C14 Dating

[Tarski]

And I would think that anyone who has observed the vastly different breeds of dogs would not deny that they are still dogs.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Dogs can look far more different from each other than humans do from apes. Yet you would deny that humans are apes (we are).

[Zakuska]

Dogs can look far more different from each other than humans do from apes. Yet you would deny that humans are apes (we are).

We are?

Sorry but this is NOT my super hero.

[Tarski]

I appreciate the link provided (One fly into another fly into another fly, etc)

I was hoping to see an example of macro-evolution where the fly "evolved" into somethinmg like a pig?

???

According to evolutionary theory as we understand it, a fly will not evolve into a pig (whatever that means).

Even this way of talking is unfortunate. Evolution is not linear. It is more of a branching and pruning process. We have a relatively recent primate common ancestor with other other modern primates. It is somewhat misleading to say that primate X evolved into primate Y. It would be better to note that primate X gave rise to several forms only some of which exist today.

You need to stay away from creationist websites.

[Tarski]

We are?

Of course.

More broadly, we are primates and more broadly we are mammals.

[semlogo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

More satanic science!

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

Though the language is a little dated now I recommend you read The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska:

Though the language is a little dated now I recommend you read The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris.

Well lets see... I have hair from the top of my head to my toe. Yes Im the wolf man that Steve Correl loves to mock. So no... I'm not a naked Ape.

[Zakuska]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

More satanic science!

No... Satanic doesn't even come close to discribing it... its a wiki article for hecks sake and we ALL know how accurate that can be.

But hey... since you brought up wiki... lets take a look at this article, and some of its inaccuracies.

In the human bodySince essentially all sources of human food are derived from plants, the carbon that comprises our bodies contains carbon-14 at the same concentration as the atmosphere. The beta-decays from this internal radiocarbon contribute approximately 0.01 mSv/year (1 mrem/year)to each person's dose of ionizing radiation.^[18] This is small compared to the doses from potassium-40 (0.39 mSv/year) and radon (variable).

Carbon-14 can be used as a radioactive tracer in medicine. In the initial variant of the urea breath test, a diagnostic test for Helicobacter pylori, urea labeled with approximately 37 kBq (1.0

[semlogo]

No... Satanic doesn't even come close to discribing it... its a wiki article for hecks sake and we ALL know how accurate that can be.

But hey... since you brought up wiki... lets take a look at this article, and some of its inaccuracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

I take issue with this...

"Since essentially all sources of human food are derived from plants"

It's patently false. Much of the worlds population are fed carbon14 depleated sea food and thus their c14 intakes would be subject to reservior effect and and completely unreliable.

The last sentence I also find intresting. c14 testing replaced with c13 testing because of radiation issues?!

You're totally right, brother! I know from an inside source that management of Wikipedia hold BLACK MASSES regularly and have pictures of Charles Darwin, Anton LaVey and Richard Dawkins in their offices!

[Ceeboo]

Dogs can look far more different from each other than humans do from apes. Yet you would deny that humans are apes (we are).

I would not only deny it, I do deny it (We are not apes)

Just as apes are apes, dogs are dogs, and Ceeboo's are Ceeboo's (How is that for my belief/opinion being typed as fact)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Tarski]

I would not only deny it, I do deny it (We are not apes)

Just as apes are apes, dogs are dogs, and Ceeboo's are Ceeboo's (How is that for my belief/opinion being typed as fact)

Peace,

Ceeboo

Well, apes include several species which are classified together based on morphology and genetic relatedness.

Like all words, the use of the word "ape" is based on usage and the technical sense is determined by scientific use and takes into account principled distinctions.

Since it is a scientific definition, you don't get a choice!

As noted in Wikipedia

Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:

* the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 14 species of gibbon, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes.

* the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][2] collectively known as the great apes.

A few other primates, such as the Barbary Ape, have the word ape in their common names (usually to indicate lack of a tail), but they are not regarded as true apes.

Except for gorillas and humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees. They are best described as omnivorous, their diet consisting of fruit, including grass seeds, and in most cases other animals, either hunted or scavenged, along with anything else available and easily digested. They are native to Africa and Asia, although humans have spread to all parts of the world.

Most nonhuman ape species are rare or endangered. The chief threat to most of the endangered species is loss of tropical rainforest habitat, though some populations are further imperiled by hunting for bushmeat.

Until a few decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that most people still do not think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included. The terms "non-human apes" or "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency to show the monophyletic relationship of humans to the other apes while yet talking only about the non-human species.

[Zakuska]

Well, apes include several species which are classified together based on morphology and genetic relatedness.

Like all words, the use of the word "ape" is based on usage and the technical sense is determined by scientific use and takes into account principled distinctions.

Since it is a scientific definition, you don't get a choice!

