Why Ida fossil is not the missing link

Author Topic: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link  (Read 75246 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 #80 on: May 23, 2009, 05:19:57 PM »
what was that about reading what you post??

and since 1950 AD dating is quite possible.


thats way less than 150 years.  ;D
Yes, but that's of little use to Archeology and Paleontology now is it? ::) You also explained to yourself why your example from the 19th century that attempted to make carbon dating look unreliable is a fraud. Thanks for that. Hey, I could call it contradicting yourself, but I'll be positive and call it rebutting your own earlier posts.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #81 on: May 23, 2009, 05:28:21 PM »
Yes, but that's of little use to Archeology and Paleontology now is it? ::) You also explained to yourself why your example from the 19th century that attempted to make carbon dating look unreliable is a fraud. Thanks for that. Hey, I could call it contradicting yourself, but I'll be positive and call it rebutting your own earlier posts.

sorry bud, im just showing how you are wrong. You said they cannot date anything under 150 years. I have shown many times that this is not correct. I and many,many, many  others including many. many, many, scientists know that c-14 dating of any kind is unreliable as i have continually shown that the atmosphere has NEVER EQUALISED, to which it has to in order for this test to work at all.
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 #82 on: May 23, 2009, 05:35:40 PM »
sorry bud, im just showing how you are wrong. You said they cannot date anything under 150 years. I have shown many times that this is not correct. I and many,many, many  others including many. many, many, scientists know that c-14 dating of any kind is unreliable as i have continually shown that the atmosphere has NEVER EQUALISED, to which it has to in order for this test to work at all.
Yes and that statement still stands. If it's younger than about 150 years, it becomes unreliable. And it can be used in certain cases that are at most about 50 years old, I'll hand you that, it's not really relevant to carbon dating as a reliable method though, which is what we were discussing. And the sources you just posted just confirm what I said, that you can't carbondate stuff from the 19th century, while you tried to push some 19th century stuff as an argument against carbondating. Do you see how you debunked your own argument against carbondating now?

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #83 on: May 23, 2009, 05:41:17 PM »
Yes and that statement still stands. If it's younger than about 150 years, it becomes unreliable. And it can be used in certain cases that are at most about 50 years old, I'll hand you that, it's not really relevant to carbon dating as a reliable method though, which is what we were discussing. And the sources you just posted just confirm what I said, that you can't carbondate stuff from the 19th century, while you tried to push some 19th century stuff as an argument against carbondating. Do you see how you debunked your own argument against carbondating now?

did you not read what i posted?? Heres what i posted ok, read it all this time.

Quote
sorry bud, im just showing how you are wrong. You said they cannot date anything under 150 years. I have shown many times that this is not correct.

thats for you on your beliefs. I have shown that you can in fact date under 150 years.  ::)

Here is my beliefs on it. As you can see they contradict both your statement and my responce to your statement on your views with your views.

Quote
I and many,many, many  others including many. many, many, scientists know that c-14 dating of any kind is unreliable as i have continually shown that the atmosphere has NEVER EQUALISED, to which it has to in order for this test to work at all.

Do you see the difference now? or should i make it bigger next time?  ???  :D ;) :P
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 #84 on: May 23, 2009, 05:59:13 PM »
did you not read what i posted?? Heres what i posted ok, read it all this time.

thats for you on your beliefs. I have shown that you can in fact date under 150 years.  ::)
While at the same time debunking your argument that carbon dating doesn't work because something from the 19th century turned up with a wrong date. I'll gladly say you can use carbon dating for stuff younger than 50 years in certain occasions.  But it doesn't matter because you don't have a single valid argument when you claim that carbon dating is an inaccurate method.
Quote
Here is my beliefs on it. As you can see they contradict both your statement and my responce to your statement on your views with your views.

Do you see the difference now? or should i make it bigger next time?  ???  :D ;) :P
Which is also not true. I already showed you how Carbon Dating calibrating works.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #85 on: May 23, 2009, 06:04:07 PM »
While at the same time debunking your argument that carbon dating doesn't work because something from the 19th century turned up with a wrong date. I'll gladly say you can use carbon dating for stuff younger than 50 years in certain occasions.  But it doesn't matter because you don't have a single valid argument when you claim that carbon dating is an inaccurate method. Which is also not true. I already showed you how Carbon Dating calibrating works.

dude i used your own science to show that you can date stuff from that period. And i also said i dont believe it, why because the atmosphere has never equalised. Please show me where it has ever equalised?? it should have taken 50,000 years to do so. Yet it hasnt. Hmmm, wonder why? Who was setting off nukes way back then?? oh wait it would have equalised then wouldnt it, or in the 50's, 60's and 70's by adding all that extra c-14 it should have equalised, yet it didnt. hmm. thats a mystery, i guess they just assume, you know that magic word for FAITH, that it happened.  ::)
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 #86 on: May 23, 2009, 06:10:20 PM »
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance.  The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero.  Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed.  If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying.  One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record.  Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old. 

