Why Evolution is True

[dad]

I know because I can think, what would you do if it got so cold you could not function properly? would you move?

Now you are playing a what if game. If I lived in the former state and got cold, I might just rapidly evolve ways to stay warmer!

 

[Only Me]

When is the seven year tribulation expected to start or is that like the rapture? not known.

Whenever it is, right after the seven years..bang, we are right in the millennium.

You're rambling.

 

[dad]

You're rambling.

I was actually splainin stuff. If you need someone to elucidate for you let us know.

 

[Only Me]

I was actually splainin stuff. If you need someone to elucidate for you let us know.

Goodbye, Take care.

 

[Loudmouth]

How can we look at the basis when you refuse to post it?

Why should I post evidence that you will just ignore?

You are a waste of time.

 

[Loudmouth]

so are you saying that the pyramids cannot be dated using carbon 14?

The pyramids themselves? No. They are dating organic matter from tombs and bakeries, not the rocks that make up the pyramid themselves.

 

[Loudmouth]

the reason why evolution is (not) true is because it lacks evidence on a macrolevel,

You have already been given genetic evidence in the form of ERV's, and fossil evidence in the form of transitional fossils. All of this evidence is repeatable and observable in keeping with the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

macro evolution. A transition fossil showing the ancestry between to genra of creature.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

In other words, define "transitional fossil" in a practical sense.

I dare you to provide one, unless your too scared to be publically put in your place.

I dare you to define "transitional fossil", unless you are too scared to be publically put in your place.

 

[Loudmouth]

do you have a transition you would like to submit for scrutiny?

What criteria do you use to scrutinize fossils?

 

[Loudmouth]

radio carbon dating is better than some of the others but it still has it's flukes. For example they dated the top of the pyramid older than the bottom of the pyramids in egypt. Unless you have a habit to build pyramids from the top down I would think they got it wrong. carbon 14 dating is innacurate in that it assumed the recay and formation rates both are uniformly the same. but if simply google it you will see they are not alwys uniform.

Scientific references, please.

 

[Dizredux]

so are you saying that the pyramids cannot be dated using carbon 14?

so then by the Archaeological Institute of America would thus be wrong...

Dating the Pyramids - Archaeology Magazine Archive

I think you should email them before proceeding with this conversation.

let me know how it goes.

One of the problems I have had with you in the past is that you don't read the papers and articles you cite.

This one *clearly* says that they were dating wood, reeds, straw and charcoal among other things but not rocks or stones. You never date rocks or stones with C-14 dating.

Do you really think you are helping Christianity by this kind of foolishness?

Dizredux

 

[AirPo]

Why make stuff up? Moved south as it got colder? How do you know? How long did it take to adapt to the cold? Like you know!?

Why make stuff up? Because it's the HI theory. It's easy to make stuff up!

 

[Naturalism]

Scientific references, please.

It should easy to see why his argument is complete crap.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7417298-78/#post66037592

For example they dated the top of the pyramid older than the bottom of the pyramids in egypt.

I too would like to see the scientific articles and tests supporting this, but for arguments sake lets say it's right. Does it invalidate Radiometric or Carbon Dating, at least for inorganic material like sandstone or limestone?

No. Why not? Well, you see when you're building out a big structure, like a pyramid, the people taking the deposits from the query almost certainly had no idea of how old any of it was nor which layers were older or younger. They are removing the parts as needed from the query, getting them in place to be stacked/arranged into the structure they want and there is nothing preventing them from even putting older rocks on top of younger ones.

carbon 14 dating is innacurate in that it assumed the recay and formation rates both are uniformly the same. but if simply google it you will see they are not alwys uniform.

I would like to see a science source for this as well, but lets again lets look at the points made. Carbon 14 is inaccurate, presumably for dating rocks like the pyramids as this person states. Is he right?

No. Why not? Well, you see, rocks are inorganic and typically to use a method like C-14 (Carbon Dating) it requires organic material as they typically have sufficient levels of carbon that can be tested.

But why not use this for dating rocks? Rocks make poor C14 samples largely because they do not have much free atmospheric gases which is the source of C14.

Organic material however, plants and animals, do include C14, as a part of their normal respiration & even consumption of other organisms which consume a lot of carbon (reservoir effect). Creationists in the past have used, sorry quote mined, articles in which they show the reservoir effect throwing off the expected ages for specific marine life but they always ignore the cause being the reservoir effect which is something that is now accounted for when doing studies on marine life.

Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Effect | Beta Analytic

 

[lasthero]

I'm curious why anyone would bother dating the rocks on a pyramid, anyway. What could you possibly learn of any real interest from that?

 

[Naturalism]

I know because I can think, what would you do if it got so cold you could not function properly? would you move?
Perhaps not, I expect you would just stay there and die.

Yup.

 

[Naturalism]

Now you are playing a what if game. If I lived in the former state and got cold, I might just rapidly evolve ways to stay warmer!

Right, right. She's playing the what if game while you're playing the ultimate what if game asserting a different state (whatever that is as you don't define it with any details or any evidence).

 

[bhsmte]

One of the problems I have had with you in the past is that you don't read the papers and articles you cite.

This one *clearly* says that they were dating wood, reeds, straw and charcoal among other things but not rocks or stones. You never date rocks or stones with C-14 dating.

Do you really think you are helping Christianity by this kind of foolishness?

Dizredux

In observing Grady, it would appear, his only concern is protecting his own tightly held belief and will go to great lengths to do so.

Quite typical of biblical creationists.

 

[Naturalism]

I was actually splainin stuff. If you need someone to elucidate for you let us know.

splainin stuff - asserting a different past with no evidence at all to explain the alternative and otherwise very reasonable answer that when it gets colder year after year organisms migrate to warmer climates.

 

[dad]

Right, right. She's playing the what if game while you're playing the ultimate what if game asserting a different state (whatever that is as you don't define it with any details or any evidence).

So you admit having no knowledge or fact regarding what laws existed in the past, and that you play a what it game I take it. OK.

 

[dad]

splainin stuff - asserting a different past with no evidence at all to explain the alternative and otherwise very reasonable answer that when it gets colder year after year organisms migrate to warmer climates.

That is not any answer it is speculation unless you accompany this with evidence. Since the bible seems to indicate that changes to life was very fast, I see no reason to accept by blind faith your assertions.