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.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

He's just going to copy&paste that list again. He will never answer why there aren't 100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, etc. In his mind, humans and dinosaurs existed in this planet at the same time some 6,000 years ago.




posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

He's just going to copy&paste that list again. He will never answer why there aren't 100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, etc. In his mind, humans and dinosaurs existed in this planet at the same time some 6,000 years ago.


99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. So let me channel edmc for you:



A long time ago (let's not fight over 10k or 14.5b years...the rest is crazy enough) there was some super powerful being that came out of nothing to create everything. Why? Because something can't come from nothing...except for that being of course. Anyway, that guy created everything including humans.


And this is where I'm not sure about his belief. Pic option A) or B)


A)




That powerful being let some time pass and very accurately killed off 99% of his creation (accurately because the timeline in which the animals/plants died fit the theory of evolution perfectly...which is impossible because that theory/hypothesis is clearly wrong) over time.


Or...

B)




That super powerful being simply decided to forge billions of fossils to trick scientists into believing in evolution and to "test people's faith".


Of course all that doesn't matter because according to edmc, radiometric dating is totally wrong. That max total impact of around 1% on some of the isotopes' radiometric decay rates leads to error margins that are MASSIVE...right? Of course there's plenty of materials that aren't impacted by outside influences at all, but he simply ignores that too. This isn't even the first time he brings up that nonsense argument, and it's also not the first time he was totally wrong about it.

Getting a bit tired of the same totally bonkers arguments...



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Mr. XYZ - you said:




Of course all that doesn't matter because according to edmc, radiometric dating is totally wrong.


Can you please show me where I said radiometric dating is totally wrong?


Either you're dishonest or a complete you know what... because as far as I know here's what I've been saying: the dating method is INACCURATE - but it has its own proper use. I didn't say it "is totally wrong".

(I'll bold it for you so that you don't make a mistake again - OKAy?)

it's on this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

In any case: the c14 dating method is still an inaccurate dating method unless of course the specimen is around the half-life of the carbon isotopes - which is about 5700 years.

As for the radiometric dating method - it was designed to date igneous rocks and the earth's strata due to it's long live radioactive isotopes.

Both dating methods have their proper place and use - but when one method is used to extend the life of the other - like extending the life of c14 by using radiometric dating then problems occurs.

Honest scientists are well aware of this problem except of course evolutionists. Evolutionists rather prefer to ignore this problem as though it's not there - so they don't want to address it and say that the problem:


On this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

hahahaha...so you can't refute the problems inherent to carbon dating.

The fact that the tool is so inaccurate for dating "fossils" it leads one to wonder if evolutionists are that so gullible.

Looki here - a 150 million fossil!! proof of evolution. Not!!

On this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

"C14 is not used to date things that are millions of years old" because they CAN'T.

C14 like I said only last around 5700 years. Since "fossils" are just mineral deposits thus when they turn into "rocks" - they will retain the long-live radioactive isotopes, like 'rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.

Thus like I said - a statement like "150 million year old fossil" is not accurate because the "fossil" is NOT the actual (once living) carbon life-form but a replica of the original life-form formed by sediments.

This should be more than enough I hope.

But to reiterate my position in caps:

C14/RADIOMETRIC DATING HAVE INACCURACIES BUT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROPER USE. WHEN USED IMPROPERLY THE RESULT IS IMPRECISE.

C14 DATING - for carbon dating due to half-life of around 5700 years. Good for dating organic materials and ancient artifacts.

While RADIOMETRIC DATING - is for dating "ROCKS" as they retain the long-live radioactive isotopes, like 'rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Good for dating the earth's strata.

Am I clear enuff? I hope so.


edit on 8-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: bold



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
While RADIOMETRIC DATING - is for dating "ROCKS" as they retain the long-live radioactive isotopes, like 'rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Good for dating the earth's strata.

Am I clear enuff? I hope so.

Again. What is the actual problem? Are the bones transformed into stone not at least as old as the rock they're made of? Are you implying it is just a "leap of faith" to think so?
edit on 8-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

He's just going to copy&paste that list again. He will never answer why there aren't 100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, etc. In his mind, humans and dinosaurs existed in this planet at the same time some 6,000 years ago.


hahahaha rhino you're also following the footstepd of Mr. XYZ - blind leading the blind.

