How long has man been created.

Ryan the Ninja Goalkeeper · May 30, 2009

Sorry to kill it but cabon dating is rubbish and is a lie.
free christian teaching . org will tell you a lot more than I can, it is all referenced so none of it is made up

I will give you an overview:

Living penguins were dated at being 8,000 years old.

One part of a mammoth was dated at being 29,500 years old and another part being 44,000 years old (which one is it).

I have come to the following conclusion:

Carbon Dating we DON'T KNOW the age of, we ASSUME it is the age.

Carbon dating stuff we DO KNOW gets it WRONG!

Carbon dating was also used on dead animals, a freshly killed seal, 1,300 YEARS OLD?!!

GenemZ · May 30, 2009

Ryan the Ninja Goalkeeper said:
Sorry to kill it but cabon dating is rubbish and is a lie.
free christian teaching . org will tell you a lot more than I can, it is all referenced so none of it is made up

I will give you an overview:

Living penguins were dated at being 8,000 years old.

One part of a mammoth was dated at being 29,500 years old and another part being 44,000 years old (which one is it).

I have come to the following conclusion:

Carbon Dating we DON'T KNOW the age of, we ASSUME it is the age.

Carbon dating stuff we DO KNOW gets it WRONG!

Carbon dating was also used on dead animals, a freshly killed seal, 1,300 YEARS OLD?!!

Good as that may be. The Bible still teaches that there was a prior creation that God destroyed and replaced with this one.

Here's how: Without Form and Void - Frontpage

Grace and peace, GeneZ

GenemZ · May 30, 2009

Most animals have eyes.

Most animals have lungs.

Most animals have blood.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have bowels.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have a nervous system.

Most animals have brains.

Most animals have bones.

Most animals have ears.

Most animals have skin.

Most animals share common design, but are simply rearranged in shape and colors that make one animal type unique from another.

Now if almost all animals share all these complex organs and physical attributes?

How could eyes happen by chance in thousands of different animals? Lungs? Hearts? Teeth? Noses? Ears? Stomachs? Intestines? Livers? All happen by chance independently from one another?

Looking at the ultra complexity that so many animals share in common? How can one believe that each type of animal started out as an independent entity onto itself millions of years ago? If one believes evolution is the means by which we got from the Triassic period to here? It would have to mean we all share one common ancestor. Or do you believe all these same attributes developed in different animals independently from one another by chance?

If not? Then most animals would have all begun by chance, and by chance all develop eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, and everything we share commonly by design! Kidneys? Spleens? Livers? Blood vessels? Blood? All happened by chance? Sexual organs?

We all had to come from a common ancestor. Not possible.

fwwid · May 31, 2009

An Arch Angel said:
We are not anti Bible.
I read the bible a lot.
I am amazed every time I read how great it is.

What we are anti-close minded.
Why must I take the bible literally with topics such as creation?
Why cant I say, as a christian

God did it through the natural processes HE created God did it through evolution.?

A lot of people just "plugged their ears" when you posted this. IOW, they don't want to hear it - too bad.

GenemZ · May 31, 2009

genez said:
Most animals have eyes.

Most animals have lungs.

Most animals have blood.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have bowels.

Most animals have hearts.

Most animals have a nervous system.

Most animals have brains.

Most animals have bones.

Most animals have ears.

Most animals have skin.

Most animals share common design, but are simply rearranged in shape and colors that make one animal type unique from another.

Now if almost all animals share all these complex organs and physical attributes?

How could eyes happen by chance in thousands of different animals? Lungs? Hearts? Teeth? Noses? Ears? Stomachs? Intestines? Livers? All happen by chance independently from one another?

Looking at the ultra complexity that so many animals share in common? How can one believe that each type of animal started out as an independent entity onto itself millions of years ago? If one believes evolution is the means by which we got from the Triassic period to here? It would have to mean we all share one common ancestor. Or do you believe all these same attributes developed in different animals independently from one another by chance?

