1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Evolution

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Jun 24, 2017.

  1. enkoda

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 3, 2010

    Posts: 1,445

    Location: Hants, UK

    Are you referring to these seals: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

    Ooh look, it's a claim by Kent Hovind, father of Eric, two well known and discredited creationists.
     
  2. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,675

    No.


    Well, according to some reports his known degrees are from unaccredited institutions and that he has no training in paleontology. In fact it was the AMS lab test results from the paleochronology group that reported dinosaur bones less than forty thousand years old.


    Oh by the way does anyone know Where are the mainstream unbiased AMS lab test results for the general public to view?


    short excerpt from the paleo group
    Exclusion of important data is simply not the way legitimate scientific research is conducted. Such exclusion is unacceptable for any honest scientist. Since both the AGU and the National Academy of Scientists claim that open communication is their policy, sharing of important scientific discoveries and transparency in research must be allowed. Failure to do so makes a travesty of science and is a great disservice to the public who rely on scientists to tell them the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
     
  3. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,675

    Oh I get it, you're being fastidious, fine, I shall repeat it once more for clarity ok? profound changes occur within species, metamorphosis is a well observed irrefutable phenomenon, but there are limitations and boundaries at the genomic DNA level for all the known species on planet earth. Just one example, a lizard can never change into a bird unless one has a very creative imagination or a film director portrays one in a fantasy or science-fiction film or maybe even a fantasy video game, or is depicted in a work of art or literature. And besides, Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life’s origins, at some point the question will arise and it is difficult to avoid the elephant in the room. I have always made it clear but you are nit-picking for the sake of it.
     
  4. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 6, 2004

    Posts: 13,684

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    If you're going for clarity, you might want to look up the meaning of 'fastidious'. And then go ahead and explain how being "very attentive to and concerned about accuracy and detail" is a bad thing.
     
  5. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,066

    I’m pretty sure we have gone over the fact before that radiocarbon dating isnt used to check the age of dinosaur bones due to the fact that, at its best, it can only date things back to about 70,000 years? So why would anyone try and use radiocarbon dating to date dinosaur bones and if they did, it isnt a surprise they dated them to 10s of thousands of years due to the nature of the process.

    But I guess basic scientific knowledge isnt really all that necessary if you arent actually interested in facts but finding stuff that supports your very narrow views.
     
  6. hornetstinger

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2016

    Posts: 5,860

    If evolution was true how come checkers still exists?

    Checkmate atheists.
     
  7. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,675

    Yeah the same person who clearly moves the goalposts and dodges questions.
     
  8. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,675

    No dating method is reliable beyond a certain point, the further you go back the more assumptions have to be made. According to some, scientists can know the amount of radioactive material in the present so they can estimate or conclude something by extrapolating back to see how long it has taken to get to the present state. Apparentley there are conditions where radioactive decay rates are known to change, if there is scientific evidence that radioactive decay rates can change depending on their environment then it is possible that radioactive decay rates can't have always been constant. No scientists were present when rocks first formed on earth so there is no way to really know with any degree of accuracy the amount of radioactive material present in any rock in the long distant unobservable prehistoric time period, so therefore assumptions have to be made about past conditions. The present is not necessarily the key to the past.
     
  9. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 6, 2004

    Posts: 13,684

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    :confused:
     
  10. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,675

     
  11. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,675

    I was asking Angilion a question previously but the poster switched tactics.
     
  12. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,675

    So the claim that dinosaurs fossils are hundreds of millions of years old is an assumption.
     
  13. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,066

    This doesn’t address the fact that you are wrong about radiocarbon dating. It isn’t used to date dinosaur bones, it can’t be. So any paper or report you see that is saying radiocarbon dating puts dinosaur bones at 40,000 years old is completely made up.
     
  14. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 16,021

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    I'm being truthful and accurate. You're trying to pretend that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing. They are not. You know they are not. That distinction is fundamental, not merely fastidiousness.
     
  15. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 16,021

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    If that's true, it's because they were lied to. You know how it was done - I explained it a few posts back. Carbon dating will never return a date of more than 40,000 years old regardless of the age of the sample tested. So the lab was lied to, deliberately used to create a flimsy facade of truth to a lie. It won't hold up to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of carbon dating, but it's useful for lying to people who are ignorant of carbon dating.

    I'll include a very quick summary in case there's anyone reading this who is ignorant of how carbon dating works and might be fooled by your disinformation:

    Carbon dating works by measuring the ratio of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in a sample. While something is alive, it's constantly exchanging carbon with the environment so the ratio of the isotopes is the same as that in the environment. When it dies, it stops doing so. Carbon-14 is radioactive, so it decays over time in an utterly predictable way. By comparing the ratio of the isotopes in the sample with the ratio of the isotopes in the environment it's possible to determine what proportion of the carbon-14 has decayed and thus how long it has been since the organism died. The more time that passes the less carbon-14 is left, so there comes a point where the amount left is so small that proportions can't be determined with any degree of accuracy. With the half-life of carbon-14, that was at most about 30,000 years when I last looked. Maybe a bit more now, with advances in technology, but not much. It also depends on various factors in the preservation of the sample. Even in a hypothetical best case scenario with the best possible equipment, there will still be a limit to how far back carbon dating can go. As a result, any sample of any date older than that time will return approximately that time when carbon dated. Which is why the only reason to have older samples carbon dated is to manufacture false evidence to deceive people with.
     
  16. enkoda

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 3, 2010

    Posts: 1,445

    Location: Hants, UK

    Maybe you could provide a source because that's the only reference I've found....
     
  17. Eurofighter

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 20, 2014

    Posts: 1,277

    Evolution is real