Can you please show me where I said "humans and dinosaurs existed in this planet at the same time some 6,000 years ago."?

I refer you to famous line in the movie "Jurassic Park"


-- Dr. Ian Malcolm zeys:." .... two species that were never meant to coexist on earth, have been forced to do so, ..."


One is on the top of the food chain while the other is the food, know what I mean?

Biblical speaking animals including dinosaurs were created first then (dino) disappeared on earth when their time came and gone.

As for why there are no "100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, etc."

Because there never was - it's a made up story by evolutionists.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

He's just going to copy&paste that list again. He will never answer why there aren't 100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, etc. In his mind, humans and dinosaurs existed in this planet at the same time some 6,000 years ago.


hahahaha rhino you're also following the footstepd of Mr. XYZ - blind leading the blind.

Can you please show me where I said "humans and dinosaurs existed in this planet at the same time some 6,000 years ago."?

I refer you to famous line in the movie "Jurassic Park"


-- Dr. Ian Malcolm zeys:." .... two species that were never meant to coexist on earth, have been forced to do so, ..."


One is on the top of the food chain while the other is the food, know what I mean?

I can't show. You're just being rather vague of your believes. Anyway, sorry.


Originally posted by edmc^2
Biblical speaking animals including dinosaurs were created first then (dino) disappeared on earth when their time came and gone.

As for why there are no "100 million year old fossils of humans, bears, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, etc."

Because there never was - it's a made up story by evolutionists.

Did the dinosaur disappear ~65 million years ago as concluded by modern science? If by evolutionist you refer to people who understand modern synthesis, it doesn't claim there were humans, bears, etc. 100 million years ago. Rather, back then, their common ancestor was some nocturnal mouse-like thingy. You say we didn't evolve from that (like the trail of evidence shows), but you also don't think we were around back then. So, what is our origin?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



I only have one question: where did the original life (God) come from?


Invalid query.



[Fill in the blanks.
]



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Again, C14 isn't the only dating method, and they all confirm eachother


For very old fossils they also date the soil directly below and above the fossil to get a broad range.

Anyway, you seem to have no clue about dating methods, so here's a link explaining it in detail: LINK




In any case: the c14 dating method is still an inaccurate dating method unless of course the specimen is around the half-life of the carbon isotopes - which is about 5700 years.


That post shows that you don't understand dating methods. C14 works back to around 50k years! Why? Because when i decays it doesn't just disappear, it decays INTO SOMETHING...which then also decays.

So no, C14 dating doesn't just work for around 10-11k years like those ridiculous creationist pseudo-science websites want you to believe. They simply omit to mention crucial bits that would easily show how crazy their claims are.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Again, C14 isn't the only dating method, and they all confirm eachother


For very old fossils they also date the soil directly below and above the fossil to get a broad range.

Anyway, you seem to have no clue about dating methods, so here's a link explaining it in detail: LINK




In any case: the c14 dating method is still an inaccurate dating method unless of course the specimen is around the half-life of the carbon isotopes - which is about 5700 years.


That post shows that you don't understand dating methods. C14 works back to around 50k years! Why? Because when i decays it doesn't just disappear, it decays INTO SOMETHING...which then also decays.

So no, C14 dating doesn't just work for around 10-11k years like those ridiculous creationist pseudo-science websites want you to believe. They simply omit to mention crucial bits that would easily show how crazy their claims are.


Sure, thanks - but I got that covered already from different postings that I link to:

this: en.wikipedia.org...

this: en.wikipedia.org...

this: www.actionbioscience.org...

Where I posted this:


“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.


and this:


“Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating: ·

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.


In any case you still have not answered my questions. Here it is again:

Are the things listed below factually accurate?

That is:

1. It is never certain that the sample selected to date an event truly corresponds with it. It is only more or less probable, in the light of the archaeological evidence at the site.

2. The half-life of radiocarbon is not as certainly known as the scientists would like.

3. The cosmic rays, never steady, may have been much stronger or weaker in the past 10,000 years than is generally believed.

