. Additionally, variations in uranium content within a sample can lead to large variations in fission track counts in different sections of the same sample.42
Originally posted by newworld
did you read my post in the first page? Evolution is not "merely" a hypothesis, it's the strongest scientific theory out there. also who says evolution undermines Christianity? science and religion can exists side-by-side.
also, as far as I'm aware, most of the western world dismisses evolution due to the mistake that it would go against their faith.
Originally posted by newworld
reply to post by sisgood
sisgood, that right there is a completely different issue. Now this one about the age of Earth is more open to debate in my opinion.
Is this your "proof that certain theories are faulty or false" thread?
Originally posted by Alpha Arietis
No system currently exists for accurately dating anything from Earth's past.
Carbon dating is grossly unreliable. That's been proven time and time again.
Germaine did indeed discover plenty of evidence to very nicely flesh out a very good story of how the first French people lived. For example, the site is full of flint, which was interpreted as being worked into tools. Various "hearths" were also found throughout the site where the first families cooked, prepared their food, and ate. Evidence of these meals, in the form of animal bones, were everywhere. And, she found the hominids themselves, or at least their bones. So, the evidence for a rather complete an intricate life for the earliest French people seemed rather obvious and fairly easily interpreted. After the1950s, the years rolled by without any similar finds of modern human remains below those of Neandertals. In the early 1970s, a young graduate student, Erik Trinkaus, started asking some questions. He found that the reason the skull fragments lacked browridges was because that area was completely broken off. Given this evidence, the interpretation of modern human features seemed to be based on little more than wishful thinking.
The animal bones were problematic as well. They showed no signs of deliberate butchering and they were generally oriented in a parallel or perpendicular fashion with respect to the cave walls and to each other. Such orientation is not consistent with people randomly dropping these bones on the ground of the cave-home surface. They would have to be extraordinarily neat and unusual people indeed to place the remains of dinner in such neat alignment. Of course, such orientation is much more consistent with a watery deposition, and that is exactly what McPherron and Dibble concluded.
Germaine had interpreted the flint stones as very "primitive" tools, even more primitive than those used by Neandertals. Little did she know how primitive these tools really were. As part of their research McPherron and Dibble noted that known manmade tools all have certain features, like a sharpened regular modification of a flint edge. None of the "tools" found out FontÃ©chevade had such features. They were in fact indistinguishable from naturally broken rocks!
An excellent example of a dating problem in the news appears in an article from National Geographic magazine. It describes some footprints made in volcanic ash that are said to be 3.6 million years old.
As I kneel beside the large print and lightly touch its sole, I am filled with quiet awe. It looks perfectly modern. "I thought that at three and a half million years ago their prints might be somehow different from ours," says Latimer. "But they aren't. The bipedal adaptation of those hominids was full-blown." 23
Mary Leakey discovered this 73-foot long trail of fossilized footprints consisting of 20 prints of an individual the size and shape of a modern 10-year-old human and 27 prints of a smaller person. The paleoanthropologist Timothy White, who was working with Leakey at the time, said:
"Make no mistake about it, they are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There is a well shaped modern heel with a strong arch...
[edit on 3-10-2009 by sisgood]