Dating of prehistoric life forms.

[Traveler]

As pointed out there are different takes on the age of the earth between the science blocks of the east and western nations.

For example this link

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/107069-0/

I have to admit that the examination of evidence done by the east is more honest that that done by the west.

Now watch the debunkers come out and say that this lacks credibility because it comes from a russian paper

[lycanox]

A typical case of bad logic sold as bad science to newspapers by creationists.

We know of the old age of prehistoric lifeforms, because they often are in locations that could only be explained by the millions of years of slow geological processes. Like the mud from an former ocean being pushed to the the top of a mountain range.

So even if carbon dating is not accurate, we know for sure that the earth must have been millions of years old, or mountain ranges and such could never have formed.

[Cherisa]

I'm sorry,off topic

[Goldmoon]

I did read a few things a couple years back that were talking about how fossilization can happen in a few thousand years... Entire mountains have been flipped and turned in an instant, and oceanbeds have been put atop mountains. And another article stated that man appeared on the earth 10,000 years ago. Which would be weird because for a species this advanced, it should take millions... Maybe Lloyd Pye was right, and we were just plopped here.

Thanks for the advice, Lycanox, like he said, don't believe everything you read even the mainstream. Especially the mainstream actually, the government wants a brainwashed mass with little knowledge of the truth.

[lycanox]

I did read a few things a couple years back that were talking about how fossilization can happen in a few thousand years... Entire mountains have been flipped and turned in an instant, and oceanbeds have been put atop mountains. And another article stated that man appeared on the earth 10,000 years ago. Which would be weird because for a species this advanced, it should take millions... Maybe Lloyd Pye was right, and we were just plopped here.

It did take millions of years to create evolve a animal to its present form.
And considering the age of our solar system, it had plenty of time.

And please proof that mountains formed overnight.

Thanks for the advice, Lycanox, like he said, don't believe everything you read even the mainstream. Especially the mainstream actually, the government wants a brainwashed mass with little knowledge of the truth.

And here comes the classic all contradicting stuff is an conspiracy theory again.

[Goldmoon]

And please proof that mountains formed overnight.

Not all of them, but some have been tossed around during major destruction, and "Prove" it to yourself.

[Cartesiantheater]

Bullshit. That article has a blatant creationist slant. For example, consider this:

There are numerous examples of layers containing "mixed" fossils where fossils of creatures that are supposed to have existed millions of years apart from one another are found right next to one another within the same layer or stratum (i.e. dinosaur and human foot prints crossing each other's paths!).

That has already been verified to be a fucking HOAX. So why would this supposed "honest" article bring up a HOAX as evidence? Gee, let me think about that...



Your article sites a HOAX and thinks it is REAL! That blows its credibility right out of the water. I'm halfway through reading it and I can see it is utter shit. FAIL.


EDIT- More! I am rolling on the floor laughing my ass off LITERALLY!

First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. For example, there are no fossils of fish with part fins, part feet to show that fish evolved into land animals. In fact, the fossils show only complete and fully-formed species. There are no partially-evolved dinosaurs or anything else to indicate macro-evolution in the fossil record. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers.

Should I inform these dumbasses of the HUNDREDS of transitional fossils I have posted in the previous forum?

Further,

Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

Should I ask these douches why there are no flower fossils at the bottom? Do flowers not grow in valleys? Oh, I see what happened! Naturally the flowers didn't want to drown so they SWAM TO HIGHER GROUND!!!!

ROTFLMAO


FAIL FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FAIL.






EDIT again!

I am a physics major. This means that I know a thing or two about respected physicists, because I read their work on a weekly basis. The article says this

Highly respected scientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

ROTFLMAO! NO this guy is NOT highly respected among his peers! His work is viewed as pseudoscience! Wow! What a piece o' crap article! It is BLATANTLY creationist propaganda!

