Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,416 members, 7,781,208 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 10:40 AM

Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development (3728 Views)

Is The Human Embryo Essentially A Fish Without Gills? / Part Of Evolution Theory That Got Me Really Confused....can There Be An Answer? / Proof Of Evolution: The Imperfect Human Body (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 10:46pm On Oct 20, 2016
felixomor:


Trial and error can not even arrange and produce 1/billionth of a DNA strand let alone the brain, one mysterious super computer.
Thank God u said u dont rule out the possibility of a creator.
But u dont have to allow sentiments to make u to start to dabble into whether he answers prayers or not.
Because, Billions of people have their own personal testimonies and even many scientists have confirmed miracles before.
Even Richard Dawkins the world's most outspoken atheist believes in miracles. He admits that he cant explain them.
And Then if u say "God is an arrogant concept" while u admit the possibility of a creator, u contradict urself thus.
Sorry but trial and error can, when its done over billions of years by thousands if not millions of different strains. Unexplained Miracle that happen are just that. unexplained. Not done by God or any supernatural being.
A God and a creator are not the same thing, a creator only creates but a God interferes. Religious Gods are not real, I don't know about a creator.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by felixomor: 10:56pm On Oct 20, 2016
Lennycool:

Sorry but trial and error can, when its done over billions if years by thousands of strains. Unexplained Miracle that happen are just that unexplained, not done by God or any supernatural being. A God and a creator are not the same thing, a creator only creates but a God interferes. Religious Gods are not real, I don't know about a creator.

U r not speaking with a good knowledge of mathematics. Sorry to say
Do u even know the probability of arranging ABCD to Z (just 26 alphabets) in alphabetical order by trial and error?
It is near impossibility, let alone DNA a 3 billion letter code?
We have not even talked about probability of arranging the 80 billion neurons of the brain.
Dont even go there.
Besides if u say trial and error, who is "trying"?

A God and a creator are not same. Really?
Can u "create" without "interfering'?
And if u say somethings are "unexplained", how are u now ruling out "interference"?
That logic is deficient, sorry

1 Like

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 11:14pm On Oct 20, 2016
Thashen:
[b] The fact that you've no clue that your Idol, Ernst Haeckel, was the most dishonest scientist that ever set foot on this earth gives credence to my statement that you're a gormless tit. I mean, It is a well documented fact that Haeckel was a fraudster who utilized his fine talent as an exceptional artist combined with his authority as a scientist to convince stupid people like yourself, son, that Charles Darwin's evolution is factual.

Do you know why Ernst's bïtches, as in evolutionists and text book authors are hell-bent on using Ernst's flawed drawings/diagrams, notwithstanding the fact that they've been proven to be plastic? It's because they want to hoodwink gullible students into a belief that Evolution Theory is more logical than Creationism!

One of the many errors observed in Earnst drawings is the heart bulges. Apparently in his work Anthropogenie, he drew many embryos, including the human and chick embryos, without either pericardial or heart bulges, where they possess these in reality. In humans, the cardiovascular system is one of the first entities to develop in the early embryo. This is so because the growing embryo needs a constant supply of oxygen, so nutrients. Very early in embryonic development, diffusion becomes insufficient for oxygen supply. So from even as early as twenty five days old, the human embryo already displays a clear pericardial bulge, soon becoming a heart bulge. Ernst's human sketches lack these heart bulges!

Go look up the rest of the errors found in his illustrations!
[/b]

Eenst did not conceive the notion of embryology as this was proposed before him, and he is not my idol, as I had not even heard of him till now, but the little I have learnt, shows that he believed in evolution and scientific racism. A racist can never be my idol.
Evolution surpasses the works of just one scientist, even Darwin himself. If embryology were fake, other scientist would have discredited it, as they have done with other false theories, but embryology remains. Ernst had almost nothing to do with embryology, he made some fake drawings and he helped spread the theory of evolution and even brought about some methods of classification, but he didn't deal entirely on embryology.
Embryology transcends Ernst, as modern scientific devices has still proven embryology correct.
Again you should do research before you comment on things you have no knowledge of.