If not? Then most animals would have all begun by chance, and by chance all develop eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, and everything we share commonly by design! Kidneys? Spleens? Livers? Blood vessels? Blood? All happened by chance? Sexual organs?

We all had to come from a common ancestor. Not possible.

No takers?

mpok1519 · May 31, 2009

genez said:
The Bible does explain, though.

This is going years back..

I was fortunate to hear a retired Harvard Professor exegeting from a Hebrew a passage found in Jeremiah. He showed and explained that a generic Hebrew term was used for describing man at a time that preexisted Adam.

This passage looked back at the destruction of all life on earth. Utterly destroyed. Jeremiah was using prophetic words as a warning to Israel. It was a reminder to the Jews concerning God's power and ability to judge and overwhelmingly destroy.

Much to my surprise. Jeremiah's warning opened with the same Hebrew words used in Genesis 1:2. Words that speak of the earth being in a state of utter destruction and laid waste.. having an eerie sense of emptiness hanging over it. To simply show this passage to you in a generic English translation and not tell you what the Hebrew wording reveals? Would leave you wondering the significance of such a passage. But, in the Hebrew it reveals detail and a thrust that speaks of a complete devastation of the previous creation.

Jeremiah 4:23-27
" I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.
27 This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.

Jeremiah's warning intro begins the same Hebrew words of Genesis 1:2. Why would the Holy Spirit chose words to warn of utter devastation and destruction coming to Israel? If, Genesis 1:2 does not speak of a completely destroyed world?

The Jews understood the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 spoke of judgment and complete ruin. That is why Jeremiah had to finish his warning with an addendum. That God would not completely destroy Israel. For, Genesis 1:2 speaks of a complete and total destruction of the prehistoric earth.

A prehistoric world where the Bible says a humanoid creation was living. Its not until this creation that man was first created in God's image. Hence, why a generic term was used by Jeremiah to descibe what was called 'people.' In the prior creation what was called man most likely had the highest level of intelligence of all life on earth. But, I would guess they must have been quite ugly in comparison. Neanderthals or semi ape-like in appearance. For it says it was not until Genesis 6 that angels first found the women of men attractive. But I digress...

In Christ, GeneZ

.

nephilem, etc...

but the Bible is still just an old explanation of how everything happened. but science explains these things as well.

God's image = a reflection of the entire universe

previous creation, now creation, new creation....gold jacket, green jacket...

such as why the Bible explain these things the same way as other creeds; a synchronism exists within all religions. Details, all in the details. People become divided...but its still synchronism.

mpok1519 · May 31, 2009

genez said:
No takers?

Complexity is not too hard to achieve by nature's standards.

Saturn...mars...venus...the sun..earth....all different...all exist.

Variety and diversity. These things are not signs of intellegent design or irreducible complexity. Or evidence. Or proof.

They are signs that the universe has a natural and explainable rhythm; condordant and discordant harmonies all at once.

mpok1519 · May 31, 2009

Ryan the Ninja Goalkeeper said:
Sorry to kill it but cabon dating is rubbish and is a lie.
free christian teaching . org will tell you a lot more than I can, it is all referenced so none of it is made up

I will give you an overview:

Living penguins were dated at being 8,000 years old.

One part of a mammoth was dated at being 29,500 years old and another part being 44,000 years old (which one is it).

I have come to the following conclusion:

Carbon Dating we DON'T KNOW the age of, we ASSUME it is the age.

Carbon dating stuff we DO KNOW gets it WRONG!

Carbon dating was also used on dead animals, a freshly killed seal, 1,300 YEARS OLD?!!

your link is a lie.

And a blatant tool of deception.

Carbon dating only works if something is 20K+ years old if I'm not mistaken, and the science buffs 'round here will back me up. of course those things carbon dated wrong; the morons trying to carbon date weren't using the correct methods. Of course, they weren't medical students or anything...

Penguins have been around for 8000+ years.

Mammoths have been around 20-40K years ago.

Carbon dating also is not the only way to date ancient objects. Radiometric dating is another among others. Spetral analysis included.

