If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

everneo said:
The Chad skull (Sahelanthropus Tchadensis aka Toumai) created a raging controversy indeed. Its period (6 - 7 million years) is not in question. It seems the only question asked now is whether the 'Chad Skull' belonged to early human or ape. The refuters telling that the skull belongs to a different species other than homo-sapiens and their rivals assert that the skull is of an early human. Each group have their own arguments and still nobody could prove anything. Toumai appears to be a ticking bomb in the very foundation of 'humans from earlier apes' theory. It would be a fun to hear that early Humans lived couple of million years before 'evolution of humans from apes' took place.! Wow, let's dig deep & find some skulls of humans inside the stomach of some fossilized skeletons of Dinosaurus Rex.
Click to expand...

Everneo,

Have they found more than 1 of these skulls?

Dave
 
The chad skull seems to be lone in its class so far. May be it is a matter of time to find more.
 
Flores:

Is this really the first time somebody has ever challenged you on one of your closely-held beliefs? If so, you'd better get used to it, because it probably won't be the last time, unless you go and live in a cave somewhere.

It would show much more integrity if you simply admitted that you don't know much more about evolution than what you learned in your religion classes. I don't expect people to be experts; I only ask that they consider other points of view. I understand that doing that takes a lot of courage sometimes, and I am sorry that you lack the courage.

I wish you all the best, and hope that you will think about this matter in the future. Maybe in time you will change your mind and want to learn something new.
 
Dave:

Fossilisation is a very rare event, so it won't be surprising if this is the only fossil of this type and age found.
 
river-wind said:
As has been brought up before, you see to think that things in evolution must pop into existance. They don't. They evolve in stages over time. In the case of the eye, I could readily see a photo-sensitive area being selected for via evolution. A clear protectivie covering then evolviing, as it would allow the individual to reproduce for a longer period of time. The protective covering thickening over tie for the same purpose. However, this thickening also warps the light, reducing the effectiveness of the light-sensing organ. So those with thinner membranes or slightly curved membranes (where the thickening is compensated for by the curve of the membrane) would be more likely to survive. continue this change over thousands of generations; some having slightly better eyes than their parents, some with worse. Each generation tending toward thicker membranes with curvature or thinner membranes. Then once the thicker membranes with curvature gets to the point where thicker is no longer helpful, but more curvature is, you get that half of the population out-competeing the thinner-membrane group. They have the benifits of the thicker covering, and can also "see" the light source more accuratly. Motion detection becomes yet another factor which comes into the picture, and the thick membrane eventually becomes the lens as we know know it.
Click to expand...
You wrote about the formation of lenses from protective membranes with necessary curvature and thickness. In fact, small lenses are distinct parts made of crystallin proteins (provided by enzymes invariably) with their concentration/density radially changing to form refractive index gradient and that is an amazing physics. There are some interesting possibilities discussed and questions asked by Russell D Fernald in his "Evolution of Eyes".

You would like to read the thread in Bio & Genetics forums :
- http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29904

Since this is religion sub-forum i don't want to spoil the topic by reproducing here prematurely.

There is still a chance that there is a God which works as a slight of hand magician; through heredity-like actions, giving false leads to researchers. I don't know why such a being would do that, and I personaly neither believe that, or see the value in spending much energy contimplating that possibility. But it is still a posibility, isn't it?
Click to expand...
My answer would be "Yes" for the possibility and, like you said, "Why" is an open ended question.
 
Last edited:
Proud and blind muslim said:
I suggest you read the article first, it seems you dont know what you are talking about !! my point was this discovery SHOKE the evolution nonesense from its bases and made famous scientists scratching their heads !! not like you who is sitting scratching his ass !
Click to expand...

I think these creationist make the mistake that authority figures are in possession of the truth. It is of course understandable since they have been brought up with authority figures, but let me spill it out for you once more:

a-u-t-h-o-r-i-t-y m-e-a-n-s s-h-i-t i-n s-c-i-e-n-c-e

Science is a community. What matters is what the community thinks and not what a few 'authorative' figures think. Nobody takes those people seriously and you fool yourself if you think it means something.

