Thread: I will just leave this here...

Originally Posted by Euthanatos

You yourself said it was comepletely useless in determining the age of anything less than 60k.

No I said MORE than 60. However most good scientists just go with 40,000 years because after that they think it is too unreliable.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos

Nice theory buddy, keep working on it. Come back when you have proof.

That's your problem I see now. You want one single truth!
You can't have it, I'm sorry. Never will.
It's like trying to summarise all of humanity in one sentence. You will always leave someone out or forget to mention one type of person whatever. Like all these philosophers who say a single 'profound' sentence and think that's it that's the answer to why people do a certain thing. But then forget about all the people who that clearly doesn't apply to.

I'm not about to discuss race with someone who has proved to believe irrational things despite a lack of definative evidence.

LOL, you know that's your arguments downfall that's why you won't discuss it.
It's not about discussing race FFS. Just look at your own parents ok. They have certain traits that you have inherited. What the fuck do you think made that happen? Aliens? The stalk?
Your belief is what is irrational. Aliens brought us here. Real fucking definitive.

where's the quote?

I said I WILL quote wiki. Like as in, so I don't have to provide you with millions of links to prove everything that goes into proving something.

I'm not saying a believe it. I'm just saying it seems more probable to me than origins in evolution or the standard christian theology. Stay with me here....oh wait, I never got you into the realm of logical or rational to being with.

Fine, this argument is over until you get the nerves to post your fairy-tale.

EDIT:

If it's to be expected to be accepted as fact....most certainly. That this 'neanderthal' skeleton was found I don't dispute. Its relevance and indication of evolution? I deny. You've never seen how ugly some people can be have you? Let me reference you to some of your extremes.

Yes, some people are ugly. Ugliness is skin deep. Most of the time. Their skeletons are still the same basic shape as everybody else. Key pointers that they are modern human are things like a bulge at the base of the skull that seems to have come when we developed language. Fuck it, there's other things look it up on wiki. I'm done until you post that little story of yours.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Ok so called "just agnostics?"

I'm Christian but not all "stuck-up burn-in-hell-sinner" about it so for that post, sir, I applaud you.








EDIT: wtf non-appearing emote errors (unfixable and don't show up when I try to edit, it's weird)

EDIT EDIT: wtf mega flame war

Oh that reminds me. The "It's just that simple now can we please as a culture move on?"

The answer is yes, it's called Wicca/New Age. While not being an idyllic solution to any of this. It provides room for all manner of inquiry and speculation.

Although....it's riddled with more rediculous bullshit than the bible, aleister crowley, and evolution combined. And individuals tend to still exhibit the same egotistical behavior habits.....It seems, while being an evolution of religion also not being a solution to. It just tends to accept anyone from any group and say that's cool while not really changing shit about how people go about it.

As far as the hippie pacifists in the movement...well...those have always been around too irrespective of religion.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos

Oh that reminds me. The "It's just that simple now can we please as a culture move on?"

The answer is yes, it's called Wicca/New Age. While not being an idyllic solution to any of this. It provides room for all manner of inquiry and speculation.

Although....it's riddled with more rediculous bullshit than the bible, aleister crowley, and evolution combined. And individuals tend to still exhibit the same egotistical behavior habits.....It seems, while being an evolution of religion also not being a solution to. It just tends to accept anyone from any group and say that's cool while not really changing shit about how people go about it.

As far as the hippie pacifists in the movement...well...those have always been around too irrespective of religion.

I'm confused, what evolution are you arguing against? Because evolution is real, we see it happen, and it is the idea behind many medical items given to people. Evolution is seen to happen. I can only imagine that you are arguing against "macro" evolution. I'm not sure how anyone can argue against macro evolution though...since all it is is micro-evolution over a long period of time. I don't really feel like arguing but I just want to know what it is you're arguing against...

Quite right, it is indeed 'macroevolution' that I argue against because the rest of 'evolution' indeed really isn't Evolution IMHO. It's just biology and genetics (i.e. microevolution)

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...finition.shtml

It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.

So....there is no Empirical evidence for MacroEvolution. There is, however, Reasonable speculation...

Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Of which, there is very little 'evidence' indeed. This 'evidence' is arbitrarily assigned value because it looks pretty on TV and in Textbooks. The standard format for brainwashing people over a variety of subjects from history to politics.

Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.

Bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish
Thats the way we do things, lad, we're making shit up as we wish
The Klingons and the Romulans pose no threat to us
'Cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shit up
-Voltaire USS Makeshitup

Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years

Or in other words....Real Science + Impossibly unverfiable timelines = Evolution

Just show me evidence for a multibillion year timeline.

Or in other words....Real Science + Impossibly unverfiable timelines = Evolution

Just show me evidence for a multibillion year timeline.

Using absolute dating we can find fossils of creatures in extremely old sediment, and they are there in such a way that the only way the could have possibly gotten there is if they were there when the sediment was during its younger stages because the sediment on top of it is younger, and younger, and younger, etc.

From previous post it seems to me you believe that you can't tell the age of things. Would you please grant evidence for this other than "I don't think you can?"

I would appreciate it.


My next question is contingent on your opinion of the ability to test age. If things are found to be extremely old age, and dont live anymore, and there are things found to exist today, but we have no fossils of these animals from a time long ago past, where do you think new species arise from or how do you think they arise. Furthermore do you think new species arise at all.


Are we supposed to assume that when fossils of simple life forms are found in the layers we expect simple life forms to appear in, and then through the layers, from lowest to highest, we find more advanced life forms, that that means nothing?


Furthermore how old do you believe the planet Earth is?

Originally Posted by Sandform

Using absolute dating we can find fossils of creatures in extremely old sediment, and they are there in such a way that the only way the could have possibly gotten there is if they were there when the sediment was during its younger stages because the sediment on top of it is younger, and younger, and younger, etc.

From previous post it seems to me you believe that you can't tell the age of things. Would you please grant evidence for this other than "I don't think you can?"

I would appreciate it.

You're on the brink of logical oblivion here but I will try to rectify our standing. Clever, but as I've stated so many times here in this post, burden of proof falls on the one who asserts a possible theory.

You assert that this Absolute Dating has a percievable comparison that is verifiable. I have not heard an argument that presents enough evidence to be considered proof Age.

However, I did the research for you. Here is what I found.

Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils

Thoery: Sediment Age
Evidence
The above is my perception. I read this theory about the age of the eath but I have seen no evidence for it. I'm not saying I believe that one cannot tell the age of things. I'm saying that I'd like to find the logical basis for determining the age of things.

My next question is contingent on your opinion of the ability to test age. If things are found to be extremely old age, and dont live anymore, and there are things found to exist today, but we have no fossils of these animals from a time long ago past, where do you think new species arise from or how do you think they arise. Furthermore do you think new species arise at all.

Microevolution or genetic mutation is a proven and observable process. However, I've as of yet to find a concrete definition of 'species'.

Are we supposed to assume that when fossils of simple life forms are found in the layers we expect simple life forms to appear in, and then through the layers, from lowest to highest, we find more advanced life forms, that that means nothing?

This would be evidence of something if one can show this consistantly throught all the layers on the planet. References?

Furthermore how old do you believe the planet Earth is?

First, that's a question that can invoke a myriad of highly relative answers. I'm currently in the process of analyzing other peoples beliefs and ideas and then logically deconstructing them for evidence and veracity in an attempt to form my own conclusions.

I'm asking original questions to arrive at genuine answers. As such, the objectivity of such an endeavor requires that one not be predisposed of an influencing and egotistical bias of any 'belief'.

So I might sound a bit Curmudgeon but it is an educational endeavor and not hateful slander except where I receive personal attacks and respond with dry humor.

I'm currently putting together a more comprehensive critique on this 'absolute dating' mechanism of yours. Give me an hour or two and I'll post it.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos

However, I did the research for you. Here is what I found.


Thoery: Sediment Age
Evidence

Where is that quote from, which isotopes.


More like

Evidence: rate of decay which is constant.

Some rates of decay can actually tell you the age of sediment up to over 2 billion years.

Some things become something else (and are only known to come from that some thing else) once it is decayed.

the objectivity of such an endeavor requires that one not be predisposed of an influencing and egotistical bias of any 'belief'.

The burden of proof lies on the one who asserts a theory. Where is your proof for this?


Euthanatos you still didn't answer sandforms question.
How can you say macro evolution is wrong even though you think micro evolution is right. They are both the same. macro is just on a bigger scale.

This would be evidence of something if one can show this consistantly throught all the layers on the planet. References?

You want us to dig up the entire planet? They have dug up large spaces so many times and shown in video the layers where you see fossils in each layer. Like as in animals that can't dig down to that layer.

Oh, hehe Read this, it's you all over.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Great care is needed in collecting a sample for dating, as many potential samples have been contaminated by atmospheric argon being absorbed into the sample. The above equation may be corrected for the presence of such contaminating non-radiogenic 40Ar by subtracting from the measured 40Ar value the amount originally present as determined by the 40Ar/36Ar ratio. Ordinarily, 40Ar is 295.5 times more plentiful than 36Ar. The amount of the measured 40Ar that resulted from 40K decay is then: 40Ardecayed = 40Armeasured - 295.5 * 36Armeasured.

'Great Care' indeed considering a half-life of 1.248x109. That's a bit of an assumtuous compensation for such a delicate calculation when A few atoms this way or that indicate variations of thousands of years...

Accuracy relies on the isotopic ratios included in the sample being representative since 40K is usually not measured directly, but is assumed to be 0.0117% of the total potassium.

So they never even look for the presence of 40k? Suddenly I get....Warhammer 40k is a science fiction game LOL.

Unless some other process is active at the time of cooling, this is a very good assumption for terrestrial samples.[6]

Based on? I'm still trying to find this book that is referenced in the wiki so I can answer this question. Even so what is to say that the conditions on earth were the same 100k years ago or any arbitrary number. This 0.0117% distrobution may be observable today but what is to say it was always the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassi...McDougall_1999

The idea makes a lot of sense. The practice of it breaks it down into the realm of meainglessness. To many things go wrong.


Furthermore.

As discussed above, the decay of an unstable nucleus is entirely random and it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.

I'm uncertain how they determine a billion year halflife when the chemical itself K40 is so rare. Yet they have large enough samples to watch it and determine the rate of decay for the substance?

Sounds more like an arbitrary pick from a small sample rate. See the link I post above for examples of what results from small sample rates can be twisted to by biased and politically or idealogoically motivated egotistical 'scientists'.

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm

Sorry I meant to put that up and forgot.

Originally Posted by tommo

The burden of proof lies on the one who asserts a theory. Where is your proof for this?

Where is my evidence that objectivity can be affected by the ego? Dude, try studying basic psychology as much as you think you 'study' the science of evolution. What is apparent to me is that you are simply pissed off at religion and followed the first popular and half ass rationale alternative excuse to be nihilistic. I'm digging up decent references. Wheres you've refered me to jack shit concerning this subject until now. And at most I'm guessing you just googled macroevolution and read the first few pages at most and posted the link. I doubt you know jack shit about how Geochronology or Genetics even work. How is that any different from standing in the choir of a baptist church listening to some guy rant about a big book. Except this time your religion has a bigger book that's even more difficult to decipher by one endeavoring to find the truth. Not ot mention being riddled with nihilistic philosophy. I'll stick to my multidimensional hyperevoled alien humans until i see some real evidence. Not like any of it makes a difference anyway. It's all distraction from the politics of WAR.

Euthanatos you still didn't answer sandforms question.
How can you say macro evolution is wrong even though you think micro evolution is right. They are both the same. macro is just on a bigger scale.

Not necessarily. besides I asked you to be patient. I'm addressing the age of the earth right now. Macroevolution seems like it MIGHT be possible but nothing indicating that has occured has presented itself to me yet. I will check out that site seems to be an interesting resource. Albiet I don't particularly care to have to wade through religious bullshit.

You want us to dig up the entire planet? They have dug up large spaces so many times and shown in video the layers where you see fossils in each layer. Like as in animals that can't dig down to that layer

They have dug up the planet. but according to the flood sifting to layers theory the animals bit isn't exactly evidence suporting this notion. Now I doubt it happened on a biblical scale but I've seen enought o be convinced of a worldwide flood. Namely the expansion of the planet and fitting of tectonic plates via shrinking of the earth.

The alternative, one single landmass, seems to me like a planet imbalanced. I could see TWO landmasses....at poles to each other...but one just seems like a lopsided globe that gravity would instantly flood the single continent.

But that's an undeveloped nor research theory I've been considering and researching.

What I find most amusing is that my approach to the whole subject is completely empirical. Reference me to material and I will read it given a bit of time. Conversly I am receiving arguments of rhetoric without any reference to the empirical science you claim to have knowledge of. You sound like a preacher at a pulpit to me.

Also, notice I haven't called Sandform Nihilistic? That's to do with attitude and how you treat people. It's indicative of an abused and repressed psyche and btw has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Some of my favorite philosophers were Aethist, anti-christian, or anti-religious. Including Nietzchie, Lavey, & Greg Graffin. None of which were Nihilistic.

