Aegyptopithecus

[sayak83]

We have accomplished so much so far. How can I put this. Let me think . . .

The only thing I could do is ask you to show me, but that would be expecting you to do what we have already established irresponsible journalism has already done. Can you demonstrate to be how a good evidential justification for classifying a fossil ape as belonging to a group of related sister species would or could have resulted in us humans eventually evolving would look like.

I've been showed pictures of a line of different primate skulls and told that was evolution. It's just a lineup of ape skulls. Perhaps what I'm asking is how do you verify, reproduce, peer review etc. such a thing. You're just looking at it and saying "Yup. Evolution."

Please see my thread to which I linked to.
Fossils have different time periods. Some of the Newer fossils gain more humanoid features than older ones lack and this trend continues till fully human features are seen around 200,000 yrs ago. This confirms an evolutionary prediction, and hence is evidence for evolution.

Just as yearly pictures from infancy to adulthood would be evidence of human growth.

 

[Earthling]

Why do you think that?

Why do I think what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Uppsala, Sweden a conference consisting of radio-chemists, archaeologists and geologists was held in which they determined that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and radiocarbon testing is not reliable in dating objects from about 2000 B.C.E. or before. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Radiocarbon Dating Wrong," January 18, 1976, p. C8

“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”
Science, "Radiocarbon Dating," by W. F. Libby, March 3, 1961, p. 624

Oh oh, it looks like you are using the work of a convicted liar. That smacks of Kent Hovind.

First, carbon dating was not used for this example. It is a thirty million years old fossil.

Second, people that use carbon dating are aware of its limitations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do I think what?

Why do you have problems with this find?


And this might help:

Aegyptopithecus - Wikipedia

 

[Earthling]

Why do you have problems with this find?


And this might help:

Aegyptopithecus - Wikipedia

I didn't say that I did, and I asked you not to throw links at me. Extract the relevant portion and give the address for reference.

 

[Darkstorn]

I didn't say that I did, and I asked you not to throw links at me. Extract the relevant portion and give the address for reference.

The forum rules actually implore people to click on the links instead of doing what you're suggesting: Yes, it is actually preferable to link to articles instead of quoting copious amounts of text from them. Reason:

Very often the amount of text needed to be quoted to give a sufficient idea of the big picture, is MUCH longer than a paragraph.

So instead of trying to make people break the rules, just read the damn links.

 

[Earthling]

Oh oh, it looks like you are using the work of a convicted liar. That smacks of Kent Hovind.

I don't care if Patrick from Spongebobsquarepants said it, though I gave the sources, the question is is it true. You can't just tell me that it is or it isn't. That's only opinion. Why do I have to explain this stuff to people who are representing science?! It's like you were brainwashed in school and you can't deal with a simple question or challenge.

First, carbon dating was not used for this example. It is a thirty million years old fossil.

Someone suggested the effectiveness of a particular method of dating and I presented some problems. I didn't say that it was used for this example.

Second, people that use carbon dating are aware of its limitations.

I'm sure they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say that I did, and I asked you not to throw links at me. Extract the relevant portion and give the address for reference.

I am not going to do all of your homework for you. The link was only there to help answer unasked questions.

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't care if Patrick from Spongebobsquarepants said it, though I gave the sources, the question is is it true. You can't just tell me that it is or it isn't. That's only opinion. Why do I have to explain this stuff to people who are representing science?! It's like you were brainwashed in school and you can't deal with a simple question or challenge.

This would feel slightly more honest if you didn't already go around telling people that you're not going to bother reading stuff linked to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't care if Patrick from Spongebobsquarepants said it, though I gave the sources, the question is is it true. You can't just tell me that it is or it isn't. That's only opinion. Why do I have to explain this stuff to people who are representing science?! It's like you were brainwashed in school and you can't deal with a simple question or challenge.

You really should care what source you use. When you use sources written by a lying idiot whether or not you like it you do end up looking like one too. And not, those were sources used by Kent that he did not understand. You did not "give" the sources either since you did not link them. And it is not an opinion to call Kent a convicted liar. That is a fact. He did a stint of roughly 10 years in federal prison for lying to the IRS.