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php


 Critical Assumption
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

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 #87 on: May 23, 2009, 06:19:50 PM »
Please show me where it has ever equalised?? it should have taken 50,000 years to do so.
Hahaha where are you getting this stuff from?

Here's what actual scientists say:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30668.php

Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, is naturally produced by cosmic ray interactions with air and is present at low levels in the atmosphere and food. Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons from 1955 to1963 produced a dramatic surge in the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere, Buchholz said.

"Even though the detonations were conducted at only a few locations, the elevated carbon-14 levels in the atmosphere rapidly equalized around the globe," he said.

Oops.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #88 on: May 23, 2009, 06:26:31 PM »
Quote
Hahaha where are you getting this stuff from?

dr. libby himself et tu?
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 #89 on: May 23, 2009, 06:33:16 PM »
dr. libby himself et tu?
Could you tell me where he said it should have taken 50,000 years for the C14 to equalize around the planet?

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #90 on: May 23, 2009, 08:06:12 PM »
Could you tell me where he said it should have taken 50,000 years for the C14 to equalize around the planet?

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

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 #91 on: May 23, 2009, 08:10:26 PM »
Quote
This is just linguistics. The scientists discovered that these private collectors had this fossile in their possession. Not an argument.

Lets get back on this, now we have private collectors who "found" the fossil. These private collectors then broke up the fossil and then sold the pieces. We have some contradictions in the stories here. the scientists are claiming that real scientists discovered the fossil, implying that everything was on the up and proper, and then we have a story of private collectors finding the fossil and breaking and selling it. And you have no problem with this?? Please explain why?.
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 Peerless

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #92 on: May 24, 2009, 01:12:10 AM »
from my perspective there are 2 distinct 'ass hats' in this thread....and neither of them have a 'u' in their nick..

Offline TheCaliKid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,570
  • What can we do about it, really?
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #93 on: May 24, 2009, 01:46:39 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.

100% wrong.


If the general public was made aware of the backgrounds of their Most Scared & Holy High Men of Science, and other truths, evolution would be universally shunned before tomorrow morning.


You think you are so high and mighty, with all your scientific mumbo-jumbo - which doesn't amount to a pile of rotten beans at the end of the day. You have totally forgotten, or are completely unaware, that the black robes have simply been traded in for white lab coats


Don't you get it? Don't you see it? Don't you understand? Science IS the new religion. Science IS the new dogma. 





Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #94 on: May 24, 2009, 07:54:10 AM »
100% wrong.

If the general public was made aware of the backgrounds of their Most Scared & Holy High Men of Science, and other truths, evolution would be universally shunned before tomorrow morning.

You think you are so high and mighty, with all your scientific mumbo-jumbo - which doesn't amount to a pile of rotten beans at the end of the day. You have totally forgotten, or are completely unaware, that the black robes have simply been traded in for white lab coats

Don't you get it? Don't you see it? Don't you understand? Science IS the new religion. Science IS the new dogma. 

He'll never get it he suffers from tunnel vision, only able to cherry pick and think about one puzzle piece at a time, and never the bigger picture. He seems to forget we are in an infowar or is fighting for the other side. Arguing with him is like telling a kindergartner about physics. Thats why I stopped replying pretty much.
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline TheCaliKid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,570
  • What can we do about it, really?
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #95 on: May 24, 2009, 09:14:55 AM »
He'll never get it he suffers from tunnel vision, only able to cherry pick and think about one puzzle piece at a time, and never the bigger picture. He seems to forget we are in an infowar or is fighting for the other side. Arguing with him is like telling a kindergartner about physics. Thats why I stopped replying pretty much.

Yes, I too will no longer waste my time. At the very least, I let my thoughts be known to all.
Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #96 on: May 24, 2009, 09:40:01 AM »
100% wrong.


If the general public was made aware of the backgrounds of their Most Scared & Holy High Men of Science, and other truths, evolution would be universally shunned before tomorrow morning.


You think you are so high and mighty, with all your scientific mumbo-jumbo - which doesn't amount to a pile of rotten beans at the end of the day. You have totally forgotten, or are completely unaware, that the black robes have simply been traded in for white lab coats


Don't you get it? Don't you see it? Don't you understand? Science IS the new religion. Science IS the new dogma. 

You people make me very sad. Science is their biggest enemy. The fact that we now have access to so much scientific knowledge is a giant problem for them. When you watch a presentation like Mercury Autism and the Global Vaccine agenda, realize what brought you this knowledge. It's science! The same science that proves that 9/11 was an inside job. The science that proves Global Warming is a fraud.

The patriot movement has existed for decades but the truth movement is relatively young. And the reason is the invention of the internet. We can now freely seek the truth because we have so much scientific knowledge available to us. This is their biggest problem!

The elite want to keep you dumb and superstituous because this is how they control you. They want you to choose faith over knowledge. You know, there was a time when everyone blindly listened to the priest caste and we didn't care about unpatriotic unamerican unconstitutional scientific mumbo-jumbo. It was called the dark ages, and it ended with one inbred family ruling most of our planet. The enlightment destroyed much of their power, when people started realizing they didn't rule because God wanted them to. Say what you want about the American Founding Fathers, but one thing that's certain is that they greatly valued scientific mumbo-jumbo. In fact, people like Benjamin Franklin were obsessed with science.
They push anti-intellectualism, they push creationism and they want to keep scientific knowledge to themselves. And arguably not just scientific knowledge but spiritual knowledge as well. This is what the mystery cults are all about, they want knowledge to remain secret. This is also why the internet has to be destroyed. This is why they are encouraging people to drop out of school through no child left behind. Do your enemy a favor and listen to their FEMA preachers that will teach you the end times have arrived. If we stop debating, if we start favoring gut feelings, emotional decisions and faith over knowledge, they win.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2009, 09:48:15 AM »
Quote
You people make me very sad. Science is their biggest enemy. The fact that we now have access to so much scientific knowledge is a giant problem for them. When you watch a presentation like Mercury Autism and the Global Vaccine agenda, realize what brought you this knowledge. It's science! The same science that proves that 9/11 was an inside job. The science that proves Global Warming is a fraud.

because that is science, something that is observable and testable. when you use words like "assume", you are no longer doing 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 #98 on: May 24, 2009, 09:53:42 AM »
In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/equilibrium.html
Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own.

This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!

The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)

Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.

It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument.

    Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.

(Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. Henry Morris chose not to mention that portion of the paper! Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said.

Tree-ring dating (see Topic 27) gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.

Contrary to creationist Barnes' totally discredited claims, which I've covered in Topic 11, the earth's magnetic field (dipole moment) has, indeed, increased and decreased over time. Strahler presents a graph of the earth's dipole moment going back 9000 years.

    Figure 19.5, curve C, shows the dipole field strength calculated from measurements of magnetism of lava flows and of artifacts such as pottery and bricks, whose age can be determined. The curve is roughly fitted to mean values determined about every 500 to 1,000 years... The curve is roughly 180 degrees out of phase with the C-14 curve.

(Strahler, 1987, p.156)

    The idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C-14 formation rates] has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, V. Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates. (Renfrew, p.76)

(Weber, 1982, p.27)

Thus, at least within the last 9000 years, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and those fluctuations have induced fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 to a noticeable extent. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. Hovind's claim that carbon-14 has been slowly building up towards a 30,000 year equilibrium is worthless. You now have the technical reason for the failure of Morris' model.

It may interest the reader to know that within this 9000-year period, where the radiocarbon method can be checked by tree-ring data, objects older than 400 BC receive a carbon-14 date which makes them appear younger than they really are! An uncorrected carbon-14 date of 6000 years for an object would actually mean that the object was 6700 years old. Seven hundred years or so is about as far as the carbon-14 method strays from tree-ring dating on the average. Individual dates given on a 1973 correlation chart (Bailey, 1989, p.100) show that objects with true ages between 4200 BC and 5400 BC would receive a carbon-14 date making them appear 500-900 years too young. As it turns out, we have a check on the carbon-14 production which goes back even further than 8000 years:

    Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).

    Thus, the available evidence is sufficient to validate the radiocarbon method of age determination with an error of about 10 percent for twice as long a period as the creation scenario calls for.

(Strahler, 1987, p.157)

Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.

Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago. (For a refutation of Barnes' argument see Topic 11 .)

Therefore, we may conclude that atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method. The evidence clearly refutes Dr. Hovind's claim that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is in the middle of a 30,000-year buildup. Thus, we can dismiss this young-earth argument.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2009, 09:59:40 AM »
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/equilibrium.html
Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own.

