The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 19, 2015, 10:31:22 AM
-
There are six stages of evolution
Cosmic evolution, the evolution of time, space, and matter
Chemical evolution, the evolution of chemicals
Stellar evolution, the evolution of stars and planets
Organic evolution, life evolving from non-life
Macro evolution, the evolution of one kind of animal turning into another
Micro evolution, the changes of species within a kind
Science in the dictionary means "to know". And how we know something is by observation, repetition, and demonstration. Under those guidelines I contend that micro evolution is the only type of evolution we can call science. If you wish to debate that point please pick one of the other five stages to discuss and stick with that until you voice that you want to switch to something else. One topic at a time.
-
Oops I put this in the wrong thread. Feel free to move it in the science section.
-
And how we know something is by observation, repetition, and demonstration.
Under that definition I'm immortal because I've never been observed to die, it certainly will never be repeated, and it has not been demonstrated.
Science can't be divorced from simple logic. Often we rely on certain observations to deduce more.
-
And how we know something is by observation, repetition, and demonstration.
Under that definition I'm immortal because I've never been observed to die, it certainly will never be repeated, and it has not been demonstrated.
Science can't be divorced from simple logic. Often we rely on certain observations to deduce more.
However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.
-
However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.
The former hasn't been proven for me, and sure for the latter, but are you saying it is an unscientific claim to say that I will die?
You cannot remove deduction from the scientific process. it's crucial: after all, you can tell nothing but the brute fact of an observation, without deduction. How do you know the cause of an observation? You don't, just by observing: you need to think about it, and consider it.
-
However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.
The former hasn't been proven for me, and sure for the latter, but are you saying it is an unscientific claim to say that I will die?
You cannot remove deduction from the scientific process. it's crucial: after all, you can tell nothing but the brute fact of an observation, without deduction. How do you know the cause of an observation? You don't, just by observing: you need to think about it, and consider it.
By the strictest since of the term I can't prove that you will die.
-
However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.
The former hasn't been proven for me, and sure for the latter, but are you saying it is an unscientific claim to say that I will die?
You cannot remove deduction from the scientific process. it's crucial: after all, you can tell nothing but the brute fact of an observation, without deduction. How do you know the cause of an observation? You don't, just by observing: you need to think about it, and consider it.
By the strictest since of the term I can't prove that you will die.
That's not the question. The question is, by your definition, is it unscientific to say that I will die?
-
What happens after death is hidden from us for a reason. The same is true if reincarnation is a fact, we can't remember our previous incarnations and only carry earned innate knowledge forward. The focus is supposed to be on the here and now so that ignoramus's who live in the moment get what's coming to them. We can not escape the greater plan suckers, accept or deny, you have no control!
-
What happens after death is hidden from us for a reason. The same is true if reincarnation is a fact, we can't remember our previous incarnations and only carry earned innate knowledge forward. The focus is supposed to be on the here and now so that ignoramus's who live in the moment get what's coming to them. We can not escape the greater plan suckers, accept or deny, you have no control!
Irrelevant. This discussion is about scientific evidence. I'm simply pointing out that, if Luke's definition is to be taken as accurate, it's absurdly limited.
-
What happens after death is hidden from us for a reason. The same is true if reincarnation is a fact, we can't remember our previous incarnations and only carry earned innate knowledge forward. The focus is supposed to be on the here and now so that ignoramus's who live in the moment get what's coming to them. We can not escape the greater plan suckers, accept or deny, you have no control!
Irrelevant. This discussion is about scientific evidence. I'm simply pointing out that, if Luke's definition is to be taken as accurate, it's absurdly limited.
Ok, how would you difine science? Please use the dictionary to explain.
-
Science is split into two catagories: empirical science and theorical science. Empirical science is what we observe, test, demonstrate, and measure. Theorical science is supposed to be things that we see and then take what we see to its logical conclusion.
-
Science is split into two catagories: empirical science and theorical science. Empirical science is what we observe, test, demonstrate, and measure. Theorical science is supposed to be things that we see and then take what we see to its logical conclusion.
Then science includes deduction. Empirical science, as you define it, is useless without theory: empirical science works only on a case-by-case basis. Nothing is developed that way.
Include the deduction you defined to be theoretical science, and you have a working system of science.
-
Science is split into two catagories: empirical science and theorical science. Empirical science is what we observe, test, demonstrate, and measure. Theorical science is supposed to be things that we see and then take what we see to its logical conclusion.
Then science includes deduction. Empirical science, as you define it, is useless without theory: empirical science works only on a case-by-case basis. Nothing is developed that way.
Include the deduction you defined to be theoretical science, and you have a working system of science.
What you explained was the scientific method. What I explained was stuff we already know its science through the scientific method. Are you going to keep arguing about the definitions or are you going to provide a topic to discuss and provide evidence?
-
What you explained was the scientific method. What I explained was stuff we already know its science through the scientific method. Are you going to keep arguing about the definitions or are you going to provide a topic to discuss and provide evidence?
How can anyone discuss the evidence for a topic when there is a fundamental disagreement on what evidence is?
Certainly, micro-evolution is the only one we can directly observe: but this doesn't preclude the others having evidence which we arrive at from deductions of what we can now observe. Macro is a logical deduction, organic is part necessity and part observation, and while I disagree with REers on the first three we share the concept of what evidence is: we determine explanations for what it is we observe, and do so minimizing assumptions. If predictions can be verified, and aspects can click together, that feels like pretty good evidence to me.
Take, again, the fact that I will die. By the limited definition of science you gave, I wouldn't die. However, I'd say it's still very scientific to say I will die.
My initial post was simply to point out that deduction should not be divorced from science. No amount of observing, repeating or demonstrating is going to be of any use unless you can consider what you observe logically. You are the one who seemed oddly fixated on making this not the case.
-
Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?
-
Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?
No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.
-
Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?
No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.
That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.
-
And how we know something is by observation, repetition, and demonstration.
Under that definition I'm immortal because I've never been observed to die, it certainly will never be repeated, and it has not been demonstrated.
Science can't be divorced from simple logic. Often we rely on certain observations to deduce more.
However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.
I will prove it! But it will take some time. A lot of time ;D
When I get to my fifties or sixties and still looking like I'm in my mid twenties (in every way) then people will start taking me seriously.
-
Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?
No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.
That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.
And if that was all the evidence there was for evolution, you'd have a point.
-
Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?
No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.
That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.
And if that was all the evidence there was for evolution, you'd have a point.
And what evidence we have of canines coming from non-canines?
-
Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?
No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.
That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.
And if that was all the evidence there was for evolution, you'd have a point.
And what evidence we have of canines coming from non-canines?
Define canine.
That's the problem with the typical anti-evolution arguments: they're grounded in bizarre defining, often relying on subtly different definitions of the same word on each setting. It's pretty clear dogs and wolves share a common ancestor which was likely a different species, because species is defined, scientifically, as something that cannot produce viable offspring. Dogs and wolves can breed (indicating similarity), and yet they are different species because the offspring itself is not fertile. Species, as a layperson defines it, is not so cut-and-dried as you'd think; there are grey areas.
This is pretty strong evidence of species divergence: one species becoming two, gradually getting further and further apart until there'll be no compatibility. If canine is taken to be dog-species, this indicates the possibility, deduction and logic gives the rest (barring supposition of unnecessary elements).
-
Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?
No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.
That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.
And if that was all the evidence there was for evolution, you'd have a point.
And what evidence we have of canines coming from non-canines?
Define canine.
That's the problem with the typical anti-evolution arguments: they're grounded in bizarre defining, often relying on subtly different definitions of the same word on each setting. It's pretty clear dogs and wolves share a common ancestor which was likely a different species, because species is defined, scientifically, as something that cannot produce viable offspring. Dogs and wolves can breed (indicating similarity), and yet they are different species because the offspring itself is not fertile. Species, as a layperson defines it, is not so cut-and-dried as you'd think; there are grey areas.
This is pretty strong evidence of species divergence: one species becoming two, gradually getting further and further apart until there'll be no compatibility. If canine is taken to be dog-species, this indicates the possibility, deduction and logic gives the rest (barring supposition of unnecessary elements).
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines. Now what evidence you have that dogs and bananas share the common ancestor?
-
Humans and bananas share roughly 60% of their DNA.
The split between plants and animals was not directly but into plants and a group that includes both animals and fungi, about a billion years ago.
Plant cells and animal cells have some things in common and some differences.
Alike: Plant and animal cells have a plasma membrane, a nucleus, a nucleolus, mitochondria, ribosomes, endoplasmic recticulum, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi apparatus, peroxisomes, and microtubles. Cells divide to form new cells.
Differences: Plant cells have centrioles or intermediate filaments. They also have a more square shape and contain chloroplasts. Plants have a cell wall that is made up of fibrils of cellulose. Plant cells produce their own food or energy. Animal cells must obtain food from a source outside of the body.
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
The definition of kind is basically the same as family.
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
The definition of kind is basically the same as family.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
The definition of kind is basically the same as family.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
The definition of kind is basically the same as family.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.
Are you just going to dodge my question? If so, then it seems this is just a mere bag of shells.
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
The definition of kind is basically the same as family.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.
Are you just going to dodge my question? If so, then it seems this is just a mere bag of shells.
I don't mean to dodge your question. But to make sure, what specifically are you asking?
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
The definition of kind is basically the same as family.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.
If you proved a cat was born from a canine you would have proven evolution wrong. Why does evolution stop at the family level (a totally arbitrary level stabilished for convenience, by the way)?
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
The definition of kind is basically the same as family.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.
If you proved a cat was born from a canine you would have proven evolution wrong. Why does evolution stop at the family level (a totally arbitrary level stabilished for convenience, by the way)?
Why? And the reason why it would stop there is because that's all we observe.
-
I don't mean to dodge your question. But to make sure, what specifically are you asking?
Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
-
I don't mean to dodge your question. But to make sure, what specifically are you asking?
Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
The genetic makeup and for the most part the physical features.
-
If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.
So if canines produce canines, they are canines? That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?
The definition of kind is basically the same as family.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.
If you proved a cat was born from a canine you would have proven evolution wrong. Why does evolution stop at the family level (a totally arbitrary level stabilished for convenience, by the way)?
Why? And the reason why it would stop there is because that's all we observe.
But we observe a continuum in DNA, and in fossil record.
I don't mean to dodge your question. But to make sure, what specifically are you asking?
Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?
The genetic makeup and for the most part the physical features.
The genetic makeup for a cat and a dog are terribly similar. Families are defined mostly over common descent. For example, humans are apes. Im surprised you accept this.