And those that accept science are not the brainwashed ones here.

Once again you are ignoring the fact that C14 dating was not used for this particular fossil find. It could not have been used. C14 dating is only good for very recent dates.

Someone suggested the effectiveness of a particular method of dating and I presented some problems. I didn't say that it was used for this example.

And that person was an ignorant fool. He misused articles that he did not understand.

I'm sure they are.

If that is the case then you should not be worried about it. People that use the tool properly will give you accurate dates using that tool.

 

[ChristineM]

Very good point, somewhat impractical advice, but certainly true - and the science minded atheist proclaiming evolution as fact? Should I ignore those?

The evidence for evolution is manifold and sound. But feel free to ignore whoever you like, just don't ignore the facts

 

[ChristineM]

We have accomplished so much so far. How can I put this. Let me think . . .

The only thing I could do is ask you to show me, but that would be expecting you to do what we have already established irresponsible journalism has already done. Can you demonstrate to be how a good evidential justification for classifying a fossil ape as belonging to a group of related sister species would or could have resulted in us humans eventually evolving would look like.

I've been showed pictures of a line of different primate skulls and told that was evolution. It's just a lineup of ape skulls. Perhaps what I'm asking is how do you verify, reproduce, peer review etc. such a thing. You're just looking at it and saying "Yup. Evolution."

A good source of scientific publications

arXiv.org e-Print archive

 

[Earthling]

The evidence for evolution is manifold and sound. But feel free to ignore whoever you like, just don't ignore the facts

Oh, ok. I haven't seen any facts yet, but if I do . . .

 

[Earthling]

A good source of scientific publications

arXiv.org e-Print archive

Thank you very much. That helps.

 

[Earthling]

You really should care what source you use. When you use sources written by a lying idiot whether or not you like it you do end up looking like one too. And not, those were sources used by Kent that he did not understand. You did not "give" the sources either since you did not link them. And it is not an opinion to call Kent a convicted liar. That is a fact. He did a stint of roughly 10 years in federal prison for lying to the IRS.

And those that accept science are not the brainwashed ones here.

Once again you are ignoring the fact that C14 dating was not used for this particular fossil find. It could not have been used. C14 dating is only good for very recent dates.




And that person was an ignorant fool. He misused articles that he did not understand.





If that is the case then you should not be worried about it. People that use the tool properly will give you accurate dates using that tool.

Thank you. Very helpful.

 

[Earthling]

This would feel slightly more honest if you didn't already go around telling people that you're not going to bother reading stuff linked to you.

Thanks.

 

[Darkstorn]

Well, solipsism is a good choice.

 

[Earthling]

The forum rules actually implore people to click on the links instead of doing what you're suggesting: Yes, it is actually preferable to link to articles instead of quoting copious amounts of text from them. Reason:

Very often the amount of text needed to be quoted to give a sufficient idea of the big picture, is MUCH longer than a paragraph.

So instead of trying to make people break the rules, just read the damn links.

You are not helping me. You are not listening to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A note on Kent Hovind and his arguments against Carbon dating. He finds examples in the scientific literature that tells some of the limitations of carbon dating and tries to use that against it.

For example sea life cannot be carbon dated because much of the carbon in it is "old carbon". Plant life on the surface gets its carbon from the atmosphere which is well mixed. The C14 in it at the time of its growth reflects the C14 of that time period. Much of the carbon in the ocean has been dissolved in it for hundreds or even thousands of years. It has already aged before being taken up by sea life and that gives a false old age. For that reason no one uses C14 for dating marine life. Well except for a few ignorant creationists that think they can "prove" C14 dating does not work. Amazing, when one uses a hammer as a screwdriver it does not work!

Kent can't honestly argue against evolution at best he can misrepresent what articles say. People on the science side have been on to him since before he went to prison.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are not helping me. You are not listening to me.

The way i see it, i was helping you.