This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!

The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)

Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.

It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument.

    Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.

(Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. Henry Morris chose not to mention that portion of the paper! Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said.

Tree-ring dating (see Topic 27) gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.

Contrary to creationist Barnes' totally discredited claims, which I've covered in Topic 11, the earth's magnetic field (dipole moment) has, indeed, increased and decreased over time. Strahler presents a graph of the earth's dipole moment going back 9000 years.

    Figure 19.5, curve C, shows the dipole field strength calculated from measurements of magnetism of lava flows and of artifacts such as pottery and bricks, whose age can be determined. The curve is roughly fitted to mean values determined about every 500 to 1,000 years... The curve is roughly 180 degrees out of phase with the C-14 curve.

(Strahler, 1987, p.156)

    The idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C-14 formation rates] has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, V. Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates. (Renfrew, p.76)

(Weber, 1982, p.27)

Thus, at least within the last 9000 years, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and those fluctuations have induced fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 to a noticeable extent. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. Hovind's claim that carbon-14 has been slowly building up towards a 30,000 year equilibrium is worthless. You now have the technical reason for the failure of Morris' model.

It may interest the reader to know that within this 9000-year period, where the radiocarbon method can be checked by tree-ring data, objects older than 400 BC receive a carbon-14 date which makes them appear younger than they really are! An uncorrected carbon-14 date of 6000 years for an object would actually mean that the object was 6700 years old. Seven hundred years or so is about as far as the carbon-14 method strays from tree-ring dating on the average. Individual dates given on a 1973 correlation chart (Bailey, 1989, p.100) show that objects with true ages between 4200 BC and 5400 BC would receive a carbon-14 date making them appear 500-900 years too young. As it turns out, we have a check on the carbon-14 production which goes back even further than 8000 years:

    Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).

    Thus, the available evidence is sufficient to validate the radiocarbon method of age determination with an error of about 10 percent for twice as long a period as the creation scenario calls for.

(Strahler, 1987, p.157)

Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.

Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago. (For a refutation of Barnes' argument see Topic 11 .)

Therefore, we may conclude that atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method. The evidence clearly refutes Dr. Hovind's claim that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is in the middle of a 30,000-year buildup. Thus, we can dismiss this young-earth argument.

why do you have to bring religion into it yet again?? you are doing the very thing that you are always complaining about. Keep it to science.

Dr. Libby being the creator of the C-14 test,
Quote
In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

can you refute the above statement with out having to use craetionists or not??

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 #100 on: May 24, 2009, 10:05:08 AM »
why do you have to bring religion into it yet again?? you are doing the very thing that you are always complaining about. Keep it to science.

Dr. Libby being the creator of the C-14 test,
can you refute the above statement with out having to use craetionists or not??


Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.

Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago. (For a refutation of Barnes' argument see Topic 11 .)

Therefore, we may conclude that atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #101 on: May 24, 2009, 10:10:21 AM »
Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.

Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago. (For a refutation of Barnes' argument see Topic 11 .)

Therefore, we may conclude that atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method.

Then why isnt it equalised?? 4 billions years and no equalization, please explain. The ammount of time is there, yet it has NEVER equalised what so ever. So something is wrong, either the atomosophere went through a massive upheavle 30-50, 000 years ago, or there is another underlining problem. Hence this is why they have to calibrate there tests, because of no equalisation, the answers will always come out wrong. You vcan claim correlation from tree rings all you want, how do you know that tree didnt grow more than one ring a year?? most do.
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 #102 on: May 24, 2009, 10:27:00 AM »
Then why isnt it equalised?? 4 billions years and no equalization, please explain. The ammount of time is there, yet it has NEVER equalised what so ever. So something is wrong, either the atomosophere went through a massive upheavle 30-50, 000 years ago, or there is another underlining problem. Hence this is why they have to calibrate there tests, because of no equalisation, the answers will always come out wrong. You vcan claim correlation from tree rings all you want, how do you know that tree didnt grow more than one ring a year?? most do.
Please read the stuff I post. I know you don't read the articles you yourself post, but at least read the stuff I post:

The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)

Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.

It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument.

And, since you raised the double tree ring argument:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof27
It might interest you to know that trees go back at least 8000 years without being disturbed by Noah's flood! Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, November 1979, p.76). It turns out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows show up in the rings. We could add disease and excessive activity by pests to that list.

Different locations on the mountain also affect tree growth in that factors such as temperature, moisture, soil thickness, soil type, susceptibility to fire, susceptibility to wind, and the amount of sunlight received vary, sometimes dramatically. For example, a tree growing near a stream would be less susceptible to the effects of drought. Even the genetic inheritance of a tree plays a role in that it will magnify or retard the above factors. Thus, even trees on the same mountain, of the same species, don't always cross-date as nicely as one might think.

Creationists sometimes seize upon such isolated facts in their desperate bid to discredit tree-ring dating. They either don't understand--or don't want to understand--that careful statistical studies have settled the issue beyond a reasonable doubt.

Creationists will even quote statistics for species of trees which no dendrochronologist would ever think of using! Some species of trees are not sensitive enough to the year-to-year climatic changes whilafter 158 generations, e others sport such an irregular growth rate as to be worthless for precise tree-ring dating. We hear horror stories about how easy it is for a tree to produce two or more rings in one year. What their readers don't hear is that such problems are minimal for some species of trees. Dr. Andrew E. Douglass, who pioneered the field of dendrochronology, found that ponderosa pine and douglass fir are especially excellent for dating purposes. In such species spotting a double ring was "...easy to do by eye after a very little training..." (American Scientist, May-June 1982).

In the case of the bristlecone pine, the problem of double rings is hardly any problem at all!

    The dendrochronological check on radiocarbon dating is not without its own problems, the main one being that some species of trees may, under certain climatic conditions such as late frost, produce more than one ring per year [Glock and Agerter, 1963]. Fortunately, however, this has been "extremely rare" in the carefully checked history of bristlecone pines [Ferguson, 1968, p.840].

    (Bailey, 1989, p.101)

Dr. Charles Ferguson goes on to say that the growth-ring analysis of about 1000 bristlecone pine trees in the White Mountains, where these tree-ring studies are done, turned up no more than three or four cases where there was even a trace of extra rings. In fact, the case for partially or totally missing rings is much more impressive. A typical bristlecone pine has up to 5 percent of its rings missing (Weber, 1982, p.25). Thus, if anything, one is likely to get a date that is too young! A careful statistical study, of course, minimizes even that problem. That's why statistics were invented!

    Other species of trees corroborate the work that Ferguson did with bristlecone pines. Before his work, the tree-ring sequence of the sequoias had been worked out back to 1250 BC. The archaeological ring sequence had been worked out back to 59 BC. The lumber pine sequence had been worked out back to 25 BC. The radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates of these other trees agree with those Ferguson got from the bristlecone pine.

Offline TheCaliKid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,570
  • What can we do about it, really?
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #103 on: May 24, 2009, 10:30:29 AM »
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Waste of time, folks.


Get off your f**king computer and get out in nature for once. Drop acid and watch the shiny things go by.
Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #104 on: May 24, 2009, 10:55:32 AM »
Quote
It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument.

after 4 billion years it would have equalised. thats the whole point. there has been more than enough TIME. your whole argument is the barrel, it just dosent hold any water.


Quote
Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, November 1979, p.76). It turns out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows show up in the rings. We could add disease and excessive activity by pests to that list.

oh jeez. Popular Science?? really? Popular Science?  :D

There are huge gaps in the BCP chronology that they just "assume" is correct, for starters why are ther huge gaps?? and why is there that magic word again"assume". Please, they are not sure if those are 8000 or 2000 years old. Especially when they have to fudge the numbers. I mean where dont they fudge the numbers at in any of there dating crap.

And again. Popular Science?? really? Popular 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 #105 on: May 24, 2009, 11:11:25 AM »
after 4 billion years it would have equalised. thats the whole point. there has been more than enough TIME. your whole argument is the barrel, it just dosent hold any water.
Read it instead of repeating what you said earlier.
It doesn't and here's why:
The production isn't always exactly the same and that's why it doesn't equalize... it's not difficult to understand. Read it again:

It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument.



Quote
oh jeez. Popular Science?? really? Popular Science?  :D

There are huge gaps in the BCP chronology that they just "assume" is correct, for starters why are ther huge gaps?? and why is there that magic word again"assume". Please, they are not sure if those are 8000 or 2000 years old. Especially when they have to fudge the numbers. I mean where dont they fudge the numbers at in any of there dating crap.

And again. Popular Science?? really? Popular Science?.

