Carbon Dating (page 5)

rem

Hooberus,

Show me one "Evolutionary Society" where scientists must agree to a statement of belief that Evolution is the truth no matter what the physical evidence shows.

You are confusing the issue. The problem is not the fact that they must agree with a statement of belief. The problem is what the statement of belief includes. It includes verbage that forces the "scientist" to only believe the Creationist viewpoint no matter what the physical evidence is. This is clear bias and shows utter contempt for objective truth.

The agenda of this group is so transparent as to be laughable. The only thing that keeps me from laughing is how sad it is that people like you are taken in by their pseudoscientific claims. But then, you show just as much respect for physical evidence as these Creation "scientists" do... none.

Also, just because you find the thought of being related to other animals (fish) repulsive or against your intuition is not an indication of its veracity. Just because our intuition tells us that heavier objects should fall faster than lighter ones does not make it true. Science is not intuitive or even emotionally satisfying in many cases. Ever heard the expression "sometimes the truth hurts" before?

rem

Edited by - rem on 23 October 2002 23:48:59

hawkaw

hooberus

Yes, your serious lack of knowledge on lacustrine varves never mind deposition/erosion processes and dating states a lot about how you "want" stuff to be right ...

You absolutely missed my point on the flat earth society and I am just not going there with you on good old Isa 40:22.

Wake up, take a few geoscience courses and do your own field work. When you do your OWN field work and critically analyze your observations and the data, you will quickly realize just how old this big old world really is and the nonsense of some big world wide flood.

hawk

hooberus

You mention my "serious lack of knowledge on varves and deposition/erosion processes" yet I don't believe I have even discussed them here.

You earlier stated that I was "clearly misrepresenting" the facts on Carbon dating yet you still provide no evidence or example of these misrepresentations.

Please stop making accusations without providing specifics.

hooberus

rem, do you believe me that evolution teaches that we came from fish (not just that we are related to them, but that we have fish as our ancestors ie: great-grandparents?)

rem

Hooberus,

Ancient, primitive fish-like creatures are in the line of the vertebrates, and that is the line that humans come from. I'm not disputing that a certain line of ancient fish-like creatures are our ancestors. I'm saying that pointing to a specific fossil and saying that it is directly in our line is pretty ridiculous. Also, we are nowhere near related to modern day fish (relatively speaking).

The point is that the evolution of life has so many branches that it's like a thick bush. Just because you find an ancient fish fossil doesn't mean that it has anything to do with human lineage. It's a classic misconception of Evolution and I was trying to point that out.

Evolution is not a serial progression from one type to the next. It's a messy bush of branching lineages splitting in parallel. It would be fascinating if we would be able to put together all of the pieces some day and map out the exact lineage of man from start to finish, but I suspect this is impossible. Evolutionary theory would predict that a certain line of ancient fish-like creatures would be in this line.

rem

Edited by - rem on 24 October 2002 17:12:6

hawkaw

Don't bother hoob.

Let's see now .... If you actually knew anything about it you would have quoted from a MSc person that I know who has spewed all sorts of useless nonsense on varves, turbidites and the so-called flood.

I just went through your list of people. I agree with Rem's comments. I again really urge you to take a few geocience courses. Learn some sed. ped. and understand by yourself, how erosion and deposition processes work. Do lots of your own field work. Listen, there is this cool interlobate moraine in Ontario that some call the Oak Hills Moraine. Close that bible book and study the geomorphology and geological science of the morraine. By the time your done, you'll understand.

hawk

hooberus

rem, I know that evolution supposedly happens in branches and not necessarily direct lines. I also know that when an evolutionist looks at a specific fossil that he probably wouldn't claim dogmatically that that specific fossil was for sure on the way to becoming human. However evolutionists have in fact pointed to certain types of ancient fish as being on the line which led to humanity. The point is is that evolution does teach that our grandparents were fish. The primitive fish-like creatures that you mentioned would infact be classified as fish, albeit extinct fish. But extinct fish are fish and this is what evolution teaches that we came from. Do you personally believe that you decended from ancient fish?

Edited by - hooberus on 24 October 2002 21:4:47

rem

hooberus,

I think I already answered your question, but I'll be explicit since you seem to have some type of fascination with this issue.

Yes, I accept that a certain line of ancient fish-like creatures are ancestors to humans and certain other modern organisms, just as Evolutionary theory predicts.

Happy? Or do I need to explain it once more?

rem

hooberus

I think that you have adequately admitted that you came from fish. . . . well on second thought I wish that you would please acknowledge that the "fish-like" creatures were indeed ancient fish. I simple statement such as "I am rem, I came from ancient fish" would satisfy me.

Edited by - hooberus on 24 October 2002 21:25:2

rem

Well whoopty doo! What's your point, genius?

Carbon Dating

Share this