Oldest Remains of modern Humans are identified

[senatortombstone]

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma2.htm#Strange%20Theory

here is a sight that explains, in depth, the impossibility of the big bang and evolution.

BTW, you've obviously never read the Bible, a book written by many who were inspired by God.  The book of Isaiah prophecizes the coming of Christ several hundred years before he was born.  Now, had the Bible been written all at once, after Christ was born, crucified and ressurected, you could say that it was all made up, but that's not the case.

People might make fun of me for believing in God as my creator, I make fun of them for believeing in a bacterium as  their creator, a bacterium that just happened to come alive when struck by lightening, 4 billion years ago.

Do people not want to believe in God that much that they've come up with the complete and utter nonsense that is evolution?

[senatortombstone]

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm


here is a link to the evolution cruncher, read it and weep.

[Gabu]

You don't need to explain a faulty age-estimation process to us, save your time.  There is NO way that any method can determine the age of anything.  It is all guess work, guess work conveniently rigged to fit a theory.  Unless you know with 100% certainty that a rock is 4 billion years old, you have no real base to determine the age.  It is like gauging the movement of something in a  completely white background, you cannot tell how far they have moved.  The aging of rocks and fossils is circular.  scientists determine the age of fossils, by the rocks they're found in and the age of the rocks by the fossils they're found with.

Uh, no.  I think I do need to explain how potassium-argon dating works.

There are two reactions that can occur to the isotope potassium-40, both of which turn it into the stable, inert isotope argon-40.  These are as follows:

Positron emission:
⁴⁰K -> ⁴⁰Ar + ⁰e⁺ + ⁰ν

Electron capture:
⁴⁰K + ⁰e^- -> ⁴⁰Ar + ⁰ν

where e^- is an electron, e⁺ is a positron, and ν is a neutrino.

Argon is not a substance normally found in rocks, so any argon present in the rock could be assumed to have been formed through either of these two processes.

Given that the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in the rock sample is measureable, and given that it can be calculated how long it would take the potassium-40 present at the beginning (an easily calculatable quantity) to produce the amount of argon-40 measured, the age of the rock can be, therefore, measured with reasonable accuracy, as it would be equal to the amount of time it took to create the argon-40.

Here, I'll do an example for you.  Let it be given that the half-life of potassium-40 is 1.26 x 10⁹ (1.26 billion) years.

Suppose we have a rock sample that has been found to contain 9.99 g of potassium-40, and 0.01 g of argon-40. Therefore, we can assume that this rock initially had 10 g of potassium-40 in it.

Trust me when I declare that the formula for amount remaining after elapsed time t is the following:

A = A₀ (1/2)^t/r

where

A = amount remaining
A₀ = amount initially present
r = time it takes for half of the substance to decay.

Given that we have that

A = 9.99 g
A₀ = 10 g
r = 1.26 x 10⁹ y

we can calculate that

A/A₀ = (1/2)^t/r
t/r = log_1/2(A/A₀)

so

t = r log_1/2(A/A₀)
t = (1.26 x 10⁹) log_1/2(9.99/10)
t = 1.82 x 10⁶ y

Therefore, the rock is roughly 1.82 million years old.

Please look some of this up before mindlessly discarding it.

BIG BANG:  if true, then the universe should just be one huge hydrogen cloud.  If you believe in it, then you have to believe that everything evolved from hydrogen; stupid, plain stupid. 

Notwithstanding the assumption that hydrogen was the only element present at the big bang, the sun creates helium from hydrogen every day.  It's called a fusion reaction.

Gravity:  how did planets, stars and galaxies form?  The force of the big bang should have infinitely kept spreading onward.  How did gases form clumps of clouds that formed into galaxies, stars and planets?  Create an air tight room and fill it with a gas and see if the gas isolates itself into various clumps, compresses itself into different forms of solid matter, and so.  Never happen in a room, never happen in a universe, no matter how much time is allotted.  Did you know that scientists say that there is not enough matter, which can be seen or radioactively traced, in the universe that can account for the pull of gravity?  To come up with a way to explain this, they’ve come up with “dark matter” (an alchemy item in FFV), whose existence cannot be proven, but if true would explain the gravitational forces of the universe.  Scientists claim that dark matter accounts for 90% of the universe’s mass.  If true then scientists should be able to locate some, bottle it up and put it on display, right?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  If there's mass, there's gravity, and it never goes away.  Even two single atoms would have a gravitational force between them that could be calculated using Newton's law of gravitation.

I mean that would be proof, something they’re always prodding the Christian community for.

...and which you have given us none of.  At least we're trying and applying the scientific method of observation -> theory -> testing.

Life:  According to scientists, life evolved from non-living, non-organic matter.  That’s ridiculous.

Experiments have created organic material from inorganic material in the past.

Does this mean that evolution is correct?  No, but, see, here's the thing: if we prove a theory wrong, which we have done in the past many times, we examine what went wrong and search for a way to either revise the current theory or throw it out altogether and search for a new theory.

[senatortombstone]

thanks for the explanation

here's how i understand it.

potassium turns into argon.  if the rock had 10 grams of potassium and 5 grams of argon, then it would have once had 15 grams of pottassium?  and that a half-life means the amount of time it takes for something to decrease by half? 100/50/25/12.5//6.25/3.125/1.1625 and so on


if the half life is 1.26 billion years, then the rock would about 840 million years old??

but how does one know what the half life of anything is or what the original composition of the rock was, if other elements were involved or if something corrupted the readings?




i have read of tests where various chemicals, believed to abundant in primordial earth were run through tubes and continuously charged with electricity (did lightening repeatedly strick the same spot in primordial earth).  after a week the tests produced 2% amino acids, 85% tar (which would've destroyed the amino acids) and some other junk.   The test also excluded oxygen which was present in primordial earth.  Life cannot be created with oxygen present nor can it be created without oxygen present.  In the end only a few of the necessary for life 20 amino acids were created.  All this test proved is what can be done in a lab.  The fact that is this test really proved the impossibilty of life occuring at random.  If all of the necessary amino acids were created, they still have to combine into a living organism, which would be very very very very unlikely, even in a laboratory setting.  but even if it did, do you really believe that the simpleist of all organisms, so small that you'd need a super-microscope to see it, is the grandfather of us all?  Keep in mind that that which occurs in a laboratory setting, under the optimalistic of condidtions, is far different from that which occurs in nature, especially the chaotic nature of primordial earth.


Back to my blended hamster arguement.  The blended hamster contains millions of cells of bacteria,  that would still be living, and be able to feed of off the hamster's remains.  Why then would this evolved bacteria not be able to evolve into even greater things?.


I still don't understand why gas, moving in an omni-wave, all of a sudden decides to stop compress and form  galaxies, stars and planets.  I don't understand how stars become nuclear.  how gravity decides to place them where they are or anything.

There's no way the universe can be explained by chance,  There's a guiding force behind it all, God!

[USERNAME]

There is another problem with potassium argon dating.  Unlike carbon dating which tests directly the dated remains, K-Ar dating can only be used on associated and contemporaneously formed igneous or volcanic rock.  That means you need newly formed rock (read volcanic rock) stratigraphically associated (near or not very far above or below) the subject.  That's a tall order, but has worked well in Africa for many of the Australopithecines.  I don't know about the remains the subject of this topic, but I wonder how we got so lucky again.

In addition, K-Ar dating suffers from rather large standard deviations.  This is partly because you might find volcanic rock above a fossil dated at 1.25M years and more below a fossil dated at 1.5M years, and all you can really say is that the fossil is older then the layer above and not as old as the layer below. 

If only you could be lucky enough to find that specimen who was killed in a volcano and whose remains were perfectly preserved in the ash.  You’d probably get a high school named after you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm


here is a link to the evolution cruncher, read it and weep.

Complete crap, it uses the Bible as evidence.

[Gabu]

potassium turns into argon.  if the rock had 10 grams of potassium and 5 grams of argon, then it would have once had 15 grams of pottassium?  and that a half-life means the amount of time it takes for something to decrease by half? 100/50/25/12.5//6.25/3.125/1.1625 and so on


if the half life is 1.26 billion years, then the rock would about 840 million years old??

My calculations place it at 929 million years, but they're within the same ballpark enough that I can say that you probably have the right idea.

but how does one know what the half life of anything is or what the original composition of the rock was, if other elements were involved or if something corrupted the readings?

The halflife is obtained as follows.  It probably wasn't done in this way in reality, but this is one way you could do it.

Suppose you take a giant 1000 kg slab of potassium, and put it in an isolated chamber.  Since we know that, in any chunk of potassium, roughly 0.0117% of that chunk is potassium-40, we know that there is about 11.7 kg of potassium-40 present.

Suppose, now, that we now carefully place this slab of potassium in an isolated chamber and leave it there for 50 years.  Upon retrieval of this slab, we find that 0.0003 g of argon-40 has formed (a very delicate measuring apparatus could measure this).  This means that we have 11.6999997 kg left.  Therefore, from the previous equation

t/r = log_1/2(A/A₀)

we find that

r = t/log_1/2(A/A₀)

so

r = (50)/log_1/2(11.6999997/11.7)
r = 1.35 x 10⁹ y

Obviously, rounding error here has not produced the exact result from before, but it's pretty close.

This isn't exactly what was done, but it's the general idea behind it.

i have read of tests where various chemicals, believed to abundant in primordial earth were run through tubes and continuously charged with electricity (did lightening repeatedly strick the same spot in primordial earth).  after a week the tests produced 2% amino acids, 85% tar (which would've destroyed the amino acids) and some other junk.   The test also excluded oxygen which was present in primordial earth.  Life cannot be created with oxygen present nor can it be created without oxygen present.  In the end only a few of the necessary for life 20 amino acids were created.  All this test proved is what can be done in a lab.  The fact that is this test really proved the impossibilty of life occuring at random.  If all of the necessary amino acids were created, they still have to combine into a living organism, which would be very very very very unlikely, even in a laboratory setting.  but even if it did, do you really believe that the simpleist of all organisms, so small that you'd need a super-microscope to see it, is the grandfather of us all?  Keep in mind that that which occurs in a laboratory setting, under the optimalistic of condidtions, is far different from that which occurs in nature, especially the chaotic nature of primordial earth.

I'm not saying anything about evolution, only that organic material has been created from inorganic material, which you seemed to assert to be impossible in your previous post.

Back to my blended hamster arguement.  The blended hamster contains millions of cells of bacteria,  that would still be living, and be able to feed of off the hamster's remains.  Why then would this evolved bacteria not be able to evolve into even greater things?.

See my above post.  I'm not convinced that the current theory of evolution is fact, but I personally think it's a start.  Theories are made to be disproved.

I still don't understand why gas, moving in an omni-wave, all of a sudden decides to stop compress and form  galaxies, stars and planets.  I don't understand how stars become nuclear.  how gravity decides to place them where they are or anything.

There's no way the universe can be explained by chance,  There's a guiding force behind it all, God!

When have I attempted to disprove the existence of God?  I personally see no contradiction between belief theories like the Big Bang and evolution and belief in God.  Obviously, we either had to come from nothing or we were either always here, and while neither really makes that much sense, the former makes more sense than the latter.

Of course, then we get into philosophical arguments regarding the origin of man.

I'm not trying to assert the truth of either the theory of evolution or the theory of the Big Bang, only to say that certain phenomena implied in both can and have happened.  What you take from the fact that these phenomena have occurred is up to you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

thanks for the explanation

here's how i understand it.

potassium turns into argon.  if the rock had 10 grams of potassium and 5 grams of argon, then it would have once had 15 grams of pottassium?  and that a half-life means the amount of time it takes for something to decrease by half? 100/50/25/12.5//6.25/3.125/1.1625 and so on


if the half life is 1.26 billion years, then the rock would about 840 million years old??

but how does one know what the half life of anything is or what the original composition of the rock was, if other elements were involved or if something corrupted the readings?