Stop trying to decieve with this bad info.

Humans are older than six thousand times three-hundred sixty-five sun-rises.

fwwid · May 31, 2009

mpok1519 said:
your link is a lie.

And a blatant tool of deception.

Carbon dating only works if something is 20K+ years old if I'm not mistaken, and the science buffs 'round here will back me up. of course those things carbon dated wrong; the morons trying to carbon date weren't using the correct methods. Of course, they weren't medical students or anything...

Penguins have been around for 8000+ years.

Mammoths have been around 20-40K years ago.

Carbon dating also is not the only way to date ancient objects. Radiometric dating is another among others. Spetral analysis included.

Stop trying to decieve with this bad info.

Humans are older than six thousand times three-hundred sixty-five sun-rises.

Hahaha, you may not have all your facts straight, (i.e. mammoth evolution or carbon dating performance range) but I have to hand it to you - you're passionate about what you know to be true.

An Arch Angel · May 31, 2009

fwwid said:
Hahaha, you may not have all your facts straight, (i.e. mammoth evolution or carbon dating performance range) but I have to hand it to you - you're passionate about what you know to be true.

This is ok F.
You do not agree with the carbon dating piece of evidence.

What about deposition rates of sediment that leads to some types of rock strata? Lets just start with sandstone to keep it easy, this piece of evidence puts the age well past 6000 years.

Assyrian · May 31, 2009

Ryan the Ninja Goalkeeper said:
Sorry to kill it but cabon dating is rubbish and is a lie.
free christian teaching . org will tell you a lot more than I can, it is all referenced so none of it is made up

I will give you an overview:

Living penguins were dated at being 8,000 years old.

if you read the article you will see that carbon dating works when animals and plants get their carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which contains both ordinary carbon 12 and radioactive carbon 14. The ratio of C14 to C12 is the same as it is in the atmosphere, but when the plant or animal dies, it is no longer getting new carbon from the atmosphere and the radioactive C14 slowly decay. The longer an organism has been dead, the less C14 there will be. Now while the article explains this, there is a slight problem when it quotes penguins as evidence against carbon dating... The question you have to ask yourself is, do penguin get their carbon from atmospheric carbon? They eat fish. Aquatic plants do take up carbon dioxide when is passed up the food chain, but while some of the CO2 comes from the atmosphere, there is also plenty of CO2 in the seas that is much more ancient sources. You simply can't carbon date aquatic organisms, carbon dating relies on the carbon coming directly from the atmosphere. Watch out for this when you read Creationist sources, they keep quoting carbon dating of penguins, seals and aquatic snails.

One part of a mammoth was dated at being 29,500 years old and another part being 44,000 years old (which one is it).

Apparently these two dates come from different mammoths
check out CD011.2: Dating of Vollosovitch and Dima Mammoths

I have come to the following conclusion:

Carbon Dating we DON'T KNOW the age of, we ASSUME it is the age.

Carbon dating stuff we DO KNOW gets it WRONG!

Carbon dating was also used on dead animals, a freshly killed seal, 1,300 YEARS OLD?!!

Again seals eat fish, they don't get their carbon from eating grass. Science is well aware that levels of C14 in the atmosphere depend on solar activity and has varied in the past, which is why carbon dating is calibrated against sources where the age of the sample is know, such as tree rings and varves.

I think the biggest mistake in the article is the repeated claim and the title of the article: Carbon Dating Only Works if the Bible is Rubbish.

No that is not right. It is just their interpretation of the bible that is wrong. God's word is a lot bigger than our ability to misunderstand what it is telling us and how God speaks to us in his word.

praisejahupeople · May 31, 2009

mpok1519 said:
your link is a lie.

And a blatant tool of deception.

Carbon dating only works if something is 20K+ years old if I'm not mistaken, and the science buffs 'round here will back me up.

