what i ment by the pictures is that humans and dinosaurs lived together and they were actually pretty easy to find on google. humans and dinosaurs weren't soposed to live together. but really, the oldest fossils of anything are just as they are today.That's my point. but im happy to see that your opening your mind up : )Thank you.is that what you say when i have proven evolution wrong?(for now). lol, anyway gratz for gettin the highest firebolt hit.
Actually, I was implying that your pictures did not really clarify any point. I went further than the pictures on your post and the websites were um... interesting. Many of them seemed like you actually had to try hard to find them as if they were hidden alien blogs, conspiracy sites, etc.
Another point, the larger one actually, is that no matter how much evidence of fossils that show changes, genetics, radioactive dating, etc; no one will get anywhere. Eventually, when there is such overwhelming evidence, such as proving the earth is round by taking a picture from space, the belief would just "evolve" (lol) to a point where: Oh! We now understand that so and so superior being actually designed it that way and we are now ready to accept this idea since God is the cause of it.
Sorry if that seems to be mocking or offensive but that pattern exists throughout history. It repeats over and over again with no end, just like this topic now.
Re: A discussion about religion
#272Humans and dinosaurs did not live together in any way shape or form. Human ancestor species appeared thousands of years ago. Not millions
pigman, with the fury of the pigs and the mind of a man
level 210+ rogue
Morrigan
Avalon
put your pants on, we're going out
level 210+ rogue
Morrigan
Avalon
put your pants on, we're going out
Re: A discussion about religion
#273I have previously mentioned that carbon dating and radiometric dating are flawed and I will now go into more details but I do not know the exact ages and levels of knowledge of the people reading so i will explain it in very basic terms, you may already know some or all of what i am about to say.
Carbon dating is a dating method that measures the amount of carbon-14 (a radioactive isotope of carbon) that is remaining in something to determine its age. Because carbon-14 is radio active it goes through a decaying process that changes it into another substance. scientists use the measured rate of carbon decay to determine how old something is by measuring the amount of carbon-14 that has yet to go through decay. A common illustration is an hourglass: the sand pours through to the bottom at a certain rate (1 hour from start to finish). From scientists calculations carbon 14 decays at a certain rate as well. Carbon-14 can only be used to date things that were once alive.
The first problem with carbon dating is the starting state. We were not present to measure the amount of carbon-14 present when the organism died and it is therefore impossible to determine what the starting state was, it must be assumed. Assumption is vulnerable to bias. To illustrate this flaw we can use an example of a horse race. I do not look at what time the race starts but I know Lightning finished at 4:23 and 45 seconds exactly so I give you this information and ask you how long he took, but you have no knowledge of the race other than what I just told you,how do you answer my question? You cannot because you do not have enough information, the same goes for carbon dating.
Another issue with carbon dating is that the carbon-14 in the organism can be contaminated by carbon from outside which also changes the date that would be read.
It is also assumed that the present conditions on the earth that cause carbon-14 to decay at current rate were the same throughout its span of decay, which could very easily not be the case, we don't have enough information because we were not there to measure it.
Carbon-14 has a rapid decay rate and can only be used to date thing in the thousands of years range, and even that range is flawed.
Radiometric dating is the dating method used to determine the dates of rocks and unlike carbon-14 dating, it is used to date things in the millions and even billions of years range. Radiometric dating measures the amounts of several naturally occurring unstable elements in rocks and uses their rates of decay (again decay means that they change into another element. Some of the main issues with radiometric dating are the same as carbon dating: we do not know the state of the rock at time zero when it was formed, we do not know if changing conditions on the planet would have caused the rate of decay to change or not, we do not know whether the rock was contaminated at any time during its history thereby changing the results.
When scientists use radiometric dating they rarely use more than one of the different unstable elements per rock to determine its age because it is assumed that the method is reliable and using more than one is a waste of money and effort. However, when more than one test has been used the different elements from the different test have given drastically different results. A possible explanation for this is that conditions in the past caused the elements to decay at different rates at different times.
The fossil record is very faulty as fossils constantly show up in the wrong supposed eras. The succession of fossils is very limited and only a minority are found only in the era attributed to them.
Macro evolution is only one way to explain fossil records and geographic distribution of species, much like it is only one way to explain similar DNA. This can be illustrated (I like illustrations if you haven't noticed by now) by a room with myself, yourself and ten others. I leave my wallet on the table and leave the room, when I come back it is, no surprise, not where I left it. I immediately blame you because you were in the room when it went missing. Of course, that is jumping to a conclusion as there were ten others in the room. You may be a suspect, but that does not prove it was you.
Carbon dating is a dating method that measures the amount of carbon-14 (a radioactive isotope of carbon) that is remaining in something to determine its age. Because carbon-14 is radio active it goes through a decaying process that changes it into another substance. scientists use the measured rate of carbon decay to determine how old something is by measuring the amount of carbon-14 that has yet to go through decay. A common illustration is an hourglass: the sand pours through to the bottom at a certain rate (1 hour from start to finish). From scientists calculations carbon 14 decays at a certain rate as well. Carbon-14 can only be used to date things that were once alive.
The first problem with carbon dating is the starting state. We were not present to measure the amount of carbon-14 present when the organism died and it is therefore impossible to determine what the starting state was, it must be assumed. Assumption is vulnerable to bias. To illustrate this flaw we can use an example of a horse race. I do not look at what time the race starts but I know Lightning finished at 4:23 and 45 seconds exactly so I give you this information and ask you how long he took, but you have no knowledge of the race other than what I just told you,how do you answer my question? You cannot because you do not have enough information, the same goes for carbon dating.
