Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[Hollie]

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

Where did that conspiracy theory come from?

 

[Hollie]

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

No.it doesn't. Its another of your silly conspiracy theories

 

[Hollie]

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

What makes up the earth is not what makes up the earth?

 

[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?

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

If you are going to simply throw out unexplained, unsupported one-liners, the at least explain why I should even bother responding to your posts? I ask this because your response has no known relevance to mine.

 

[orogenicman]

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

What makes up the Earth (4.54 billion years) is likely older, but not by much.

 

[orogenicman]

Radiocarbon dating:

What is Carbon Dating NOSAMS

<crickets>

 

[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?

<more crickets>

 

[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

If you are going to simply throw out unexplained, unsupported one-liners, the at least explain why I should even bother responding to your posts? I ask this because your response has no known relevance to mine.

The theory is evolutionary change occurs through incremental small changes over 4.5 billion years .lose a billion or two years and your theory is in big trouble

 

[eots]

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

What makes up the Earth (4.54 billion years) is likely older, but not by much.

nice guess..

 

[eots]

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

Where did that conspiracy theory come from?

logic and reason..unless you think the earth has always been there

 

[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?

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

If you are going to simply throw out unexplained, unsupported one-liners, the at least explain why I should even bother responding to your posts? I ask this because your response has no known relevance to mine.

The theory is evolutionary change occurs through incremental small changes over 4.5 billion years .lose a billion or two years and your theory is in big trouble

No, the oldest unambiguous evidence for life on earth occurs at about 3.8 billion years ago, some 750 million years after the Earth first formed. It could and likely does go back a bit further. So there is no billion or two years to lose. Next.

 

[eots]

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

What makes up the earth is not what makes up the earth?

 

[orogenicman]

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

What makes up the Earth (4.54 billion years) is likely older, but not by much.

nice guess..

Look, the Material (dust and gas) that made up the stellar nebula that formed when the supernova that created the solar system exploded is older than the solar system itself. But that material condensed in the solar cloud to form the planets. The planets formed at 4.54 billion years.

 

[orogenicman]

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

What makes up the earth is not what makes up the earth?

That video doesn't have anything in it that I haven't already said (I've already seen it, in case you were going to ask). So what was your point in posting it?

 

[MaryL]

? Mountain of evidence? You KNOW the difference between a theory, and a fact? Science starts with a theory. And it either works as a coherent whole, or it falls apart. Then from there, they extrapolate further, and so on. There IS NO MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. And no one is going to kid you here. Evolution is just a theory. Just like, I don't know, atom fission is theory, but we got nukes out of that little gem Or, the theory of electromagnetism, we got Cell phones, computers and other useful stuff. Mountain of evidence?

 

[eots]

For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today.



Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels.

Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.

Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.
Radio Carbon Dating

 

[S.J.]

And the hits just keep on coming. Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility. He can't do both.

He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.

It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.

No evidence of evolution has been presented. Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man. That is where facts end and speculation begins.

 

[orogenicman]

? Mountain of evidence? You KNOW the difference between a theory, and a fact? Science starts with a theory. And it either works as a coherent whole, or it falls apart. Then from there, they extrapolate further, and so on. There IS NO MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. And no one is going to kid you here. Evolution is just a theory. Just like, I don't know, atom fission is theory, but we got nukes out of that little gem Or, the theory of electromagnetism, we got Cell phones, computers and other useful stuff. Mountain of evidence?

I take it that you didn't bother to read any posts in this thread, but just popped in to let everyone know how little you actually know about the subject. Why would anyone willfully show their ignorance to the world? Doesn't make sense to me but okay. Science does not start with a theory. It starts with a discovery, a fact. Then it develops a hypothesis to try to explain the fact/discovery. Then it tests and compiles observation's that either support of rejects the hypothesis. If the hypothesis, through testing, doesn't work, another one is developed and tested. And this goes on until it passes rigours testing. Then someone writes a paper about it. The rest of the scientific community reads the paper, and then conducts their own tests. And only when the bulk of the scientific community agrees that it works does it become a theory.

This is the history of the theory of evolution, all 150 years of it. And in that time, literal mountains of evidence has been compiled to support it. Those mountains are contained in the world museums, in all the scientific papers that have been written during all that time. If you don't understand this, I highly recommend that you go to as many science museums as possible and libraries that contain many volumes of scientific works. The U.S. National Museum alone, contains enough evidence supporting evolution that you could spend a lifetime looking at it all. I know because I've been there and have scientific specimens in their repository.

Good luck.

 

[Hollie]

And the hits just keep on coming. Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility. He can't do both.

He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.

It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.

No evidence of evolution has been presented. Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man. That is where facts end and speculation begins.

A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.

 

[Hollie]

For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today.



Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels.

Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.

Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.
Radio Carbon Dating

Pretty typical web scouring for you YEC'ists.

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments Radiocarbon Dating