This FOOL argues against relativity, something that is more solid than almost anything in science! Not only is relativity shown to be true in experiments FOR relativity, IT IS PREDICTED by electromagnetic theory, which has been subject to test and scrutiny for the last 4 hundred years! You have electricity powering your home appliances because Maxwell's equations and electromagnetic theory are RIGHT! And guess what they predict? Relativity!

Highly respected? My hairy ass! Barnes is near a joke.


And so is this article of blatant creationist propaganda.

[Goldmoon]

Ah well, people will think whatever. I wouldn't know until I became a palentologist and saw it for myself. We don't study stratum, we sit behind a computer talking on a forum.

[Cartesiantheater]

Ah well, people will think whatever. I wouldn't know until I became a palentologist and saw it for myself. We don't study stratum, we sit behind a computer talking on a forum.

Yeah, well I study physics, and that deceitful article claimed that a crank physicist was "Highly respected" in his field- which is BULLSHIT. That tells me a lot about the integrity of the article's writer(s).

[lycanox]

Ah well, people will think whatever. I wouldn't know until I became a palentologist and saw it for myself. We don't study stratum, we sit behind a computer talking on a forum.

And I study microbiology.
Evolution is for us not some weird distant theory, but a real factor we have to take into account each time we determine what antibiotic is best to treat an infection.

[Blu-ray]

As pointed out there are different takes on the age of the earth between the science blocks of the east and western nations.

For example this link

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/107069-0/

I have to admit that the examination of evidence done by the east is more honest that that done by the west.

Now watch the debunkers come out and say that this lacks credibility because it comes from a russian paper

Ah yes... Pravda...

The wonderful people that also brought us these fine articles:

Russian fishermen catch squeaking alien and eat it
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mys...lien_monster-0

Mysterious dwarfish alien brutally murdered in Russia's remote village
http://newsfromrussia.com/science/my...ussian_alien-0

Centaurs appeared after copulation between humans and animals
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/...4_centaur.html

Aliens live on Earth, under the ground
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/...69_aliens.html

[Cartesiantheater]

Rotflmao! DVD you just officially PWNED this thread.

Like I said. Pravada = joke. /Thread

[Traveler]

Not all of them, but some have been tossed around during major destruction, and "Prove" it to yourself.

There is a good example of this on the road between Calgery and Vancouver where it passes through the Rockies. According to the geologists this section of mountains are around 100 thousand years old

However the amount of errosion on them is obviously much less, but what struck my attention is the side of one of the peaks that was once a plain. There is a single solitary tree growing on the side. The tree comes out the ground at right angles to it which indicates that the tree was already established before the ground was shifted into it presant angle as the side of a mountain.

Now that tree is old but not that old. It is located on the south side of the main road just as you enter the rockies from the Alberta side. Having had a good look at this area there is no way in hell that you are going to convince me that this section of the mountain range is anywhere near 100 thousand years. I would say the age is in hundreds only.

[Goldmoon]

It did take millions of years to create evolve a animal to its present form.
And considering the age of our solar system, it had plenty of time.

This may be true, but our planet is far too volatile to have quickly evolved large lifeforms such as dinosaurs. The had to be planted here. It may take millions of years to evolve something, but earth hasn't been able to support life for millions of years, millions of years ago, it would have been too close or far from the sun to be capable of supporting life, and it only takes 5 minutes to clone DNA.

Therefore, isn't it more reasonable that a more advanced lifeform is using this planet to house its species'?

And shouldn't the shark have changed? Scientist say its been the same for "Millions" of years. Or did it just reach a state of perfection?

[one14am]

The only thing that might convince me that mountains were created in a shorter period of time than is now accepted is that the mountains advanced with a pole shift. Not the magnetic pole but an axial pole. The thin top crust shifts on the liquid layer underneath. The majority of planetary mass doesn't shift, but because the earth is not exactly a perfect sphere any movement toward the equator would mean the land would need to rise up. The earth in greater than 50 miles wider than it is tall. Pole shift is is a theory. The fact that the interior and exterior spin at two different rates is a recently proven fact that gives credibility to the theory. The magnetic field can be thought of as the glue that holds the surface skin in place. Blow that away and with the right circumstances a shift could theoretically take place.