4. Solar flares change the level of radiocarbon—how much in the past nobody knows.

5. The earth’s magnetic field changes fitfully on a short time scale, and so radically over thousands of years that even the north and south poles are reversed. Scientists do not know why.

6. Mixing of radiocarbon between the atmosphere and ocean can be affected by changes in climate or weather, but no one knows how much.

7. Radiocarbon scientists admit that an “Ice Age” could have affected the radiocarbon content of the air, by changing the volume and temperature of the ocean water, but they are not sure how great these changes were.

8. Mixing of radiocarbon between the surface layers and the deep ocean has an effect, very imperfectly understood.

9. The count of tree rings, used to calibrate the radiocarbon clock, is cast into doubt by the possibility of greatly different climatic conditions in past ages.

10. The radiocarbon content of old trees may be changed by diffusion of sap and resin into the heartwood.

11. Buried samples can either gain or lose radiocarbon through leaching by groundwater or by contamination.

Add to this.

12. Recycling of earth's crust affects the amount and purity of radioactive materials,

If you believe that none of these affect the c14/radiometric readings then explain how and why not. If these are as you said NOnSENSE - please explain why.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Pretty much all of those points are factually incorrect



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Silly rabbits, those tricks are for school kids.
It's the evolutionist lazy approach, to try to defend an already flawed concept.

The human brain can't comprehend 100 trillion years before even the start of the physical universe God existed and you can keep rolling that backwards an infinite number of times. We can't understand a being that has no beginning or end and time does not exist essentially for such a being. He just has time markers based on actions.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Silly rabbits, those tricks are for school kids.
It's the evolutionist lazy approach, to try to defend an already flawed concept.

The human brain can't comprehend 100 trillion years before even the start of the physical universe God existed and you can keep rolling that backwards an infinite number of times. We can't understand a being that has no beginning or end and time does not exist essentially for such a being. He just has time markers based on actions.


This lazy defender would be very interested in seeing the source material and evidence for this statement.
You do have some correct ?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Silly rabbits, those tricks are for school kids.
It's the evolutionist lazy approach, to try to defend an already flawed concept.

The human brain can't comprehend 100 trillion years before even the start of the physical universe God existed and you can keep rolling that backwards an infinite number of times. We can't understand a being that has no beginning or end and time does not exist essentially for such a being. He just has time markers based on actions.


There are many things humans can't understand currently. That doesn't mean they exist, simply because we can't comprehend them.

I just can't comprehend how people choose to purposely reject tangible science to appease the emotion that something we can't understand might possibly exist nor taking man's description of this being written thousands of years ago as literal truth. People lie. The concept of god needs to be modernized. The old archaic versions of him are downright silly.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Pretty much all of those points are factually incorrect




The man can talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Back up you position Mr. XYZ.

Why are the following point "factually incorrect"?

1. It is never certain that the sample selected to date an event truly corresponds with it. It is only more or less probable, in the light of the archaeological evidence at the site.

2. The half-life of radiocarbon is not as certainly known as the scientists would like.

3. The cosmic rays, never steady, may have been much stronger or weaker in the past 10,000 years than is generally believed.

4. Solar flares change the level of radiocarbon—how much in the past nobody knows.

5. The earth’s magnetic field changes fitfully on a short time scale, and so radically over thousands of years that even the north and south poles are reversed. Scientists do not know why.

6. Mixing of radiocarbon between the atmosphere and ocean can be affected by changes in climate or weather, but no one knows how much.

7. Radiocarbon scientists admit that an “Ice Age” could have affected the radiocarbon content of the air, by changing the volume and temperature of the ocean water, but they are not sure how great these changes were.

8. Mixing of radiocarbon between the surface layers and the deep ocean has an effect, very imperfectly understood.

9. The count of tree rings, used to calibrate the radiocarbon clock, is cast into doubt by the possibility of greatly different climatic conditions in past ages.

10. The radiocarbon content of old trees may be changed by diffusion of sap and resin into the heartwood.

11. Buried samples can either gain or lose radiocarbon through leaching by groundwater or by contamination.

Add to this.

12. Recycling of earth's crust affects the amount and purity of radioactive materials,

If you believe that none of these affect the c14/radiometric readings then explain how and why not. If these are as you said NOnSENSE - please explain why.

