Why Ida fossil is not the missing link

Author Topic: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link  (Read 73845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2009, 06:37:37 PM »
Still, when you throw rocks at a dog, you are going to be punished for this
I'm starting to think it's useless to reply to you because I already explained a lot of this, yet you keep repeating yourself. I already told you that we don't have a right to cause unnecessary suffering.what does that have to do with evolution? You can't just go ahead and kill an animal for fun,Hunting? you'll be criminally prosecuted when people find out because it's evil.not what you say before "Still, when you throw rocks at a dog, you are going to be punished for this God can't just kill our children either, that's evil. Again who cares If you depend on killing animals to survive, you can kill them. I lock my topics when I see it turns into people insulting eachother for no good reason or anti-Jewish propaganda. Guess you don't believe in free speach I didn't put words in your mouth, I just said that God has as much of a right to kill children as you have, none.Get that in the GOD times You don't have to believe God is perfect but when he kills children this makes him evil.Again so what The theory of Evolution explains how nature works, it doesn't have anything to do with how I want the world to be (without needless suffering). It appears to me that you only choose to believe what you like, but I don't. I would much rather have rather have eh? great reasoning God not killing our children for no good reason and not letting children be born deformed. Again this proves evolution how again? If that would violate the theory of evolution? So be it, I'd love it if God would no longer let children be born deformed and needlessly suffering! And your not repeating yourself It seems you have given up on most of your points haven't you? Again arguing with idiots not my forte For example you're not answering my question why God has the right to kill children but you don't.Repeating again are we? I also never said you cite the Bible it's an example. Can't you see that? Lair haha "Ah well. If the fact that I only post relevant meanings of the words theory and fact means I'm cherry picking, not posting the entire Bible everytime you cite it means you're cherrypicking as well." This is getting pointless. I think I already explained to you everything you need to know, See I could care less what you think you know  Mr. or wait Dr., I wasn't trying to teach you anything, I ain't your daddy or teacher just reread it before replying again please. Looks like I have



O the evil lion :'(
I'm really getting tired of this. I believe in free speech. You can say whatever sort of crap anywhere you want, just please keep hateful insults to others or anti-Jewish propaganda ("David... I never posted that !!!" I'm not talking about you... it's just another example of why I lock threads) out of my topics, and preferably out of this movement. You don't seem to understand examples, and you forget what we were discussing when you ask what unnecessary suffering has to do with evolution. Also you're now just saying who cares when I refute one of your earlier points, first it was that God can kill children because he's God, now you're reacting with who cares when I say that the fact that in the Bible God kills children is evil.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2009, 06:56:18 PM »
I'm really getting tired of this. I believe in free speech. You can say whatever sort of crap anywhere you want, just please keep hateful insults to others or anti-Jewish propaganda ("David... I never posted that !!!" I'm not talking about you... it's just another example of why I lock threads) out of my topics, and preferably out of this movement. You don't seem to understand examples, and you forget what we were discussing when you ask what unnecessary suffering has to do with evolution. Also you're now just saying who cares when I refute one of your earlier points, first it was that God can kill children because he's God, now you're reacting with who cares when I say that the fact that in the Bible God kills children is evil.

See there ya go again... I was saying god would be more powerful then you, that your logic sux, and that you come off like a know it all there Dr.. Bashing god doesn't help your theory of evolution. But you think that it can only be god or evolution, not both, or something else completely. Just that what you post is TRUTH and damn anyone who says otherwise.

Plus you still locked the treads (think your god or something) and I bet you'd LOVE to lock this one ::)
 
"I'm really getting tired of this" GOOD and just you remember I post here, if you post crap as truth I'll be WATCHING
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2009, 07:06:46 PM »
Funny how i use science as its designed to, being raised from youth the method and principles, and you use science as well faith.
I'd have to disagree. You only accept science when it doesn't contradict your religious views.

Quote
What makes me believe its fake as well? well lets look here.

For starters

Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial "missing link" between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom.


Really ? scientists? i dont think so.
The fossil was apparently discovered in 1983 by private collectors
This is just linguistics. The scientists discovered that these private collectors had this fossile in their possession. Not an argument.

Quote
You should really care about that statment as history has repeatedly shown the huge amounts of FRAUD that has been touted as the missing links. Just scroll this first page to see what i mean. http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
Darwin has been misquoted too. YE creationists have carbondated fossiles that were way to old to be accurately carbondated as well to somehow prove that carbon dating somehow isn't a valid method. The point is you can't use someone who lies to make a bunch of money as evidence against a scientific theory. People faked evidence connecting vaccines to autism as well, this doesn't mean that vaccines don't cause autism, they do cause autism.
Quote
What?? they broke it up and sold them. Hmmm. So now we have the pieces disappearing. Hate to break it to you but that brings the whole thing into doubt. period.
We don't need an entire fossil to prove certain things.

Quote
How do they get this date? they cannot run radiometrics on fossils. The only way to determine the date is the strata that it was found in. And that alone has all kinds of problems. circular reasoning anyone??    Plus back to my first point, it wasnt "found" by scientist it was found by private collectors who broke it up and sold it.
They used radiometric measuring to find out the age of the fossil. This isn't circular reasoning.

Quote
Really? why the secrecy? its because of everything that was missing from Daves article, thats why. Everything about this is in doubt.


Who knows. To avoid theft?

Quote
Now wait a minute here. we have a fossil that was restored and partly fabricated? you have got to be kidding me. Partly fabricated. nuff said.
They managed to find the fabricated parts. You can clearly see them in this photograph:
If you can see them, I assume the scientists can see what's fake as well.
Everything on plate A is real, part of that on plate B is fake.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2009, 07:14:28 PM »
See there ya go again... I was saying god would be more powerful then you, that your logic sux, and that you come off like a know it all there Dr.. Bashing god doesn't help your theory of evolution. But you think that it can only be god or evolution, not both, or something else completely. Just that what you post is TRUTH and damn anyone who says otherwise.

Plus you still locked the treads (think your god or something) and I bet you'd LOVE to lock this one ::)
 
"I'm really getting tired of this" GOOD and just you remember I post here, if you post crap as truth I'll be WATCHING
It doesn't matter that god is more powerful, it doesn't change what is evil and what is not. My logic makes sense because I still haven't heard a valid argument form you against it (instead you tried to make it look like stuff I typed as examples were about you). This isn't about evolution anymore, here is what it was about:
"To say things like well if there is a GOD I want nothing to do with him cuz he murders children. Are you really that dumb you think thats evil. If GOD is real guess what he would have created EVERTHING and if he/she /it ends the lives of children well they'd go to heaven. Which is would be a better place. See things like that just show how you equate yourself as GOD like."
I'd much rather discuss evolution though. Please give me a good argument against it. Yes, a real argument, and against evolution. So no "evolution is evil so I choose to believe it didn't happen".

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2009, 07:44:50 PM »
"I'd have to disagree. You only accept science when it doesn't contradict your religious views" Umm great argumnet no reason or anything

"This is just linguistics. The scientists discovered that these private collectors had this fossile in their possession. Not an argument."  Their just private collectors and would treat the fossile like a scientist would
"Darwin has been misquoted too. YE creationists have carbondated fossiles that were way to old to be accurately carbondated as well to somehow prove that carbon dating somehow isn't a valid method. The point is you can't use someone who lies to make a bunch of money as evidence against a scientific theory. People faked evidence connecting vaccines to autism as well, this doesn't mean that vaccines don't cause autism, they do cause autism." Right and your soures are spot on ::)
 "We don't need an entire fossil to prove certain things." Like what?

"They used radiometric measuring to find out the age of the fossil. This isn't circular reasoning"   No he said that would be to find the age of the rock.

Who knows. To avoid theft? again gret argument

"They managed to find the fabricated parts. You can clearly see them in this photograph:
If you can see them, I assume the scientists can see what's fake as well.
Everything on plate A is real, part of that on plate B is fake." Clearly see waht that they are different ? where did you get yuor phd again?

It doesn't matter that god is more powerful, it doesn't change what is evil and what is not. Is that lion evil    My logic makes sense because I still haven't heard a valid argument form you against it PhhhaHAHAHA "My logic = win your logic = lose" what you 5 or something  (instead you tried to make it look like stuff I typed as examples were about you). This isn't about evolution anymore, here is what it was about:
"To say things like well if there is a GOD I want nothing to do with him cuz he murders children. Are you really that dumb you think thats evil. If GOD is real guess what he would have created EVERTHING and if he/she /it ends the lives of children well they'd go to heaven. Which is would be a better place. See things like that just show how you equate yourself as GOD like." maybe Im not the best at putting things into words but .....  LIFE IS NOT FAIR again was the lion evil??? ??? I'd much rather discuss evolution though. Please give me a good argument against it. Yes, a real argument, and against evolution. So no "evolution is evil so I choose to believe it didn't happen". P{HHHAHAHAHA your the one saying god is evil so you don't believe in that
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2009, 08:14:07 PM »
Like what? Well the humerofemoral ratio for example. Brain size of a fossil is another thing. These are examples, there is plenty of stuff to prove. And no lions aren't evil. Killing others for no good reason is evil. And yes, since they used radiometric dating there is no circular reasoning. Anyway, I still haven't heard you bring up an argument against evolution. Why is that? And why do you hate evolution so much?