Moreover, if you actually read the articles you quote you may notice that NONE of them refute darwinism. They just change the clade of human evolution to a new order that better fits the fossil and other evidence. These details change all the time. Phylogenetic trees change all the time, based on new evidence and new assumptions. That is not a REFUTATION of darinism, that is THE PROCESS OF SCIENCE.

Gosh, hope that this cleared up some points (doubt it with such a thick skull).
 
James R said:
Dave:

Fossilisation is a very rare event, so it won't be surprising if this is the only fossil of this type and age found.
Click to expand...

Hiya James,

Let me ask you James, on a scale of 1 to 10(10 being completely confident).

How confident are you in the dating methods? (1-10)

Thanks

Dave
 
Which dating methods, Dave? I know of at least 20 different dating methods. Fossils are often dated using several different methods. When the dates of multiple methods agree with one another, we can be pretty confident we have the right answer. Of course, not all methods can be used for all fossils.

Are you asking for a general estimate about dating methods, or are you specifically referring to PM's fossil skull?
 
James, watch out for the hilium levels in your house, I think your head is about to explode..

James R said:
Flores:

Is this really the first time somebody has ever challenged you on one of your closely-held beliefs?
Click to expand...


Challenged???? what do you know about a challenge to dare question me on whether I have been challenged before. I was born to be challenged buddy, from age 2 when I was dumped in the pool expected to swim, to age 4 when I was reading music notes and doing recitals to age 12 when I was representing a national team in olympics to age 18 when I travelled alone to a totally strange country and was admitted to a college of engineering to age 21 when I graduated top of my class to age 24 when I graduated from the best civil engineering graduate school in the nation, to now when I hold a great position, manage a successfull marriage, raise two beautifull kids.

And how dare you even insenuate that you know what my closely-helf belief is? Have you been peeking into my bedroom and spying on my beliefs that I have been keeping so close to myself?

GET A HILIUM DETECTOR and a life.

James R said:
If so, you'd better get used to it, because it probably won't be the last time, unless you go and live in a cave somewhere.
Click to expand...


I have been looking for a nice cave but I was informed by my realtor that you have just closed on it. I believe you are in the process of signing the settlement right here and right now as we speak.


James R said:
It would show much more integrity if you simply admitted that you don't know much more about evolution than what you learned in your religion classes.
Click to expand...


Integrity??? Keep living the illusion that you know first thing about integrity...cause flash news, you are the one that is admitting that you know all about evolution, which makes you the one void of integrity, now let's preview what I have wrote about evolution, shall we?

Flores said:
What you are describing is an incomplete science. A 50% effort
Click to expand...

Which part of incomplete don't you understand?

Flores said:
We are 100% sure that we were created by god and we have no knowledge whatsoever on how god created us
Click to expand...

Which part of "no knowledge whatsoever" don't you understand?

Flores said:
The least they should have done is to atleast ask the bigger question, instead of dragging us all to a powerless unconscious atom then resting their scientific case.
Click to expand...

What part of "at least ask the bigger question" don't you understand?


Flores said:
Exactly, studying can do no harm....Unless someone here is advocating the worshiping of evolution through series of sacrifices, bowing, and nodding positions....I really don't think that the Atheists are making the claim that evolution is god...it's a process.
Click to expand...


Which part of me drawing the line in stating that I have no problem looking at evolution within the context of study and attesting that Atheists are objective thinker that similarly look at evolution as merely a science...DON't YOU UNDERSTAND.

Not only that you don't understand, you're quite blind. You grouped me with PM which only tells of your poor personal assessment skills. But again, no surprises, you like Lucysnow style......Another tell tale of your less than average taste in people. I really feel sorry for you, cause my sixth female sense is telling me that you'll fall flat on your face one day when you decide to marry. Just keep my words like a little ring around your ears...believe me, you'll say, The flores bitch prophecised it.


James R said:
I don't expect people to be experts;
Click to expand...


Your expectation in regards to experience implies that you have a clue in regards to experiece assessment? Flash news, expertise and experience is a function of the one recieving the experience and the environment being experienced, I'm sorry to inform you that people's expertise doesn't remotely involve you nor your misplaced unwelcomed expectations.

