People WILL buy ANYTHING!
- Thread starter Fish Eat Fish
- Start date
- Status
DeLgAdO;1628238; said:
Of course, if you want to get technical, then Lucy is not really a Homo Sapien. In which case I shall direct you to my next link:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab12
Either way, you're wrong
well then to be really technical we are all from Adam and eve in your eyes right???? that would mean we are all of incest wich is a sin in gods eyes....
DeLgAdO;1628238; said:
lol so where do you get this 6000 years? is that a fact too? cause if it is then you have to prove it!
rmorse;1628244; said:
Radiometric dating huh? people do indeed buy into anything.
"Radiometric dating is a method which scientists use to determine the age of various specimens, mainly inorganic matter (rocks, etc), though there is one radiometric dating technique, radiocarbon dating, which is used to date organic specimens.
How do these dating techniques work? Basically, scientists take advantage of a natural process by which unstable radioactive “parent” isotopes decay into stable “daughter” isotopes spontaneously over time. Uranium-238 (U238) for example is an unstable radioactive isotope which decays into Lead-206 (Pb206) naturally over time (it goes through 13 unstable intermediate stages before it finally stabilizes into Pb206). In this case, U238 is the “parent” and Pb206 is the “daughter.”
Scientists begin by measuring how long it takes for a parent isotope to decay into a daughter isotope. In this particular case, it takes 4,460,000,000 years for half of a sample of U238 to decay into Pb206. It takes another 4,460,000,000 years for half of the remaining sample to decay into Pb206 and then another 4,460,000,000 years for half of what’s then left to decay and so on. The time it takes for half of a sample to decay is called a “half-life.”
By measuring radioactive half-lives, by measuring how much parent and daughter are present in any given specimen, and by making certain key assumptions, scientists believe they are able to accurately determine the age of a specimen. The measurements involved can be quite accurate. The question is what are the underlying key assumptions and how reliable are they?
The three key underlying assumptions are: 1) that the rate of decay of parent into daughter has remained constant throughout the unobservable past; 2) that the specimen which we are examining hasn’t been contaminated in any way (that is, no parent or daughter has been added or taken away at any point during the unobservable past), and 3) that we can determine how much parent and daughter were present at the beginning of the decay process – not all of the Pb206 present today necessarily came from decaying U238; Pb206 may have been part of the original constitution of the specimen. If any of these assumptions are wrong, the method can not accurately determine the age of a specimen.
While the second and third assumptions have always been a bit troublesome, especially the third assumption which considers the original constitution of a particular specimen, the first assumption was thought to be a pretty safe bet since scientists were not able to vary the decay rates much in a lab. Recently however new research has revealed that the decay rates may have been drastically different in the unobservable past. This calls the whole method into question. AiG’s Dr. Carl Wieland explains, “When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. …Results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place.”
and from wiki:
they arent dating the remains themselves, if anything, they are dating the volcanic deposits and not the fossil itself which they cant so even if it claims to be 3.18 myo it isnt lucys remains, and because this system is flawed the rock (deposits) isnt the actual date they claim it to be.
Nic;1628256; said:
In the very early days of humanity, there were a limited number of human beings. As a result, marriage between close relatives was often necessary. It was not until humanity increased greatly on the earth that people no longer needed to intermarry amongst relatives. In the early days of humanity, the human genetic code was not corrupted to the extent that it is today. Therefore, it was safe for close relatives to marry and have children. There was little risk of genetic abnormalities in their children. Once the human race expanded and/or the human genetic code became corrupted too much God commanded against the marriage of close relatives.
Doesn't matter. Everything I can and will say, can and will be construed. And vice versa, everything you say, I can and will construe. So whats the point? Lets just say for a moment that the technique is faulty. How do we explain evidence of evolution? How do you explain the amount of Homo's before Sapians? If we were, in "fact", created in God's image, what is the need for the other species? And why can we only find Homo Sapian's that are 90,000 years old? (And yes, you can go back to the carbon dating is false theory of yours)
On a side note, Are you married? If you are, do you sit in a chair after your wife has had her period? Cuz you do know, thats against the law according to the Bible, right?
I will continue this later, I am already late for dinner.
On a side note, Are you married? If you are, do you sit in a chair after your wife has had her period? Cuz you do know, thats against the law according to the Bible, right?
I will continue this later, I am already late for dinner.
DeLgAdO;1628381; said:
how did humans expand if we are all from adam and eve???? it would mean everybody was inbred from them.... where did the other people come from??- Status
