Posted on 04/16/2006 11:29:43 AM PDT by JCEccles
Recently I highlighted how the coverage of Tiktaalik revealed the fascinating phenomenon that only after discovering a new "missing link" will evolutionists acknowledge the previously paltry state of fossil evidence for evolution. This behavior is again witnessed in coverage of the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis fossils in Ethiopia. The media has also exaggerated and overblown claims that this evidence supports "human evolution."
The latest "missing link" is actually comprised of a few tooth and bone fragments of Au. anamensis, an ape-like species that lived a little over 4 million years ago. Incredibly, claims of "intermediacy" are based upon 2-3 fragmented canines of "intermediate" size and shape. This has now led to grand claims in the media of finding a "missing link." Because some bone fragments from Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensus were also found in the area, MSNBC highlighted these finds on a front-page article calling this "the most complete chain of human evolution so far." Media coverage of this find thus follows an identical pattern to that of Tiktaalik: incredibly overblown claims of a "transitional fossil" follow stark admissions of how previously bleak the evidence was for evolution. Moreover, claims that this find enlightens "human evolution" are misleading, as these fossils come from ape-like species that long-predate the appearance of our genus Homo, and thought to be far removed from the origin of "humans."
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Projection is a bitch, isn't it!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
The theory of gravity is not in the Bible.
The theory of relativity is not in the Bible.
The germ theory of disease is not in the Bible.
The heliocentric theory of the solar system is not in the Bible.
The Bible is a magnificent guide on how to live our lives in an ethical way. It is not a science book, nor was it intended to be.
I said,
First it is assumed that as the magma is mixed in the chamber before it is erupted out it is an equal mix all the materials are equal within the batch, every time it erupts.
You said,
No it isn't. Where did you "learn" this bit of stupidity?
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.
Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava (properly called magma before it erupts) fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger. This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question.
Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older. But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger.
Read more at.http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
I know you will not or else you will say it is wrong, or that Christians are just lying to protect their faith, but I know that they are not. It could not be held that those million upon million believers are hiding the truth.
It is evolution which is a false religion that is being spewed at a unsuspecting public that is to much like sheep to look for the truth or to set in their heart that the men who are spinning these yarns would ever tell a lie to bolster their egos and lively hood.
Hmmm, a discussion of evolution written by a lawyer. Stay tuned for my comments on contract law.
How do you Creationists explain what happened to all the "early men" or "apes" - whichever you think they are; e.g. Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus, Ramapithecus, Zinjanthropus, Heidelbergensis, Homo Habilis, Neanderthal and all the other hominids. My answer is that they died out as mankind evolved into more efficient humans who then surplanted the earlier hominids.
The apes are evolutionist relatives, which went extinct.
U/Pb dating of zircons uses two independent parent/daughter pairs. Moreover, there are two other Pb isotopes that are not formed by uranium decay. So if Pb were incorporated into zircons, how could it be incorporated in such a way as to give a consistent radiogenic age for both isotopes, and without affecting the amount of the other two isotopes?
The fossil record shows us a large number of species. Since these are all extinct, it is hard to show that there is a conclusive connection. Even if one concedes that man "evolved" from another sort of being, the likelihood is of finding an immediate ancestor is small.
Well, if you spend much time with evolutionists, you begin to understand why they are a genetic cul-de-sac. Not exactly hot date mat'l.
If we look at Darwin's argument in support of his conclusion, he could be right and his argument wrong. After all, Columbus found America without knowing where he was going.
Speaking of: do evolutionists think that humans will evolve into a different species. Even if they are right, maybe we are like the shark, we will continue as we are until we go extinct, with relatively minor changes.
Perhaps at the vanguard of non-sexual reproduction...?
So, based on your religious belief and a few visits to creation websites, you are now telling scientists how their particular fields of knowledge should be handled.
Sorry, but your religious belief and a few visits to creation websites will not provide a very good scientific background.
For example, radiocarbon dating, which is what I was discussing, does not date rocks. There are no daughter elements. A C13 test and, on occasion an N15 test, reveal a lot of details about the sample and can help control for percent of marine carbon in some samples. But the creation sites did not tell you any of this.
I find it interesting how many sites that claim to believe in God but do not believe the Bible 100%.
Irrelevant to a scientific discussion.
Carbon dating is a flawed system, they throw away dates that do not fit to their age requirement, and live animals have been dated 1000's of years old.
I have read the studies you are talking about and understand the problems. Have you? Or you just taking the word of creationist websites? (They are not providing you with accurate information.)
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century.
I believe the radiocarbon method was invented about 1947, and it dates charcoal and anything containing carbon which was alive in the past 50,000 or so years. But not rocks.
The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. You see from a site you posted to me, the technology is only about 50 years old which is about .02% of the half life of most of the things dated. You would not buy stock with that kind of precentage.
We are not talking about stock, but radiocarbon dating. The technique is getting better and better, and the radiocarbon half life vs. age since invention ratio is meaningless. (Was this from the creation sites, or did you come up with yourself?)
We have studied the magnetic field for over 150 years which is equal to about 25%, yet frevolutionist discount the dying magnetic field and the reverse look of how it would be a magnetic star around 20000 years ago.
The magnetic field has no relation to radiocarbon decay. At most, it could slightly alter the production rates of C14 in the atmosphere; this was realized in 1958, and calibrations curves created to eliminate this as a potential source of error.
Oh thats right there is a mysterious source that re-energizes the magnetic field yet has no effect upon the carbon dating or radio metric dating methods out comes.
You certainly are eager to criticize something you really know nothing about. If you had actually read the links I posted to you, you would not have made the simple mistakes you did. I suspect you went hurrying straight to the creation sites, which reinforced your belief but fed you a bunch of lies. I am afraid that all you have shown is that your belief is impervious to logic, reason, data, or evidence.
I was thinking of natural change, but you have an interesting point. Some who think of man as just another animal would have no compunction about "intelligent design" of a different sort. Not being God, however, they might not like the product of their labors.
placemarker
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.