User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 10:44:53 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If one was found, it wouldn't be missing any more, would it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And still no "missing link" after all this time ? If one was found, it wouldn't be missing any more, would it? No, just more bull-shit |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 10:44:57 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Was it carbon-dated? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: wrong Proof?  Was it carbon-dated? NO. I don't understand how so many people could be so ignorant about how fossils are dated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 10:45:56 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NO. I don't understand how so many people could be so ignorant about how fossils are dated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
wrong Proof? Was it carbon-dated? NO. I don't understand how so many people could be so ignorant about how fossils are dated. Well, fill us in Rembrandt? Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 10:47:49 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, fill us in Rembrandt? Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: wrong Proof? Was it carbon-dated? NO. I don't understand how so many people could be so ignorant about how fossils are dated. Well, fill us in Rembrandt? Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here? Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 10:49:12 AM EST
[#5]
You bullshit..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 10:49:39 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here?
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 10:50:55 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here?
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 10:56:06 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got to love all the people in this thread coming in to talk about something they don't believe in. I've been told by Christians that the only people who do this kind of thing are pathetic losers who hate the topic of the OP because they know it is the truth and can't stand it fact that it conflicts with what they want to pretend is true about the universe. I mean, this is Christian logic being applied to Christians, so it must be 100% accurate. I believe you're forgetting the "I'm rubber, you're glue" clause in that logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:01:03 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here?
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. First, I'd let it see that I was humerus. Then ask it to lunch, maybe drinks after work. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:03:30 AM EST
[#10]
Humans have been around longer than we think.
I am also still of the theory that there were advanced civilizations that have vanished before our current modern civilization rose up also, so, I may not be the best person to debate this. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:05:52 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, they've gotten really good at dating, what month was it placed there again? For real though, they claim its 3,200,000 years old. Is that give or take 50,000 years? 50,000 years is a long time and if they can't account for that amount of time how am I supposed to believe this number is accurate? That jawbone could be anyone's. Who knows if you actually believe this, but just for the sake of argument... Imagine driving from DC to Chatanooga TN. The trip takes nine hours. Imagine that entire trip represents 3.2 million years. 50,000 years is 64 feet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:07:17 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was placed there to trick us all. Along with dinosaur fossils, the Grand Canyon and a whole litany of "faith testers". I have "faith" in provable, testable, repeatable facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:09:05 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I garuntee you it will eventually come out mostly modern humans are atleast 1.5 million years old and that we didnt come from the monkeys they think we came from. Not saying we didnt come from monkeys. I am saying mostly modern humans go back much farther then they think they do. there is just no way that all of the variations of modern humans happened in 200K years. Aint happening. Nope. Darwin admitted his theories on macro evolution were not possible. He clearly refuted his won theory than man evolved from anything but man. Read Darwin's Doubt. Great book. Still a brilliant man. Darwin's theories on micro evolution were quite correct, and can be seen every day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:09:07 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NO. I don't understand how so many people could be so ignorant about how fossils are dated. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: wrong Proof? Was it carbon-dated? NO. I don't understand how so many people could be so ignorant about how fossils are dated. Keep an eye on SAE's posts for a truly remarkable window in to the realm of the stunningly absurd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:09:43 AM EST
[#15]
Meh, the Wooly Rino find was way cooler. No dubious man/ape claims trolling for grant money either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:09:55 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here? Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. Isn't it about time you sought your own education? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:19:13 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep an eye on SAE's posts for a truly remarkable window in to the realm of the stunningly absurd. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
wrong Proof? Was it carbon-dated? NO. I don't understand how so many people could be so ignorant about how fossils are dated. Keep an eye on SAE's posts for a truly remarkable window in to the realm of the stunningly absurd. I'd pay money for a feature that allowed us to individually tag a user and keep some notes on them. Kind of like an Ignore button, except it would be a little colored light that we could only see, not the other posters. So I could click a user, add a note: "Truther" or "Batshit", or positive things like "Owns vehicle Museum" or "Built cabin from scratch" The light/button could also be changed by me to red, green, yellow so I can recall, in an instant whether or not I need to listen to a poster or remember why I should point and laugh. Ignoring is too absolute. I need to know what level of crazy or expert I am looking at so that some wide-eyed crazy on one topic might actually be worth listening to on another. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:27:32 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. Define "useful". It pure extrapolation. Based on science, but a guess nevertheless. Since we cannot go back in time, radio carbon dating assumes that nothing changes in the rate of decay over tens of thousand of years, and there is no way to prove it absolutely without going back in time. It's like those 100 year "archive quality" optical media storage disks (DVD-R). How do we know they will last 100 years, when they have only existed 5 years. Bottom line, it's an educated guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:28:11 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, I'd let it see that I was humerus. Then ask it to lunch, maybe drinks after work. TRG Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here?