-
Cats and dogs are similar, but different. A stagecoach and a Lamborghini are very similar. They share the basic fundamentals. Does that mean they evolved from each other? Why is the chromosomes of animals are in conflict with the evolutionary line. Ferns have more chromosomes than humans. Are ferns more evolved than humans? Tobacco has more chromosomes than humans also. Does that mean that they are more evolved? I think that's why people smoke. They want to become more evolved ;)
-
Here's a link debunking the fossil record.
https://christiansconservativelife.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/evolution-debunked-part-2-the-fossil-record/ (https://christiansconservativelife.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/evolution-debunked-part-2-the-fossil-record/)
Here's another.
http://www.icr.org/article/should-we-expect-find-transitional-forms-fossil-re (http://www.icr.org/article/should-we-expect-find-transitional-forms-fossil-re)
-
Cats and dogs are similar, but different. A stagecoach and a Lamborghini are very similar. They share the basic fundamentals. Does that mean they evolved from each other? Why is the chromosomes of animals are in conflict with the evolutionary line. Ferns have more chromosomes than humans. Are ferns more evolved than humans? Tobacco has more chromosomes than humans also. Does that mean that they are more evolved? I think that's why people smoke. They want to become more evolved ;)
There is no "more evolved". Evolution isnt a ladder. The number of chromosomes only determines that, the number of chromosomes. It has nothing to do with "perfection". Down's sindrome is caused by an excess of cromosomes, for example. Trully, a godly design, a reproduction mechanism so flawed that wastes an entire pregnancy in an animal that will starve to death due to brain damage caused by incorrect reproduction of DNA.
And, no. No one is saying cats come from dogs or viceversa. Cats and dogs are distant cousins. They can both trace their origins back to an animal. Cats and dogs share an order, Carnivora, and one being part of the sub-order (?) Feliformia, and the other of the Caniformia. Their exact most recent ancestor isnt known, as far as I know, but it is now thought that they share at least an ancestor in the members of the Miacids/Miacedae, as all Carnivora do.
-
Humans have fewer chromosomes than chimpanzees and the prediction and subsequent discovery of the fused chimpanzee chromosomes in the human genome was a strong test of evolutionary theory.
-
Cats and dogs are similar, but different. A stagecoach and a Lamborghini are very similar. They share the basic fundamentals. Does that mean they evolved from each other? Why is the chromosomes of animals are in conflict with the evolutionary line. Ferns have more chromosomes than humans. Are ferns more evolved than humans? Tobacco has more chromosomes than humans also. Does that mean that they are more evolved? I think that's why people smoke. They want to become more evolved ;)
There is no "more evolved". Evolution isnt a ladder. The number of chromosomes only determines that, the number of chromosomes. It has nothing to do with "perfection". Down's sindrome is caused by an excess of cromosomes, for example. Trully, a godly design, a reproduction mechanism so flawed that wastes an entire pregnancy in an animal that will starve to death due to brain damage caused by incorrect reproduction of DNA.
1. My point is if evolution is true then we should see the chromosomes more aligned with the evolutionary tree which we don't.
2. We are looking at a copy of thousands of copies even if you believe in YEC. Things can and will break down after all that copying. Would you look at a wrecked corvette and ask Chevy why did they built it like that?
And, no. No one is saying cats come from dogs or viceversa. Cats and dogs are distant cousins. They can both trace their origins back to an animal. Cats and dogs share an order, Carnivora, and one being part of the sub-order (?) Feliformia, and the other of the Caniformia. Their exact most recent ancestor isnt known, as far as I know, but it is now thought that they share at least an ancestor in the members of the Miacids/Miacedae, as all Carnivora do.
Just because they're carnivores now doesn't mean they were always carnivores. Little tike was a lion that REFUSED to eat meat. They used him in movies. But changing from a meat eating lion to a plant eating or vice versa is a small step compared to getting a lion from a rock.
-
Cats and dogs are similar, but different. A stagecoach and a Lamborghini are very similar. They share the basic fundamentals. Does that mean they evolved from each other? Why is the chromosomes of animals are in conflict with the evolutionary line. Ferns have more chromosomes than humans. Are ferns more evolved than humans? Tobacco has more chromosomes than humans also. Does that mean that they are more evolved? I think that's why people smoke. They want to become more evolved ;)
There is no "more evolved". Evolution isnt a ladder. The number of chromosomes only determines that, the number of chromosomes. It has nothing to do with "perfection". Down's sindrome is caused by an excess of cromosomes, for example. Trully, a godly design, a reproduction mechanism so flawed that wastes an entire pregnancy in an animal that will starve to death due to brain damage caused by incorrect reproduction of DNA.
1. My point is if evolution is true then we should see the chromosomes more aligned with the evolutionary tree which we don't.
Who predicts that? Why? Chromosomal evidence is used to show relationship between species, and as Rama Set pointed out, the fusing and duplication of chromosomes was a prediction of modern evolutionary theory that was then confirmed.
2. We are looking at a copy of thousands of copies even if you believe in YEC. Things can and will break down after all that copying. Would you look at a wrecked corvette and ask Chevy why did they built it like that?
So you are saying that animals DO change? Because that's all you need for evolution. A faulty copy mechanism. Besides, believe it or not, there is no reason to believe the copying was any better in the past. Why would it? We have a similar replication mechanism.
And, no. No one is saying cats come from dogs or viceversa. Cats and dogs are distant cousins. They can both trace their origins back to an animal. Cats and dogs share an order, Carnivora, and one being part of the sub-order (?) Feliformia, and the other of the Caniformia. Their exact most recent ancestor isnt known, as far as I know, but it is now thought that they share at least an ancestor in the members of the Miacids/Miacedae, as all Carnivora do.