Only about 5% are missing, so at most the age is somewhat older than the trees indicate. This would mean it goes back even further. And your double ring argument doesn't go up, because out of 1000 trees only about 3 or 4 showed extra rings.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #106 on: May 24, 2009, 11:34:39 AM »
Read it instead of repeating what you said earlier.
It doesn't and here's why:
The production isn't always exactly the same and that's why it doesn't equalize... it's not difficult to understand. Read it again:

It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument.


Only about 5% are missing, so at most the age is somewhat older than the trees indicate. This would mean it goes back even further. And your double ring argument doesn't go up, because out of 1000 trees only about 3 or 4 showed extra rings.

but still after 4 billion years it would have. period. more than enough time. It hasnt, and no good reason as to why. In fact there should be an over abundance, not an underabundance.

Quote
Only about 5% are missing, so at most the age is somewhat older than the trees indicate. This would mean it goes back even further. And your double ring argument doesn't go up, because out of 1000 trees only about 3 or 4 showed extra rings.

little more than that, also the tree would be younger as low frequency variance would be counted as high varience. Thus expanding the age of the tree. It all really falls to how the computer counts the rings.
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 #107 on: May 24, 2009, 11:34:57 AM »
Lets get back on this, now we have private collectors who "found" the fossil. These private collectors then broke up the fossil and then sold the pieces. We have some contradictions in the stories here. the scientists are claiming that real scientists discovered the fossil, implying that everything was on the up and proper, and then we have a story of private collectors finding the fossil and breaking and selling it. And you have no problem with this?? Please explain why?.
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 lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #108 on: May 24, 2009, 11:43:26 AM »
Some trousered apes will by ANYTHING.  ::)

NEWSFLASH =  missing link discovered!!!   

where?   hanging on someones wall.........for 25- years!!!

When do we get to look at it?     FOR ONE DAY ONLY!!! (at the museum , under armed guard lol)

What is it?  a lemming?

just like all the other ''missing links'' they  discovered.
"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/

Offline kingofplanetpoptart

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #109 on: May 29, 2009, 01:36:50 AM »
hehe lemmings... the pics I saw of the "missing link" did look like some kind of rodent, hehe I certainly hope that humans didn't evolve from rats, coz then the whole nwo plan will need to be re-worked. Gonna have to start over with cows :P

Offline lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #110 on: May 30, 2009, 08:48:22 PM »
hehe lemmings... the pics I saw of the "missing link" did look like some kind of rodent, hehe I certainly hope that humans didn't evolve from rats, coz then the whole nwo plan will need to be re-worked. Gonna have to start over with cows :P
THATSRIGHT...................TMNT!!!       Life imitates art.      We are teenage mutant ninja turtles  ;D
"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #111 on: June 01, 2009, 07:46:45 AM »
Missing links that never were (part I)

By Babu G. Ranganathan



Does the recent discovery of a supposed 47 million year old fossil of a monkey furnish us with a finally discovered "missing" link? The monkey is fully-formed and complete, but it shares similarities belonging to various species. That doesn't qualify it to be a true transitional form or missing link.

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins...part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned into feet. There's nothing like this in the fossil record. All traits of animals and plants in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. There are no real or true transitional forms (i.e. "missing" links) among the fossils or living creatures for that matter.

Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by different species as a basis for claiming a transitional ("missing") link. But, the problem for evolutionists is that all the traits which they cite are complete and fully-formed. And evolutionists are not consistent. The duck-billed platypus, for example, has traits belonging to both mammals and birds but even evolutionists won't go so far as to claim that the duck-billed platypus is a transitional link between birds and mammals!

In many other cases, however, evolutionists will use shared similarities of traits between various species as an example of a transitional (or "missing") link, but these are not true "missing" or transitional links so long as the traits are complete and fully-formed.

Millions of people are taught in schools and textbooks all over the world that the fossil record furnishes scientific proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

The Piltdown Man was an actual fraud that fooled the world for over forty years! It was eventually discovered that the Piltdown Man was a forgery of ape and human bones ingeniously placed together to convince the scientific community that the "missing" link was found.

At times evolutionists have used various bones gathered from many yards of each other and classify them as belonging to the same creature (even when there's no proof). They then reconstruct from these bones whatever will support their hypotheses. The fossil case "Lucy" is an excellent example of this. Scientists have only forty percent of the bones for Lucy. The bones were found yards from each other, some were found even a mile or more away! The knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below ground from the rest of the bones.

Many of the leading scientists doubt that the bones all belong to the same species or individual. And, some of the key bones are crushed. Yet, from all of this evolutionists have reconstructed a drawing of an ape-man creature (in full color) for display in textbooks and museums! Many experts are not convinced that Lucy was an ape-man because they're not convinced all of the bones belong to the same individual or even the same species. Many leading authorities have said that "Lucy" is really an extinct ape, but not an ape-man. Those scientists who are convinced that Lucy was an ape-man are the ones that receive all the attention from the mainstream media.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."

A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can't run or fly away from its predators. How would it survive? Why would it be preserved by natural selection? Imagine such a species surviving in such a miserable state over many millions of years waiting for fully-formed wings to evolve!

Some evolutionists cite the fossil of an ancient bird known to have claws as an example of a transitional link. However, there are two species of birds living today in South America that have claws on their wings, but even evolutionists today do not claim that these birds are transitional links from a reptilian ancestry. These claws are complete, as everything else on the birds.

What about all those spectacular and popular claims reported in the mass media of evolutionists having discovered certain transitional forms in the fossil record? Such claims have not been accepted by all evolutionists and, after much investigation and analysis, these claims have been found to have no hard basis in science. This has been the case of every so-called "missing link" and "transitional" form discovered since Darwin.

Recently it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with feathers until they found out that the so-called feathers were really scales which only had the appearance of feathers. Scientists theorize the scales took upon a feather-like appearance during some brief stage of decomposition before being fossilized. Even if they were feathers, this still wouldn't be any kind of evidence to support macro-evolution unless they can show a series of fossils having part-scale/part-feather structures as evidence that the scales had really evolved into feathers.

The recent news about a footprint found to be 1.5 millions years as evidence for human evolution is based on circular reasoning. First, many don't realize the evolutionary assumptions involved in dating fossil layers, but that is another story. Readers who wish to pursue the subject may find the Pravda article "Are Fossils Really Millions Years Old?" of interest. Many have wrongly believed that evolutionists use infallible scientific dating methods. Concerning the recent discovery of a 1.5 million year footprint, it is assumed that because humans did not exist 1.5 million years ago that this footprint, which evidence shows belongs to a creature who walked erect, must have belonged to a simian being that was in the process of evolving into a human. This conclusion, actually, is based on a whole series of assumptions.

Evolutionists claim that genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation. Another interpretation is that comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various species and forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

It is not rational to believe that genetic information can come about by chance (i.e. random mutations) so it is much more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common designer rather than common ancestry. The Creator designed similar genes and biological functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. God was the first Genetic Engineer!

Not only are there no true transitional links in the fossil record, but the fossils themselves are not in the supposed geological sequential order as evolutionists claim in their textbooks. Of course, evolutionists have their various circular and unsupported arguments or reasons for why this is so.

If evolution across biological kinds (known as macro-evolution) really occurred then we should find billions of clear and indisputable transitional forms ("missing" links) in the fossil record (i.e. fossils of fish with part fins, part feet). Instead we find only a few very disputable "transitional" forms that even all evolutionists cannot agree upon.

To be continued…

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 #112 on: June 01, 2009, 07:47:39 AM »
Missing links that never were (part II)

By Babu G. Ranganathan

…continued.


The MSM (Main Stream Media) is very good at only reporting the opinions and analysis of those scientists who believe a fossil find supports macro-evolution. The MSM suppresses information and news of scientists who disagree that a particular fossil supports macro-evolution. There are many scientists who don't agree with Darwinian macro-evolution.

The Creation Research Society, for example, has a membership of thousands of scientists with a Master's or Ph.D in the natural sciences who all reject Darwinian macro-evolution. Many such scientists have suffered losing grants for research and even their very jobs because of they reject Darwinian macro-evolution. These scientists do believe that micro-evolution (variations within biological kinds such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) occurs in nature but not macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds).

Again, the point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to evolve.

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce any biological traits or variations.

The term "Natural Selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved ("selected") and be passed on to future offspring. That's what scientists mean by the term "natural selection". Since natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible, the real question to ask is what biological variations are naturally possible. Natural selection is just another way of saying "Survival of the Fittest". But, this is exactly the problem for the Darwinian theory of macro-evolution.

How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for micro-evolution (or horizontal) evolution within biological "kinds" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but not macro-evolution (or vertical) evolution which would involve variations across biological "kinds"), especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human).

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Random forces in nature have no ability to perform genetic engineering so as to bring about entirely new genes. Mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. They do not produce entirely new genes.

Random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces will not produce entirely new genes anymore than randomly changing the sequences of letters in a cookbook will change it into a book on astronomy.

Even if a new species develops but there are no new genes or new traits then there still is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the new species would remain within the same biological "kind" even though, for whatever biological reasons, it no longer has the ability to breed with the original type.

Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes) then macro-evolution will never be possible.

Although the chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in all varieties of plant and animal kinds, the DNA or genetic program that exists in each plant or animal kind will only direct those chemicals into making more of the same genes or variations of the same genes but not entirely new genes.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

Abortion clinics have been known to console their patients by telling them that what they're terminating isn't really a human being yet but is only a guppy or tadpole!

But, didn't we all start off from a single cell in our mother's womb? Yes, but that single cell from which we developed had all of the genetic information to develop into a full human being. Other single cells, such as bacteria and amoeba, from which evolutionists say we and all other forms of life had evolved don't have the genetic information to develop into humans or other species.

There is no scientific evidence that random mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will increase genetic information and complexity which is what ultimately would be necessary to turn amoebas into humans. In fact, the law of entropy in nature would prevent random mutations from being able to accomplish such a feat!

Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.

The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code produced by random environmental forces such as radiation, over time, will produce entirely new genetic sequences or genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon resulting in entirely new biological kinds or forms of life . Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.

However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.

Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Most biological variations occur because of new combinations of already existing genes - not because of mutations.

Mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

How come we find dark people as natives in tropical countries? Obviously those in humanity who inherited genes for dark skin migrated to warmer climates where their skin complexion was of greater help and aid to them.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is "A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible".

The author's article "Textbook Biology's Origin of Life Deception" may be accessed here.

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues (i.e. fossils, "transitional" links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website.

On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological disturbances in the Earth's past which easily could have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah's Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.) at www.ChristianAnswers.net.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. from Bob Jones University with concentrations in theology and biology and, additionally, has completed two full years of graduate study at Western New England College School of Law in Springfield, Massachusetts. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. Be sure to read the author's articles: The Natural Limits of Evolution and The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell. Email author at: [email protected]
 
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/22-05-2009/107606-Missing_links-0
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 lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #113 on: January 27, 2010, 06:14:22 PM »
DOK KILLZ ANOTHER THREAD-  :P

Mutations - How Big the Changes?


Now let's look at a basic evolutionary teaching which is contrary to scientific law. One of the most necessary parts of evolution, which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoebae into a man, is mutation. This refers to abnormal changes in the organism which are assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes are the hereditary factors within the chromosomes of each species. Every species has its own particular number of chromosomes which contain the genes. Within every human being are 46 chromosomes containing an estimated 100,000 genes, each one of which is able to affect in some way the size, color, texture, or quality of the individual. The assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors, occasionally become affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences, causing them to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to as a mutation. Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoebae turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else - with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.


Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists. Most people would give up and change their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow, but not the evolutionist! He still searches for that illusive missing link which could at least prove that he hasn't been 100 percent wrong.


But let's look at the vehicle which the evolutionists have depended upon to provide the possibility of the drastic changes required by their theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution, said this:


"Mutation provides the raw material of evolution." Again he said, "Mutation is the ultimate sources of all...heritable variation." Evolution in Action, p. 38.


Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made this statement:


"Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on." Animal Species and Evolution, p. 170.


Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT - the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand, is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism worse instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism." Ibid. p. 39.


Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:


"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.


Does this sound sort of confusing to you? They say mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is scientifically impossible for multiple mutations to make the changes. This is too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our evolutionist friends in their efforts to uphold an exploded theory. So the second point of contradiction with true science has been established.


Mutations, of course, do effect minor changes within the basic kinds, but those changes are limited, never producing a new family. They can explain many of the varieties of both plant and animals but can never explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.

"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/

Offline Godfather

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #114 on: May 25, 2010, 06:50:06 PM »
i don't understand how this is the supposed missing link? I mean i want to believe that it is..but it's a lemur..not a chimp not an ape..a Lemur..so the missing link from homo-erectus to homo-sapian is a lemur is that what is being said here?

Offline Shroom!

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,376
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #115 on: June 28, 2010, 10:11:06 PM »
There is no missing link. In my opinion.

Offline lord edward coke

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,201
  • "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
    • sedm
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #116 on: July 11, 2010, 03:31:19 PM »
Here you go:

Hugh Ross demonstrates the scientific method is Biblical.

Dr. Hugh Ross testimony - A Scientist Who Looked.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=cSvI_JtqcII&feature=related

Test all things, hold fast to that which is good.

http://www.reasons.org/
"Liberty has never come from government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is a history  of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it." http://sedm.org/