Offline marra

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • THIS IS SPARRRTTAA
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2009, 08:51:13 PM »
Are people really still convinced Jesus is real and that Darwin was an idiot?  My god.  Set phasers to kill
If we simply got together and used our heads, we could have whatever our hearts desired

Offline 106419WTF

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #47 on: May 23, 2009, 06:03:13 AM »
THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT THE FICTITIOUS 'MISSING LINK' IDA THAT DARWINISTS NEVER MENTION

A few days ago the Darwinist David Attenborough came up with a claim regarding a striking discovery(!). According to that claim, the fictitious missing link in human evolution was missing no longer! The fact is, however, that the fossil Ida, depicted as an extraordinary discovery in special broadcasts and publications, is in fact an extinct lemur.

Attempts have been made to use wide-ranging propaganda to launch the fossil Ida as the “ancestor of man” on various web sites such as those of ABC, BBC, Science Daily and the Guardian. In this propaganda all Darwinist publications were agreed that this was the fossil that everyone had been awaiting but that had never to date been found. But all that was found was nothing more than an exceptionally well preserved fossil lemur. So with what claims did Darwinists launch this fossil lemur, discovered in Germany and estimated to be 47 million years old?

The only reason for the Darwinist speculation about the fossil was WHAT IS NOT IN IT! The fossil belonged to a lemur, but had slightly different teeth and claw structures to those of present-day lemurs. It therefore represented an extinct species of lemur that once lived in the past. That was the basis for all the Darwinist clamor.

This animal, 95% preserved and with even its internal organs fossilized, was a perfect life form. It had not a single semi-developed, deficient or redundant structure. It is therefore impossible to regard it as a transitional form. Nonetheless, the Darwinist media made a huge fuss out of depicting this perfect fossil as a transitional form. Science Daily described the fossil as “extraordinary.” Sky News went even further and described the fossil as the “eighth wonder of the world.” The Darwinist David Attenborough said “The link they would have said until now is missing ... it is no longer missing.” By making that statement, Attenborough was in one sense admitting the invalidity of the skulls that have for years been portrayed as missing links in the imaginary evolution of man. His error was to imagine that this perfect fossil lemur was the ancestor of man.

Even some Darwinists looked askance at all this furor. Darwinist Henry Gee, editor in chief of Nature magazine, openly stated that it was misleading to refer to this creature as a “missing link.” And that statement has been carried in all the Darwinist references reporting the story.

The picture that emerged while all this clamor was being made revealed the following reality to the entire world: THE PITIFUL SITUATION DARWINISTS FIND THEMSELVES IN. Aware of the hopeless position they were in, Darwinists made themselves even more pitiful by taking an extinct lemur fossil and saying it represents “a forebear of man.”

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THIS:

Ninety percent of the species that have lived on Earth are extinct. THERE ARE 99 SPECIES OF LEMUR, 16 OF WHICH ARE EXTINCT. Newly discovered fossils raise the number of extinct species. A great many extinct species have also disappeared entirely.
The newly discovered fossil IDA IS ALSO ONE OF THESE EXTINCT SPECIES OF LEMUR THAT SUBSEQUENTLY VANISHED. Like the other extinct forms that have been discovered, this fossil ALSO EXHIBITS NO TRANSITIONAL FEATURES, AND IS ACTUALLY A PERFECT LIFE FORM. And this IS ONE OF THE GREATEST PROOFS OF THE FACT OF CREATION.

Darwinists have never mentioned the following facts, out of a fear of the truth about this fossil they have speculated so much over eventually coming to light:

    1.    The fossil is 95% complete. It has therefore been possible to examine its every detail, including the animal’s internal organs. And apart from a few details pointing to variations unique to individual species, IT IS A PERFECT SPECIES OF LEMUR.

    2.    Darwinist publications have claimed that Ida has an opposable thumb, and that this feature is different to that in other mammals but the same as that in humans. The fact is that all living lemurs have thumbs of this kind.

    3.    In the same way, Darwinists have tried to point to Ida’s nails as evidence for their claims. But other primates also do have nails.

    4.    Darwinists maintain that Ida’s ankle bone “is the same as that in human beings.” But the other foot structure in this life form is entirely different to that in humans. Comparing one single bone in the feet while ignoring all the other differences is a familiar element of Darwinist propaganda.

    5.    Darwinists say that the fossil has fused teeth and seek to use this as evidence for their claims. But fused teeth are a characteristic peculiar to primates. It is therefore quite normal to find them in an extinct lemur.

    6.    The fossil was actually discovered in 1983. It has taken 26 years for this huge sensation to break. The reason for the long delay is probably that the fossil is being used as a vehicle for conjecture just when Darwinists need it the most, when they have been totally routed. From having been kept as an ordinary fossil lemur, it suddenly became the greatest discovery Darwinists had ever made.


All the Darwinist speculation around this fossil is based on the totally unscientific idea that “this characteristic resembles man.” Of course life forms resemble one another. But this is no proof of the lie of evolution. Instead of depicting similarities as evidence for the fiction that is evolution, Darwinists need to bring a real transitional fossil, and point to deficient but developing, semi-developed or abnormal structures in it. But it is impossible for them to do that. Because, like all other life forms, this lemur was created from nothing and in a perfect state by our Almighty Lord. And the fossils prove that.

Conclusion:

Ida is the clearest example of how any fossil can be distorted by Darwinists and DEPICTED AS THE ANCESTOR OF MAN by way of fraud and deception. The furor that has arisen about this fossil is just the latest and freshest example of the rotten foundations of Darwinist propaganda, which we have been describing for a very long time. Darwinists still imagine that they can deceive and mislead people as they please when they engage in intensive speculation about a fossil. The fact is, however, that people are now perfectly well aware of the false methods used to further Darwinist propaganda. They have therefore immediately realized that a perfect fossil lemur depicted as the “forerunner of man” is just another component of this false propaganda.

The conclusion to be drawn from Ida is that Darwinists are in a terrible state of despair. Darwinist scientists have had to remove from the literature all the fossils they once declared to be “missing links” as they are all frauds, and are now shamelessly espousing yet another such fraud. NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM, of which there should be trillions according to Darwinism, EXISTS. Nobody believes in this fraud any more. Darwinists must now admit that their perverse theory has now come to the end of the road, and finally been buried.

May 22, 2009

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #48 on: May 23, 2009, 07:33:11 AM »
Dave,

Quote
I'd have to disagree. You only accept science when it doesn't contradict your religious views.

Thats not true at all, and i think by now youd have realised it. I havent used religion in any of our debates untill you have brought it up, like now. I accept Science perfectly well when its infact science, that means keeping it to the rules that science HAS TO FOLLOW, that being the scientific method. Evolution seems, does not have to follow theses rules, as it and all of its related fields are all religous, meaning, speculation and belief on faith.

Quote
This is just linguistics. The scientists discovered that these private collectors had this fossile in their possession. Not an argument.

WHAT? How can you call that linguistics? Your article clearly states that scientists found the fossil. This is a bold face lie, and you know it. There is no way around this. It was "found" by private collectors. So the whole discovery is in question. Their is 0 proof it was found where claimed, there is 0 proof it was found at all. By claiming scientists found it, gives credibility to the claim, well that isnt true. Arent you supposed to seek the truth? Why believe this lie. There is no proof what so ever with this fossil, its "find" is questioned from the very begining.
Quote
The scientists discovered that these private collectors had this fossile in their possession

Thats not true either, the original collectors broke it up and sold the parts,  ::) the scientists never ever got the parts from the supposedly original finders. Again with LIES. Come on Dave, i thought you were better than this.  >:(

Quote
Darwin has been misquoted too. YE creationists have carbondated fossiles that were way to old to be accurately carbondated as well to somehow prove that carbon dating somehow isn't a valid method. The point is you can't use someone who lies to make a bunch of money as evidence against a scientific theory. People faked evidence connecting vaccines to autism as well, this doesn't mean that vaccines don't cause autism, they do cause autism.

Carbon dating on the whole cannot work correctly as the atmosphere has NEVER EQUALIZED. And you know it. Come on live penguins dated at 2000 years old? do i need to go on? Also as you should very well know, you cannot carbon date a FOSSIL. Oh and if something cant be carbondated then how did they get an answer??  ::)

Quote
We don't need an entire fossil to prove certain things.
Yet thats what these people are claiming. The only thing that can scientifically be drawn from this fossil is that it died. everything else is totally speculation and cannot be proven. How many kids did it have? Did it have any at all? You have no idea. the only thing that you can say is that it died. PERIOD.

Quote
They used radiometric measuring to find out the age of the fossil. This isn't circular reasoning.

Just which one do they use? Not K-Ar, nor Carbon-14, so which one is used to date fossils??

Quote
Who knows. To avoid theft?

Maybe to keep the truth quite before Historys big special? Sounds like a money job to me.  ::)

Quote
They managed to find the fabricated parts. You can clearly see them in this photograph:

The very fact that it was fabricated at all, means it is useless, and you know it. it has been tampered with, but then again a scientists wouldnt lie would they?  :D

HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #49 on: May 23, 2009, 07:36:05 AM »
THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT THE FICTITIOUS 'MISSING LINK' IDA THAT DARWINISTS NEVER MENTION

A few days ago the Darwinist David Attenborough came up with a claim regarding a striking discovery(!). According to that claim, the fictitious missing link in human evolution was missing no longer! The fact is, however, that the fossil Ida, depicted as an extraordinary discovery in special broadcasts and publications, is in fact an extinct lemur.

Attempts have been made to use wide-ranging propaganda to launch the fossil Ida as the “ancestor of man” on various web sites such as those of ABC, BBC, Science Daily and the Guardian. In this propaganda all Darwinist publications were agreed that this was the fossil that everyone had been awaiting but that had never to date been found. But all that was found was nothing more than an exceptionally well preserved fossil lemur. So with what claims did Darwinists launch this fossil lemur, discovered in Germany and estimated to be 47 million years old?

The only reason for the Darwinist speculation about the fossil was WHAT IS NOT IN IT! The fossil belonged to a lemur, but had slightly different teeth and claw structures to those of present-day lemurs. It therefore represented an extinct species of lemur that once lived in the past. That was the basis for all the Darwinist clamor.

This animal, 95% preserved and with even its internal organs fossilized, was a perfect life form. It had not a single semi-developed, deficient or redundant structure. It is therefore impossible to regard it as a transitional form. Nonetheless, the Darwinist media made a huge fuss out of depicting this perfect fossil as a transitional form. Science Daily described the fossil as “extraordinary.” Sky News went even further and described the fossil as the “eighth wonder of the world.” The Darwinist David Attenborough said “The link they would have said until now is missing ... it is no longer missing.” By making that statement, Attenborough was in one sense admitting the invalidity of the skulls that have for years been portrayed as missing links in the imaginary evolution of man. His error was to imagine that this perfect fossil lemur was the ancestor of man.

Even some Darwinists looked askance at all this furor. Darwinist Henry Gee, editor in chief of Nature magazine, openly stated that it was misleading to refer to this creature as a “missing link.” And that statement has been carried in all the Darwinist references reporting the story.

The picture that emerged while all this clamor was being made revealed the following reality to the entire world: THE PITIFUL SITUATION DARWINISTS FIND THEMSELVES IN. Aware of the hopeless position they were in, Darwinists made themselves even more pitiful by taking an extinct lemur fossil and saying it represents “a forebear of man.”

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THIS:

Ninety percent of the species that have lived on Earth are extinct. THERE ARE 99 SPECIES OF LEMUR, 16 OF WHICH ARE EXTINCT. Newly discovered fossils raise the number of extinct species. A great many extinct species have also disappeared entirely.
The newly discovered fossil IDA IS ALSO ONE OF THESE EXTINCT SPECIES OF LEMUR THAT SUBSEQUENTLY VANISHED. Like the other extinct forms that have been discovered, this fossil ALSO EXHIBITS NO TRANSITIONAL FEATURES, AND IS ACTUALLY A PERFECT LIFE FORM. And this IS ONE OF THE GREATEST PROOFS OF THE FACT OF CREATION.

Darwinists have never mentioned the following facts, out of a fear of the truth about this fossil they have speculated so much over eventually coming to light:

    1.    The fossil is 95% complete. It has therefore been possible to examine its every detail, including the animal’s internal organs. And apart from a few details pointing to variations unique to individual species, IT IS A PERFECT SPECIES OF LEMUR.

    2.    Darwinist publications have claimed that Ida has an opposable thumb, and that this feature is different to that in other mammals but the same as that in humans. The fact is that all living lemurs have thumbs of this kind.

    3.    In the same way, Darwinists have tried to point to Ida’s nails as evidence for their claims. But other primates also do have nails.

    4.    Darwinists maintain that Ida’s ankle bone “is the same as that in human beings.” But the other foot structure in this life form is entirely different to that in humans. Comparing one single bone in the feet while ignoring all the other differences is a familiar element of Darwinist propaganda.

    5.    Darwinists say that the fossil has fused teeth and seek to use this as evidence for their claims. But fused teeth are a characteristic peculiar to primates. It is therefore quite normal to find them in an extinct lemur.

    6.    The fossil was actually discovered in 1983. It has taken 26 years for this huge sensation to break. The reason for the long delay is probably that the fossil is being used as a vehicle for conjecture just when Darwinists need it the most, when they have been totally routed. From having been kept as an ordinary fossil lemur, it suddenly became the greatest discovery Darwinists had ever made.


All the Darwinist speculation around this fossil is based on the totally unscientific idea that “this characteristic resembles man.” Of course life forms resemble one another. But this is no proof of the lie of evolution. Instead of depicting similarities as evidence for the fiction that is evolution, Darwinists need to bring a real transitional fossil, and point to deficient but developing, semi-developed or abnormal structures in it. But it is impossible for them to do that. Because, like all other life forms, this lemur was created from nothing and in a perfect state by our Almighty Lord. And the fossils prove that.

Conclusion:

Ida is the clearest example of how any fossil can be distorted by Darwinists and DEPICTED AS THE ANCESTOR OF MAN by way of fraud and deception. The furor that has arisen about this fossil is just the latest and freshest example of the rotten foundations of Darwinist propaganda, which we have been describing for a very long time. Darwinists still imagine that they can deceive and mislead people as they please when they engage in intensive speculation about a fossil. The fact is, however, that people are now perfectly well aware of the false methods used to further Darwinist propaganda. They have therefore immediately realized that a perfect fossil lemur depicted as the “forerunner of man” is just another component of this false propaganda.

The conclusion to be drawn from Ida is that Darwinists are in a terrible state of despair. Darwinist scientists have had to remove from the literature all the fossils they once declared to be “missing links” as they are all frauds, and are now shamelessly espousing yet another such fraud. NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM, of which there should be trillions according to Darwinism, EXISTS. Nobody believes in this fraud any more. Darwinists must now admit that their perverse theory has now come to the end of the road, and finally been buried.

May 22, 2009

grerat article.
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline TheCaliKid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,570
  • What can we do about it, really?
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2009, 07:39:52 AM »
Erasmus Darwin, was one of the founders of the Lunar Society. The Darwin family only married with one other family - the Wedgwood's.



Erasmus Darwin (b. 1731 – d. 1802), grandfather of Charles Darwin:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Society
Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission

Offline jshowell

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2009, 08:29:55 AM »
Are people really still convinced Jesus is real and that Darwin was an idiot?  My god.  Set phasers to kill

You know what I think it is, Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't finished, but he tried to prove it by inbreeding and failed.  He also helped establish our current eugenics program, which is also really wrong.  After the DNA evidence was discovered later a rational person would have thought the eugenics program would have been derailed, but instead they twisted it to justify making targeted viruses.  A rational person would have seen the best ward against extinction is optimal differentiation (lots of different choices for DNA recombining from all different segments of the population). I don't think Darwin ever conceded his failure, and some scientists are short sighted in that way.  The people who say "well darwin was wrong about one thing, so I'll throw out the rest of his conclusions" aren't thinking through the evidence we've seen and they don't have the scientific background to understand the processes involved.  I've had molecular genetics both as an undergrad and graduate student and when you get down to the atomic level it's apparent these molecules change their functionality when it suits their survival.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2009, 11:34:30 AM »
Carbon dating on the whole cannot work correctly as the atmosphere has NEVER EQUALIZED. And you know it. Come on live penguins dated at 2000 years old? do i need to go on? Also as you should very well know, you cannot carbon date a FOSSIL. Oh and if something cant be carbondated then how did they get an answer??  ::)

See. It's not that you disagree. It's just that you don't understand or choose not to understand the processes involved. If you would have just looked up how carbon dating is actually used you would understand that it is not used for stuff since the industrial revolution. Why? Because we have changed the C14 carbon concentration in the air:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v282/n5741/abs/282829a0.html

Radiocarbon dating evidence on the impact of atmospheric pollution on upland peats

F. M. Chambers*, P. Q. Dresser & A. G. Smith

Department of Plant Science, University College, PO Box 78, Cardiff, UK
*Permanent address: Department of Geography, University of Keele, Keele, Staffs, UK.

When radiocarbon dating is applied to young sample materials, the results are subject to the Suess effect1: that is, the concentration of atmospheric 14C has been diluted by carbon dioxide containing negligible 14C from the burning of fossil fuels since the onset of the industrial revolution. As this carbon dioxide is incorporated into growing plants in the normal manner, radiocarbon dating of young plant material tends to produce spuriously old dates. The age discrepancy could, in theory, be as much as 250 yr (ref. 2). However, during a study into the age, origin and vegetational history of upland blanket peats in South Wales, substantially older dates were obtained from recent horizons. The dating of different peat fractions by radiocarbon assay suggested that the substantially older dates derived from contamination by participate pollution during the industrial revolution. The scale and impact of this pollution are discussed in the context of these results.

You say you apply the scientific method. If you actually wanted to understand science instead of trying to make science suit your religious views you would have looked this up and understand that carbon dating isn't used on modern objects or anything olders than about 60.000 years. Chances are you got this disinformation from some creationist website. Stop blindly believing these people.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2009, 11:39:15 AM »
Erasmus Darwin, was one of the founders of the Lunar Society. The Darwin family only married with one other family - the Wedgwood's.



Erasmus Darwin (b. 1731 – d. 1802), grandfather of Charles Darwin:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Society
Yes and Newton was an occult hermeticist. The thing is whether we like someone or not has no effect on whether the things he says are true or not.

Mber

  • Guest
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2009, 11:54:45 AM »
Yes and Newton was an occult hermeticist. The thing is whether we like someone or not has no effect on whether the things he says are true or not.

Actually it does. Not the fact that you may or may not like Darwin, but the fact that he was an inbred eugenicist, that had a preconceived conclusion before he started.

That's not truth, that's finding 'evidence' that matches your philosophy in life - aka - the Darwin family is more evolved and thus a superior race.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2009, 11:58:31 AM »
See. It's not that you disagree. It's just that you don't understand or choose not to understand the processes involved. If you would have just looked up how carbon dating is actually used you would understand that it is not used for stuff since the industrial revolution. Why? Because we have changed the C14 carbon concentration in the air:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v282/n5741/abs/282829a0.html

Radiocarbon dating evidence on the impact of atmospheric pollution on upland peats

F. M. Chambers*, P. Q. Dresser & A. G. Smith

Department of Plant Science, University College, PO Box 78, Cardiff, UK
*Permanent address: Department of Geography, University of Keele, Keele, Staffs, UK.

When radiocarbon dating is applied to young sample materials, the results are subject to the Suess effect1: that is, the concentration of atmospheric 14C has been diluted by carbon dioxide containing negligible 14C from the burning of fossil fuels since the onset of the industrial revolution. As this carbon dioxide is incorporated into growing plants in the normal manner, radiocarbon dating of young plant material tends to produce spuriously old dates. The age discrepancy could, in theory, be as much as 250 yr (ref. 2). However, during a study into the age, origin and vegetational history of upland blanket peats in South Wales, substantially older dates were obtained from recent horizons. The dating of different peat fractions by radiocarbon assay suggested that the substantially older dates derived from contamination by participate pollution during the industrial revolution. The scale and impact of this pollution are discussed in the context of these results.

You say you apply the scientific method. If you actually wanted to understand science instead of trying to make science suit your religious views you would have looked this up and understand that carbon dating isn't used on modern objects or anything olders than about 60.000 years. Chances are you got this disinformation from some creationist website. Stop blindly believing these people.

Just couldnt resist bringing religion into it could you. I really thought you could debate this with out having to bring up my beliefs, and you say you dont like the way your threads turn out. Well why bring it up then?? 

Most people think carbon dating can be used to establish the age of anything old. They believe every artifact dug up or discovered by archeologists, anthropologists, geologists, or other scientists can have its age accurately determined, within a narrow range, by carbon dating. But is that the truth? Let’s look at carbon-14 dating to discover just how accurate and reliable it really is.

Just what is carbon dating?

First, it is based on the ratio of two elements—carbon 12 (C-12) to carbon 14 (C-14)—found in a sample of the object being dated. The ratio of C-12 to C-14 is approximately 1 billion to one in today’s atmosphere. All living things, directly or indirectly, absorb carbon from the atmosphere. The carbon absorbed is both C-12 and C-14 and it is absorbed at the same ratio as it exists in the atmosphere.

Once a living thing dies, it stops absorbing both C-12 and C-14.

Notice that something must have been alive to absorb C-12 and C-14. Therefore it is not possible to date inorganic material. Anything that was never alive cannot be dated using carbon dating methods. References to carbon dating of rocks, for example, are inaccurate since rocks were never alive.

A basic quality of C-12, the most prevalent form of carbon, is stability—it doesn’t change. C-14, however, is unstable and begins changing immediately after it is formed. Each C-14 atom will lose an electron from the nucleus. The process of losing electrons is referred to as decay. The rate of decay is considered constant and measurable, and is expressed by the term “half life.”

Half life can be understood, for our purpose, by thinking of a block of ice. Our block weighs 10 pounds and begins to melt. The time it takes to melt until it weighs only 5 pounds (half the original weight) is called its “half life.” For this example, let’s say the ice takes five hours to melt from 10 pounds down to 5 pounds. The half life would be five hours. This is not exactly the way C-14 acts, but it serves our purpose.

Unlike ice melting, the half life of carbon and other unstable elements is constant. In other words, if it takes 5,730 years for 10 pounds of C-14 to decay to only 5 pounds, it would also take 5,730 years for 5 pounds to become 2.5 pounds. No matter how much you start with, it will take the same amount of time to reduce it to half, hence the term half life.

C-14 has a half life of 5,730 years. If you begin with 100 pounds of C-14, it would take 5,730 years until there would only be 50 pounds left. It would take an additional 5,730 years for the 50 pounds to decay to only 25 pounds, and so on, halving the amount of C-14 every 5,730 years.

When C-14 is formed, it begins to break down into nitrogen as it loses an electron from the nucleus. If you know how much C-14 something contained to begin with, you can determine how long it has been decaying by measuring how much C-14 is left.

So here is how it works. A piece of wood is tested to see just how long ago the tree died. The C-14 is measured and compared to the amount assumed to have been present when it was alive. If there is half as much C-14 as estimated when it was alive, it is said to have been 5,730 years since it died.

Now, this is based on “knowing” how much C-14 is in the atmosphere when a sample is alive. How could scientists know how much C-14 was being absorbed 10,000 years ago? This is one of the difficulties for those relying on carbon dating.

C-14 is constantly being produced when cosmic rays strike the upper atmosphere. Cosmic rays hit gasses in the upper atmosphere and knock off neutrons. Some of the neutrons react with the nitrogen-14 near them and form carbon-14 and an extra (free) proton. Remember, once C-14 is produced, it immediately begins to decay, so C-14 is decaying at the same time it is being made. When the production rate and the decay rate are equal, the amount of C-14 will be constant. This is called equilibrium.

It is possible to measure the rate of production and the rate of decay quite accurately. Therefore, it is possible to determine how long it would take for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to become constant starting from a point in time when there is not any C-14 at all present.

It would take 30,000 to 50,000 years to go from zero C-14 until equilibrium is reached. Since scientists accept the concept of evolution, they conclude that the atmosphere is millions of years old. Since C-14 equilibrium would certainly have been reached in the first 50,000 years, it is assumed to have already happened millions of years ago.

When carbon-14 dating was first utilized, it was based on the idea that the amount of C-14 was, in fact, stable and unchanging and, therefore, the ratio between C-12 and C-14 was thought to be constant. But in the 1960s, research proved this to be incorrect. It was discovered that C-14 equilibrium had not yet been reached. In fact, it was estimated that the formation rate of C-14 was 30 percent greater than the decay rate, meaning the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is increasing.

What was the solution for scientists to be able to continue using carbon-14 dating? They set the year of 1950 as a standard. Deciding to use the ratio of C-12 to C-14 present in that year, they considered it to be the point of equilibrium.

Further steps were needed since even this point of reference did not produce ages for material complementary to evolutionist thinking. So, scientists produced “correction tables.” When something is tested and carbon-14 dating doesn’t give the age scientists like, they apply these correction tables and change the age to match predetermined estimates of the sample’s age.

Then there is another remedy used in science to resolve conflicts with carbon-14 dating and preconceived notions: They simply don’t include the carbon-14 dating results. If a sample is “thought” to be 32,500 years old and carbon-14 dating suggests it is only 4,000 years old, the carbon-14 dating data is simply dropped from the records. In the proceedings of a symposium on radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology held in Sweden in 1969, two researchers from the University of Uppsala introduced their report with these words: “C-14 was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists toward it as follows: ‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it’” (T. Säve-Söderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium). Just like that, the conflict is resolved.

To review, the concept of carbon dating is based on the fallacy of a constant amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, and the fallacy of a constant ratio between C-12 and C-14. When the problems of C-14 amounts not being constant were discovered, scientists decided to use the amount in the atmosphere in 1950 as a standard; and when the dates still don’t match the assumptions of the scientists, they apply a “correction table” to make them match. And if, after all of these “adjustments” are made, a carbon date still doesn’t match the ideas of the scientist, the carbon dating data is simply ignored.

To see how this looks in a real application, we can examine the example of what scientists call Cro-Magnon man. According to scientists, Cro-Magnon footprints found in France’s Chauvet Cave four years ago are estimated to be about 26,000 years old. The estimate is based on carbon dating of the soot from torches on the cave ceiling. The test shows about 2-3 percent of the C-14 present in the soot as would have been present in 1950 (the standard year). Since it would take about 26,000 years for the C-14 to decay that far, the age is set at 26,000 years old.

But, because we know C-14 is not in a state of equilibrium (stable), it is necessary to “estimate” what it would have been in the past. If we use the current growth rate of C-14 in the atmosphere and calculate back from there, we find it actually may have been only 4,000 years ago that the 2-3 percent figure would have been true. Here is why.

We can calculate backward how much C-14 was in the atmosphere last year, and 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago and so on. Since about 4,000 years ago there would only be about 19 percent as much C-14 in the atmosphere as the standard year of 1950, the wood the soot comes from would only have absorbed 19 percent as much C-14 as expected. Then, knowing the half-life/decay rate, we can calculate the 2-3 percent figure to be all that would be left today.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=726
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2009, 11:59:41 AM »
Actually it does. Not the fact that you may or may not like Darwin, but the fact that he was an inbred eugenicist, that had a preconceived conclusion before he started.

That's not truth, that's finding 'evidence' that matches your philosophy in life - aka - the Darwin family is more evolved and thus a superior race.
The thing is, his theory can be proven. People need to stop trying to make the facts suit their vision of how the world should look. That's not what being a truthseeker is about. The fact that Newton was a hermeticist doesn't mean his theory is false either.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2009, 12:16:27 PM »
Just couldnt resist bringing religion into it could you. I really thought you could debate this with out having to bring up my beliefs, and you say you dont like the way your threads turn out. Well why bring it up then?? 

Most people think carbon dating can be used to establish the age of anything old. They believe every artifact dug up or discovered by archeologists, anthropologists, geologists, or other scientists can have its age accurately determined, within a narrow range, by carbon dating. But is that the truth? Let’s look at carbon-14 dating to discover just how accurate and reliable it really is.

Just what is carbon dating?

First, it is based on the ratio of two elements—carbon 12 (C-12) to carbon 14 (C-14)—found in a sample of the object being dated. The ratio of C-12 to C-14 is approximately 1 billion to one in today’s atmosphere. All living things, directly or indirectly, absorb carbon from the atmosphere. The carbon absorbed is both C-12 and C-14 and it is absorbed at the same ratio as it exists in the atmosphere.

Once a living thing dies, it stops absorbing both C-12 and C-14.

Notice that something must have been alive to absorb C-12 and C-14. Therefore it is not possible to date inorganic material. Anything that was never alive cannot be dated using carbon dating methods. References to carbon dating of rocks, for example, are inaccurate since rocks were never alive.

A basic quality of C-12, the most prevalent form of carbon, is stability—it doesn’t change. C-14, however, is unstable and begins changing immediately after it is formed. Each C-14 atom will lose an electron from the nucleus. The process of losing electrons is referred to as decay. The rate of decay is considered constant and measurable, and is expressed by the term “half life.”

Half life can be understood, for our purpose, by thinking of a block of ice. Our block weighs 10 pounds and begins to melt. The time it takes to melt until it weighs only 5 pounds (half the original weight) is called its “half life.” For this example, let’s say the ice takes five hours to melt from 10 pounds down to 5 pounds. The half life would be five hours. This is not exactly the way C-14 acts, but it serves our purpose.

Unlike ice melting, the half life of carbon and other unstable elements is constant. In other words, if it takes 5,730 years for 10 pounds of C-14 to decay to only 5 pounds, it would also take 5,730 years for 5 pounds to become 2.5 pounds. No matter how much you start with, it will take the same amount of time to reduce it to half, hence the term half life.

C-14 has a half life of 5,730 years. If you begin with 100 pounds of C-14, it would take 5,730 years until there would only be 50 pounds left. It would take an additional 5,730 years for the 50 pounds to decay to only 25 pounds, and so on, halving the amount of C-14 every 5,730 years.

When C-14 is formed, it begins to break down into nitrogen as it loses an electron from the nucleus. If you know how much C-14 something contained to begin with, you can determine how long it has been decaying by measuring how much C-14 is left.

So here is how it works. A piece of wood is tested to see just how long ago the tree died. The C-14 is measured and compared to the amount assumed to have been present when it was alive. If there is half as much C-14 as estimated when it was alive, it is said to have been 5,730 years since it died.

Now, this is based on “knowing” how much C-14 is in the atmosphere when a sample is alive. How could scientists know how much C-14 was being absorbed 10,000 years ago? This is one of the difficulties for those relying on carbon dating.

C-14 is constantly being produced when cosmic rays strike the upper atmosphere. Cosmic rays hit gasses in the upper atmosphere and knock off neutrons. Some of the neutrons react with the nitrogen-14 near them and form carbon-14 and an extra (free) proton. Remember, once C-14 is produced, it immediately begins to decay, so C-14 is decaying at the same time it is being made. When the production rate and the decay rate are equal, the amount of C-14 will be constant. This is called equilibrium.

It is possible to measure the rate of production and the rate of decay quite accurately. Therefore, it is possible to determine how long it would take for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to become constant starting from a point in time when there is not any C-14 at all present.

It would take 30,000 to 50,000 years to go from zero C-14 until equilibrium is reached. Since scientists accept the concept of evolution, they conclude that the atmosphere is millions of years old. Since C-14 equilibrium would certainly have been reached in the first 50,000 years, it is assumed to have already happened millions of years ago.

When carbon-14 dating was first utilized, it was based on the idea that the amount of C-14 was, in fact, stable and unchanging and, therefore, the ratio between C-12 and C-14 was thought to be constant. But in the 1960s, research proved this to be incorrect. It was discovered that C-14 equilibrium had not yet been reached. In fact, it was estimated that the formation rate of C-14 was 30 percent greater than the decay rate, meaning the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is increasing.

What was the solution for scientists to be able to continue using carbon-14 dating? They set the year of 1950 as a standard. Deciding to use the ratio of C-12 to C-14 present in that year, they considered it to be the point of equilibrium.

Further steps were needed since even this point of reference did not produce ages for material complementary to evolutionist thinking. So, scientists produced “correction tables.” When something is tested and carbon-14 dating doesn’t give the age scientists like, they apply these correction tables and change the age to match predetermined estimates of the sample’s age.

Then there is another remedy used in science to resolve conflicts with carbon-14 dating and preconceived notions: They simply don’t include the carbon-14 dating results. If a sample is “thought” to be 32,500 years old and carbon-14 dating suggests it is only 4,000 years old, the carbon-14 dating data is simply dropped from the records. In the proceedings of a symposium on radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology held in Sweden in 1969, two researchers from the University of Uppsala introduced their report with these words: “C-14 was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists toward it as follows: ‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it’” (T. Säve-Söderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium). Just like that, the conflict is resolved.

To review, the concept of carbon dating is based on the fallacy of a constant amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, and the fallacy of a constant ratio between C-12 and C-14. When the problems of C-14 amounts not being constant were discovered, scientists decided to use the amount in the atmosphere in 1950 as a standard; and when the dates still don’t match the assumptions of the scientists, they apply a “correction table” to make them match. And if, after all of these “adjustments” are made, a carbon date still doesn’t match the ideas of the scientist, the carbon dating data is simply ignored.

To see how this looks in a real application, we can examine the example of what scientists call Cro-Magnon man. According to scientists, Cro-Magnon footprints found in France’s Chauvet Cave four years ago are estimated to be about 26,000 years old. The estimate is based on carbon dating of the soot from torches on the cave ceiling. The test shows about 2-3 percent of the C-14 present in the soot as would have been present in 1950 (the standard year). Since it would take about 26,000 years for the C-14 to decay that far, the age is set at 26,000 years old.

But, because we know C-14 is not in a state of equilibrium (stable), it is necessary to “estimate” what it would have been in the past. If we use the current growth rate of C-14 in the atmosphere and calculate back from there, we find it actually may have been only 4,000 years ago that the 2-3 percent figure would have been true. Here is why.

We can calculate backward how much C-14 was in the atmosphere last year, and 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago and so on. Since about 4,000 years ago there would only be about 19 percent as much C-14 in the atmosphere as the standard year of 1950, the wood the soot comes from would only have absorbed 19 percent as much C-14 as expected. Then, knowing the half-life/decay rate, we can calculate the 2-3 percent figure to be all that would be left today.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=726
Yeah I like it, but the thing is Carbon Dating has been calibrated and verified using other methods:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
Claim CD011.1:
Carbon dating is based on the atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratio, but that ratio varies. Thus the carbon dating method is not valid.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 162-166.
Response:

   1. The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).

Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1
References:

   1. Bard, E., B. Hamelin, R. G. Fairbanks and A. Zindler. 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
   2. Becker, B. and B. Kromer. 1993. The continental tree-ring record -- absolute chronology, 14C calibration and climate change at 11 ka. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 103: 67-71.
   3. Becker, B., B. Kromer and P. Trimborn. 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary. Nature 353: 647-649.
   4. Dickin, A. P. 1995. Radiogenic Isotope Geology, Cambridge University Press.
   5. Edwards, R. L. et al. 1993. A large drop in atmospheric 14C/12C and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas, documented with 230Th ages of corals. Science 260: 962-968.
   6. Hughen, K. et al. 2004. 14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years. Science 303: 202-207. See also Bard, E., F. Rostek and G. Ménot-Combes. 2004. A better radiocarbon clock. Science 303: 178-179.
   7. Kitagawa, H. and J. van der Plicht. 1998. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production. Science 279: 1187-1190. See also Kitagawa, H. and J. van der Plicht, 2000. PE-04. A 45.000 year varve chronology from Japan. http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm

Further Reading:
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth. Stanford University Press.

Lowe, J. John, ed., 1991. Radiocarbon dating: Recent applications and future potential. Quaternary Proceedings Number 1, 1991, Published for the Quaternary Research Association, Wiley.

We find the same results with every method. And guess what, none of them show that the Earth is 6000 years old! Even the trees show the Earth is older.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2009, 12:26:51 PM »
lets see here you missed this.

Quote
Just couldnt resist bringing religion into it could you. I really thought you could debate this with out having to bring up my beliefs, and you say you dont like the way your threads turn out. Well why bring it up then?? 

ok now,

Quote
The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366).

gee why would it need calibration?? oh thats right NO EQUALIZATION.

It would take 30,000 to 50,000 years to go from zero C-14 until equilibrium is reached. Since scientists accept the concept of evolution, they conclude that the atmosphere is millions of years old. Since C-14 equilibrium would certainly have been reached in the first 50,000 years, it is assumed to have already happened millions of years ago.

When carbon-14 dating was first utilized, it was based on the idea that the amount of C-14 was, in fact, stable and unchanging and, therefore, the ratio between C-12 and C-14 was thought to be constant. But in the 1960s, research proved this to be incorrect. It was discovered that C-14 equilibrium had not yet been reached. In fact, it was estimated that the formation rate of C-14 was 30 percent greater than the decay rate, meaning the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is increasing.

What was the solution for scientists to be able to continue using carbon-14 dating? They set the year of 1950 as a standard. Deciding to use the ratio of C-12 to C-14 present in that year, they considered it to be the point of equilibrium.

Further steps were needed since even this point of reference did not produce ages for material complementary to evolutionist thinking. So, scientists produced “correction tables.” When something is tested and carbon-14 dating doesn’t give the age scientists like, they apply these correction tables and change the age to match predetermined estimates of the sample’s age.


So they play with the numbers to get the result they want. Hmmm, in some circles thats called fraud.
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #59 on: May 23, 2009, 12:33:29 PM »
What was the solution for scientists to be able to continue using carbon-14 dating? They set the year of 1950 as a standard. Deciding to use the ratio of C-12 to C-14 present in that year, they considered it to be the point of equilibrium.
Your source lies about carbon dating. They didn't just set a date as a standard.
Here is how Carbon Dating is actually calibrated:



Radiocarbon Dating
http://www.unmuseum.org/radiocar.htm
Until the middle of the twentieth century archaeologists had a real problem. If they found a bit of pottery, an old coin, or another object while digging up a site, just how old was it? How could they tell if the object had been dropped on the ground thirty years ago or thirty centuries ago?

In general, archaeologists knew that the farther they had to dig down to find an object, the older it probably was and that objects found at the same level, or stratum, were close in age. That was helpful when comparing the relative ages of two items, but how could they get the actual age? And how could they compare the ages of items found at sites fifty miles apart?

If a society had written records the archaeologists could compare the history against the type of objects they were finding in the ground. A coin bearing the likeness of Augustus Caesar certainly couldn't have minted before Caesar started his reign. Likewise an Egyptian piece of pottery with a design depicting horse and chariot couldn't have been made before the horse was introduced to Egypt.

Using these types of clues archaeologists were able to construct a firm history for some societies. By matching pottery between a culture with a known chronology against one without, they could even hazard a guess about historical dates when there were no records. This still left scientists wondering about the age of sites where neither cross-matching of pottery or written records could be used. That was, until the invention of radiocarbon dating.

The development of atomic physics in the beginning of the 20th century allowed scientists to understand the phenomenon of radioactivity. Radioactivity results when an atom has a combination of neutrons and protons in its nucleus which is unstable. The atom will expel particles or energy in an attempt to become stable. The expelled energy or particles are the radioactivity. Eventually the atom will change itself into a different substance which may no longer be radioactive. The time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample of radioactive material to decay into another form is known as the "half-life" of the radioactive material. Different radioactive materials may have half-lives that range from a few seconds to hundreds of thousands of years.

One naturally-occurring radioactive material found in the atmosphere is carbon-14. As plants and animals use the air, their tissues absorb some of the carbon-14. After they die, though, they no longer absorb the carbon-14 and the material in their tissues starts to decay.

In 1949 it occurred to a scientist named Willard Libby that the amount of carbon-14 decay found in an animal or plant could be used as a gauge of how long it had been dead. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. That meant if Libby found a sample where the amount of carbon-14 was only half the amount that might be expected in a living creature, he knew the age of it would be about 5730 years.

Though archaeologists could not directly use radiocarbon dating on objects such as coins, they could often find organic material (like charcoal from a fire) on the same stratum at a site as the object. In this way the age of the coin, or any other non-organic item, might be inferred from the age of the charcoal.

When scientists began to use this method to find the age of sites they ran into a problem. The new radiocarbon numbers didn't seem to jibe with the written records. In some cases they seemed to be hundreds of years off.

In an attempt to understand the differences, scientists looked towards the bristlecone pines of California. These trees are thought to be the oldest living things on Earth and some have ages of almost 5,000 years. Fortunately the bristlecone pine, like other trees, lays down a growth ring every year. Each growth ring turned out to be a measure of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere during that year. What scientists hadn't understood was that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere wasn't constant, but changed. This meant that the living organisms had different levels of carbon-14 in their tissues depending on the year in which they died. This explained why the early radiocarbon dates didn't match up with the written records.

With a record of the amount of carbon-14 found in the atmosphere available through the pines, scientists were then able to calibrate the test and get dates that matched their written records. The bristlecone pine is such a tough tree that its wood can survive intact for a long time after it is dead. By comparing the growth rings of living bristlecone pines with ones dead for many years, scientists have been able to extend the calibration chart back about 11,000 years.

The radiocarbon dating method has been invaluable in helping scientists date archaeological sites where no other method was available and confirm dates at other locations. Some of these sites include Stonehenge, in England, Mystery Hill, in the United States, and Easter Island in the Pacific.

Dead bristlecone pine trunks like this one hold the key to getting accurate radiocarbon dates as far back as 11,000 years. (Photo by J. Scott Bovitz)

Stop buying their lies.

Offline Noel Degrassi

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
    • First Responders First
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2009, 12:50:25 PM »
Okay, someone explain this to me, if you can....

How are all these fossils getting buried in the first place? Is it under the assumption of everything being formed from volcanoes, because except for a lava flow to build up an area, I don't see any other land mass GROWING to where it would cover dead animals (so much so that they can be fossilized.....how did they not completely decay before the land "slowly buried them"?). My point being is that I see everything erode. Everything erodes. So the more erosion the more things build up?...only if you're a river delta.

Besides, Darwin wasn't a "scientist" by today's scientist's standard. His degree was in Theology, right? Not biology, chemistry or geology.
Am I wrong? (I have to ask because I see that "you're not a REAL scientist" thing thrown around a lot, as if having a piece of paper saying you followed blindly what the Universe Cities taught you about the world was infallible.)

And another thing, why do people keep refering to the LAW of Gravity as the Theory of Gravity? It's can be measured, demonstrated, and repeated. THAT is science. Changing the FACTS of science when you find out you've been wrong the whole time and then just calling it 'factual science' again, IS NOT f**kIN' SCIENCE.



Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2009, 01:55:51 PM »
Your source lies about carbon dating. They didn't just set a date as a standard.
Here is how Carbon Dating is actually calibrated:



Radiocarbon Dating
http://www.unmuseum.org/radiocar.htm
Until the middle of the twentieth century archaeologists had a real problem. If they found a bit of pottery, an old coin, or another object while digging up a site, just how old was it? How could they tell if the object had been dropped on the ground thirty years ago or thirty centuries ago?

In general, archaeologists knew that the farther they had to dig down to find an object, the older it probably was and that objects found at the same level, or stratum, were close in age. That was helpful when comparing the relative ages of two items, but how could they get the actual age? And how could they compare the ages of items found at sites fifty miles apart?

If a society had written records the archaeologists could compare the history against the type of objects they were finding in the ground. A coin bearing the likeness of Augustus Caesar certainly couldn't have minted before Caesar started his reign. Likewise an Egyptian piece of pottery with a design depicting horse and chariot couldn't have been made before the horse was introduced to Egypt.

Using these types of clues archaeologists were able to construct a firm history for some societies. By matching pottery between a culture with a known chronology against one without, they could even hazard a guess about historical dates when there were no records. This still left scientists wondering about the age of sites where neither cross-matching of pottery or written records could be used. That was, until the invention of radiocarbon dating.

The development of atomic physics in the beginning of the 20th century allowed scientists to understand the phenomenon of radioactivity. Radioactivity results when an atom has a combination of neutrons and protons in its nucleus which is unstable. The atom will expel particles or energy in an attempt to become stable. The expelled energy or particles are the radioactivity. Eventually the atom will change itself into a different substance which may no longer be radioactive. The time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample of radioactive material to decay into another form is known as the "half-life" of the radioactive material. Different radioactive materials may have half-lives that range from a few seconds to hundreds of thousands of years.

One naturally-occurring radioactive material found in the atmosphere is carbon-14. As plants and animals use the air, their tissues absorb some of the carbon-14. After they die, though, they no longer absorb the carbon-14 and the material in their tissues starts to decay.

In 1949 it occurred to a scientist named Willard Libby that the amount of carbon-14 decay found in an animal or plant could be used as a gauge of how long it had been dead. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. That meant if Libby found a sample where the amount of carbon-14 was only half the amount that might be expected in a living creature, he knew the age of it would be about 5730 years.

Though archaeologists could not directly use radiocarbon dating on objects such as coins, they could often find organic material (like charcoal from a fire) on the same stratum at a site as the object. In this way the age of the coin, or any other non-organic item, might be inferred from the age of the charcoal.

When scientists began to use this method to find the age of sites they ran into a problem. The new radiocarbon numbers didn't seem to jibe with the written records. In some cases they seemed to be hundreds of years off.

In an attempt to understand the differences, scientists looked towards the bristlecone pines of California. These trees are thought to be the oldest living things on Earth and some have ages of almost 5,000 years. Fortunately the bristlecone pine, like other trees, lays down a growth ring every year. Each growth ring turned out to be a measure of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere during that year. What scientists hadn't understood was that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere wasn't constant, but changed. This meant that the living organisms had different levels of carbon-14 in their tissues depending on the year in which they died. This explained why the early radiocarbon dates didn't match up with the written records.

With a record of the amount of carbon-14 found in the atmosphere available through the pines, scientists were then able to calibrate the test and get dates that matched their written records. The bristlecone pine is such a tough tree that its wood can survive intact for a long time after it is dead. By comparing the growth rings of living bristlecone pines with ones dead for many years, scientists have been able to extend the calibration chart back about 11,000 years.

The radiocarbon dating method has been invaluable in helping scientists date archaeological sites where no other method was available and confirm dates at other locations. Some of these sites include Stonehenge, in England, Mystery Hill, in the United States, and Easter Island in the Pacific.

Dead bristlecone pine trunks like this one hold the key to getting accurate radiocarbon dates as far back as 11,000 years. (Photo by J. Scott Bovitz)

Stop buying their lies.

the whole purpose of calibration is that it dosent work, why? NO EQUALISATION. Im not the one buying into lies. Thats why when you carbon date a recent dead thing the dates DO NOT WORK. This is why almost every lab will not process the material unless you give them a date to reference, then they shoot for that date. Is that science Dave?? I think not. Also not all trees grow the samr every year, and that im hoping you should know.

New or Old?
Some examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.

A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old.


More Evidence Needed
These anomalies have driven archaeologists to question their earlier conclusions about archaeological sites and their respective civilizations founded on artefact dating. Many theories about societies and their cultures have been based solely on C14 dating results. The honest archaeologist can no longer propose theories and ideas without bringing a wider plate of evidences to the history table.


http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html


You missed this yet again.
Quote
Just couldnt resist bringing religion into it could you. I really thought you could debate this with out having to bring up my beliefs, and you say you dont like the way your threads turn out. Well why bring it up then?? 


HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #62 on: May 23, 2009, 02:25:45 PM »
Yeah to think that every animal absorbs C14 the same and every tree or plants in the same. Or a tree tested in one part of the world would be the same as the whole world. Thats what a child might understand the world as but the are 1,000,000,000,000s of variables that we have yet to discover. To think of science of our time as absolute is well retarded. Plus one is only truly wise when they admit there is more to know then is known! Not everything I know is fact, I have perfect logic, I am a genius, and can never be wrong!
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2009, 02:30:45 PM »
the whole purpose of calibration is that it dosent work, why? NO EQUALISATION. Im not the one buying into lies. Thats why when you carbon date a recent dead thing the dates DO NOT WORK. This is why almost every lab will not process the material unless you give them a date to reference, then they shoot for that date. Is that science Dave?? I think not. Also not all trees grow the samr every year, and that im hoping you should know.
The reason it doesn't work is because you can't date stuff that isn't at least 150 years old, because the c14 ratio has changed. You can't date stuff older than about 60.000 years either. Scientists understand this, creationists try to use it as an argument why c14 doesn't work. It makes about as much sense as digging up a dead body, applying electroshock therapy and saying the fact that the body doesn't come back to life proves electroshock therapy doesn't work.

New or Old?
Some examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. [/quote]Alright, a new example. This is called the reservoir effect.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

Claim CD011.3:
Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, showing that the dating method is invalid.
Source:
Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp
Response:

   1. The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. The article discussed the potential errors that the presence of "dead carbon" would introduce into the dating of mollusks. For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."

      The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:

          Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium.

      In other words, the apparent age of 27,000 years for these snail shells is another example of the reservoir effect. The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.

      Contrary to the complaints of creationists, conventional scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. This is not the fatal flaw to radiometric dating that some creationists claim it to be. It just shows that dates from mollusks from streams and lakes need to be carefully evaluated as to their reliability. Other materials, such as wood, charcoal, bone, and hide, would remain unaffected by this type of reservoir effect. If found with shells in the same layer, these materials could be dated to determine if shells are locally affected by the reservoir effect and, if so, how much their radiocarbon dates have been skewed by it.

      (See also the C14-dating of a seal for another example of the reservoir effect.)

Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R3
References:

   1. Keith, M. L., and G. M. Anderson, 1963. Radiocarbon dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells. Science 141: 634-637.
   2. Riggs, A. C., 1984. Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada springs. Science 224: 58-61.
   3. Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History: The evolution/creation controversy, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Further Reading:
Aitken, M. J., 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. Longman, England.

Bowman, Sheridan, 1990. Radiocarbon Dating. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

Taylor, R. E., 1987. Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Orlando, USA: Academic Press.

Quote
A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.
Again, the reservoir effect:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

Claim CD011.4:
A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.
Source:
Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp
Response:

   1. This claim derives from Wakefield (1971):

          Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.

      This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast.

      The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Plants incorporate this "old" carbon in them as they grow. Animals eat the plants; seals eat the animals, and the "old" carbon from the bottom waters is passed through the food chain. As a result, the radiocarbon content reflects a mixture of old radiocarbon, which is thousands of years old, and contemporaneous radiocarbon from the atmosphere. The result is an apparent age that differs from the true age of the seal.

      The reservoir effect is well known by scientists, who work hard to understand the limitations of their tools. It is explained, for example, in Faure (1986) and Higham (n.d.). Contrary to creationist propaganda, limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool.

References:

   1. Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
   2. Higham, Thomas, n.d. Corrections to radiocarbon dates. http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html
   3. Wakefield, Dort, Jr., 1971. Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land. Antarctic Journal 6(5): 210-211.

Further Reading:
Aitken, M. J., 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. Longman, England.

Bowman, Sheridan, 1990. Radiocarbon Dating. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Taylor, R. E., 1987. Radiocarbon Dating. An archaeological perspective. Orlando, USA: Academic Press.

Quote
A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old.
See this is the exact reason you can't carbon date stuff from the 19th century. Excess carbon 12 started to be released from this moment on.
Quote
More Evidence Needed
These anomalies have driven archaeologists to question their earlier conclusions about archaeological sites and their respective civilizations founded on artefact dating. Many theories about societies and their cultures have been based solely on C14 dating results. The honest archaeologist can no longer propose theories and ideas without bringing a wider plate of evidences to the history table. [/color]

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html


You missed this yet again.

Again, wrong, C14 is still used and various other methods confirm that C14 dating is accurate.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2009, 02:31:31 PM »
Okay, someone explain this to me, if you can....

How are all these fossils getting buried in the first place? Is it under the assumption of everything being formed from volcanoes, because except for a lava flow to build up an area, I don't see any other land mass GROWING to where it would cover dead animals (so much so that they can be fossilized.....how did they not completely decay before the land "slowly buried them"?). My point being is that I see everything erode. Everything erodes. So the more erosion the more things build up?...only if you're a river delta.

Besides, Darwin wasn't a "scientist" by today's scientist's standard. His degree was in Theology, right? Not biology, chemistry or geology.
Am I wrong? (I have to ask because I see that "you're not a REAL scientist" thing thrown around a lot, as if having a piece of paper saying you followed blindly what the Universe Cities taught you about the world was infallible.)

And another thing, why do people keep refering to the LAW of Gravity as the Theory of Gravity? It's can be measured, demonstrated, and repeated. THAT is science. Changing the FACTS of science when you find out you've been wrong the whole time and then just calling it 'factual science' again, IS NOT f**kIN' SCIENCE.




Who knows maybe this holds water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #65 on: May 23, 2009, 02:43:52 PM »
Quote
The reason it doesn't work is because you can't date stuff that isn't at least 150 years old

WHAT?? Did you really just say that? You cannot be serious right?? I will give you a chance to correct your apparent oversite.

You missed this again, a simple apology is all im asking for.
Quote
Just couldnt resist bringing religion into it could you. I really thought you could debate this with out having to bring up my beliefs, and you say you dont like the way your threads turn out. Well why bring it up then?? 


HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2009, 02:48:32 PM »
WHAT?? Did you really just say that? You cannot be serious right?? I will give you a chance to correct your apparent oversite.

You missed this again, a simple apology is all im asking for.

Yes I'm sorry man, carbon dating doesn't work for stuff that isn't at least 150 years old. Scientists know this, creationists react to it like it's a massive new revelation to them. And I don't understand why you think it's insulting when I mention your beliefs.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2009, 02:57:26 PM »
Yes I'm sorry man, carbon dating doesn't work for stuff that isn't at least 150 years old. Scientists know this, creationists react to it like it's a massive new revelation to them. And I don't understand why you think it's insulting when I mention your beliefs.


because we agreed to keep religion out of it and you then had to bring it up. Thats why, if you want me to bring religion into it im all game. Yet science can disprove evolution all on its own.

Now lets see here about this 150 year poop your peddling.

Carbon dating shows humans make new heart cells
Monya Baker1


The cold war helps settle a hot debate about how hearts grow

Fallout from nuclear bomb tests during the cold war has just yielded encouraging news for those searching for ways to reverse heart disease.

A team led by Jonas Frisén from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm has shown that adult human hearts make new muscle cells, albeit very, very slowly1.

Human heart cells that can generate cardiomyocytes in culture have been identified before. But how the heart regenerates naturally has been hotly contested, says Kenneth Chien of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Cambridge. "This study shows for the first time and very clearly that there is some turnover of cardiomyocytes within the lifetime of an individual." It also lays to rest claims that heart cells turn over quickly, says Deepak Srivastava of the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease in San Francisco, California.

To conduct the study, Frisén created his own version of radiocarbon dating. After the Second World War, tests of nuclear bombs spewed carbon-14 pollution into the atmosphere. This isotope was incorporated into plants and the people who consumed them.

After above-ground tests were stopped in 1963, levels of the isotope started to fall. The 14C in a cell's DNA corresponds to the amount of the isotope in the atmosphere at the time it was dividing, providing a way to date a cell's birth. (Unlike in archaeology studies, the half-life of 14C, about 5,700 years, does not affect these results.)

Slow but steady
People born before 1955 — and before the most intense period of nuclear-bomb testing — had levels of 14C in their cardiomyocytes that were higher than was present in the atmosphere at the time of their birth, so some of these cells must have arisen later on in their lives. Further work and mathematical modelling allowed Frisén's team to calculate that a 50-year-old heart still contains more than half the cells it had at birth and that the turnover slows down with time. A 25-year-old heart replaces about 1% of all cardiomyocytes over a year; a 75-year-old about half that.

Even that speed might be enough to be useful for people with heart disease who need new cardiomyocytes, says Charles Murry, who studies cardiovascular medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle. "They do turn over a little bit, and if we can figure how that works, we can exploit it."

Frisén notes that some existing drugs cause organs to generate new cells. Erythropoeitin, for instance, causes new blood cells to form in the bone marrow. Certain antidepressants cause new neurons to form in the brain. "It's not completely science fiction to imagine pharmaceuticals that promote the production of new cardiomyocytes," he says.

The next step, says Frisén, is to study heart tissue from people who have had heart attacks to see whether the heart produces more cardiomyocytes after injury. If so, techniques that enhance that process could reverse heart damage.

Big bang?
But the carbon-dating strategy can't answer one crucial question: what type of cell produces the new cardiomyocytes? "Is it a large effect in a discrete population or a small effect in a large population?" asks Chien.

That could make a huge difference in heart-repair strategies. If the regenerating cells contribute only to specialized parts of the heart, Chien says, then harnessing that potential to reverse heart disease will be much more difficult. He sees a different problem if the regenerative capacity is general. "It's so small it might be clinically trivial."

Murry agrees that the first step will be to find the source of the new cardiomyocytes. "Then we need to know what regulates them. What makes this process go at all?" After that, he says, researchers can try to get the cells to divide in situ or isolate them and try to expand the right population in culture. Even a small effect, he says, could mean a lot. "The animal data show that even a modest restoration of heart-muscle mass gives you a big bang for your buck."

http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2009/0904/090409/full/stemcells.2009.58.html


Well it looks like they are using it in the medical field well under 150 years. Hmmm, i wonder whos lying Dave. I think if you look out side of talk origins, you might actually learn something about science.
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2009, 03:10:40 PM »
Do you even read the massive amount of stuff you literally copypaste. Please do. If you would have read this article you would have found that it said:

Quote
The 14C in a cell's DNA corresponds to the amount of the isotope in the atmosphere at the time it was dividing, providing a way to date a cell's birth. (Unlike in archaeology studies, the half-life of 14C, about 5,700 years, does not affect these results.)
Read the stuff you copypaste, otherwise this is really pointless.

Now someone else will inevitably call me a know-it-all or something for actually reading the articles people dump, well I don't care, bring up an argument instead.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #69 on: May 23, 2009, 03:18:11 PM »
Do you even read the massive amount of stuff you literally copypaste. Please do. If you would have read this article you would have found that it said:
Read the stuff you copypaste, otherwise this is really pointless.

sorry Dave you said you cannot C-14 anything under 150 years. What i posted shows that you are wrong. SO what i posted was used correctly, id suggest that you remember just what you posted so that when i post in responce you will have an understanding of what the context is.

IN FACT, all c-14 tests dont work because the atmosphere HAS NEVER EQUALISED. NEVER.  :o  :o  :o
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #70 on: May 23, 2009, 03:25:13 PM »
sorry Dave you said you cannot C-14 anything under 150 years. What i posted shows that you are wrong. SO what i posted was used correctly, id suggest that you remember just what you posted so that when i post in responce you will have an understanding of what the context is.

IN FACT, all c-14 tests dont work because the atmosphere HAS NEVER EQUALISED. NEVER.  :o  :o  :o
Oh please. The article itself says that you can't use it in Archeology. The stuff you posted is about using the massive amounts of C14 that are now in the atmosphere because of nuclear tests, to date living cells. In archeology studies the half-life of 14C affects the results, in this study it doesn't, because the level of C14 is compared with the level of C14 in the Atmosphere of when these folks were born. But it can't be used in archeology studies, your own frigging article says it. Please read the stuff you post.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2009, 03:55:32 PM »
Oh please. The article itself says that you can't use it in Archeology. The stuff you posted is about using the massive amounts of C14 that are now in the atmosphere because of nuclear tests, to date living cells. In archeology studies the half-life of 14C affects the results, in this study it doesn't, because the level of C14 is compared with the level of C14 in the Atmosphere of when these folks were born. But it can't be used in archeology studies, your own frigging article says it. Please read the stuff you post.

they are still dating live cells, which isnt done in archaeology.
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #72 on: May 23, 2009, 03:58:29 PM »
they are still dating live cells, which isnt done in archaeology.
So you now understand it? This can't be used for Archeology, they're basically using the fallout from the Nuclear weapons to figure out the age of these cells.

Offline marra

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • THIS IS SPARRRTTAA
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #73 on: May 23, 2009, 04:10:35 PM »
A religious person I know claims that a great flood killed the dinosaurs.  I really don't know what he thinks after this happened.  Probably nothing, since he's brain dead for believing in god to begin with
If we simply got together and used our heads, we could have whatever our hearts desired

lovealexjones

  • Guest
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #74 on: May 23, 2009, 04:12:04 PM »
Believing in God is the first step to wisdom marra banana.

Offline marra

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • THIS IS SPARRRTTAA
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #75 on: May 23, 2009, 04:16:19 PM »
Oh I believe in god, I just don't know for sure if he exists.  Agnosticism.  Only way to fly.
If we simply got together and used our heads, we could have whatever our hearts desired

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #76 on: May 23, 2009, 04:31:31 PM »
I would like to turn your attention to grain storage.  In that I believe
that with proper air sampling that an evaluation of the bacteria and fungus
present in the storage facility, along with attainable data from lab
cultures of such grain infecting bacteria and funguses, software can be
developed that uses the humidity of a grain storage facility to determin the
rate of decomposition.  Within the event of decomposition  being known the
software would be used to predetermin the length of time that grain in
storage after harvest will be fit for human consumption.

    This would be used in conjunction with a De-humidification system to
completely dry what is appearantly already dry grain.  This would be done to
increase the time that grain can be stored, by removing the moisture that is
responsible for premature sprouting of grains, growth of funguses, rate of
bacterial growth, and the overall rate of decomposition.

    In order to prevent the risk of grain fires, or grain dust explosions, a
properly calibrated humidity sensor.  I believe that this can be done at 20
volts using a DC air resistance measuring device prepared to measure
resistances up to 100 Tera ohms in order to prevent arcing and the potential
of grain fires starting at the sensor.  I reassure you that I have done a
few calculations and have had some experiance in electronics, and these are
close to correct.  I know the importance of high impedances in preventing
arcs.  Second, if the system is designed to preform a second function that
ultra low de-humified environments can be utilized.  Unless an absolutely
de-humidified storage facility is closed, or sealed in such a way grain will
not be removed until it can be humidified the eliminate the risk of static
electricity's potential of generating enough static electricity for a grain
fire or explosion to become eventual, but with a humidifier the problem of
opening sealed storage sites is reduced to almost none.

    I base this solution of prolong storage systems of the longevity of beef
jerky, a few seeds found in desert climates carbon dated at 75 years old,
and active pollen grains carbon dated around 100 years old.


http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bio-soft/1998-March/018522.html


HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #77 on: May 23, 2009, 04:42:16 PM »
What is the youngest thing that can be radiocarbon dated?

This is a difficult one, because we can date pretty much anything from today or in modern times, but getting an actual 'date' is hard. In the 1950s and 60s, people blew up alot of nuclear bombs, and one thing that happened because of this was that alot of radiocarbon was created in the air artificially. Radiocarbon is a side effect of nuclear bombs. In the early 1960s the amount of radiocarbon produced by bombs was bigger than the amount of radiocarbon naturally present! It sounds bad, and nuclear bombs are not pleasant when they are generated, but for science there have been some spinoffs because we have been able to study the movement of this radiocarbon through the environment and learn alot about how radiocarbon is transported naturally. So this has been beneficial. We can also date things that have happened since 1950 rather well because of the sudden jump in radiocarbon on Earth, so that it is possible to figure out within 2-3 years sometimes, the date of a sample.
Generally, we can date things pretty well over the past 1000 years, it becomes difficult from about 1700 AD to 1900 AD because of natural changes in radiocarbon, and since 1950 AD dating is quite possible.

http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #78 on: May 23, 2009, 05:00:55 PM »
What is the youngest thing that can be radiocarbon dated?

This is a difficult one, because we can date pretty much anything from today or in modern times, but getting an actual 'date' is hard. In the 1950s and 60s, people blew up alot of nuclear bombs, and one thing that happened because of this was that alot of radiocarbon was created in the air artificially. Radiocarbon is a side effect of nuclear bombs. In the early 1960s the amount of radiocarbon produced by bombs was bigger than the amount of radiocarbon naturally present! It sounds bad, and nuclear bombs are not pleasant when they are generated, but for science there have been some spinoffs because we have been able to study the movement of this radiocarbon through the environment and learn alot about how radiocarbon is transported naturally. So this has been beneficial. We can also date things that have happened since 1950 rather well because of the sudden jump in radiocarbon on Earth, so that it is possible to figure out within 2-3 years sometimes, the date of a sample.
Generally, we can date things pretty well over the past 1000 years, it becomes difficult from about 1700 AD to 1900 AD because of natural changes in radiocarbon, and since 1950 AD dating is quite possible.
http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html
Thanks for proving my point. Glad to see you agree.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #79 on: May 23, 2009, 05:04:55 PM »
Thanks for proving my point. Glad to see you agree.

what was that about reading what you post??

and since 1950 AD dating is quite possible.


thats way less than 150 years.  ;D
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)