Just because they're carnivores now doesn't mean they were always carnivores. Little tike was a lion that REFUSED to eat meat. They used him in movies. But changing from a meat eating lion to a plant eating or vice versa is a small step compared to getting a lion from a rock.
Dude, the name has nothing to do with whether they are carnivores or not. Pandas are strictly herbivore and they are part of the Carnivora order. And most animals I know of that are in the Carnivora order are either not strictly carnivore, or out right omnivore.
And no one is saying you got a lion from a rock. What we are saying, in a terribly simplification of millions and millions and millions of years of both geological and biological history is that a feline like animal is the ancestor of cats, and that a small horse-like animal is the ancestor to horses. But that horse-like animal had an ancestor. Eventually, as DNA evidence, fossil evidence, chromosomic evidence, mitochondrial evidence (mitochondrias, by the way, used to be individual cells, and now cohexist in symbiosis with most eukariotes.It even has its own DNA, and we can trace it back just as we trace any other DNA source. Even better, at least in humans, mitochondrial DNA is transmitted via maternal line, meaning mixing of genomes doesnt occur, allowing for extremelly precise dating), quirality evidence, continuous function evidence, and much more tells us, its obvious that ALL living beings we know of share a common ancestor. Where did this ancestor come from is a different issue, but abiogenesis shows us some mechanisms that may have allowed for proto-protolife to emmerge.
-
Cats and dogs are similar, but different. A stagecoach and a Lamborghini are very similar. They share the basic fundamentals. Does that mean they evolved from each other? Why is the chromosomes of animals are in conflict with the evolutionary line. Ferns have more chromosomes than humans. Are ferns more evolved than humans? Tobacco has more chromosomes than humans also. Does that mean that they are more evolved? I think that's why people smoke. They want to become more evolved ;)
There is no "more evolved". Evolution isnt a ladder. The number of chromosomes only determines that, the number of chromosomes. It has nothing to do with "perfection". Down's sindrome is caused by an excess of cromosomes, for example. Trully, a godly design, a reproduction mechanism so flawed that wastes an entire pregnancy in an animal that will starve to death due to brain damage caused by incorrect reproduction of DNA.
1. My point is if evolution is true then we should see the chromosomes more aligned with the evolutionary tree which we don't.
Who predicts that? Why? Chromosomal evidence is used to show relationship between species, and as Rama Set pointed out, the fusing and duplication of chromosomes was a prediction of modern evolutionary theory that was then confirmed.
Fusing and duplicating is the mechanism. How did the mechanism evolved?
2. We are looking at a copy of thousands of copies even if you believe in YEC. Things can and will break down after all that copying. Would you look at a wrecked corvette and ask Chevy why did they built it like that?
So you are saying that animals DO change? Because that's all you need for evolution. A faulty copy mechanism. Besides, believe it or not, there is no reason to believe the copying was any better in the past. Why would it? We have a similar replication mechanism.
Logically speaking if its broke now it used to be fixed in the past.
And, no. No one is saying cats come from dogs or viceversa. Cats and dogs are distant cousins. They can both trace their origins back to an animal. Cats and dogs share an order, Carnivora, and one being part of the sub-order (?) Feliformia, and the other of the Caniformia. Their exact most recent ancestor isnt known, as far as I know, but it is now thought that they share at least an ancestor in the members of the Miacids/Miacedae, as all Carnivora do.
Just because they're carnivores now doesn't mean they were always carnivores. Little tike was a lion that REFUSED to eat meat. They used him in movies. But changing from a meat eating lion to a plant eating or vice versa is a small step compared to getting a lion from a rock.
Dude, the name has nothing to do with whether they are carnivores or not. Pandas are strictly herbivore and they are part of the Carnivora order. And most animals I know of that are in the Carnivora order are either not strictly carnivore, or out right omnivore.
And no one is saying you got a lion from a rock. What we are saying, in a terribly simplification of millions and millions and millions of years of both geological and biological history is that a feline like animal is the ancestor of cats, and that a small horse-like animal is the ancestor to horses. But that horse-like animal had an ancestor. Eventually, as DNA evidence, fossil evidence, chromosomic evidence, mitochondrial evidence (mitochondrias, by the way, used to be individual cells, and now cohexist in symbiosis with most eukariotes.It even has its own DNA, and we can trace it back just as we trace any other DNA source. Even better, at least in humans, mitochondrial DNA is transmitted via maternal line, meaning mixing of genomes doesnt occur, allowing for extremelly precise dating), quirality evidence, continuous function evidence, and much more tells us, its obvious that ALL living beings we know of share a common ancestor. Where did this ancestor come from is a different issue, but abiogenesis shows us some mechanisms that may have allowed for proto-protolife to emmerge.
[/quote]
Actually the horse evolution was debunked as I'll provide a link for it.
-
Here's a link.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html (http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html)
If it mentions something not apart of the theory of evolution then ignore it and deal with the evolution parts.
-
Fusing and duplicating is the mechanism. How did the mechanism evolved?
I dont understand what you mean. Fusing and duplication of chromosomes are errors in the replication of many living beings, and some not living, like viruses. Yes, some living organisms evolved to become not living. As long as it favours reproduction, it is a possibility.
Logically speaking if its broke now it used to be fixed in the past.
Nice abuse of words. Both the human esophagus and the lungs share a tube, making me prone to choke. This is an obvious flaw in humans. This obviously mean that humans once didnt have that characteristics, right?
Actually the horse evolution was debunked as I'll provide a link for it.
The horses have evolved, from another animal. I didnt cite any particular evolutionary lineage, so your argument is a strawman from the beggining.
-
Fusing and duplicating is the mechanism. How did the mechanism evolved?
I dont understand what you mean. Fusing and duplication of chromosomes are errors in the replication of many living beings, and some not living, like viruses. Yes, some living organisms evolved to become not living. As long as it favours reproduction, it is a possibility.
Oh, if its that then that could be a sign of a perfect system running down.
Logically speaking if its broke now it used to be fixed in the past.
Nice abuse of words. Both the human esophagus and the lungs share a tube, making me prone to choke. This is an obvious flaw in humans. This obviously mean that humans once didnt have that characteristics, right?
How am I abusing words? Also, maybe the esophagus and the lungs share the same tube so that way we can get more air. If you separate the two then you'll get half the air and get twice as tired twice as fast.
Actually the horse evolution was debunked as I'll provide a link for it.
The horses have evolved, from another animal. I didnt cite any particular evolutionary lineage, so your argument is a strawman from the beggining.
[/quote]
What animal then did the horse evolved from?
-
What animal then did the horse evolved from?
Merychippus
-
What animal then did the horse evolved from?
Merychippus
Not according to this site.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html)
Though I have a question, why do you take the word of scientists on the theory of evolution but not on the flat earth?
-
What animal then did the horse evolved from?
Merychippus
Not according to this site.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html)
Though I have a question, why do you take the word of scientists on the theory of evolution but not on the flat earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
(http://)
-
What animal then did the horse evolved from?
Merychippus
Not according to this site.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html)
Though I have a question, why do you take the word of scientists on the theory of evolution but not on the flat earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
(http://)
The link I gave addressed that. Also, the smallest one is a hyrax which is not related to the horse.
-
What animal then did the horse evolved from?
Merychippus
Not according to this site.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html)
Though I have a question, why do you take the word of scientists on the theory of evolution but not on the flat earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
(http://)
The link I gave addressed that. Also, the smallest one is a hyrax which is not related to the horse.
None of the sources of that link are peer reviewed. So it means diddly squat. Even further, they are not publically avaliable, and Im not going to get my ISP behind my ass because of going too many times to libgen just to check whether that book has peer reviewed quotations.
-
What animal then did the horse evolved from?
Merychippus
Not according to this site.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html)
Though I have a question, why do you take the word of scientists on the theory of evolution but not on the flat earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
(http://)
The link I gave addressed that. Also, the smallest one is a hyrax which is not related to the horse.
None of the sources of that link are peer reviewed. So it means diddly squat. Even further, they are not publically avaliable, and Im not going to get my ISP behind my ass because of going too many times to libgen just to check whether that book has peer reviewed quotations.
Just because it wasn't peered reviewed (the majority makes it right) doesn't mean that its wrong. What did they said that was wrong?
-
Here's another link.
http://www.icr.org/article/mythical-horse-series (http://www.icr.org/article/mythical-horse-series)
-
What animal then did the horse evolved from?
Merychippus
Not according to this site.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html)
Though I have a question, why do you take the word of scientists on the theory of evolution but not on the flat earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)
(http://)
The link I gave addressed that. Also, the smallest one is a hyrax which is not related to the horse.
None of the sources of that link are peer reviewed. So it means diddly squat. Even further, they are not publically avaliable, and Im not going to get my ISP behind my ass because of going too many times to libgen just to check whether that book has peer reviewed quotations.
Just because it wasn't peered reviewed (the majority makes it right) doesn't mean that its wrong. What did they said that was wrong?
That's not what peer reviewed means. Peer reviewed means that other scientists of the same field checked if there was any basic error on it. This is why being published in a peer-reviewed respected journal is so important. On the internet I can just make up my own shit, and say the earth is flat, there is no climate change, vaccines will give your kid autism, black people are dumber, or that evolution isnt real, or prove conclusivelly that hinduism is the one true religion. The thing is that I'm not a biologist (and neither are you), so I can't decide whether that website's claims are correct (neither can you, by the way). The only thing I can do is simply to point towards what actual biologists have investigated and come up with. The opinion of a senile 60 year old naval architect on biology is irrelevant, because if what he was saying was newsbreaking stuff, he could publish it (you dont need any degree to publish a paper, and indeed many papers have been published anonymously), and posibly received a Nobel prize for it. Remember, prizes, goverment funding, etc, all that comes with things that break the scientific stabilishment. Marie and Pierre Curie, Einstein, Bohr, all this people turned science upside down, and questioned the very pillars of physics that people thought were unnamovable. THEY are the ones remembered. THEY are the one's whose theory is being taught. Science is not so much the discovery of new ideas, as it is the rejection of wrong dogma. It is that what purges the Berzelius' out of the mainstream.
In short. If you can't manage to source your claims on peer-reviewed data published on a major journal...
(http://)
-
Here's a video with documentation. It's about 6 minutes long.
-
Here's a video with documentation. It's about 6 minutes long.
(http://)
I can only see it citing Pravda, a newspaper. Unless you mean the incomplete quotations of books Hovind is doing on the vid.
Here's a better video on what Ham (a convicted fellon and fraudster) actually believes.
(http://)
-
Here's a video with documentation. It's about 6 minutes long.
(http://)
I can only see it citing Pravda, a newspaper. Unless you mean the incomplete quotations of books Hovind is doing on the vid.
Here's a better video on what Ham (a convicted fellon and fraudster) actually believes.
(http://)
At 44 seconds in my link he also quotes something from "scientific" who quoted a evolutionist. Also Hovind may be a felon, but how is he a fraud? He was arrested for structuring which is basically taking less than $10000 from your own bank account. Plus, its not the person who we're arguing about, it's the argument he presented. Can you prove his claims false? As for your link, I would define "kind" as a family.
-
Here's a video with documentation. It's about 6 minutes long.
(http://)
I can only see it citing Pravda, a newspaper. Unless you mean the incomplete quotations of books Hovind is doing on the vid.
Here's a better video on what Ham (a convicted fellon and fraudster) actually believes.
(http://)
At 44 seconds in my link he also quotes something from "scientific" who quoted a evolutionist. Also Hovind may be a felon, but how is he a fraud? He was arrested for structuring which is basically taking less than $10000 from your own bank account. Plus, its not the person who we're arguing about, it's the argument he presented. Can you prove his claims false? As for your link, I would define "kind" as a family.
He was arrested for cheating on his taxes. Thats tax fraud. Since I can't check the quotations he gives, because they are incomplete, and I don't have months of time to waste asking any biologist if they happened to have read a book who kind of sounded like that, like other systematic debunkers like potholer54 do, I cannot prove or disprove his claims.
If you define kind as a family, then that's ok, but I would rather call it family. And I would then ask you the question potholer54 asks on the video. If kinds can't change into another, how come ring species exist? And if you accept ring species as a natural outcome of a tree-like inheritance/variation scheme, what is that diferentiates your idea from evolution?
-
Here's a video with documentation. It's about 6 minutes long.
(http://)
I can only see it citing Pravda, a newspaper. Unless you mean the incomplete quotations of books Hovind is doing on the vid.
Here's a better video on what Ham (a convicted fellon and fraudster) actually believes.
(http://)
At 44 seconds in my link he also quotes something from "scientific" who quoted a evolutionist. Also Hovind may be a felon, but how is he a fraud? He was arrested for structuring which is basically taking less than $10000 from your own bank account. Plus, its not the person who we're arguing about, it's the argument he presented. Can you prove his claims false? As for your link, I would define "kind" as a family.
He was arrested for cheating on his taxes. Thats tax fraud. Since I can't check the quotations he gives, because they are incomplete, and I don't have months of time to waste asking any biologist if they happened to have read a book who kind of sounded like that, like other systematic debunkers like potholer54 do, I cannot prove or disprove his claims.
If you define kind as a family, then that's ok, but I would rather call it family. And I would then ask you the question potholer54 asks on the video. If kinds can't change into another, how come ring species exist? And if you accept ring species as a natural outcome of a tree-like inheritance/variation scheme, what is that diferentiates your idea from evolution?
1. He was arrested for structuring and withhelding taxed mony to his employees or something in which the employees paid there own taxes. The IRS didnt lose a dime more than average (come April 15th and you'll see what I mean). Also as a church and not 501c3 he didn't had to pay certain taxes. So he didnt evade any taxes.
2. Notice its ring species, not ring families. Species can deverge to a point where they can't breed with another specie in the same family. But both of those can breed with a third party and reproduce. Can you show me from observation that there's such a thing as a family web? One family cross into another in modern times.
-
Here's a video with documentation. It's about 6 minutes long.
(http://)
I can only see it citing Pravda, a newspaper. Unless you mean the incomplete quotations of books Hovind is doing on the vid.
Here's a better video on what Ham (a convicted fellon and fraudster) actually believes.
(http://)
At 44 seconds in my link he also quotes something from "scientific" who quoted a evolutionist. Also Hovind may be a felon, but how is he a fraud? He was arrested for structuring which is basically taking less than $10000 from your own bank account. Plus, its not the person who we're arguing about, it's the argument he presented. Can you prove his claims false? As for your link, I would define "kind" as a family.
He was arrested for cheating on his taxes. Thats tax fraud. Since I can't check the quotations he gives, because they are incomplete, and I don't have months of time to waste asking any biologist if they happened to have read a book who kind of sounded like that, like other systematic debunkers like potholer54 do, I cannot prove or disprove his claims.
If you define kind as a family, then that's ok, but I would rather call it family. And I would then ask you the question potholer54 asks on the video. If kinds can't change into another, how come ring species exist? And if you accept ring species as a natural outcome of a tree-like inheritance/variation scheme, what is that diferentiates your idea from evolution?
1. He was arrested for structuring and withhelding taxed mony to his employees or something in which the employees paid there own taxes. The IRS didnt lose a dime more than average (come April 15th and you'll see what I mean). Also as a church and not 501c3 he didn't had to pay certain taxes. So he didnt evade any taxes.
2. Notice its ring species, not ring families. Species can deverge to a point where they can't breed with another specie in the same family. But both of those can breed with a third party and reproduce. Can you show me from observation that there's such a thing as a family web? One family cross into another in modern times.
Not a web. A tree. One's a graph, the other is an strictly one parented directed acyclic zero-to-many children graph.
-
So in other words we don't see families crossing in other than the fossil record which has been proven false.
-
So in other words we don't see families crossing in other than the fossil record which has been proven false.
Do you even read what I say? Do you understand what a tree is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(graph_theory) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(graph_theory))
And, no, the fossil record isnt "false".
-
So in other words we don't see families crossing in other than the fossil record which has been proven false.
Do you even read what I say? Do you understand what a tree is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(graph_theory) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(graph_theory))
And, no, the fossil record isnt "false".
I understand. Trees usually deals with the past to the present like a family tree. However I can prove my family tree through DNA and documentation. However the fossil record you don't have the DNA nor the documents saying "this bone is 65 million years old". I'll provide a link addressing the fossil record.
-
Here's a link.
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-fossil-record/
-
I know this one!
(http://)
(http://)
-
I know this one!
(http://)
(http://)
I'll tackle the first video and watch and comment on the next video in the next post.
First off as for organic material found in dinosaur bones, exactly how long can even encased organic material last? Also how did the dinosaur got buried rapidly? As for polystrate fossils, you can explain how when it comes to sedimentary rock, but what about coal. There was one tree that went through one layer of coal, then through rock, and then another layer of coal. How do you explain that? Also as for chalk layers, there was a fossil whale buried in diatoms. I know chalk and diatoms are different but they are similar enough to say that for the whale it must of been buried rapidly. I'll see if I can find a link and then answer the other video.
-
Here's a link.
http://youngearth.com/80-foot-baleen-whale-fossil-proves-rapid-diatom-deposition (http://youngearth.com/80-foot-baleen-whale-fossil-proves-rapid-diatom-deposition)
-
Here's a fossilized ichthyosaur giving birth.
http://m.livescience.com/43344-ichthyosaur-fossil-live-birth-found.html (http://m.livescience.com/43344-ichthyosaur-fossil-live-birth-found.html)
It had to buried rapidly. Also I noticed that the guy didnt exlpain the petrified pickle and other stuff Kent Hovind mentioned. Plus, clams that are fossils are found in the closed position. They also had to be buried rapidly. In fact they found huge clams nere Mt. Everest and they were in the closed position too. Clams as soon as they die they open. So they didnt die and got buried, they got buried and died.
-
Luke, that's preciselly the point he makes in the video. Fossils dont form rapidly, they are formed (in some cases) because they were buried rapidly. They still take millions and millions of years to form. We know fossils form sometimes on rapidly buried animals, no one said that's not the case.
Also I noticed that the guy didnt exlpain the petrified pickle and other stuff Kent Hovind mentioned
Concretion. I have a "fossilized" shotgun on my shelf. It was buried under the drain channel of a roof. The difference between "petrified" and fossilized is that concretions are just gunk stuck to something, and fosilization requires organic matter forming a "mold", that is then replaced with other minerals cristalizing.
-
Luke, that's preciselly the point he makes in the video. Fossils dont form rapidly, they are formed (in some cases) because they were buried rapidly. They still take millions and millions of years to form. We know fossils form sometimes on rapidly buried animals, no one said that's not the case.
[/quote]
I don't think it takes millions of years as my link about the whale proves.
Also I noticed that the guy didnt exlpain the petrified pickle and other stuff Kent Hovind mentioned
Concretion. I have a "fossilized" shotgun on my shelf. It was buried under the drain channel of a roof. The difference between "petrified" and fossilized is that concretions are just gunk stuck to something, and fosilization requires organic matter forming a "mold", that is then replaced with other minerals cristalizing.
And how you know that's the case with the pickle? I'm not sure if this is documented or not but I heard that they created chicken fossils in just ten years.
-
Luke, that's preciselly the point he makes in the video. Fossils dont form rapidly, they are formed (in some cases) because they were buried rapidly. They still take millions and millions of years to form. We know fossils form sometimes on rapidly buried animals, no one said that's not the case.
I don't think it takes millions of years as my link about the whale proves.
[/quote]
I don't have data about that whale, but that link doesnt have valid sources either, so we are just discussing meaningless shit here. Maybe when I have more free time I can go and look farther into it. And what you believe makes no difference with respect to what's valid and reviewed science or not.
Also I noticed that the guy didnt exlpain the petrified pickle and other stuff Kent Hovind mentioned
Concretion. I have a "fossilized" shotgun on my shelf. It was buried under the drain channel of a roof. The difference between "petrified" and fossilized is that concretions are just gunk stuck to something, and fosilization requires organic matter forming a "mold", that is then replaced with other minerals cristalizing.
And how you know that's the case with the pickle? I'm not sure if this is documented or not but I heard that they created chicken fossils in just ten years.
Because cristalization of minerals takes millions of years, not ten. And you have to get the deposit buried, then a different source of mineral must enter the fossil mold if it decomposed or just the empty spaces on it can be filled, deposit inside, and then crystalize. Even relativelly fast crystalizing compounds take millions of years to form solid rock.
-
Wait, how do we know it takes millions of years to fossilized something?
-
Here's a more detailed link about the whale fossil.
http://static-www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Whale-Fossil-in-Diatomite-Lompoc-California.pdf (http://static-www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Whale-Fossil-in-Diatomite-Lompoc-California.pdf)
-
Here's a more detailed link about the whale fossil.
http://static-www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Whale-Fossil-in-Diatomite-Lompoc-California.pdf (http://static-www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Whale-Fossil-in-Diatomite-Lompoc-California.pdf)
I just had to google "whale fossil diatomite debunked". First result, and it is accuratelly sourced. Please tell me if any sourcing is wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)
Wait, how do we know it takes millions of years to fossilized something?
As I said, because that's the time the mineral solution takes to crystalize into rock and minerals, and because of radiometric dating, and because of gas bubble dating and because of stratigraphical dating and because of magnetical signature dating and because of index fossil dating and because of thermoluminiscense dating and because of dendrochronology dating and because of aminoacid dating. And that's just for a FOSSIL.
-
Here's a more detailed link about the whale fossil.
http://static-www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Whale-Fossil-in-Diatomite-Lompoc-California.pdf (http://static-www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Whale-Fossil-in-Diatomite-Lompoc-California.pdf)
I just had to google "whale fossil diatomite debunked". First result, and it is accuratelly sourced. Please tell me if any sourcing is wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)
Wait, how do we know it takes millions of years to fossilized something?
As I said, because that's the time the mineral solution takes to crystalize into rock and minerals, and because of radiometric dating, and because of gas bubble dating and because of stratigraphical dating and because of magnetical signature dating and because of index fossil dating and because of thermoluminiscense dating and because of dendrochronology dating and because of aminoacid dating. And that's just for a FOSSIL.
As for the whale, I knew the whale was in line with the layers and I thought the link I gave will explain it (or did you even looked?) it's the height of the whale that's the issue. How can a whale sit there for thousands of years to let the sediment collect around it? Even with the study that your link gave of a whale slowly being covered by sediments that's a small scale compared to what happened to the fossil. So just because it happened on a small scale doesn't mean it applies to large scale.
As for radiocarbon dating, that's been proven to be flawed as I'll give a link in the next post.
BTW, so you date fossils by stratigraghical dating and index fossil dating. So you date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils?
As for the rest, they can be expedited under the right conditions.
-
Here's a link.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/ (http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/)
-
It's pretty simple really when you do not ignore observational data.
Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new infraspecific taxa entered into the record (Afro-Asian).
Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is a new infraspecific taxa entered into the record (Chinook).
The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. Neither evolved into the Afro-Asian and no missing links are missing.
The Husky remains Husky, the Mastiff remains Mastiff. Neither evolved into the Chinook and no missing links are missing.
Just as T-Rex remained T-Rex and Triceratops remained Triceratops - as each and every one of them did from the oldest fossil found to the youngest one found.
Fossils have simply been misconstrued as belonging to separate species, when as per empirical observations they are simply different infraspecific taxa of the same species.
These:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTulI5Kd1LKklC79BTo3TX1dbL0XMm8RN2143JDlP6x0BAy_ZNpA)
Are in reality no different than these:
(http://www.rotifresh.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dogs-breeds-dogs-breeds-dogs-breeds-all-dog-species.jpg)
Just different infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong.
If evolutionists had never seen a dog before and found fossils of the Husky and Mastiff, and then later in the strata found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. And would be wrong of course.
The fossil record is simply the result of ignoring empirical observations of how life actually propagates. Ignoring the variation they see right before their eyes while postulating something not once observed.
-
Here's a link.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/ (http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/)
What they don't like to mention is that radiocarbon dating was based upon Enrico Fermi's theory of beta decay. His theory was found to violate parity and was later revised, but radiocarbon dating never was.
Also they don't like to mention that it varies with solar output and radioactive decay is not even constant from one solar flare to the next.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html)
-
Here's a link.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/ (http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/)
What they don't like to mention is that radiocarbon dating was based upon Enrico Fermi's theory of beta decay. His theory was found to violate parity and was later revised, but radiocarbon dating never was.
Also they don't like to mention that it varies with solar output and radioactive decay is not even constant from one solar flare to the next.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html)
Thanks.
-
Here's a link.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/ (http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/)
What they don't like to mention is that radiocarbon dating was based upon Enrico Fermi's theory of beta decay. His theory was found to violate parity and was later revised, but radiocarbon dating never was.
Also they don't like to mention that it varies with solar output and radioactive decay is not even constant from one solar flare to the next.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html)
Can you provide a link for your first paragraph?
-
Here's a link.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/ (http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/)
What they don't like to mention is that radiocarbon dating was based upon Enrico Fermi's theory of beta decay. His theory was found to violate parity and was later revised, but radiocarbon dating never was.
Well it was updated in that radiocarbon dating used to be done by using beta radiation detectors, but is now done with acclerator mass spectrometry.
Also they don't like to mention that it varies with solar output and radioactive decay is not even constant from one solar flare to the next.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html)
An interesting finding. I would have a few questions, like, how significant is this effect on radiocarbon dating and does it even affect Carbon-14. Also, has instrument error been ruled out because there are results like this (http://www.nist.gov/mml/csd/14c_091410.cfm) as well.
-
Rama Set, any new movies or TV shows? Haven't heard from you in a while.
-
Rama Set, any new movies or TV shows? Haven't heard from you in a while.
I made a short film in the fall which is being edited. I played a royal messenger on "Reign" (w0w) and there is this:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/tylenols-modern-family-tweaks-advertisings-norm-in-new-spot/article27385205/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/tylenols-modern-family-tweaks-advertisings-norm-in-new-spot/article27385205/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe)
...thats me as the dad.
-
Rama Set, any new movies or TV shows? Haven't heard from you in a while.
I made a short film in the fall which is being edited. I played a royal messenger on "Reign" (w0w) and there is this:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/tylenols-modern-family-tweaks-advertisings-norm-in-new-spot/article27385205/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/tylenols-modern-family-tweaks-advertisings-norm-in-new-spot/article27385205/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe)
...thats me as the dad.
You only get those roles because the girly's think you're cute. You should tell them the Earth is flat next interview.