On the other side of things I think perhaps our dating techniques could be better, but there is too much hard science backing an earth that is very very old. Religion can exist beside science but believing in something does not make it true. If God created the heavens he/she/it did it billions of years ago.

[lycanox]

This may be true, but our planet is far too volatile to have quickly evolved large lifeforms such as dinosaurs. The had to be planted here. It may take millions of years to evolve something, but earth hasn't been able to support life for millions of years, millions of years ago, it would have been too close or far from the sun to be capable of supporting life, and it only takes 5 minutes to clone DNA.

The hardest part of starting life is creating bacteria. However bacteria can survive in much harder conditions than macroscopic life. So during the period the planet was to hostile to sustain macroscopic life. The seas were already filled with microscopical life.

Therefore, isn't it more reasonable that a more advanced lifeform is using this planet to house its species'?

Nope, that is not necessary at all.
Besides, where would that advanced life form come from.

And shouldn't the shark have changed? Scientist say its been the same for "Millions" of years. Or did it just reach a state of perfection?

The design stayed the same on the big picture. However the fact that the shark varied a lot in size and that there are lots of different subspecies of sharks. Shows that even that animal is still evolving.

[Goldmoon]

Nope, that is not necessary at all.
Besides, where would that advanced life form come from.

Exactly my point.

[lycanox]

Exactly my point.

Indeed, aliens or god could not be used to disprove evolution on earth because it is impossible to explain where those then came from.

[Cartesiantheater]

This may be true, but our planet is far too volatile to have quickly evolved large lifeforms such as dinosaurs. The had to be planted here. It may take millions of years to evolve something, but earth hasn't been able to support life for millions of years, millions of years ago, it would have been too close or far from the sun to be capable of supporting life, and it only takes 5 minutes to clone DNA.

Bullcrap. You are once again using the "you can't explain x, therefore God exists" fallacy. further, you are pulling shit out of your ass. Prove it. Give me legitimate scientific sources.

(hint: Traveler's website, the one that believes in CENTAURS, is NOT a legitimate scientific source.)



Anyway, about your claim that life could not have evolved during the early stages of Earth (I'm talking around 1 BILLION years after it was formed): Life exists in the geysers in Yellow Stone park... life exists there where the liquid is so acidic it can dissolve nails... yet there is life. Explain that... is God magically keeping them alive to fool us into thinking life can survive in extremely hostile environments? Is THAT what's going on there?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

And just so you know, the climate 65 million years ago was perfectly suitable to life. It was like a global jungle. Last I checked, jungles support life. So, yes millions and millions of years ago Earth was quite suitable to supporting life.

Therefore, isn't it more reasonable that a more advanced lifeform is using this planet to house its species'?

Only if you are willfully ignorant. Or in your case too lazy to actually do the research.

And shouldn't the shark have changed? Scientist say its been the same for "Millions" of years. Or did it just reach a state of perfection?

Yes, the body plan of the shark is about as "perfect" as you will see for a sea predator.

However, the shark DID change with time. Its size has changed, some of its morphology has changed, the structure of its jaw, etc..

http://www.elasmo-research.org/educa...ution/jaws.htm

Go through every page of that website (that is entirely devoted to the evolution of sharks) and tell me that the shark has not changed with time. You'd have to be utterly clueless to think that after actually researching it... don't be lazy. Do the research and see that you are mistaken so I don't have to post responses that do that for you.



Here are some extinct sharks:

Akmonistion
Anomotodon
Carcharocles angustidens
Cladoselache
Cladoselachiformes
Cobelodus
Cretoxyrhina mantelli
Erquitaia
Falcatus
Glikmanius
Hybodus
Megalodon
Orthacanthus
Otodus
Physogaleus
Scapanorhynchus
Sphenacanthus
Squalicorax
Stethacanthidae
Stethacanthus
Symmoriida
Symmoriidae
Triodus
Tristychius
Wodnika
Xenacanthida
Xenacanthidae
Xenacanthus

Basically, you creationists have a terribly simplified understanding of evolution, of physics, of science in general. Get a clue. These things are not nearly as simple as you try to simplify them to. It is easy to create a retarded caricature of evolution so you can tear down your caricature. Why don't you try putting some serious effort in to getting a more accurate understanding of scientific theories? Instead of skipping all of the details?