Don't quote me as I will not answer you're not worth my time you inconsequential foulmouthed dingleberry(you should check what it means).
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 11:33pm On Oct 20, 2016
felixomor:


U r not speaking with a good knowledge of mathematics. Sorry to say
Do u even know the probability of arranging ABCD to Z (just 26 alphabets) in alphabetical order by trial and error?
It is near impossibility, let alone DNA a 3 billion letter code?
We have not even talked about probability of arranging the 80 billion neurons of the brain.
Dont even go there.
Besides if u say trial and error, who is "trying"?

A God and a creator are not same. Really?
Can u "create" without "interfering'?
And if u say somethings are "unexplained", how are u now ruling out "interference"?
That logic is deficient, sorry
Miracles are just impossible probabilities happening. You can create without interfering, like a farmer that throws seeds on the earth and walks away allowing nature to do the rest. The farmer formed life but does not interfere.
You seem to be thinking that evolution starts from scratch over and over again rather than advancing what is already there, you imagine a human brain forming at once rather than being formed through advancing less advanced models. A simpler brain(let's say a few neurons), forms a more complex brain(more neurons), which forms a more complex brain, again and again for billions of years, starting from the very first neutron. This depends on if a complex brain favours the specie. For example the tyrannosaurus(T-Rex) didn't need a complex brain as the dinosaurs it hunted were largely stupid. If a complex brain does favour a specie it will lead to a more developed brain as we see in humans. You have trace knowledge of evolution and biology, read up on the subject.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Thashen(m): 11:46pm On Oct 20, 2016
Lennycool:

Don't quote me as I will not answer you're not worth my time you inconsequential foulmouthed dingleberry(you should check what it means).
I am more than certain that I will find your face under the definitions of dingleberry, and inconsequential. Emotional sonuvabïtch!

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 11:52pm On Oct 20, 2016
Thashen:
I am more than certain that I will find your face under the definitions of dingleberry, and inconsequential. Emotional sonuvabïtch!
Let me help you since I'm not sure you know how to check the meaning of words.
grin grin see number 3 in the pic below.

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by felixomor: 12:01am On Oct 21, 2016
Lennycool:

Miracles are just impossible probabilities happening. You can create without interfering, like a farmer that throws seeds on the earth and walks away allowing nature to do the rest. The farmer formed life but does not interfere.
You seem to be thinking that evolution starts from scratch over and over again rather than advancing what is already there, you imagine a human brain forming at once rather than being formed through advancing less advanced models. A simpler brain(let's say a few neurons), forms a more complex brain(more neurons), which forms a more complex brain, again and again for billions of years, starting from the very first neutron. This depends on if a complex brain favours the specie. For example the tyrannosaurus(T-Rex) didn't need a complex brain as the dinosaurs it hunted were largely stupid. If a complex brain does favour a specie it will lead to a more developed brain as we see in humans. You have trace knowledge of evolution and biology, read up on the subject.

U just do a little research on probability, permutations and combinations,
Even if u say, u r not starting from scratch, the arrangement of a 3 Billion letter code is unfathomable.
The universe is about 13 bilion years old.
U will still not be half way of one trial and error on arrangement of a single dna strand if u started from the beginning of time.
If u work out the permutations, it by far surpasses 13. Billion years even if one trial and error was to happen per second.
There is just no magic that can do that.

And u cant even fast forward to start talking about brains when u dont even have enough time by the age of the universe to arrange a single DNA strand by trial and error.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 7:06am On Oct 21, 2016
felixomor:


U just do a little research on probability, permutations and combinations,
Even if u say, u r not starting from scratch, the arrangement of a 3 Billion letter code is unfathomable.
The universe is about 13 bilion years old.
U will still not be half way of one trial and error on arrangement of a single dna strand if u started from the beginning of time.
If u work out the permutations, it by far surpasses 13. Billion years even if one trial and error was to happen per second.
There is just no magic that can do that.

And u cant even fast forward to start talking about brains when u dont even have enough time by the age of the universe to arrange a single DNA strand by trial and error.
Again I think you make the mistake of expecting the DNA of more complex lifeforms like humans to form immediately, rather than starting at a much simpler stage and building on that. Not all DNA is as complex as humans. Simpler organism have much simpler DNA.
Also you tend to think its just one of such sequencing being carried out, in which case the odds would be astronomical, but its not. The trial and error was being done by millions(if not billions) of biological strands simultaneously on early earth. If you factor those in, I assure you the odds are much smaller.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by jonbellion(m): 8:19am On Oct 21, 2016
[quote author=felixomor post=50365871]

But u know if u see somebody that looks identically like me on the street, does it actually serve as evidence that me and that individual have same ancestors..........

At least, U be the honest one now.[/quote lol it depends
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by felixomor: 9:42am On Oct 21, 2016
Lennycool:

Again I think you make the mistake of expecting the DNA of more complex lifeforms like humans to form immediately, rather than starting at a much simpler stage and building on that. Not all DNA is as complex as humans. Simpler organism have much simpler DNA.
Also you tend to think its just one of such sequencing being carried out, in which case the odds would be astronomical, but its not. The trial and error was being done by millions(if not billions) of biological strands simultaneously on early earth. If you factor those in, I assure you the odds are much smaller.

U r gradually shifting to "belief' now. Just like us religious people. I hope u know.

Please where is ur evidence of this "trial and error" being done in millions and billions?
Even evolutionists say "gradually" in their write ups.
But u are styishly introducing "millions and billions" here because I have exposed ur error in probability calculations of what u r preaching.

Even the evolutionists have agreed the probability of what u r trying to sugar coat is 'impossible" by probability.
Yet u r introducing new stuff to make the impossible look possible by trial and error.

U sound like if i were to leave a paper and biro on a table, in a billion years time that paper and biro can transform by trial and error into an aeroplane.
How absurd?
The laws of thermodynamics even negates that. Sorry.
Things only move from organization to disorganization. Sorry, my dear.

You are not a scientist obviously that is why u r trying to hurriedly wish away the complexity of DNA.
U dont even know that if i were to use trial and error to manage to assemble one amino acid it will be denatured immediately in nanosevonds under the atmospheric conditions the universe has ever known.

And yet u r insisting the amino acid would magically avoid denaturation and wait for another one which may take a billion years to form?

Where are u heading to ?
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 11:43am On Oct 21, 2016
felixomor:


U r gradually shifting to "belief' now. Just like us religious people. I hope u know.

Please where is ur evidence of this "trial and error" being done in millions and billions?
Even evolutionists say "gradually" in their write ups.
But u are styishly introducing "millions and billions" here because I have exposed ur error in probability calculations of what u r preaching.

Even the evolutionists have agreed the probability of what u r trying to sugar coat is 'impossible" by probability.
Yet u r introducing new stuff to make the impossible look possible by trial and error.

U sound like if i were to leave a paper and biro on a table, in a billion years time that paper and biro can transform by trial and error into an aeroplane.
How absurd?
The laws of thermodynamics even negates that. Sorry.
Things only move from organization to disorganization. Sorry, my dear.

You are not a scientist obviously that is why u r trying to hurriedly wish away the complexity of DNA.
U dont even know that if i were to use trial and error to manage to assemble one amino acid it will be denatured immediately in nanosevonds under the atmospheric conditions the universe has ever known.

And yet u r insisting the amino acid would magically avoid denaturation and wait for another one which may take a billion years to form?

Where are u heading to ?
I'd advice you to read about evolution and the origin of life. Your questions and doubts will be addressed fully. As of right now your religious prejudice is blinding you. If you don't care to research more about evolution, then continue in your religious delusions, I won't argue further, in the end you're free to believe what you want, whether it be scientist or a book written by middle eastern goat herders.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by felixomor: 11:56am On Oct 21, 2016
Lennycool:

I'd advice you to read about evolution and the origin of life. Your questions and doubts will be addressed fully. As of right now your religious prejudice is blinding you. If you don't care to research more about evolution, then continue in your religious delusions, I won't argue further, in the end you're free to believe what you want, whether it be scientist or a book written by middle eastern goat herders.

Clearly so far from the knowledge displayed on this thread, u r not my match even in the knowledge of evolution.
Your write up has already contradicted the laws of thermodynamics and probability. Not once, not twice.

Your fraudulent claim of "millions and billions" trial and error' occuring quickly, is not even advocated by your fellow preachers of evolution.
They say it was "gradually".

U have even refused to answer the question on who was doing these "trials". It takes an intentional effort to "try".

And your even referring me to read it up, is a massive cop-out.

Moreover, u dont seem grounded even in the basics of mathematics and science.

Sorry to say.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by promise101: 11:57am On Oct 21, 2016
Lennycool:

The brain and all biological complexities arrived by evolution, vis-a-vis trial, error and reproduction.
I don't dismiss the possibility of a creator that might have started the universe(though I believe if it did exist it had no had in designing life, because life is imperfect). I do however dismiss any notion of a religious God(s), that answers prayers, and interferes with the lives of humans. God is an arrogant concept of humans, the thought that a being powerful enough to create the infinite Cosmos, would care about your exam or job interview. It is truly silly.
You are now arriving at a point of self hatred.

It is just like an atheist who says that he rather die than to believe in God. As if his belief in God is needed for God to be real. It is not a position of rational thought, but that of hatred he has for God.

Wait, how does the imperfection of life disproves intelligent designing??

Please, do you think with your senses or from your anus??
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by promise101: 12:05pm On Oct 21, 2016
felixomor:


Trial and error can not even arrange and produce 1/billionth of a DNA strand let alone the brain, one mysterious super computer.
Thank God u said u dont rule out the possibility of a creator.
But u dont have to allow sentiments to make u to start to dabble into whether he answers prayers or not.
Because, Billions of people have their own personal testimonies and even many scientists have confirmed miracles before.
Even Richard Dawkins the world's most outspoken atheist believes in miracles. He admits that he cant explain them.
And Then if u say "God is an arrogant concept" while u admit the possibility of a creator, u contradict urself thus.
That guy is so ignorant!

Trial and error Wow

How I wish trial and error can build up something less complex to the universe.

Please, say trial and error can build up a complex system. Let me ask; within a period of 1TRILLION YEARS. Can natural process build up a system as less complex as american presidential WHITE HOUSE??

I wonder how lennycool would think in such a disgraceful manner.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by felixomor: 12:13pm On Oct 21, 2016
promise101:

That guy is so ignorant!

Trial and error Wow

How I wish trial and error can build up something less complex to the universe.

Please, say trial and error can build up a complex system. Let me ask; within a period of 1TRILLION YEARS. Can natural process build up a system as less complex as american presidential WHITE HOUSE??

I wonder how lennycool would think in such a disgraceful manner.

Seriously!
The guy fell my hand!
Its as good as sayin a brand new aeroplane could come out of a refuse dump by "trial and error"..
I am just amazed by his thoughts, honestly.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by promise101: 12:19pm On Oct 21, 2016
felixomor:


U r not speaking with a good knowledge of mathematics. Sorry to say
Do u even know the probability of arranging ABCD to Z (just 26 alphabets) in alphabetical order by trial and error?
It is near impossibility, let alone DNA a 3 billion letter code?
We have not even talked about probability of arranging the 80 billion neurons of the brain.
Dont even go there.
Besides if u say trial and error, who is "trying"?

A God and a creator are not same. Really?
Can u "create" without "interfering'?
And if u say somethings are "unexplained", how are u now ruling out "interference"?
That logic is deficient, sorry
He was even trying to separate "God" from "creator". Oh my....

The main problem with these guys, is just that they HATE GOD!

They would be okay to here creator, but to say God is the source of their hate.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by promise101: 12:40pm On Oct 21, 2016
Lennycool:

I'd advice you to read about evolution and the origin of life. Your questions and doubts will be addressed fully. As of right now your religious prejudice is blinding you. If you don't care to research more about evolution, then continue in your religious delusions, I won't argue further, in the end you're free to believe what you want, whether it be scientist or a book written by middle eastern goat herders.
Bro, why are you running away?

Don't run! Nobody is pursuing you!

You have to know that what you are saying doesn't make sense.

Study this scenario:
In a case of the usa white house.

Do you think that it can take TRILLIONS, UPON TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of years to build up a less complex system as white house. The building itself ??

Please think about it.

You are an atheist, but don't live your live on a lie as you think other religious dudes are brainwashed. Don't be brainwashed with false sciences. True sciences are clear, false science are clear too, but, then can brainwash.

You can still be an atheist without believing in a lie. Making scientists to look like pastors and bishops to you. That would make you look like your religion is sciences.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by promise101: 12:45pm On Oct 21, 2016
Lennycool:

I'd advice you to read about evolution and the origin of life. Your questions and doubts will be addressed fully. As of right now your religious prejudice is blinding you. If you don't care to research more about evolution, then continue in your religious delusions, I won't argue further, in the end you're free to believe what you want, whether it be scientist or a book written by middle eastern goat herders.
Oh so cool.

Please can you show us pictures, videos and, if possible, selfies of those middle eastern goat herders writing the book? I would love and appreciate to see them. I think I would speedily post them on YOUTUBE(videos) and instagram(pictures and selfies).

Yet to know the book though.

It's going to be fun.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 1:59pm On Oct 21, 2016
promise101:

Bro, why are you running away?

Don't run! Nobody is pursuing you!

You have to know that what you are saying doesn't make sense.

Study this scenario:
In a case of the usa white house.

Do you think that it can take TRILLIONS, UPON TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of years to build up a less complex system as white house. The building itself ??

Please think about it.

You are an atheist, but don't live your live on a lie as you think other religious dudes are brainwashed. Don't be brainwashed with false sciences. True sciences are clear, false science are clear too, but, then can brainwash.

You can still be an atheist without believing in a lie. Making scientists to look like pastors and bishops to you. That would make you look like your religion is sciences.


Are you so irrational and simpleminded to compare, a biological entity, with inorganic matter. Because that is basically what you are doing. If the parts that made up the white house were biological, and if evolution suited it, they would have evolved into the white house.
Now stop quoting me as I will not respond, you don't have and don't want to have any idea of what evolution really is, there are even pastors that believe in evolution because they see that it is a fact, and their logical mind can no longer deny it. But you keep clenching on to the books you were brought up on. I have learnt much about the bible and Christianity while you know nothing of atheism or evolution. Get a basic understanding of evolution, read the Wikipedia page. Atleast study what you condemn as I have done with the bible. This discussion has ended.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by felixomor: 2:27pm On Oct 21, 2016
Lennycool:


Are you so irrational and simpleminded to compare, a biological entity, with inorganic matter. Because that is basically what you are doing. If the parts that made up the white house were biological, and if evolution suited it, they would have evolved into the white house.
Now stop quoting me as I will not respond, you don't have and don't want to have any idea of what evolution really is, there are even pastors that believe in evolution because they see that it is a fact, and their logical mind can no longer deny it. But you keep clenching on to the books you were brought up on. I have learnt much about the bible and Christianity while you know nothing of atheism or evolution. Get a basic understanding of evolution, read the Wikipedia page. Atleast study what you condemn as I have done with the bible. This discussion has ended.

He is even more rational
Inorganic matter is even far less complex and organized than organic.

Even if the parts that make up the white house are biologic, bacteria and lower life forms will still degrade it down to elements while u are playing your "trial and error"
Nothing escapes the laws of thermodynamics, whether biologic nor inorganic. Sorry

Meanwhile, Remember u havent even explained who determines what becomes "biologic" nor "non biologic."
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by raphieMontella: 6:12pm On Oct 21, 2016
promise101:

Bro, why are you running away?

Don't run! Nobody is pursuing you!

You have to know that what you are saying doesn't make sense.

Study this scenario:
In a case of the usa white house.

Do you think that it can take TRILLIONS, UPON TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS of years to build up a less complex system as white house. The building itself ??

Please think about it.

You are an atheist, but don't live your live on a lie as you think other religious dudes are brainwashed. Don't be brainwashed with false sciences. True sciences are clear, false science are clear too, but, then can brainwash.

You can still be an atheist without believing in a lie. Making scientists to look like pastors and bishops to you. That would make you look like your religion is sciences.

hello?
I really dont know the angle you're going to/the argument..but..
The pic below should ''clear'' somethings..
Abiogenesis doesnt say simple chemicals spotaneously produced an organism..
A peptide under early earth conditions can possibly form a self replicating polymer..
And in the diagram below..some stages were left out...(between hypercycles and protoboints..)
ps i dont believe in abiogenesis
and please if your gonna throw insults pls just ignore...

2 Likes

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 6:32pm On Oct 21, 2016
Thashen:
I am more than certain that I will find your face under the definitions of dingleberry, and inconsequential. Emotional sonuvabïtch!
I truly hope you enjoy a long ban. Goodbye grin
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by promise101: 6:46pm On Oct 21, 2016
Lennycool:

I truly hope you enjoy a long ban. Goodbye grin
At least, it can make your emotions stay at ease. Relax bro, it's not permanent.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by rhektor(m): 5:43am On Oct 22, 2016
Lennycool:


Are you so irrational and simpleminded to compare, a biological entity, with inorganic matter. Because that is basically what you are doing. If the parts that made up the white house were biological, and if evolution suited it, they would have evolved into the white house.
Now stop quoting me as I will not respond, you don't have and don't want to have any idea of what evolution really is, there are even pastors that believe in evolution because they see that it is a fact, and their logical mind can no longer deny it. But you keep clenching on to the books you were brought up on. I have learnt much about the bible and Christianity while you know nothing of atheism or evolution. Get a basic understanding of evolution, read the Wikipedia page. Atleast study what you condemn as I have done with the bible. This discussion has ended.



The discussion can't just end like that.
Can you please observe this?

How about the fact that since man has begun recording time, the earth’s rotation slows by about one second per year? The spinning of the earth is slowing down. A year from today, it will take one second longer for the earth to spin in one complete rotation. If you do the math, and I did, that means that 30 million years ago there was one revolution about every second. The sun would flash across the sky every second. The earth would have been like a strobe light… on, off, on, off, on, off… 300 million years ago there were 10 revolutions per second… onoffonoffonoff… 3 billion years ago there were 100 revolutions per second. 15 billion years ago (the big bang) earth was spinning at 500 revolutions per second. The earth would have been spinning so fast that there would be no difference in light at any time. Gravity would have had no effect and, without proving the physics, I would bet that things literally would be flung from the surface of the planet at that speed of rotation from the centrifugal force.

Science cannot explain these things or many other things. Is the earth really as old as they want us to believe? We’ll talk more about this later…

Carbon dating is another interesting study. Did you know that they base it on totally unproven “facts”? Yes, today we can see the rate of decay on Radiocarbon or Carbon 14 (known as Carbon dating) and we expound upon the findings of short-term testing to “prove” that things are billions of years old. We have to assume that scientists know all about the variables involved, that some scientists are wrong in supposing that there was variation in the intensity of cosmic-ray formation and that others were wrong in supposing that there were fluctuations in the original C-14 content. Carbon dating assumes that the rate of C-14 decay has been a constant and has always been exactly the same rate that we find it to be today. Funny thing is that they tested an ancient structure at Durrington Walls in England, that they knew was 1500 years old, but the Carbon dating “proved” that it was actually 2500 years old! I stress that this "proof" was actually provably wrong. Some other examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago. A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old. So, why does everyone believe such a farce? If it is so inaccurate on such a relatively new sample, how can we assume that it won't be exponentially deviate on a much older sample? It is a belief, not a science.

Here's an interesting page where scientists in the UK are concerned about this very subject: http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html. Specifically, I found this statement very interesting: “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.


You can continue to read here http://www.bibleprophecyandtruth.com/creation/earthsAge

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 7:54am On Oct 22, 2016
rhektor:




The discussion can't just end like that.
Can you please observe this?

How about the fact that since man has begun recording time, the earth’s rotation slows by about one second per year? The spinning of the earth is slowing down. A year from today, it will take one second longer for the earth to spin in one complete rotation. If you do the math, and I did, that means that 30 million years ago there was one revolution about every second. The sun would flash across the sky every second. The earth would have been like a strobe light… on, off, on, off, on, off… 300 million years ago there were 10 revolutions per second… onoffonoffonoff… 3 billion years ago there were 100 revolutions per second. 15 billion years ago (the big bang) earth was spinning at 500 revolutions per second. The earth would have been spinning so fast that there would be no difference in light at any time. Gravity would have had no effect and, without proving the physics, I would bet that things literally would be flung from the surface of the planet at that speed of rotation from the centrifugal force.

Science cannot explain these things or many other things. Is the earth really as old as they want us to believe? We’ll talk more about this later…

This is why I don't want to argue further, you have little understanding of basic science and all you can do is search stupid rebuttals online without even reading about the topics. The earth didn't have a one second day 30 million years ago, you entire theory is badly calculated and utter rubbish. The slow down rate is closer to 2 millisecond per century.
Below is an excerpt from this website
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/28/3642932.htm

"Geological evidence for increasing day length can help us pin this time down more accurately. Tidal records laid down in ancient estuaries can show daily, monthly and seasonal cycles in alternating deposits of sand and silt. They indicate that 620 million years ago the day was 21 hours, says Mardling.Since the dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic era, from 250 million years ago to 65 million years ago, day length would have been longer than 21 hours and probably closer to 23 hours."
Research before sharing your illogical thoughts online.

Carbon dating is another interesting study. Did you know that they base it on totally unproven “facts”? Yes, today we can see the rate of decay on Radiocarbon or Carbon 14 (known as Carbon dating) and we expound upon the findings of short-term testing to “prove” that things are billions of years old. We have to assume that scientists know all about the variables involved, that some scientists are wrong in supposing that there was variation in the intensity of cosmic-ray formation and that others were wrong in supposing that there were fluctuations in the original C-14 content. Carbon dating assumes that the rate of C-14 decay has been a constant and has always been exactly the same rate that we find it to be today. Funny thing is that they tested an ancient structure at Durrington Walls in England, that they knew was 1500 years old, but the Carbon dating “proved” that it was actually 2500 years old! I stress that this "proof" was actually provably wrong. Some other examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago. A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old. So, why does everyone believe such a farce? If it is so inaccurate on such a relatively new sample, how can we assume that it won't be exponentially deviate on a much older sample? It is a belief, not a science.

Here's an interesting page where scientists in the UK are concerned about this very subject: http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html. Specifically, I found this statement very interesting: “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.


You can continue to read here http://www.bibleprophecyandtruth.com/creation/earthsAge
Yes I agree there are some errors with carbon dating, but not so much as you try to suggest. I would advice you yo stop searching for proof on Christian or religious sites as it will be understandable biased. Break through the religious delusions
http://godisimaginary.com
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by DeSepiero(m): 9:53am On Oct 22, 2016
felixomor:


Please whats difference between DNA and gene?

2ndly, U earlier said we and chimps share same ancestors based on dna similarity
And i said dna cant be used as yardstick. because our dna is similar to some plants too.


Moreso, It doesnt reinforce.
because ur claim is that "shared dna" means common ancestry.


Dont switch it to "all living things", because even the evolution doesnt say all living things have same ancestors.

You mean you're arguing evolution, yet you don't know the simple difference between DNA and Gene?

1 Like

Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by Nobody: 9:55am On Oct 22, 2016
DeSepiero:


You mean you're arguing evolution, yet you don't know the simple difference between DNA and Gene?
He's using the wisdom of the Bible. grin grin
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by felixomor: 9:56am On Oct 22, 2016
DeSepiero:


You mean you're arguing evolution, yet you don't know the simple difference between DNA and Gene?

Quiet.
Dundee, DNA is "genetic" code!
Hence the rhetoric.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by DeSepiero(m): 10:08am On Oct 22, 2016
felixomor:


Quiet.
Dundee, DNA is "genetic" code!
Hence the rhetoric.

You're even bungling it up further.
Re: Proof Of Evolution: Early Embryo Development by DeSepiero(m): 10:12am On Oct 22, 2016
Lennycool:

He's using the wisdom of the Bible. grin grin
Everyone wants to debunk evolution, without a basic knowledge of genomics.

1 Like

(1) (2) (3) (Reply)

Major Endtimes Events Live As They Happen ( Videos) / Africans And The Concept Of One God / Please Do U Know sang this Song?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 123
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.