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. First, I'd let it see that I was humerus. Then ask it to lunch, maybe drinks after work. TRG 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:28:47 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who knows if you actually believe this, but just for the sake of argument... Imagine driving from DC to Chatanooga TN. The trip takes nine hours. Imagine that entire trip represents 3.2 million years. 50,000 years is 64 feet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow, they've gotten really good at dating, what month was it placed there again? For real though, they claim its 3,200,000 years old. Is that give or take 50,000 years? 50,000 years is a long time and if they can't account for that amount of time how am I supposed to believe this number is accurate? That jawbone could be anyone's. Who knows if you actually believe this, but just for the sake of argument... Imagine driving from DC to Chatanooga TN. The trip takes nine hours. Imagine that entire trip represents 3.2 million years. 50,000 years is 64 feet. If you are driving with my family, it's only 32 feet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:30:47 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You bullshit.. There's lots of methods for dating, including radioisotopes besides Carbon-14. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:34:45 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd pay money for a feature that allowed us to individually tag a user and keep some notes on them. Kind of like an Ignore button, except it would be a little colored light that we could only see, not the other posters. So I could click a user, add a note: "Truther" or "Batshit", or positive things like "Owns vehicle Museum" or "Built cabin from scratch" The light/button could also be changed by me to red, green, yellow so I can recall, in an instant whether or not I need to listen to a poster or remember why I should point and laugh. Ignoring is too absolute. I need to know what level of crazy or expert I am looking at so that some wide-eyed crazy on one topic might actually be worth listening to on another. TRG I've wanted this for years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:38:39 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will admit that I am not an expert on the subject, but duuuude, I don't think you are even trying. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Have they attached it to a ape hip they found 40 ft away and called it a transitional ape-man yet or are they trying not to do that sort of thing anymore? I do enjoy the geologic times being pushed back farther. The evolutionists didn't have enough time to get apes to turn into men as it was, each time the find something "older" it gets worse. They just can't stand that in the beginning God made them male and female and they willfully forget God's flood destroyed the earth, wiping out species and men. The fossils they're finding aren't millions and millions, rather, a bunch of stuff mixed up and buried together thousands of years ago. I wonder what they'll do if they find a jaw bone in a layer "100,000,000" years old? They'd say a species identical to man evolved and went extinct. Some already teach identical species could have evolved numerous times, evolution really is that ridiculous. Anything to deny plain reality we've been Created. Molecules don't self-organize into information and "selection" from a deteriorating gene pool doesn't help. I will admit that I am not an expert on the subject, but duuuude, I don't think you are even trying. He's not interested in trying. Or knowing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:38:47 AM EST
[#24]
How did they arrive at the 2.8 million year date?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:39:14 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Define "useful". It pure extrapolation. Based on science, but a guess nevertheless. Since we cannot go back in time, radio carbon dating assumes that nothing changes in the rate of decay over tens of thousand of years, and there is no way to prove it absolutely without going back in time. It's like those 100 year "archive quality" optical media storage disks (DVD-R). How do we know they will last 100 years, when they have only existed 5 years. Bottom line, it's an educated guess. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. Define "useful". It pure extrapolation. Based on science, but a guess nevertheless. Since we cannot go back in time, radio carbon dating assumes that nothing changes in the rate of decay over tens of thousand of years, and there is no way to prove it absolutely without going back in time. It's like those 100 year "archive quality" optical media storage disks (DVD-R). How do we know they will last 100 years, when they have only existed 5 years. Bottom line, it's an educated guess. do you have any evidence that the rate of decay has changed by any significant amount over time? is there a theory on this topic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:50:40 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Climate change didn't spur us to come down from the trees, the water did. Our ancestors probably spent several hundred thousand years wading, floating, and swimming in fresh water, making us what we are now. Quick primer on it;  http://youtu.be/gwPoM7lGYHw
Thank you sq40. That was new to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:52:17 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How did they arrive at the 2.8 million year date? Not my field of expertise but, from what I have seen they use surrounding materials, shells, other fossils, soil type, known geologic time scale, etc to make the estimation. If you know X plant went extinct at X time period and you find a fossil next to that fossilized plant then you know one end of the scale. Other items, including microfossils that show other 'known' ages are used to narrow it down. It's not just a bare bone itself that tells the age. It is a collection of evidence and known points in time that generate the agreed upon age. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:56:00 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here?
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. LOL. Probably has something to do with strata. Which of course were created with 'relative age' 6000 years ago, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 11:59:18 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A jaw is not an artifact. An artifact is something intentionally made according to a culturally held design ..l Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This little guy would have been about two and a half to three feet tall, and furry all over like a small ape. One might say this specimen represents an early ancestor to what would become human, but the artifact itself is not human; not by a long shot. Homo sapiens (anatomically humans) don't emerge for another two and a half million years. Humans are only around 300,000 years old. Fact. A jaw is not an artifact. An artifact is something intentionally made according to a culturally held design ..l Human remains are most cirtainly artifacts. Any natural or man made object that has any association to the physical or cultural history of humas is considered an artifact. Even discounting the argumemt on whether this bone is human or not, context is everything and this bone will be studied to determine its possible physical relationship to humans: that makes this bone an artifact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:03:02 PM EST
[#30]
Skunk Ape, clearly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:03:25 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd pay money for a feature that allowed us to individually tag a user and keep some notes on them. Kind of like an Ignore button, except it would be a little colored light that we could only see, not the other posters. So I could click a user, add a note: "Truther" or "Batshit", or positive things like "Owns vehicle Museum" or "Built cabin from scratch" The light/button could also be changed by me to red, green, yellow so I can recall, in an instant whether or not I need to listen to a poster or remember why I should point and laugh. Ignoring is too absolute. I need to know what level of crazy or expert I am looking at so that some wide-eyed crazy on one topic might actually be worth listening to on another. TRG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Keep an eye on SAE's posts for a truly remarkable window in to the realm of the stunningly absurd. I'd pay money for a feature that allowed us to individually tag a user and keep some notes on them. Kind of like an Ignore button, except it would be a little colored light that we could only see, not the other posters. So I could click a user, add a note: "Truther" or "Batshit", or positive things like "Owns vehicle Museum" or "Built cabin from scratch" The light/button could also be changed by me to red, green, yellow so I can recall, in an instant whether or not I need to listen to a poster or remember why I should point and laugh. Ignoring is too absolute. I need to know what level of crazy or expert I am looking at so that some wide-eyed crazy on one topic might actually be worth listening to on another. TRG That's a hell of a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:03:45 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was it carbon-dated? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
wrong Proof? Was it carbon-dated? Probably not. Far too old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:04:10 PM EST
[#33]
Remember this derpfest next time we have an IQ or "are you smart" thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:05:12 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Keep an eye on SAE's posts for a truly remarkable window in to the realm of the stunningly absurd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: wrong Proof? Was it carbon-dated? NO. I don't understand how so many people could be so ignorant about how fossils are dated. Keep an eye on SAE's posts for a truly remarkable window in to the realm of the stunningly absurd. I've been reading them for years. What I don't understand is how a person, in the year 2015, who has at his fingertips a way to view vast amounts of accumulated human knowledge, can know that something called "radiocarbon dating" exists, yet not know even the most basic facts about it. I learned about it when I was 10 or 11 years old. Back then, the late 1960s, knowledge came mostly from books and classroom lectures. I'm quite sure that in 1969 my 11-year-old self could have explained how radiocarbon dating works, where it is useful, and its limitations. SAE, I have to wonder just where and how you became aware that there is a process called radiocarbon dating, yet avoided learning anything about it. Was it taught badly in a middle-school science class? Were you not paying attention? How could your state of knowledge be such that you would ask whether it was used to date an object that is believed to be MILLIONS of years old? What happened to you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:06:47 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not my field of expertise but, from what I have seen they use surrounding materials, shells, other fossils, soil type, known geologic time scale, etc to make the estimation. If you know X plant went extinct at X time period and you find a fossil next to that fossilized plant then you know one end of the scale. Other items, including microfossils that show other 'known' ages are used to narrow it down. It's not just a bare bone itself that tells the age. It is a collection of evidence and known points in time that generate the agreed upon age. TRG Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How did they arrive at the 2.8 million year date? Not my field of expertise but, from what I have seen they use surrounding materials, shells, other fossils, soil type, known geologic time scale, etc to make the estimation. If you know X plant went extinct at X time period and you find a fossil next to that fossilized plant then you know one end of the scale. Other items, including microfossils that show other 'known' ages are used to narrow it down. It's not just a bare bone itself that tells the age. It is a collection of evidence and known points in time that generate the agreed upon age. TRG it appears to me that this one's age was partly estimated by the features contained in the fossil itself. This was not an Australopithecus (Lucy) jaw, nor was it a Homo habilis jaw. This was determined by looking at jaw shape, chin shape, molar size, tooth cusps, etc. It is, in fact, a transitional fossil. This article is probably a little better: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150304-homo-habilis-evolution-fossil-jaw-ethiopia-olduvai-gorge/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:09:21 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably not. Far too old. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was it carbon-dated? Probably not. Far too old. Potassium-Argon I believe. ETA- Directly dating fossils this old is impossible, so geologists use a variety of methods to date the layers of rock in which the fossils are found. The researchers dated the recently discovered Ledi-Geraru fossil mandible, known by its catalog number LD 350-1, by dating various layers of volcanic ash or tuff using argon40 argon39 dating, a method that measures the different isotopes of argon and determines the age of the eruption that created the sample. They present their results in today's (Mar. 4) online issue of Science Express. "We are confident in the age of LD 350-1," said DiMaggio, lead author on the paper. "We used multiple dating methods including radiometric analysis of volcanic ash layers, and all show that the hominin fossil is 2.8 to 2.75 million years old." http://phys.org/news/2015-03-earliest-fossil-genus-homo-dates.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:09:47 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been reading them for years. What I don't understand is how a person, in the year 2015, who has at his fingertips a way to view vast amounts of accumulated human knowledge, can know that something called "radiocarbon dating" exists, yet not know even the most basic facts about it. I learned about it when I was 10 or 11 years old. Back then, the late 1960s, knowledge came mostly from books and classroom lectures. I'm quite sure that in 1969 my 11-year-old self could have explained how radiocarbon dating works, where it is useful, and its limitations. SAE, I have to wonder just where and how you became aware that there is a process called radiocarbon dating, yet avoided learning anything about it. Was it taught badly in a middle-school science class? Were you not paying attention? How could your state of knowledge be such that you would ask whether it was used to date an object that is believed to be MILLIONS of years old? What happened to you? I suspect he learned of it when a preacher told him that some godless scientists concocted this satan-inspired sorcery to pull him away from Jesus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:10:43 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Humans have been around longer than we think. I am also still of the theory that there were advanced civilizations that have vanished before our current modern civilization rose up also, so, I may not be the best person to debate this. It is doubtful that any previous civilization, or species, ever made it to the industrial era level of technology at any time in earth's past. Other than not finding any archeological evidence, there is no evidence that any natural resources have been tapped and exploited in the planet's history, from coal and oil, to metals and other minable minerals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:13:37 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you sq40. That was new to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Climate change didn't spur us to come down from the trees, the water did. Our ancestors probably spent several hundred thousand years wading, floating, and swimming in fresh water, making us what we are now. Quick primer on it; http://youtu.be/gwPoM7lGYHw
Thank you sq40. That was new to me. Very welcome. (If you enjoy TED talks, Netflix has a ton of them. Some really interesting stuff.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:15:35 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've wanted this for years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'd pay money for a feature that allowed us to individually tag a user and keep some notes on them. Kind of like an Ignore button, except it would be a little colored light that we could only see, not the other posters. So I could click a user, add a note: "Truther" or "Batshit", or positive things like "Owns vehicle Museum" or "Built cabin from scratch" The light/button could also be changed by me to red, green, yellow so I can recall, in an instant whether or not I need to listen to a poster or remember why I should point and laugh. Ignoring is too absolute. I need to know what level of crazy or expert I am looking at so that some wide-eyed crazy on one topic might actually be worth listening to on another. TRG I've wanted this for years. Pretty sure someone made a Greasemonkey script for this and there was a thread about it in team. Not sure what happened to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:19:10 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect he learned of it when a preacher told him that some godless scientists concocted this satan-inspired sorcery to pull him away from Jesus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've been reading them for years. What I don't understand is how a person, in the year 2015, who has at his fingertips a way to view vast amounts of accumulated human knowledge, can know that something called "radiocarbon dating" exists, yet not know even the most basic facts about it. I learned about it when I was 10 or 11 years old. Back then, the late 1960s, knowledge came mostly from books and classroom lectures. I'm quite sure that in 1969 my 11-year-old self could have explained how radiocarbon dating works, where it is useful, and its limitations. SAE, I have to wonder just where and how you became aware that there is a process called radiocarbon dating, yet avoided learning anything about it. Was it taught badly in a middle-school science class? Were you not paying attention? How could your state of knowledge be such that you would ask whether it was used to date an object that is believed to be MILLIONS of years old? What happened to you? I suspect he learned of it when a preacher told him that some godless scientists concocted this satan-inspired sorcery to pull him away from Jesus. It is profitable business actually. There is an entire niche of pseudo-scientist lecturers that write books on why evolution, geology, astronomy, etc, are all wrong. They hold paid and unpaid talks on them, and sell books at the back of the church too. They have internet marketing folks do webinars, and sell ebooks on the topic. It's a cottage industry, feeding the ignorance to people, all to make a living at it. There is a huge market for it. I had the displeasure to have to sit through one at church one sunday from a guest "speaker", complete with powerpoint presentation and a "special offer" on the latest fantasy-land book on the topic. I almost quit the church over it, just mindless marketing rubbish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 12:22:02 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank you sq40. That was new to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Climate change didn't spur us to come down from the trees, the water did. Our ancestors probably spent several hundred thousand years wading, floating, and swimming in fresh water, making us what we are now. Quick primer on it; http://youtu.be/gwPoM7lGYHwThank you sq40. That was new to me. You didn't hang out at the water hole in Africa too long back then as much or more so as you don't now, or you're dinner. Crocodiles and hippos still kill more people than most other animals there. That's why everyone ignores her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 1:29:53 PM EST
[#43]
How long until Alex Jones says the research is funded by the mob to supress the fact they found Jimmy Hoffa?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 1:34:49 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fresh water full of pythons, bull sharks, hippos, crocodiles, and pigs the size of a VW van is the perfect place for a 3 foot tall hominid to spend most of it's time. You didn't hang out at the water hole in Africa too long back then as much or more so as you don't now, or you're dinner. Crocodiles and hippos still kill more people than most other animals there. That's why everyone ignores her. That seems pretty broad. It's probably correct, but the devil is always in the details. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 1:47:15 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, I'd let it see that I was humerus. Then ask it to lunch, maybe drinks after work. TRG Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here?
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. First, I'd let it see that I was humerus. Then ask it to lunch, maybe drinks after work. TRG Look guys, first off, the link provide in the OP doesn't give a method of dating on the subject right now, to coincide with any listed proof thus verifying a means of analysis or experimentation by the scientific method whatsoever. Moreover, this supposed scientific paper does make mention of an archeological specimen, "Lucy," which over time and scrutiny by members of the scientific community on both sides of the isle, to be false as to any claims that were originally made up and articulated by scientific members of the junk science department of the Darwinian persuasion, which have all but been discredited at this time concerning this fragmented specimen of thrown together bits of monkey and human features; and by the way, not even a good one to be used by the ambassadors of fraud who, "discovered," the thing in the first place. In other words, the claims currently being falsely and disingenuously made here can bring only one other thing to mind then.. Total and assured: 
And remember, some unstable chemicals and gases can and will catch fire..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 1:59:53 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here?
Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. How dare you question science! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 2:04:02 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look guys, first off, the link provide in the OP doesn't give a method of dating on the subject right now, to coincide with any listed proof thus verifying a means of analysis or experimentation by the scientific method whatsoever. Moreover, this supposed scientific paper does make mention of an archeological specimen, "Lucy," which over time and scrutiny by members of the scientific community on both sides of the isle, to be false as to any claims that were originally made up and articulated by scientific members of the junk science department of the Darwinian persuasion, which have all but been discredited at this time concerning this fragmented specimen of thrown together bits of monkey and human features; and by the way, not even a good one to be used by the ambassadors of fraud who, "discovered," the thing in the first place. In other words, the claims currently being falsely and disingenuously made here can bring only one other thing to mind then.. Total and assured:
Well look yourself- most of the world simply accepts that the same science that produced space travel and the internet also got this part right, so they don't list out every step of their analysis in an article for the layperson. And if you ask a question you should read the whole thread. The information you ostensibly seek was posted already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 2:04:40 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Look guys, first off, the link provide in the OP doesn't give a method of dating on the subject right now, to coincide with any listed proof thus verifying a means of analysis or experimentation by the scientific method whatsoever.
Moreover, this supposed scientific paper does make mention of an archeological specimen, "Lucy," which over time and scrutiny by members of the scientific community on both sides of the isle, to be false as to any claims that were originally made up and articulated by scientific members of the junk science department of the Darwinian persuasion, which have all but been discredited at this time concerning this fragmented specimen of thrown together bits of monkey and human features; and by the way, not even a good one to be used by the ambassadors of fraud who, "discovered," the thing in the first place. In other words, the claims currently being falsely and disingenuously made here can bring only one other thing to mind then.. Total and assured:
If you want to see the actual paper, which certainly includes detailed information about the methods used to date the specimen, you will have to subscribe to Science. A one-year to the online edition is $50. For print, $99. Or you can purchase one-day access to that one article for $20. Here's a link to a page with the abstract, and links to the full paper. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/03/science.aaa1343 And here is a more general discussion of methods used to date fossils. http://pages.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/anth42web/DATINGmethods.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 2:07:41 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How dare you question science! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Radio-carbon dating does not come into platy here? Radiocarbon dating is not useful for anything more than about 50,000 or 60,000 years old. I was under the impression that anyone who had finished 8th grade would know that. He doesn't care about its range of usefulness. He thinks it's "a scam" in a general sense. Science is for pussies, anyway. Then explain the dating method for this jaw fragment.. How dare you question science! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2015 2:11:40 PM EST
[#50]
Bahahahahaaahhhhahah!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