[Cyranothe2nd]

[QUOTE=Cartesiantheater;270487]Bullshit. That article has a blatant creationist slant.
WORD! If anyone cares to look up the author you can find his website here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5862/
And yes, he is a creationist.
Here's a blurb from the website: *The author, Babu G. Ranganathan (pronounced Ranga-nathan), was born in 1957 in Madras, India. Mr. Ranganathan is a conservative Christian and a Reformed Baptist. He converted from Hinduism to Christianity when he received the Lord Jesus Christ into his heart as his personal Savior at the young age of fourteen. The Spirit of God used the preaching of evangelist Dr. Billy Graham on television in bringing Christian repentance and faith to the author's life. As a religion and science writer, Mr. Ranganathan has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. He holds a B.A. with a major in Bible and a minor in Biology from Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina (class of '82). He also completed two years of full-time graduate study in law at Western New England College School of Law in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Mr. Ranganathan has given well over a dozen lectures and seminars before faculty and students (including science faculty and students) at various secular college and university campuses on the scientific evidence for creation theory vs. Darwinian macro-evolution theory.

LOL! He's only for a BA--from BOB FUCKING JONES! So, you know that Bio minor is a joke since BJ only teaches creationism. OMG, FAIL! FAIL! SO MUCH FAIL! *I* have more education then this dude!

Also, just because this guy is posted on a Russian news site doesn't mean that Eastern scientists see evolution any differently than Western ones do. It just means that this creationist got some "air time" on a newrag's website.

[Cartesiantheater]

[QUOTE=Cyranothe2nd;270932]

Bullshit. That article has a blatant creationist slant.
WORD! If anyone cares to look up the author you can find his website here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5862/
And yes, he is a creationist.
Here's a blurb from the website: *The author, Babu G. Ranganathan (pronounced Ranga-nathan), was born in 1957 in Madras, India. Mr. Ranganathan is a conservative Christian and a Reformed Baptist. He converted from Hinduism to Christianity when he received the Lord Jesus Christ into his heart as his personal Savior at the young age of fourteen. The Spirit of God used the preaching of evangelist Dr. Billy Graham on television in bringing Christian repentance and faith to the author's life. As a religion and science writer, Mr. Ranganathan has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. He holds a B.A. with a major in Bible and a minor in Biology from Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina (class of '82). He also completed two years of full-time graduate study in law at Western New England College School of Law in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Mr. Ranganathan has given well over a dozen lectures and seminars before faculty and students (including science faculty and students) at various secular college and university campuses on the scientific evidence for creation theory vs. Darwinian macro-evolution theory.

LOL! He's only for a BA--from BOB FUCKING JONES! So, you know that Bio minor is a joke since BJ only teaches creationism. OMG, FAIL! FAIL! SO MUCH FAIL! *I* have more education then this dude!

Also, just because this guy is posted on a Russian news site doesn't mean that Eastern scientists see evolution any differently than Western ones do. It just means that this creationist got some "air time" on a newrag's website.

Well, naturally. After all, that Russian website cited as evidence against evolution...

Believes in CENTAURS FFS!












BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




ROTF!!!!



They're REAL I tells ya!!!

ROTFLMMFBAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BYOB!!!!1

NAACP!!!!1

NCAA!!!!

NFL!!!!!!!!!






BUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Goldmoon]

From what I see with people, unless it comes from CNN, or BBC, they won't take heed to even investigate it for truth.

Often not even looking into it and throwing away the crap. I go for what makes sense, I am a philosopher. The reason I changed my views about creation is mostly from a revelation while I was investigating everything.

[Traveler]

[QUOTE=Cyranothe2nd;270932]

LOL! He's only for a BA--from BOB FUCKING JONES! So, you know that Bio minor is a joke since BJ only teaches creationism. OMG, FAIL! FAIL! SO MUCH FAIL! *I* have more education then this dude!

No, the institution that takes your money says that you have all this education and they are willing to give you more so long as you continue to say that you agree with their philosophy and are willing to pay them even more money.

Its all just a big sales pitch and you are the fool who is soon parted with his cash because you have been sold a dud but don't know it yet!

[Cartesiantheater]

No, the institution that takes your money says that you have all this education and they are willing to give you more so long as you continue to say that you agree with their philosophy and are willing to pay them even more money.

Its all just a big sales pitch and you are the fool who is soon parted with his cash because you have been sold a dud but don't know it yet!

Lol. Really? Before I started school I couldn't solve 2x^2/(1-x) = 24... hell, I couldn't even factor or solve the problem posted in THIS thread condemning algebra- I shit you not. (I worked my lily ASS off that first semester... let me tell ya...)

Now I can do multi-variable integral and differential calculus

ex- ∫ ∫R 1 - 6(x^2)y dxdy R: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2, -1 ≤ y ≤ 1

I can solve differential equations, including some partial differential equations,

∂u/∂t (x, t) = β ∂^2 u/∂x^2 (x, t) + P (x, t)

such that u(0, t) = u(L, t) = 0 and u(x, 0) = f(x), 0 < x < L, L is the length of a heated wire...

I can prove mathematically from only two assumptions that time and space are relative to your frame of reference and I can derive mathematically EXACTLY how they are related to your relative velocity,

http://forums.armageddononline.org/d...on-t15578.html

I can derive from first principles an approximation to the size of the radius of an atom,

http://www.worldancestry.org/forums/...read.php?t=550

I can explain why if matter has a wave nature then there MUST be an unavoidable uncertainty in measurements, I can take trigonometric functions and express them in terms of complex functions (ones with imaginary numbers), and vice versa, I can calculate numerical values for several transcendental functions by using their series expansion approximations, etc.

Not to mention I am fairly familiar with basic physics including Newton's Laws, Maxwell's equations (to a degree), Faraday's work, etc, and I have verified with my own eyes in the laboratory that these physical models and theories are highly accurate.



Yeah, I've wasted my education...



Traveler, I suppose I should remind you that I am majoring in PHYSICS- NOT biology... and if I do say so myself I have learned enough PHYSICS AND MATH to warrant the amount of money I have paid. I fully admit that I could have made more out of the money I have spent, and I hope that I can reestablish the work ethic that got me through Calculus I without even algebra skill to begin with... but even though I haven't learned as much as I could have so far, the money has been well spent - ESPECIALLY considering the grave mathematical weaknesses I had when I started a couple years ago.



But the important part is this:

I have not taken ONE SINGLE UNIVERSITY COURSE IN BIOLOGY. Not ONE.

I have not even had one single professor discuss evolution in a class to me. The only professors I did discuss evolution with in my own time outside of class were BOTH Christians... (one of which was a flat earth creationist like you)

My knowledge of evolution comes from my own personnel study of it in my spare time. I didn't read sources spoon fed to me by instructors. I hunted them out myself. But I didn't just START supporting evolution. I STARTED by being a Michael Behe fan boy. I'm sure you've heard of him. I didn't have the balls to seriously read work done by Dawkins or even Darwin himself until several years after I began researching the evolution question.

So, basically, your attack on my education is completely irrelevant. Unless you can do the undergrad math magic that I can, I'd say my money has been at least decently well spent... *and of course, math is non-negotiable, and physics is applied math... so it's not like there is any "brain washing" or "dogmatism" going on in physics, at least the physics that I have learned so far (Classical physics and the very beginnings of modern physics). What I have learned is nearly self evident, if you have the skill to see it.