James R said:
I only ask that they consider other points of view. I understand that doing that takes a lot of courage sometimes, and I am sorry that you lack the courage.
Click to expand...


So why don't you show us some of the courage that Raithere's have shown us by admitting that evolution does not explain creation? I have shown enough courage around here supporting a flawed poorly presented evolution problem that you guys can't even give me one damn figure on it's reliability. Excuse my bluntness, but we female engineers are more interested in reliablity than we are in scientific farts.


James R said:
I wish you all the best, and hope that you will think about this matter in the future. Maybe in time you will change your mind and want to learn something new.
Click to expand...

Your wish is well taken....sorry, I have no advice nor wishes to offer to you.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Which dating methods, Dave? I know of at least 20 different dating methods. Fossils are often dated using several different methods. When the dates of multiple methods agree with one another, we can be pretty confident we have the right answer. Of course, not all methods can be used for all fossils.

Are you asking for a general estimate about dating methods, or are you specifically referring to PM's fossil skull?
Click to expand...

Just a general idea of how confident you are with the methods on dating an animal for example. I guess by you questioning my question that you may not be so confident about some dating methods used on specific fossil types, is this true?

I'm just curious as to your opinion that's all.

Thanks

Dave
 
davewhite04 said:
Hiya James,

Let me ask you James, on a scale of 1 to 10(10 being completely confident).

How confident are you in the dating methods? (1-10)

Thanks

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,

Carbon dating is only accurate to a few thousands years.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?
The answer would be a few thousands of years.

This date would not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what do they do? They threw the results out. and blame the method of being inaccurate. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.
 
Surely, when dating dinosaurs, they would take the strata the fossils were found in under consideration, which might give a better idea of their age?
 
davewhite04 said:
Everneo,

Have they found more than 1 of these skulls?

Dave
Click to expand...

My dear dave? Quit stirring the pot...why do you ask such hard questions?

You would think that more fossils should be recovered right? That's only logical if someone is trying to make a scientific case.

But no, all we have to do is find a freak accident of a three headed man to claim that humans have origninated from three headed creatures :rolleyes:

Here's how it goes:

An evolutionist will find a freak accident skull of an ape man and will claim that humans originated from apes.

Next, the opposite party will find another peace of evidence that is older than the ape man skull to proof that humans didn't originate from ape.

Next, the evolutionist will dig more and find another piece that is even older and resembles an ape man.

The the quest to idiocity continues until the sucky match is tied.
 
Last edited:
Next, the opposite party will find another peace of evidence that is older than the ape man skull to proof that humans didn't originate from ape.

Sorry Flores, this has never been done and most likely will never be accomplished. The facts of evolution are staring you in the face. Too bad you are ignoring them.
 
(Q) said:
Sorry Flores, this has never been done and most likely will never be accomplished. The facts of evolution are staring you in the face. Too bad you are ignoring them.
Click to expand...

Q,

Are you talking about facts of Evolution as in humans being a descendant of some lesser animal or what?

Thanks dude
 
Flores

Do you actually understand what you read? Evolution:1 - Allah:zero

The skull is so old that it comes from a time when the creatures which were to become modern humans had not long diverged from the line that would become chimpanzees.
Click to expand...
 
Flores,

Carbon dating is only accurate to a few thousands years.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?
The answer would be a few thousands of years.
Click to expand...
Well... no. From the source you referenced to:
After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.
Click to expand...
According to this, someone dating a dinosaur bone would notice that there is not a significant amount of C14 left, concluding that the bone is at least 50.000 years old. The researcher certainly would not conclude that the bone is a few thousand years old as you implied.

So what do they do? They threw the results out. and blame the method of being inaccurate.
Click to expand...
No, the limitations of C14 dating are well known, and other methods are used for dating beyond its scope, for more on that: radiometric dating. I'm not an expert in this field, but I suppose that if you find a fossil embedded in a layer of rock dated millions of years ago, it is safe to assume the fossil was formed in that same period of time.
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
Click to expand...
The limits of various methods are known, and with that knowledge you can build an estimate. No one would, or should, get away with using the wrong method for a sample and survive the peer review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top