Im not supposed to be posting here but what you just said is crazy and defies logic.
The older something is the more accurate the dating procedure will be?
The greater the range,the more accurate your findings will be?
No.Wrong.False.

mpok1519 said:
of course those things carbon dated wrong; the morons trying to carbon date weren't using the correct methods. Of course, they weren't medical students or anything...

C-14 dating is erratic.Theres plenty of info around.You cant give absolute dates using this method.

mpok1519 said:
Carbon dating also is not the only way to date ancient objects. Radiometric dating is another among others. Spetral analysis included.
Stop trying to decieve with this bad info.

Stop trying to decieve by claiming dating methods are absolute and infallible.They arent.

mpok1519 said:
Humans are older than six thousand times three-hundred sixty-five sun-rises.

You havent addressed any problems with this assertion at all.You simply dont see anything contrary to whats been inculcated in your mind.You didnt refute
.1.Actual lack of transitional evidence.In fact i distinctly remember you agreeing with my points regarding neanderthals,and glossing over the rarity of habilis fossils.I have some doozies regarding australopithicus fossils,however ill keep that up my sleeve.
.2.You never addressed the problems of population rate and the claim humanity has been here for 120,000 years.Simply ignored it.Im guessing in your alternate world there were terminator machines roaming the countryside keeping the population low right?
.3.You seem not to understand tht the apparent fossil record and upward progression of monkeyish to man is based on increased cranial capacity when you conceded that it actually has no co-relation.It does not mean that anything is getting smarter.This throws the apparent fossil record into disarray.
.4.You cant read skulls anyway.Unless you have something living that is very similar to base your assumptions off.You ignored this also.
.5.You will ignore these points.

praisejahupeople · May 31, 2009

Assyrian said:
if you read the article you will see that carbon dating works when animals and plants get their carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which contains both ordinary carbon 12 and radioactive carbon 14. The ratio of C14 to C12 is the same as it is in the atmosphere, but when the plant or animal dies, it is no longer getting new carbon from the atmosphere and the radioactive C14 slowly decay. The longer an organism has been dead, the less C14 there will be. Now while the article explains this, there is a slight problem when it quotes penguins as evidence against carbon dating... The question you have to ask yourself is, do penguin get their carbon from atmospheric carbon? They eat fish. Aquatic plants do take up carbon dioxide when is passed up the food chain, but while some of the CO2 comes from the atmosphere, there is also plenty of CO2 in the seas that is much more ancient sources. You simply can't carbon date aquatic organisms, carbon dating relies on the carbon coming directly from the atmosphere. Watch out for this when you read Creationist sources, they keep quoting carbon dating of penguins, seals and aquatic snails.

Clarify for the class please.You are saying that anything that ingests water or is made up of water cant be dated accurately?Anything that eats fish cant be dated accurately?

Assyrian said:
Again seals eat fish, they don't get their carbon from eating grass. Science is well aware that levels of C14 in the atmosphere depend on solar activity and has varied in the past, which is why carbon dating is calibrated against sources where the age of the sample is know, such as tree rings and varves.

Unfortunately tree rings and varves arent exact either.

Assyrian said:
I think the biggest mistake in the article is the repeated claim and the title of the article: Carbon Dating Only Works if the Bible is Rubbish.
No that is not right. It is just their interpretation of the bible that is wrong. God's word is a lot bigger than our ability to misunderstand what it is telling us and how God speaks to us in his word.

Ok.I dont believe in a 6000 year old earth and the bible doesnt actually teach this anyway,but theres no way it teaches that mans older than 6000 odd years.Thats false.

Assyrian · May 31, 2009

genez said:
The Bible does explain, though.

This is going years back..

I was fortunate to hear a retired Harvard Professor exegeting from a Hebrew a passage found in Jeremiah. He showed and explained that a generic Hebrew term was used for describing man at a time that preexisted Adam.

This passage looked back at the destruction of all life on earth. Utterly destroyed. Jeremiah was using prophetic words as a warning to Israel. It was a reminder to the Jews concerning God's power and ability to judge and overwhelmingly destroy.

