Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Radoimetric dating problems: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
Okay, some will lead you down the wrong path, for they have been led astray.I don't know about Creationists, but when I want someone to discuss radiometric dating, I check with a physicist or a geologist, not a computer science guy.
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/
Plaisted's comments debunked here:
http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/plaisted_not_amusing_henke.htm
Yes it does, and it debunks yours, now doesn't it.
I'm sorry to inform you of this, but your hyperbolic and simultaneously vacuous rhetoric is not actually addressing the evidence.
Again, there is no proof in science. If you wish to be taken seriously, learn to use the proper verbiage. As far as evidence of common ancestry, there is a bunch of it. You might not be aware of it. You might not understand it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
You sure do make a lot of assertions on a topic you know anything about.
Hundreds of papers on arachinid evolution.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=arachnid++evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,31&as_sdtp=
Thousands of papers on spider evolution.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=spider+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31
And a spider-like fossil that's not quite a spider yet.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/300-million-year-old-fossil-reveals-evolution-of-spiders/
>> the "almost spider" lacks only the spinnerets that spiders use to turn silk into webs."It's not quite a spider, but it's very close to being one," said study researcher Russell Garwood, a paleontologist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. <<
You know I looked at those links and found nothing that answered my question. There is no evidence there that I saw or read that says anything about what a spider was before it was a spider. In fact a number of them admitted they no little about the evolution of spiders and they admit much is speculation. And the almost a spider isn't a spider. It lists several differences. Its a very interesting creature but doesn't prove anything. Unless you suppose or assume. Which also is admitted in papers.
More evidence that evolution is nothing but a bunch of assuptions.
You mean like scientific findings?
You know I looked at those links and found nothing that answered my question. There is no evidence there that I saw or read that says anything about what a spider was before it was a spider. In fact a number of them admitted they no little about the evolution of spiders and they admit much is speculation. And the almost a spider isn't a spider. It lists several differences. Its a very interesting creature but doesn't prove anything. Unless you suppose or assume. Which also is admitted in papers.
More evidence that evolution is nothing but a bunch of assuptions.
"Much as we might like to avoid it, all scientific tests involve making assumptions": http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_13
Yeah, they want us to believe that their assumptions are really facts! Have a blessed day, brother.
According to the present hypothesis based on a theoretical idea that the fossils of primates, have a common ancestry with man. There is no clear evidence that we can make this
association. That the primate fossils in the Rift valley, indicate that homo sapiens originated in Africa.
I reject this speculative hypothesis.
May I ask how you know when the advent of the first cities occurred?
Scientists do this all the time, feel free to propose any hypothesis you wish.
I have hard evidence, that the first human settlements occurred in the Middle East. You do not have hard evidence of human settlements in Africa before my evidence, just speculation."
You keep using words that are not consistent with the discussion. "Settlements" is a very vague term. Are you referring to encampments, villages, proto-cities or what? We have plenty of evidence that humans and earlier species of Homo were active in Africa long before we find evidence of them outside of Africa. Homo erectus was amazingly successful and during it's 2 million year run, migrated as far as Indonesia and China. But since we're talking Homo sapiens, you need to be more specific as to what you mean by "settlements". The Meadowcraft Rockshelter was built 16,000 years ago in Pennsylvania. The cave paintings on Lasceaux, France are 17-20,000 years old.
cont. -
No analysis on earth can state that Africa was the geographical origin of mankind,
That is impossible. It is usually assumed that there is little natural selection for oragainst a particular haplotype mutation which has survived to the present day. (wikipedia)
Did you spot one of the assumptions, UScognito?
Haplogroups pertain to a single line of descent, usually dating back thousands of years (wikipedia)
We are only going back thousands of years.
Monkeys use stone tools.
Incorrect dates, I reject this dating methodology.
Since I have no date for the origin of mankind, tell me how any date could predate
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof. Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof. Since evolution can't be proven then its not,a fact.
Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA. Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close. Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof. But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof.
Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof. Since evolution can't be proven then its not,a fact.
Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA.
Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close.
Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof. But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof. Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof.
Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA
Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close
Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof
But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.
Yes yes I know that evolution can't be proven because it doesn't deal in proof. Then please stop using the word fact. A fact is a proof. Since evolution can't be proven then its not,a fact.
Here's at fact. Humans and monkeys so not have the same DNA. Another fact Is the ERV insertion is relatively close. Last fact, it still isn't a fact that makes us have a common ancestor because if it did that would be proof. But it can't be proven Therefore it is,not a fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?