Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[Hollie]

evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation how that could occur

h

evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation how that could occur

The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. You have been told this repeatedly, and so to continue this straw man whine of yours defines your insanity. Congratulations.

how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..

How absurd that you don't understand this has been explained to you in excruciating detail yet you're still clueless

 

[eots]

how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..

How many times do you have to be told the theory of evolution doesn't explain that?


Have you got it yet?

oh ya I got it..there is no answer to the ouestion so the science has distanced itself from having to adress it

 

[eots]

there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions

 

[eots]

Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels.

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset - Scientific American

 

[eots]

and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent

 

[Hollie]

Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels.

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset - Scientific American

None of your cutting and pasting addresses your issue of choosing to be dull regarding the factual conclusions of biological evolution

 

[orogenicman]

evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation how that could occur

h

evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation how that could occur

The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. You have been told this repeatedly, and so to continue this straw man whine of yours defines your insanity. Congratulations.

how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..

How a single cell arose is a different issue, and so is being addressed under different hypotheses, such as abiogenesis and others. Just because the theory of evolution doesn't address it doesn't refute evolution. Next.

 

[orogenicman]

how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..

How many times do you have to be told the theory of evolution doesn't explain that?


Have you got it yet?

oh ya I got it..there is no answer to the ouestion so the science has distanced itself from having to adress it

Who said there is no answer? Right. You did. Scientists aren't saying it. They are actively seeking answers to the question. What are you doing? Right. Nothing.

 

[orogenicman]

there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions

Got any evidence to support those claims?

 

[Hollie]

evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation how that could occur

h

evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation how that could occur

The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. You have been told this repeatedly, and so to continue this straw man whine of yours defines your insanity. Congratulations.

how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..

How a single cell arose is a different issue, and so is being addressed under different hypotheses, such as abiogenesis and others. Just because the theory of evolution doesn't address it doesn't refute evolution. Next.

Which has been conveyed both tediously and repeatedly to the Flat Earthers yet they consistently fail to understand.

 

[orogenicman]

Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels.

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset - Scientific American

Every measurement ever made in science has variation, +- some percentage. When you measure temperature, you are not making an absolute measurement, because each thermometer presents instrument error due to manufacturing imprecision, and other variables. And so when the age of something is measured using radioisotope measurements, the results are always presented including a statistical error, +- so many years. This doesn't invalidate the measurement any more than any other measurement in science invalidated because of statistical error.

 

[orogenicman]

and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent

Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago. But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago. Next.

 

[eots]

and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent

Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago. But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago. Next.

or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know

 

[Hollie]

and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent

Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago. But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago. Next.

or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know

Pretty pathetic. There are statistical variations in calculations. Nothing suggests the variations that are a part of your conspiracy theory.

 

[orogenicman]

and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent

Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago. But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago. Next.

or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know

We know for a fact that it is not 2 billion years old. We have rocks on the Earth that are far older. The Moon, unlike the Earth, has preserved its entire geologic history. And that history puts its age at no less than 4.4 billion years. But even if it was only 2 billion years old, it still refutes the biblical claim of 6,000 years.

 

[orogenicman]

Radiocarbon dating:

What is Carbon Dating NOSAMS

 

[orogenicman]

More evidence of evolution:

Human Evolution News -- ScienceDaily

<crickets chirping>

<crickets chirping>

 

[cnm]

oh ya I got it..there is no answer to the ouestion so the science has distanced itself from having to adress it

No, different [ideas] address the beginning of life. Not the theory of evolution.

 

[eots]

there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions

Got any evidence to support those claims?

and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent

Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago. But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago. Next.

or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know

We know for a fact that it is not 2 billion years old. We have rocks on the Earth that are far older. The Moon, unlike the Earth, has preserved its entire geologic history. And that history puts its age at no less than 4.4 billion years. But even if it was only 2 billion years old, it still refutes the biblical claim of 6,000 years.

it also throws a wrench in your time dependent theory

 

[eots]

Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself