Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[sealybobo]

Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more

Sorry, you are wrong again.

Almost redundant to even bother to point out that he is wrong again- he is after all talking about evolution- and also believes that water once covered the entire earth- including Mt. Everest.

Yet, you have no explanation for the water. What other planet has this much water on the surface? Hint: Look for planets with plate tectonics.

Odds are there are dozens of planets like earth if not hundreds. That’s a very small percent.

And it’s true we haven’t found anything like us yet.

 

[james bond]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.


Marine Limestone
The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:


When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils

Got a mouse in your pocket? Nobody but creationist goobers agrees to that.

 

[james bond]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.

Absolutely- there are 400 million year old fossils over 25,000 feet above sea level.

Your answer is that means that 6,000 years ago the ark floated by......a scientists answer is that 400 million years ago Mt. Everest was not a mountain- but 6,000 years ago it was maybe a few feet shorter.

Nah man, you're not getting this. all science is wrong, because it contradicts the Bible. And all Science is correct, because it all supports the Bible.

Got it?

We haven't talked that much recently, so sorry if I am repeating this. Mt. Everest wasn't as high in the past as it is now. That's how the flood waters were able to reach so high. The earthquake below the oceans caused Mt. Everest to rise even more to today's height. It also explains how we got 7 continents from one, continental drift theory. The plate tectonics become very important in more ways than one.

 

[james bond]

Here's the evidence for no tree of life and no common ancestor -- eukaryogenesis doesn't happen.

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more

Sorry, you are wrong again.

Almost redundant to even bother to point out that he is wrong again- he is after all talking about evolution- and also believes that water once covered the entire earth- including Mt. Everest.

Yet, you have no explanation for the water. What other planet has this much water on the surface? Hint: Look for planets with plate tectonics.

Odds are there are dozens of planets like earth if not hundreds. That’s a very small percent.

And it’s true we haven’t found anything like us yet.

I'm sure we've gone over this regarding the fine-tuning facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL What a dumb ass you are, Bond. There are many, many dating methods now. No one dates anything with just one of them. Here are a few;

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[james bond]

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils

Got a mouse in your pocket? Nobody but creationist goobers agrees to that.

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking with someone with intellinence to understand science. Not a monkey brain.

 

[Old Rocks]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.

Absolutely- there are 400 million year old fossils over 25,000 feet above sea level.

Your answer is that means that 6,000 years ago the ark floated by......a scientists answer is that 400 million years ago Mt. Everest was not a mountain- but 6,000 years ago it was maybe a few feet shorter.

Nah man, you're not getting this. all science is wrong, because it contradicts the Bible. And all Science is correct, because it all supports the Bible.

Got it?

We haven't talked that much recently, so sorry if I am repeating this. Mt. Everest wasn't as high in the past as it is now. That's how the flood waters were able to reach so high. The earthquake below the oceans caused Mt. Everest to rise even more to today's height. It also explains how we got 7 continents from one, continental drift theory. The plate tectonics become very important in more ways than one.

LOL You are correct, Mt. Everest was not as high as it is today long ago in our geologic history. However, that was millions of years ago, long before there were even hominids. You twisting to the scientific theory of Plate Tectonics is laughable, indeed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was talking with someone with intellinence to understand science.

Then surely that person responded to you by telling you that you are a liar who knows less than nothing about radiometric dating, since what you said was stupid and false.

 

[james bond]

I was talking with someone with intellinence to understand science.

Then surely that person responded to you by telling you that you are a liar who knows less than nothing about radiometric dating, since what you said was stupid and false.

Ha ha. You can't explain radiometric dating, so you do not qualify to make any judgments. If something I said was incorrect, then you would be jumping all over me about it and letting the whole world know. Instead, you revert to your stupid, dumb af ad hominems. Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier and go try radiometric dating ha ha?

 

[james bond]

Only atheist scientists base their age of the earth and fossiles/rocks on radiometric dating. Creation scientists do not base the same on radiometric dating because assumptions have to be made and these assumptions could be wrong.

My argument against radiometric dating of objects is that carbon-14 still remains in them. These are dinosaur bones, rocks, fossils, minerals, crystals, etc. The decay rates are assumed to be constant. If the decay rates are constant, then the radiometric dating should be hundreds of thousands, millions and billions of years old. However, this is not true because carbon-14 still remains in them. All of the carbon-14 would have been spent. Second, we do not know what the ratio of parent to daughter elements were when the item was formed. It's like coming into a room and seeing an hourglass that is running. From this observation, we cannot be certain that the rate of sand dropping into the lower glass is constant and we do not know what was the amount of sand it the top glass and the bottom glass when it started to fall. If we KNOW both the rate of sand falling is constant and one side is full of sand and the other is empty, then we can get an accurate measurement if we know when the hourglass was turned over. The decay rates could change if the temperature or pressure changes. For long ages such as billions of years, it's not realistic to assume that temperature and pressure remained the same.

It's basic science and common sense. However, the atheist scientists must have the long-time for evolution to occur, so they steadfastly deny not knowing what the original parent and daughter elements were and assuming that the rate of radioactive decay in the materials have been constant throughout history. This is extremely doubtful when these items have been submerged in water and resetting the decay. In fact, the decay has to have been reset by igneous flow for a candidate object to be radiometrically measured.

Here is an example.

For K-Ar radiometric decay system "to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known."

"But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."

The Radiometric Dating Game

This is just the decay process. We also have to make certain that impurities did not get into the sample objects.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bond, you silly ignorant ass, it ain't carbon 14, once it has decayed. Through beta decay, it is nitrogen 14. So it does not remain in the samples as carbon 14. Not only that, carbon 14 is only considered accurate, in most cases, for the last 50,000 years. The other multiple radiometric methods are used on older materials. And the basis for the dating is the same basis that our nuclear reactors work on.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, by the way, there are no creation scientists. Just a bunch of religious charlatans that get money from sucker like you.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.


Marine Limestone
The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:


When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't explain radiometric dating

Of course I can, as could any curious person who wishes to look it up.. While you creationist charlatans are busy incestuously grifting hilariously false talking points from each other's asses, normal people are learning the hard earned knowledge granted us by real scientists.

 

[Syriusly]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.


Marine Limestone
The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:


When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

Nah man, you're not getting this. all science is wrong, because it contradicts the Bible. And all Science is correct, because it all supports the Bible.

Got it?

 

[Syriusly]

Only atheist scientists base their age of the earth and fossiles/rocks on radiometric dating. Creation scientists.

Odd isn't it how Jamie boy will cite scientists- like marine fossils on Mt. Everest, but then deride them as 'atheist scientists' whether they are atheists or not- if they don't share the believes of his specific Christian cult.

They kind of remind me of the South Pacific Cargo Cults....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Only atheist scientists base their age of the earth and fossiles/rocks on radiometric dating. Creation scientists.

Odd isn't it how Jamie boy will cite scientists- like marine fossils on Mt. Everest, but then deride them as 'atheist scientists' whether they are atheists or not- if they don't share the believes of his specific Christian cult.

They kind of remind me of the South Pacific Cargo Cults....

Well, it's easy to understand, when you take into account the frustration amd impotence he must feel all day every day, knowing the nonsense he invents about our hard earned scientific knowledge is paid exactly zero respect by any serious scientist or scholar, anywhere. A normal, rational human might wonder if the things he is saying are, quite possibly, absurd and not worthy of respect.

IMAGINE how it must feel to be so sure of the truth of something, and then everyone laughs at you every time you talk about it.

But, a person whose brain is addled by a lifetime of cultish brainwashing would have a much harder time arriving at such an obvious conclusion.

 

[james bond]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.


Marine Limestone
The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:


When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.


Marine Limestone
The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:


When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.