Remarkably well-preserved 18,000-year-old puppy found frozen in Siberia

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.......

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If radiocarbon dating has been shown to make a 500 year old sample seem to be 50 million years old, something's up.

Yep. Has that ever happened?

Thus, don't trust faulty machines or faulty methods , especially used with extreme bias and financial incentive to make things up.

Shouldn't we rather be wary of people making unsupportable claims that there's an insurmountable problem, especially when there is an extreme religious bias and need to justify nonsensical assertions?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

.......

 

[Larniavc]

It's reasons like that, among others, I can't trust some of you enough to carry on a debate? See, there has to be at least something that resembles honesty here in order for one party to take the other seriousely.

So if someone posits something you can’t imagine you think they are being dishonest?

If that’s true I think it would explain the confusion I’m sure I’m not alone in when reading your posts.

 

[Larniavc]

If radiocarbon dating has been shown to make a 500 year old sample seem to be 50 million years old, something's up.

Carbon dating would not return a date of 50 million years without there being some weird error due to the half life of C14.

Don’t you even know that yet?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hasn't that always been highly controversial in that is can cause such extreme changes in the wild as an ameba to a man?

Oh, it was controversial in the early to mid-19th century, but the mutability of species and common ancestry became entirely non-controversial within the sciences about 150 years ago. The discovery of DNA and genetics only helped confirm and expand our understanding of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Sure it's controversial, it's as controversial as evolution itself that a higher form of life like man came for a single celled animal in that way, yet you have the nerve to say it's not the slightest bit controversial??

As I said, the only people who find the process of evolution and the idea of the evolution of life from single-celled organisms controversial are those with religious objections to it.

Otherwise, it's not. Why, were you expecting something else?

See, there has to be at least something that resembles honesty here in order for one party to take the other seriousely.

No kidding.

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[pitabread]

Oh, it was controversial in the early to mid-19th century, but the mutability of species and common ancestry became entirely non-controversial within the sciences about 150 years ago.

With the exception of the lunatic fringe, but that's par for the course with everything.

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The truth is hidden from professionals (educated ones in any field).

 

[Speedwell]

hgb


I never thought they were different.

Sure it's controversial, it's as controversial as evolution itself that a higher form of life like man came for a single celled animal in that way, yet you have the nerve to say it's not the slightest bit controversial??

It's reasons like that, among others, I can't trust some of you enough to carry on a debate? See, there has to be at least something that resembles honesty here in order for one party to take the other seriousely.

It's not the slightest bit controversial except in certain conservative religious circles, and even there not for scientific reasons.

Pitabread's statement is honest and correct.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's not the slightest bit controversial except in certain conservative religious circles, and even there not for scientific reasons.

Pitabread's statement is honest and correct.

ALL statements are subject to being tested, tested, and tested. Few ever are proven honest, let alone correct, in any thread.

 

[Speedwell]

ALL statements are subject to being tested, tested, and tested. Few ever are proven honest, let alone correct, in any thread.

This one is.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This one is.

Subject to testing.
Maybe is.
Maybe is not.

 

[pitabread]

It's not the slightest bit controversial except in certain conservative religious circles, and even there not for scientific reasons.

Pitabread's statement is honest and correct.

I have to wonder how much cultural perception is playing a role in this.

I grew up thinking that the evolution of living organisms over billions of years was perfectly normal. I didn't even know what a "creationist" was until my early 20's when I first encountered them online. Imagine my surprise to learn that almost half of the population in the U.S. actually rejected the idea that life evolved over time.

Conversely, if one was raised in an environment when creationism was preached as the norm, I could see how they might develop a perception that evolution is this wildly controversial idea. Especially given a lot of the propaganda that comes out of professional creationist organizations and attempts to tie evolution to atheism, genocide, conspiracy, New World Order, and so on.

I imagine that anyone raised with that type of information would have a wildly different view of how evolution is perceived. It must be equally as shocking for them to learn that there are whole swaths of the population that find the idea of biological evolution to not only be normal, but even logically and philosophically sound.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Please explain "change the gene frequencies"

The very act of you asking for this proves that you are not here honestly. This is probably one of the most basic and fundamental concepts/definitions in evolution. Just casually reading in this sub alone over a relatively short period of time you would have come across half a dozen explanations and examples of this. The fact that you've been here for years, maligning this science and still ask this question is explicitly telling as to your dishonesty and agenda.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

ALL statements are subject to being tested, tested, and tested. Few ever are proven honest, let alone correct, in any thread.

Riiight... So who tests ALL statements in any thread three times for provable honesty and correctness and makes the results available to you?

 

[Lord Give Me A Sign]

18,000 years? You dont say?

*Grabs popcorn for next old earth vs young earth debate*

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

18,000 years? You dont say?

*Grabs popcorn for next old earth vs young earth debate*

Maybe a thousand years is a day? so 18,000 days ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Riiight... So who tests ALL statements in any thread three times for provable honesty and correctness and makes the results available to you?

(surprising answer even to me) Perhaps YOU can tell me who tests everything before accepting it ?