i have read of tests where various chemicals, believed to abundant in primordial earth were run through tubes and continuously charged with electricity (did lightening repeatedly strick the same spot in primordial earth).  after a week the tests produced 2% amino acids, 85% tar (which would've destroyed the amino acids) and some other junk.   The test also excluded oxygen which was present in primordial earth.  Life cannot be created with oxygen present nor can it be created without oxygen present.  In the end only a few of the necessary for life 20 amino acids were created.  All this test proved is what can be done in a lab.  The fact that is this test really proved the impossibilty of life occuring at random.  If all of the necessary amino acids were created, they still have to combine into a living organism, which would be very very very very unlikely, even in a laboratory setting.  but even if it did, do you really believe that the simpleist of all organisms, so small that you'd need a super-microscope to see it, is the grandfather of us all?  Keep in mind that that which occurs in a laboratory setting, under the optimalistic of condidtions, is far different from that which occurs in nature, especially the chaotic nature of primordial earth.


Back to my blended hamster arguement.  The blended hamster contains millions of cells of bacteria,  that would still be living, and be able to feed of off the hamster's remains.  Why then would this evolved bacteria not be able to evolve into even greater things?.


I still don't understand why gas, moving in an omni-wave, all of a sudden decides to stop compress and form  galaxies, stars and planets.  I don't understand how stars become nuclear.  how gravity decides to place them where they are or anything.

There's no way the universe can be explained by chance,  There's a guiding force behind it all, God!

1 week of experiments with a small about of matter? Yeah, that proves that life couldn't have happened on Earth over billions of years.

[Gabu]

There is another problem with potassium argon dating.  Unlike carbon dating which tests directly the dated remains, K-Ar dating can only be used on associated and contemporaneously formed igneous or volcanic rock.  That means you need newly formed rock (read volcanic rock) stratigraphically associated (near or not very far above or below) the subject.  That's a tall order, but has worked well in Africa for many of the Australopithecines.  I don't know about the remains the subject of this topic, but I wonder how we got so lucky again.

In addition, K-Ar dating suffers from rather large standard deviations.  This is partly because you might find volcanic rock above a fossil dated at 1.25M years and more below a fossil dated at 1.5M years, and all you can really say is that the fossil is older then the layer above and not as old as the layer below. 

If only you could be lucky enough to find that specimen who was killed in a volcano and whose remains were perfectly preserved in the ash.  You’d probably get a high school named after you.

Well, yes, it's not perfect by any means.  I take the assertions of exact ages with a grain of salt.  All I'm explaining is how the general procedure works and why it works to get at least within the ballpark of a specimen's age.  The age of the rocks themselves can be measured with a good degree of accuracy, even if we're only semi-sure about the age of things around the rocks.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma2.htm#Strange%20Theory

here is a sight that explains, in depth, the impossibility of the big bang and evolution.

Well, my very smart engineering friend refuted everything that site had to say on the big bang. Much of what is said there does not take into account the various forces that are in play whenever matter is involved(gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). At best it's seriously out of date stuff.

BTW, you've obviously never read the Bible, a book written by many who were inspired by God.  The book of Isaiah prophecizes the coming of Christ several hundred years before he was born.  Now, had the Bible been written all at once, after Christ was born, crucified and ressurected, you could say that it was all made up, but that's not the case.

Actually I have read it, I just don't believe most of it. Certain events in it may or may not have occured(I do believe Jesus was a person that existed), but overall I don't believe it to be truth.

Do people not want to believe in God that much that they've come up with the complete and utter nonsense that is evolution?

I don't know if there is or is not a God, and I make no claim either way(see my signature for my philosophy on the matter), but evolution does not discount the idea of God - it could easily be the process by which God works. Many people believe this to be so. Also, the Big Bang could simply have been 'let there be light'. Just because science contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible does not mean it contradicts the notion of God itself.

[senatortombstone]

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm


here is a link to the evolution cruncher, read it and weep.

Complete crap, it uses the Bible as evidence.

excellent job of offering explanations of why their examples are wrong.

evolution is complete crap, it uses old bones, imagination and random chance as examples.

[senatortombstone]

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma2.htm#Strange%20Theory

here is a sight that explains, in depth, the impossibility of the big bang and evolution.

Well, my very smart engineering friend refuted everything that site had to say on the big bang. Much of what is said there does not take into account the various forces that are in play whenever matter is involved(gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). At best it's seriously out of date stuff.

ah, I see, because your super-smart friend said it, it must be true.

Do you care to go into detail as to which areas the site is wrong on?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm


here is a link to the evolution cruncher, read it and weep.

Complete crap, it uses the Bible as evidence.

excellent job of offering explanations of why their examples are wrong.

evolution is complete crap, it uses old bones, imagination and random chance as examples.

You just don't get it.

[J. J.]

The halflife is obtained as follows.  It probably wasn't done in this way in reality, but this is one way you could do it.

Suppose you take a giant 1000 kg slab of potassium, and put it in an isolated chamber.  Since we know that, in any chunk of potassium, roughly 0.0117% of that chunk is potassium-40, we know that there is about 11.7 kg of potassium-40 present.

This makes an assumption that the occurence of K-40 is constant accross time.  That might not be the case.

In dealing with C-14, one problem was this the amounts are not constant over time.  Scientists have to adjust for it.

[senatortombstone]

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm


here is a link to the evolution cruncher, read it and weep.

Complete crap, it uses the Bible as evidence.

excellent job of offering explanations of why their examples are wrong.

evolution is complete crap, it uses old bones, imagination and random chance as examples.

You just don't get it.

sorry jfern, but you don't get it.  you believe that your great 2^999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999-grandfather was a puddle of chemicals that got struck by lightening.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma2.htm#Strange%20Theory

here is a sight that explains, in depth, the impossibility of the big bang and evolution.

Well, my very smart engineering friend refuted everything that site had to say on the big bang. Much of what is said there does not take into account the various forces that are in play whenever matter is involved(gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear). At best it's seriously out of date stuff.

ah, I see, because your super-smart friend said it, it must be true.

Do you care to go into detail as to which areas the site is wrong on?

If a creationist website says it, it must be true.   I trust my friend's knowledge on the subject, as he's done a lot of study on it.

A few. I don't remember everything he said, but he did refute every point. Here are a few that stick out in my head:

3 - Nothing to explode it. - the way he explained it, there is a limit to possible density, and even one electron being allowed to move in the mass could have set it off(he'd explain this better).

5 - No way to slow it. - as I explained earlier, gravity would still exist with the matter. But I was wrong - weak nuclear force would take effect first, then go down the line and eventually gravity affects it(gravity is actually the weakest force exerted by matter). The space is not 'frictionless' in that there are more forces than just the initial explosion at work.

11 - Not enough time. - there was a brief period where they weren't sure why there was an increase in the speed of expansion. Roughly put, it occured due to thermal expansion.

15 - Why did the explosions stop? - this one refers to 'not enough supernovas', yet we find new supernovas all the time(funny thing, you can take five fortune cookies, take the lotto numbers as coordinates, and one of them will likely be a supernova). Also, supernovas are bound to physical law - the energy from them has to reach us, which takes time as that energy is limited by the speed of light.

35 - There is not enough antimatter. - antimatter 'degrades'(I forgot the term he used) at a much faster rate than any matter. We can synthetically produce anti-matter in a lab, but it never lasts for long because it is not stable. There would have been an equal amount of matter and anti-matter to start, but because anti-matter is unstable much of it has degraded.

41 - No Population III stars. - When it's daytime out, go look up in the sky. Our star is Pop III, the proof having something to do with the abundance of silicon.

As stated before, many of the others(especially those refering to 'lumps') don't take into account the various forces that are exerted by matter.

Of course, not once did my friend try to say there was no God - he's like me, he claims ignorance on that subject. But just to note, he stated that if the various universal constants were not exactly what they are(if they were a bit bigger or smaller) then the universe just plain could not exist, and that the probability of them being what they are is a googleplex( 10^(100^100), big number). Certainly doens't discount the idea of someone outside fixing the odds, now does it?