Much to my surprise. Jeremiah's warning opened with the same Hebrew words used in Genesis 1:2. Words that speak of the earth being in a state of utter destruction and laid waste.. having an eerie sense of emptiness hanging over it. To simply show this passage to you in a generic English translation and not tell you what the Hebrew wording reveals? Would leave you wondering the significance of such a passage. But, in the Hebrew it reveals detail and a thrust that speaks of a complete devastation of the previous creation.

Jeremiah 4:23-27
" I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.
27 This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.

Jeremiah's warning intro begins the same Hebrew words of Genesis 1:2. Why would the Holy Spirit chose words to warn of utter devastation and destruction coming to Israel? If, Genesis 1:2 does not speak of a completely destroyed world?

The Jews understood the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 spoke of judgment and complete ruin. That is why Jeremiah had to finish his warning with an addendum. That God would not completely destroy Israel. For, Genesis 1:2 speaks of a complete and total destruction of the prehistoric earth.

A prehistoric world where the Bible says a humanoid creation was living. Its not until this creation that man was first created in God's image. Hence, why a generic term was used by Jeremiah to descibe what was called 'people.' In the prior creation what was called man most likely had the highest level of intelligence of all life on earth. But, I would guess they must have been quite ugly in comparison. Neanderthals or semi ape-like in appearance. For it says it was not until Genesis 6 that angels first found the women of men attractive. But I digress...

In Christ, GeneZ

The problem is, this is Jeremiah's vision of the coming destruction of Judea by the Babylonians. It certainly refers back to Genesis, to say Jerusalem Judea would be as desolate as the earth was before the God created plants and animals, but he is describing Judea in the future, not how telling us the earth became formless and void in Genesis.

Jer 4:5 Declare in Judah, and proclaim in Jerusalem, and say, "Blow the trumpet through the land; cry aloud and say, 'Assemble, and let us go into the fortified cities!'
6 Raise a standard toward Zion, flee for safety, stay not, for I bring disaster from the north, and great destruction.
...
14 O Jerusalem, wash your heart from evil, that you may be saved. How long shall your wicked thoughts lodge within you?
15 For a voice declares from Dan and proclaims trouble from Mount Ephraim.
16 Warn the nations that he is coming; announce to Jerusalem, "Besiegers come from a distant land; they shout against the cities of Judah.
...
31 For I heard a cry as of a woman in labor, anguish as of one giving birth to her first child, the cry of the daughter of Zion gasping for breath, stretching out her hands, "Woe is me! I am fainting before murderers."

An Arch Angel · May 31, 2009

Assyrian said:
if you read the article you will see that carbon dating works when animals and plants get their carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which contains both ordinary carbon 12 and radioactive carbon 14. The ratio of C14 to C12 is the same as it is in the atmosphere, but when the plant or animal dies, it is no longer getting new carbon from the atmosphere and the radioactive C14 slowly decay. The longer an organism has been dead, the less C14 there will be. Now while the article explains this, there is a slight problem when it quotes penguins as evidence against carbon dating... The question you have to ask yourself is, do penguin get their carbon from atmospheric carbon? They eat fish. Aquatic plants do take up carbon dioxide when is passed up the food chain, but while some of the CO2 comes from the atmosphere, there is also plenty of CO2 in the seas that is much more ancient sources. You simply can't carbon date aquatic organisms, carbon dating relies on the carbon coming directly from the atmosphere. Watch out for this when you read Creationist sources, they keep quoting carbon dating of penguins, seals and aquatic snails.

Apparently these two dates come from different mammoths
check out CD011.2: Dating of Vollosovitch and Dima Mammoths

Again seals eat fish, they don't get their carbon from eating grass. Science is well aware that levels of C14 in the atmosphere depend on solar activity and has varied in the past, which is why carbon dating is calibrated against sources where the age of the sample is know, such as tree rings and varves.

I think the biggest mistake in the article is the repeated claim and the title of the article: Carbon Dating Only Works if the Bible is Rubbish.