Your audience are waiting - don't be lazy.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Why aren't you answering my posts? this and this.
edit on 10-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
While RADIOMETRIC DATING - is for dating "ROCKS" as they retain the long-live radioactive isotopes, like 'rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Good for dating the earth's strata.

Am I clear enuff? I hope so.

Again. What is the actual problem? Are the bones transformed into stone not at least as old as the rock they're made of? Are you implying it is just a "leap of faith" to think so?
edit on 8-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


The actual problem is the claim that a "fossil" is in the million of years old - like 160 million year old.

Without explaining the location, the depth, the circumstances and the environment in which the the rock-fossil was found - statements like "160 million year old fossil found" is NOT accurate but a speculation and just a claim.

As for your Q:


"bones transformed into stone not at least as old as the rock they're made of?"


First lets make this crystal clear - the ORGANIC material - the BONE - no longer exist! It was - like you said:


transformed into stone
.

It already turned into a rock by a process known as lithification / fossilization.

So when the rock-fossil gets discovered and then dated - the contents of ROCK-FOSSIL is what's DATED.

And what are the contents of the rock-fossil? Depends on what they find - and what method of radiometric dating process is used.

Below is a list of the types of elements found on rocks (courtesy of Mr. XYZ):



Half-life refers to the length of time required for 50% of the parent material to decay into the daughter product.
Uranium 235 to Lead 207 (half-life = 710,000,000 years)
Uranium 238 to Lead 206 (half-life = 4,500,000,000 years)
Thorium 232 to Lead 208 (half-life = 14,000,000,000 years)
Rubidium 87 to Strontium 87 (half-life = 47,000,000,000 years) - this is the most common system used for dating rocks older than 100 million years.

Potassium 40 to Argon 40 (half-life = 1,300,000,000 years) - this method is very often used to date rock less than 60 million years old.

Carbon 14 to Nitrogen 14 (half-life = 5,570 years)--- There are 3 forms (isotopes) of carbon occuring in nature: Carbon 12 (accounts for 99%), Carbon 13 (accounts for 1%), and Carbon 14 (accounts for less than 1%).

While alive, plants and animals incorporate these isotopes of carbon into their tissues at the ratio found in the atmosphere. Upon death, the Carbon 14 in their tissues begins to decay. By measuring the remaining amount of Carbon 14, the age of the fossil can be determined. This method can be used to date material ranging in age from a few hundred years to about 50,000 years. The use of Carbon 14 permits the determination of age directly a fossil. For fossils greater than 50,000 years old, the age of the fossil is found indirectly by determing the age of the rock associated with the fossil. Carbon 14 dating has a dating range of several hundred years before present to 50,000 years before present.


snakefly.tripod.com...

The key is right here:


The use of Carbon 14 permits the determination of age directly a fossil.

For fossils greater than 50,000 years old, the age of the fossil is found indirectly by determining the age of the rock associated with the fossil.


So the answer is YES and NO!

YES - in that the elements inside the ROCK-FOSSIL are as old as the the earth's age, which is - based on radiometric dating - around 4 billion years old.

NO - in that the ORGANIC MATERIAL - the actual CARBON life-form - the BONE no longer exist.

Even if it's still there they can only date it as far as 50K years - to an evolutionist trying to prove evolution - this is NOT acceptable because of pre-conceived notion that dino-bones should be in the millions of years old. So the latter dating method is accepted as the official age.

My question to you is:

How did the "bones" got there in the first place?

Do you know?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Did the dinosaur disappear ~65 million years ago as concluded by modern science? If by evolutionist you refer to people who understand modern synthesis, it doesn't claim there were humans, bears, etc. 100 million years ago. Rather, back then, their common ancestor was some nocturnal mouse-like thingy. You say we didn't evolve from that (like the trail of evidence shows), but you also don't think we were around back then. So, what is our origin?


Like I said - since evolutionist already locked themselves into the idea that dinosaurs are in the millions of years old thus any younger age - like in the thousands of years - say from 5K - 50K (half-life of c14) is laugh at and rejected.

If you don't believe this then notice this correction made on the once famous Del Mar and Sunnyvale bones:



“Uranium series analyses of human bone samples from the Del Mar and Sunnyvale sites indicate ages of 11,000 and 8,300 years, respectively. The dates are supported by internal concordancy between thorium-230 and protactinium-231 decay systems. These ages are significantly younger than the estimates of 48,000 and 70,000 years based on amino acid racemization, and indicate that the individuals could derive from the population waves that came across the Bering Strait during the last sea-level low.”


www.sciencemag.org...


The error was due to heat. It was found that amino acid racemization is very sensitive to heat, thus no longer widely implemented.

But if you insist on a 100 million year old dino, that's your choice. At least i know my facts.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
So the answer is YES and NO!

YES - in that the elements inside the ROCK-FOSSIL are as old as the the earth's age, which is - based on radiometric dating - around 4 billion years old.

NO - in that the ORGANIC MATERIAL - the actual CARBON life-form - the BONE no longer exist.

Even if it's still there they can only date it as far as 50K years - to an evolutionist trying to prove evolution - this is NOT acceptable because of pre-conceived notion that dino-bones should be in the millions of years old. So the latter dating method is accepted as the official age.

What is measured is when the "rock-fossil" formed. They didn't form when the Earth formed so they're not as old as the Earth's age. Their age can can be directly measured (when the rock formed). Thus we can also indirectly measure the age of the no longer existing bone which served as a template to the "rock-fossil".
edit on 10-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
But if you insist on a 100 million year old dino, that's your choice. At least i know my facts.

You really don't. I think you're completely misunderstanding radiometric dating, and anyway it's not even just that, but also e.g. distribution of fossils. When you find similar fossils in the west coast of Africa and east coast of South America, you can be rather certain that they once lived right next to each other, you know back when the two continents were still part of the same larger continent. The same thing when you find sea life fossils on top of mountains, or tropical species fossils in Antarctica. I assume you don't disagree with plate tectonics. Don't these facts also imply that these fossils are very old, or are you perhaps arguing that continents used to move much faster and e.g. sea floor could became mountain top in some 10s of thousands of years instead of millions of years?
edit on 10-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NowanKenubi
 

I like your perspective because I kind of agree with it. Some type of pattern in life is in all things.

What knew how to combine oxygen and nitrogen and hydrogen and carbon and phosphorous and calcium and sulphur to create most of the life we know? I'm saying it originates at the smallest levels and at some point in the sequence humans came into being. We do not ourselves believe that atoms are alive, but my argument is that something in atoms IS alive, we just haven't identified it yet. Perhaps our definition of "alive" has to be refined. This I think is what will happen.

I think that life is a pattern that expresses itself in ever-complex ways. Everything from the smallest parts of an atom (like the vibrating "strings"; string theory) on up to atoms and molecules and cells and amoeba and complex organisms that're multi-cellular. What I'm saying is that everything is alive, but level of complexity is not the same from one thing to another.

Our mistake was assuming that there's anything that's non-living.

I'm going to stretch the truth a bit and mention the slit-hole experiment I've seen in various videos on the internet and even read about in some books. In the experiment, an electron assumes all paths when not directly measured. When measured, it assumes a single path. The important part is what happens when it's unobserved; it assumes all paths. My very shaky (and new) take on this is that somehow quantum mechanics being able to be everywhere at once is the result of a base level of intelligence. This base level of intelligence lays the groundwork for more complex forms of life.

(maybe I have it backwards; assuming a single path is the groundwork)

This idea is really just a shot in the dark. It's based purely on my faith that somewhere in life is a pattern that expresses itself in everything and is the key reason life exists at all. What this means is there's no non-life, just very very very fundamental life-forces. This idea is not based on science. It's just my own gut feeling. I guess it's my first real foray into spirituality and making my own path.

One day when I become famous (j/k) I'll say it came from a dream. In the dream, I was told that the zone knows the way you're doing it. This told me that the universe knows the way we do it. This means the universe is "viewing" us much as we view it. So, put another way, it's alive.

I'm not being serious. So don't take me seriously. This post is made up. For fun. I would be amused if somebody quotes this post and attacks it on scientific grounds. Really, I'm halfway to being famous!

NOTE: You don't have to be correct to be famous.
edit on 10-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join