Posted on 09/30/2005 9:17:27 AM PDT by bigmac0707
Abstract:The age and depositional history of Dominican amber-bearing deposits have not been well constrained. Resinites of different ages exist in Hispaniola, but all of the main amberiferous deposits in the Dominican Republic (including those famous for yielding biological inclusions) were formed in a single sedimentary basin during the late Early Miocene through early Middle Miocene (15 to 20 million years ago), according to available biostratigraphic and paleogeographic data. There is little evidence for extensive reworking or redeposition, in either time or space. The brevity of the depositional interval (less than 5 million years) provides a temporal benchmark that can be used to calibrate rates of molecular evolution in amber taxa.
BCE is nothing more than the latest new age crap! The years mark the time in reference to the Birth of Jesus Christ!
What do you think this "common era" is? other than "common ignorance" of history promulgated by the anti-Christina anti-American leftists of the world.
Evolution says nothing of the sort, but you probably knew that.
Which is now thought to have been in 6 B.C.? :-)
Not exactly. "Half life" means, statistically speaking, half of the C14 has decayed. at 5700 years, there would be 1/2 as much as at 0. At 11,400 years, there would be half of that, or 1/4 what there was at time 0. At 17,100 years, half of that (1/8 of time 0), etc. At least until the amount left was so small that the method would be no longer reliable for comparison.
The method also assumes the C12 to C14 ratio to be constant through time, at least up until people started popping nukes.
Contamination can be a problem, too.
Well, we agree on something.
I'm sorry, it wasn't. I don't know how else to respond. What kind of evidence do you want? Historical, geological, paleontological, archaeological, anthropological, cosmological... I'm really not sure how to debate this. No serious person can believe that the world was created 6000 or 12000 years ago.
(What is this BCE? leftist atheist terms?)
I am not a leftist nor am I an atheist nor am I a Christian. I do not consider Jesus to be the Messiah, so I will not refer to the era as "before Christ." I'd refer to dates as BJ (before Jesus) but that would evoke too much confusion and snickering.
a monkey became a man instantaneously by chance
Who says a monkey became a man instantanoeusly by chance? I've never heard such nonsense. How can you hope to argue with evolutionary biology if you so clearly can't understand even its rudiments?
So, this old boy was down to his last 1.5 PPM, eh?
Yeah, it was gradual, over millions of years, yet no transitional ape/human fossils. But we'll find them one of these years. Keep the faith.
I will use the Gregorian calendar, but I will not refer to Jesus as "Christ". You have a choice: BCE or BJ (before Jesus).
BCE is nothing more than the latest new age crap! The years mark the time in reference to the Birth of Jesus Christ!
What do you think this "common era" is? other than "common ignorance" of history promulgated by the anti-Christina anti-American leftists of the world.
You need to calm down. "Common era" refers to the era in which Judaism and Christianity have coexisted. It is indeed supposed to date from the birth of Jesus, but it omits the Christian reference to Jesus as "the Christ" out of respect for the fact that Jews don't regard him as such.
Yeah - but they keep insisting that man was a monkey (ape or whichever) --- and they will NEVER find a missing link for that connection. A real one I should say since the anti-Judeo/Christians will eventually create their missing link "god" in their own image.
If there was one, it would have been much easier to find than even 'java man' - 'lucy' - etc since it would have been much later and in much higher numbers.
Most of the people I date are suspects....
Because it was 19,999,997 years old when he found it, and that was three years ago.
All of my daughter's dates are suspects........or convicts......
Oh, ok. Now I understand!
> yet no transitional ape/human fossils
Except, of course, that a multitude of such fossils have been found.
Do you believe everything he tells you?
What on earth are you talking about? "Archaic" Homo Sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus bosei, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyathropus playops, Australopithecus anamensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugenensis... you mean other than these there are no transitional species?
I'm not sure I understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.