Therefore in at least my case your attack on University education is utterly useless.

[Traveler]

Lol. Really? Before I started school I couldn't solve 2x^2/(1-x) = 24... hell, I couldn't even factor or solve the problem posted in THIS thread condemning algebra- I shit you not. (I worked my lily ASS off that first semester... let me tell ya...)

Now I can do multi-variable integral and differential calculus

ex- ∫ ∫R 1 - 6(x^2)y dxdy R: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2, -1 ≤ y ≤ 1

I can solve differential equations, including some partial differential equations,

∂u/∂t (x, t) = β ∂^2 u/∂x^2 (x, t) + P (x, t)

such that u(0, t) = u(L, t) = 0 and u(x, 0) = f(x), 0 < x < L, L is the length of a heated wire...

I can prove mathematically from only two assumptions that time and space are relative to your frame of reference and I can derive mathematically EXACTLY how they are related to your relative velocity,

http://forums.armageddononline.org/d...on-t15578.html

I can derive from first principles an approximation to the size of the radius of an atom,

http://www.worldancestry.org/forums/...read.php?t=550

I can explain why if matter has a wave nature then there MUST be an unavoidable uncertainty in measurements, I can take trigonometric functions and express them in terms of complex functions (ones with imaginary numbers), and vice versa, I can calculate numerical values for several transcendental functions by using their series expansion approximations, etc.

Not to mention I am fairly familiar with basic physics including Newton's Laws, Maxwell's equations (to a degree), Faraday's work, etc, and I have verified with my own eyes in the laboratory that these physical models and theories are highly accurate.



Yeah, I've wasted my education...



Traveler, I suppose I should remind you that I am majoring in PHYSICS- NOT biology... and if I do say so myself I have learned enough PHYSICS AND MATH to warrant the amount of money I have paid. I fully admit that I could have made more out of the money I have spent, and I hope that I can reestablish the work ethic that got me through Calculus I without even algebra skill to begin with... but even though I haven't learned as much as I could have so far, the money has been well spent - ESPECIALLY considering the grave mathematical weaknesses I had when I started a couple years ago.



But the important part is this:

I have not taken ONE SINGLE UNIVERSITY COURSE IN BIOLOGY. Not ONE.

I have not even had one single professor discuss evolution in a class to me. The only professors I did discuss evolution with in my own time outside of class were BOTH Christians... (one of which was a flat earth creationist like you)

My knowledge of evolution comes from my own personnel study of it in my spare time. I didn't read sources spoon fed to me by instructors. I hunted them out myself. But I didn't just START supporting evolution. I STARTED by being a Michael Behe fan boy. I'm sure you've heard of him. I didn't have the balls to seriously read work done by Dawkins or even Darwin himself until several years after I began researching the evolution question.

So, basically, your attack on my education is completely irrelevant. Unless you can do the undergrad math magic that I can, I'd say my money has been at least decently well spent... *and of course, math is non-negotiable, and physics is applied math... so it's not like there is any "brain washing" or "dogmatism" going on in physics, at least the physics that I have learned so far (Classical physics and the very beginnings of modern physics). What I have learned is nearly self evident, if you have the skill to see it.

Therefore in at least my case your attack on University education is utterly useless.

My statement was a bit on the harsh side and you are correct in that you have in fact gained from the experiance in your university.

Maths and physics are indeed solid sciences and I have no problem with these subjects. I also love to delve in them.

Biology is also in many ways a science that has brought many benifits and I also consider it a worthwhile persuit.

The problem I have is with the origin of the spieces and it is not because of my religious bent either. It is at this point that the evidence and the theory just do not jive for me. Yes in the text book it all makes perfect sense but on the ground there are too many adnormalities that undermine the theory.

My personal view from a science standpoint is that this question should be left as open ended until more information can be gathered and corrolated and it does not matter how long it takes. But what I see is a manipulation where some info is taken and other info that is just as credible gets tossed because it messes up the desired picture that keeps getting presented. Sorry but I find this dishonest.