No that is not right. It is just their interpretation of the bible that is wrong. God's word is a lot bigger than our ability to misunderstand what it is telling us and how God speaks to us in his word.

You do not agree with the carbon dating piece of evidence.

What about deposition rates of sediment that leads to some types of rock strata? Lets just start with sandstone to keep it easy, this piece of evidence puts the age well past 6000 years.

GenemZ · May 31, 2009

mpok1519 said:
nephilem, etc...

but the Bible is still just an old explanation of how everything happened. but science explains these things as well.

God's image = a reflection of the entire universe

previous creation, now creation, new creation....gold jacket, green jacket...

such as why the Bible explain these things the same way as other creeds; a synchronism exists within all religions.
Details, all in the details. People become divided...but its still synchronism.

No, not Nephilim. That came much later in this creation, in Genesis 6!

You are really in NO POSITION to evaluate the Bible. You understand nothing, and come here in pretense
of having it all figured out. All you want to do is push evolution in Christians clothing. You HAVE SHOWN
YOU know nothing.
You may quote a little about the love of Christ, but even a thief seeks mercy when he's been caught.

You speak like an unbeliever who claims to be a believer.

Who should I believe?

"Its just another religion." "OH! But I am a Christian!"

You use the same arguments that atheists use all the time to show why Christianity is vanity,
yet claim to know the Bible better than those who see right through you. If you only truly knew
what you were dealing with, you would simply say that you like certain things about Christianity,
and then give your secularized version on creation called "evolution got us here."

TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE? YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO BE DISPROVED ABOUT WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE. HERE'S WHY!

An Arch Angel · May 31, 2009

genez said:
No, not Nephilim. That came much later in this creation, in Genesis 6!

You are really in NO POSITION to evaluate the Bible. You understand nothing, and come here in pretense
of having it all figured out. All you want to do is push evolution in Christians clothing. You HAVE SHOWN
YOU know nothing.
You may quote a little about the love of Christ, but even a thief seeks mercy when he's been caught.

You speak like an unbeliever who claims to be a believer.

Who should I believe?

"Its just another religion." "OH! But I am a Christian!"

You use the same arguments that atheists use all the time to show why Christianity is vanity,
yet claim to know the Bible better than those who see right through you. If you only truly knew
what you were dealing with, you would simply say that you like certain things about Christianity,
and then give your secularized version on creation called "evolution got us here."

TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE? YOU CAN NOT DISPROVE WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE. HERE'S WHY!

You have to let go of the notion that religion is GOD. Religion is a set of rituals that can help us, help each other, on the path to understanding god. Religions are of man’s construct and have all the frailties that go along with any group of people.

Genz … what do you think religions are?

Could you please stop with the huge font sized post? If you have free will, you will chose to be nice.

mpok1519 · May 31, 2009

genez said:
No, not Nephilim. That came much later in this creation, in Genesis 6!

You are really in NO POSITION to evaluate the Bible. You understand nothing, and come here in pretense
of having it all figured out. All you want to do is push evolution in Christians clothing. You HAVE SHOWN
YOU know nothing.
You may quote a little about the love of Christ, but even a thief seeks mercy when he's been caught.

You speak like an unbeliever who claims to be a believer.

Who should I believe?

"Its just another religion." "OH! But I am a Christian!"

You use the same arguments that atheists use all the time to show why Christianity is vanity,
yet claim to know the Bible better than those who see right through you. If you only truly knew
what you were dealing with, you would simply say that you like certain things about Christianity,
and then give your secularized version on creation called "evolution got us here."

TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE? YOU CAN NOT DISPROVE WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE. HERE'S WHY!

You can read and interpret something a thousand times a milion different ways; one or two or three differet interpretations you've shown me do not make a convincing argument.

Relax pal.

Don't get so defensive. Life's short; y'don't wanna get too stressed over triviality's bosom.

You've just turned this thread on an attack on me when I am discussing Science; not one of the myriad of interpretations of the Bibe.

And count down for more scripture from in five...four...three...two...