Euthanotos you aren't accurately describing which methods you are talking about, ((EDIT: oops I meant to say you aren't telling us which method you are talking about your are expecting us to be able to calculate what method you are talking about based on prior knowledge of certain jargon)there isn't just one method of absolute dating)nor are you quoting things accurately, in the way you are doing things even just accurately quoting things would be helpful for us to understand what you are arguing for.

I havent made any changes to the quotes I pulled from the wiki. If you followed the link to the wiki you would know which on I am talking about.

What specifically did I misquote? How many Different kinds of Potassium/argon dating are there?

Where is my evidence that objectivity can be affected by the ego? Dude, try studying basic psychology as much as you think you 'study' the science of evolution.

I never said how much I study evolution. I study it enough to know that it's true. According to you, to convince someone else you have to know every single solitary fact. Which, is impossible.
My point was that you want me to provide the evidence that for example tree rings show us the age of the tree. Yet you don't provide evidence that objectivity affects ego. There's no difference.

Macroevolution seems like it MIGHT be possible but nothing indicating that has occured has presented itself to me yet.

Might? It IS possible. Of course it is possible. Just like it is possible that aliens put us here along with all this evidence to try and divert us from the fact that they put us here.

They have dug up the planet. but according to the flood sifting to layers theory the animals bit isn't exactly evidence suporting this notion.

What, when did they dig up the planet? Fuck I missed it, that would've made awesome prime time TV.
Who said anything about a flood?
I probably should be more precise. But a flood isn't the only way layers can happen. For instance scientists believe the dinosaurs were wiped out by a massive meteor, sending dust flying everywhere. Covering the bones.

Anyway I am guessing there would have been a mass flood at some point. Like after the ice age when the ice melted it would have turned to water essentially flooding everywhere.

The alternative, one single landmass, seems to me like a planet imbalanced. I could see TWO landmasses....at poles to each other...but one just seems like a lopsided globe that gravity would instantly flood the single continent.

Why would it flood? I don't get how you came to that conclusion at all.
The Earth isn't exactly polarised now either.
We can see by the shift in continent right NOW that they have been moving. You have to acknowledge that.
Ok now they have used mathematics to see where they have been moving from. For example if you slide a puck on ice and only see it's last two seconds you can calculate how fast it was going and how long it took.
Then from that you can see where it came from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

It's indicative of an abused and repressed psyche .... Some of my favorite philosophers were .... Nietzchie, Lavey, & Greg Graffin.

And Freud?

Here is the website of the magazine I mentioned a couple of times. This one is regarding Stromatolites. Earliest fossils. Just so you know I am not biased and egotistic and can tell the difference between subjective and objective science.

Originally Posted by Euthanatos

I havent made any changes to the quotes I pulled from the wiki. If you followed the link to the wiki you would know which on I am talking about.

What specifically did I misquote? How many Different kinds of Potassium/argon dating are there?

I wasn't saying you were misquoting I was saying you weren't clearly showing where you got the information from, it is hard to talk to someone about the information their using without knowing where they are getting it. The way you provided the source, it disoriented me because you presented your points before providing where you are getting your information from.

Originally Posted by tommo

Just so you know I am not biased and egotistic and can tell the difference between subjective and objective science.

Good for you.

SCrew you I forgot to post the link, like you haven't done that before. You should have figured it out by the fact that I said "here is the website...." and no link.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1...ocks-after-all

Originally Posted by tommo

SCrew you I forgot to post the link, like you haven't done that before.

Oh, it's nothing to do with the link. I just don't care to have this discussion with you. It's edifying when perspective is discussed and information is shared. However, regardless of beliefs and education, no one enjoys conversation with a narcissist. At least no one that has one iota of self respect.

Narcissist?
Says the guy who thinks his idea trumps every other idea ever come up with.

Originally Posted by tommo

Narcissist?
Says the guy who thinks his idea trumps every other idea ever come up with.

Actually, it looked to me like he was just asking for evidence for your position; something you've yet to supply. Wikipedia doesn't count as evidence, although it might be a good place for you to start your research. Let us know when you catch up and actually have real sources to site on the subject.

So far it seems like his accusation that you follow popular science like a religion was a rather astute one.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

something you've yet to supply. Wikipedia doesn't count as evidence, although it might be a good place for you to start your research.

You obviously haven't followed very well. I said I'll quote wiki because he wants evidence that evidence is true. So if he wants that he can search the wiki sources. I'm not researching I don't have to provide shit. Plus only about 2/5 things I linked to were wiki if not less.

He seriously doesn't hear the Teal guy telling his blue ass to shut the fuck up.

?