Another issue with carbon dating is that the carbon-14 in the organism can be contaminated by carbon from outside which also changes the date that would be read.
It is also assumed that the present conditions on the earth that cause carbon-14 to decay at current rate were the same throughout its span of decay, which could very easily not be the case, we don't have enough information because we were not there to measure it.
Carbon-14 has a rapid decay rate and can only be used to date thing in the thousands of years range, and even that range is flawed.
Radiometric dating is the dating method used to determine the dates of rocks and unlike carbon-14 dating, it is used to date things in the millions and even billions of years range. Radiometric dating measures the amounts of several naturally occurring unstable elements in rocks and uses their rates of decay (again decay means that they change into another element. Some of the main issues with radiometric dating are the same as carbon dating: we do not know the state of the rock at time zero when it was formed, we do not know if changing conditions on the planet would have caused the rate of decay to change or not, we do not know whether the rock was contaminated at any time during its history thereby changing the results.
When scientists use radiometric dating they rarely use more than one of the different unstable elements per rock to determine its age because it is assumed that the method is reliable and using more than one is a waste of money and effort. However, when more than one test has been used the different elements from the different test have given drastically different results. A possible explanation for this is that conditions in the past caused the elements to decay at different rates at different times.
The fossil record is very faulty as fossils constantly show up in the wrong supposed eras. The succession of fossils is very limited and only a minority are found only in the era attributed to them.
Macro evolution is only one way to explain fossil records and geographic distribution of species, much like it is only one way to explain similar DNA. This can be illustrated (I like illustrations if you haven't noticed by now) by a room with myself, yourself and ten others. I leave my wallet on the table and leave the room, when I come back it is, no surprise, not where I left it. I immediately blame you because you were in the room when it went missing. Of course, that is jumping to a conclusion as there were ten others in the room. You may be a suspect, but that does not prove it was you.
Re: A discussion about religion
#274Well, that's not everything you need to know about carbon dating. Assumptions are not just random and without evidence.
I recommend anyone who truly would like to determine the validity of carbon dating to take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
http://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm
Dinosaurs and humans living together...? I mean, there is a possibility of course in anything but... Dinosaurs would have driven us extinct. Also, whatever killed them off would have surely killed us off as well.
The fossil record is not perfect but "very faulty" is not true at all. There is much information to gain when analysing different processes that occur to fossils such as permineralization, authigenic mineralisation, adpression, bioimmuration, etc. Different eras and locations just expand the possibilities of different species and conditions. Again, more info found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
Wiki articles are not that bad...
I recommend anyone who truly would like to determine the validity of carbon dating to take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
http://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm
Dinosaurs and humans living together...? I mean, there is a possibility of course in anything but... Dinosaurs would have driven us extinct. Also, whatever killed them off would have surely killed us off as well.
The fossil record is not perfect but "very faulty" is not true at all. There is much information to gain when analysing different processes that occur to fossils such as permineralization, authigenic mineralisation, adpression, bioimmuration, etc. Different eras and locations just expand the possibilities of different species and conditions. Again, more info found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
Wiki articles are not that bad...
Re: A discussion about religion
#275Can explain explain to me how disproving evolution automatically proves the existence of a deity? I never understood that.
Re: A discussion about religion
#276lol did u see my earlier post? read it.Humans and dinosaurs did not live together in any way shape or form. Human ancestor species appeared thousands of years ago. Not millions
Re: A discussion about religion
#277Marco Polo wrote in his diary about giant creatures matching dinosaurs. They had this trap that slices its guts open, but it didnt always work. also, african tribes were shown pictures of different dinosaurs, including the brontosaurus triceratops and others and they immediately recognized them as a living creature. they described the brontosaurus as a nocturnal plant- eating animal but was very protective. and there are many different stories of people seeing dinosaurs. and maybe, the humans hunted all the dinosaurs and thats why there aren't alive or not many. But look it up, it is possible that dinosaurs still exist.Well, that's not everything you need to know about carbon dating. Assumptions are not just random and without evidence.
I recommend anyone who truly would like to determine the validity of carbon dating to take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
http://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm
Dinosaurs and humans living together...? I mean, there is a possibility of course in anything but... Dinosaurs would have driven us extinct. Also, whatever killed them off would have surely killed us off as well.
The fossil record is not perfect but "very faulty" is not true at all. There is much information to gain when analysing different processes that occur to fossils such as permineralization, authigenic mineralisation, adpression, bioimmuration, etc. Different eras and locations just expand the possibilities of different species and conditions. Again, more info found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
Wiki articles are not that bad...
Re: A discussion about religion
#278It doesnt and vice versaCan explain explain to me how disproving evolution automatically proves the existence of a deity? I never understood that.
maulz - warrior - level 195 - belenus - iPhone 7
Re: A discussion about religion
#279Yeah I agree. But you can't exactly disprove a deity because it's a matter of faith and belief. You can argue against evolution though.It doesnt and vice versaCan explain explain to me how disproving evolution automatically proves the existence of a deity? I never understood that.
Re: A discussion about religion
#280That is another thing that tends to decrease the possibility in a deity, in my opinion. It is completely faith. A story that has been passed on, translated, and distored so many times that it just has so many contradictions and exaggerations. A story that was told to a child in order to reduce the fear of phenomenon that were unknown.Yeah I agree. But you can't exactly disprove a deity because it's a matter of faith and belief. You can argue against evolution though.It doesnt and vice versaCan explain explain to me how disproving evolution automatically proves the existence of a deity? I never understood that.