And then I'll have to talk about science.

Stop being closed minded that other religions deserve respect too y'know. And appreciation.

mpok1519 · May 31, 2009

praisejahupeople said:
Im not supposed to be posting here but what you just said is crazy and defies logic.
The older something is the more accurate the dating procedure will be?
The greater the range,the more accurate your findings will be?
No.Wrong.False.

Uh, excuse me while I show others that you havnt done field work with carbon dating; I have. I know what I am talking about.

C-14 dating is erratic.Theres plenty of info around.You cant give absolute dates using this method.

No, they are not erratic; using the right methodology, you will get the same accuracy and precision with your results using carbon dating. However, most scientists use other methods such as radiometric dating among ohter techniques. I just explained this while you were busy thinking of a way to show the world you have no idea about dating techniques and methodology.

Stop trying to decieve by claiming dating methods are absolute and infallible.They arent.

they're accurate and precise; not exact and can pin-point the hour and second something died, was born, etc. No, it can give you a relatively accurate reading if its old enough, AND if you do it right.

[quoteYou havent addressed any problems with this assertion at all.You simply dont see anything contrary to whats been inculcated in your mind.[/quote]

of course I havnt listene dor refutedany of your ridiculous claims; you are not a scientist. You have no BA, MD or PHD or any time studying in any field of science; why would anyone listen to you?

You didnt refute
.1.Actual lack of transitional evidence.In fact i distinctly remember you agreeing with my points regarding neanderthals,and glossing over the rarity of habilis fossils.I have some doozies regarding australopithicus fossils,however ill keep that up my sleeve.

???? Those are all transitional fossils, all ancestors of man; you're getting cuter by the minute.

.2.You never addressed the problems of population rate and the claim humanity has been here for 120,000 years.Simply ignored it.Im guessing in your alternate world there were terminator machines roaming the countryside keeping the population low right?

No, but things like the plague had killed over a third of Europe; natural things like disease. BUT, back then, it was evil spirits and demons attacking you because of your sins...not flea-ridden rats...Why is there a problem with population if people have been around for 120,000 years? There are no problems with population rate and the amount of time people have been here. You assume way too much.

and upward progression of monkeyish to man is based on increased cranial capacity when you conceded that it actually has no co-relation.It does not mean that anything is getting smarter.This throws the apparent fossil record into disarray.

? How so? Explain what you mean. I assume you've had the right amount of physical anthropoloy classes to explain this thouroughly. Blue whales have a braint he size of a car; do they use tools, though? No. Does this mean they're not smart? No. By what measure of cranial capacity and intellegence quotient are we comparing? and how? This is not an argument; its fluff from people who don't know about biology. Agan, your assumptions arent accurate ones.

.4.You cant read skulls anyway.Unless you have something living that is very similar to base your assumptions off.You ignored this also.
.5.You will ignore these points.

because theyre not very good points. Theyre innaccurate assumptions.

Stop trying to decieve people.

Yknow what they say about the devil and deception....

mpok1519 · May 31, 2009

fwwid said:
Hahaha, you may not have all your facts straight, (i.e. mammoth evolution or carbon dating performance range) but I have to hand it to you - you're passionate about what you know to be true.

Well, there are penguins 8K years old; the models I've seen of them are kinda cute.

Mammoths have been painted on cave walls; this is proof mammoths and man were around atthe same time.

And the weird thing is, we have art older than six thousand years ago; but, its as if these people were supposed to have existed after Adam and Eve, AFTER the advent of language (king James English lol ) and writing.

I have most of my facts right; I'm probably oneof the only people here on this thread that have taken archaeology courses, anthroology courses, biology, etc....I do know what I am talking about, and theres plenty of evidence to back it up.

People on these forums, however, claim that university teaching is a lie, and a big scam; well, if it is, at least I'll be making more money than someone with a GED from my big scamalicious college learning all kinda sinful lies and misinformation.

How long has man been created.

Ryan the Ninja Goalkeeper!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Junior Member

Junior Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency