Carbon dating discredits what I call the "clock of evolution" if the clock is inaccurate, then the time span they measure with the clock is also inaccurate. And since the clock only measures back to so many thousand years...the billions proposed are assumptions and stretching of the evidence to fit an idea.
But the point is, I'm tired of being a one man army and I want to stop this silly argument, But I am too stubborn to stop. And we all know that in the end we will find out who was right and who was wrong.
HOI!!! I'm so weary...The same arguments on both sides, the same old cliched stuff spewing out from every thing......ALL for an argument that wont end until the end itself...
Plausible...And yet everything about it is improbable, and highly flawed.
Oh, irony. You'll see why, but before I explain, I'm going to call you a dumbfuck, you [HIGHLIGHT]
fucking dumbfuck[/code]. This is from that exact same page you found, at the bottom.
Although the half-life of carbon-14 makes it unreliable for dating fossils over about 50,000 years old, [HIGHLIGHT]
there are other isotopes scientists use to date older artifacts.[/code] These isotopes have longer half-lives and so are found in greater abundance in older fossils.
Some of these other isotopes include:
- Potassium-40 found in your body at all times; half-life = 1.3 billion years
- Uranium-235; half-life = 704 million years
- Uranium-238; half-life = 4.5 billion years
- Thorium-232; half-life = 14 billion years
- Rubidium-87; half-life = 49 billion years
You basically showed me that one method
is in fact inaccurate depending on what it's being used on... and then showed me methods that work on things the first method doesn't. Way to kill absolutely every argument that may or may not be valid that you have ever and ever will put forward. Oh yes, here's the irony in case you missed it:
YOU just suck at reading. To the point where it becomes a flaw in your methods (that specifically was the irony... your own argument is highly flawed when you accuse what you are arguing against to be highly flawed). By the way, I'm extremely surprised that nobody else caught that during the two days I've been gone for.
Code:
SCORE Teh_Ephy: [RAINBOW]Winnar![/RAINBOW]
SCORE Elenai : Failure@life, the universe, and everything... well, failure @ this thread at least.
The chances of Organic matter forming from random collisions of elements and all that requiring a perfect environment (which you say happened all through natural chance) for life to even begin to form is like: winning every lottery on earth 1000 times, after being hit by lightning underground 100 times, and being eaten by a shark in the middle of the sahara desert. And for that fledgling piece of organic material to have formed complex codes of DNA is just as improbable as the above. And not to mention that DNA is only the blueprints, They would have to form complex cell structures, also highly improbable, and not too mention that those cells would have to have insticts to survive. And insticts do not evolve. A water spider did not evolve the instict to make an underwater nest, and to gather oxygen in it's hairs to take into the nest to make it livable for it's children. It could not have evolved, because imperfect instincts evolving into perfect ones, would have DOOMED the organisms with imperfect instincts and they would not have passed on children to have evolved into the perfect instincts organisms of today.
I have been listening. And you still have yet to give a satisfactory answer.
And even then, for life to have started by chance is highly improbable as I have stated before.
But even if it started the Genetic improbablility is just enourmous. Even for generational mutations. Beneficial mutations are just incredibly rare, and even then those genetic mutations that are beneficial DONOT change a species like a single cell'd organism into a Man over any length of time.
You
do know that you can't prove that, right? Just because we can't prove our unlikely, unprovable statement doesn't mean your unlikely, unprovable statement is right. Wait... I'll offer you a deal. Since neither side can prove the statements about evolution
or God, you can win the evolution debate and we'll win the God debate. Sound fair to you?
And yes as I stated above. I am sick of being a one man army arguing over and over. Just as you all are most likley sick and tired of trying to convince me that you are right.
I'm actually having a
wonderful time proving not that we are right, but that you are a totally useless fuck in regard to proper research. Citing something that discredits your own argument, honestly... To me, that means you were just desperate for anything that proved that one small point of yours, and you "found" it. Unfortunately, someone paid attention to it. More attention than you paid.
Wait! There's that irony again!
It is not fairly unlikley...It is incredibly unlikley. And it is still unlikley to happen on a few planets, because the improbability applies to all planets.
Let's say you have seven hundred million people doing something that is extremely unlikely to happen. If they keep doing it until they all drop dead, how high do you think chances are that at least one of them is going to get what they want to happen?
Yes, the low chance applies to every person, but that chance is given an innumerable amount of opportunities to occur. Statistically speaking (and with the context that evolution
is what happens), the chances of evolution occurring on at least a single planet in the universe at at least one point in time is, for all intents and purposes, 100%.
And according to what evidence? Do we see any evidence that shows a single cell evolving into a 2cell, 3cell, 4cell......1000000cell.......MAN? No we do not. The very beginning transitional evidence that would even remotely imply that single cell'd organisms evolved into multi cell'd organisms is totally non existent. There is no evidence that supports single cell'd organisms>>Multi cell'd organisms. It is only assumed to be that way, Just because a series of similar looking fossils were said "Hey they look similar, I suppose that this skeleton is the ancestor of this one...just a clavical here....VIOLA!! The evolution of the cow."
First off, "celled," "clavicle," "voilà." A viola (
vee-oh-lah) is a musical instrument; basically a tiny violin. Humans have trillions of cells, not one million. Second off, it's not just structural similarities, it's also extreme genetic similarities and the fossils being dated to be rather far apart.
Anyways, this thread has fully served its purpose of proving that
Elenai is just some religious automaton that can't put forth any decent arguments the consensus on THW is that evolution is both plausible and likely to have happened. I'm reporting this thread and asking it be closed in the hopes that we don't need to read any more of Elenai's poorly-cited, utter bullshit.