As noted in Wikipedia

How accurate is that? My son's a pretty agile tree climber. He kind of looks like a spider monkey, too

[Ceeboo]

Since it is a scientific definition, you don't get a choice!

Unless you happen to believe that there is something/someone that holds EVEN more authority than said "scientific definitions", then clearly there is a choice.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Vance]

Dogs can look far more different from each other than humans do from apes. Yet you would deny that humans are apes (we are).

Warning warning!!!!

THREAD DERAIL!!!

[Vance]

Unless you happen to believe that there is something/someone that holds EVEN more authority than said "scientific definitions", then clearly there is a choice.

Peace,

Ceeboo

I take it your are not a "science" worshiper?

You will be damned to "science" hell if you don't repent.

[semlogo]

I take it your are not a "science" worshiper?

You will be damned to "science" hell if you don't repent.

You're SOOOOO right! It's no accident that science and Satan start with the same letter!

[urroner]

Dogs can look far more different from each other than humans do from apes. Yet you would deny that humans are apes (we are).

When I was a child, I was a monkey, then I became a pig when I was a teenager. Now, according to my children, I'm an ox and an old jackass. I guess I can be an ape also, only as long as I can be a Sumatran orangutan with an attitude.

[Ceeboo]

I take it your are not a "science" worshiper?

Hey Vance,

Actually, I LOVE Science (Just don't know to much about it. If you don't believe me, just ask Tarski ). What has struck me as a little bizarre in this thread is the seeming implication that there are not bucket loads of very very brainly scientists (past and present) that do/have believed in a creator.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Vance]

You're SOOOOO right! It's no accident that science and Satan start with the same letter!

I think you misunderstand my point.

Scientist know it all and are never wrong or surprised by new data or observations.

Things like this never happen either.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11432

[urroner]

I think you misunderstand my point.

Scientist know it all and are never wrong or surprised by new data or observations.

Things like this never happen either.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11432

I know plenty of scientists who don't know anything and they even admit it and some of them are highly pleased when they realize they are wrong since this is an opportunity to learn even more

[Zakuska]

Some who are following this thread might find this intresting...

The method doesn't work on things that didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures since their carbon might originate from dissolved carbonate rocks limestone. This in turn causes problems in dating animals that eat sea food.

[i might add: Animals that eat animals that eat sea food... and men who stare at goats of course]

...

C-14 dating problems:

Dr. Libby [father of the science] once expressed his shock when he found that radio carbon dates for human artifacts extended back only 5000 years and older dates were found to be unreliable.[110]

By this time tens of thousands of C-14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions. One example given was Ice-Age materials that were dated by C-14 to fall within the Christian era [120] In his book Ceram notes a classic case of difficulties that befall C-14 dating. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years. [180]

http://www.specialty...t/carbon14.html

[110] CRSQ, 1972, 9:3, p. 157.

[120] CRSQ, 1969, p. 114.

[180] Ceram, 1971, p. 257-259.

Thats like our 2000 year old bone encased in clay thats 27000-47000 years old.

[semlogo]

Hey Vance,

Actually, I LOVE Science (Just don't know to much about it. If you don't believe me, just ask Tarski ). What has struck me as a little bizarre in this thread is the seeming implication that there are not bucket loads of very very brainly scientists (past and present) that do/have believed in a creator.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Believing in a creator is not the same as being a creationist. Unfortunately, all scientists who aren't creationists are hell-bound.

[cinepro]

So, what does any of this have to do with Mormonism?

Interestingly, Church publications would seem to side with the side of the argument that doubts dating methods that rely on assumptions of consistency or "uniformitarianism" over time.

The clearest expression is found in this Ensign article, in which we read:

In sum, the ultimate conditions of uniformity that we observe in the course of nature in our present sphere are severely limited. From the time of the Fall until the end of the Millennium is described as seven thousand years (see D&C 77:6). And while seven thousand years is long in comparison to a human lifetime, from the perspective of eternity (and also from the perspective of modern theories of astronomy or geology), it is extremely short. In seven thousand years, neither stars nor earth nor biological species change enough, according to naturalist principles, to be very significant.

It is therefore helpful to remember, when pondering the millions of years secularists postulate to explain the formation of the earth, that all current geological dating processes are based on the assumption that the present order of nature preceded us and will continue uniformly hereafter. This secularist view also holds that God, if he exists, never has and never will interfere. However, the revelations Latter-day Saints have about the earth and God

[semlogo]

I think you misunderstand my point.

Scientist know it all and are never wrong or surprised by new data or observations.

Things like this never happen either.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11432

I disagree! Scientists are routinely fooled by false data planted by Satan!

Telescopes are satanic as well, as they give the deceptive appearance that the earth revolves around the sun, which is contrary to the Holy Bible.

[cinepro]

Also, the good Brother Parry:

Some cite geological data to argue against the Flood. The issue for them, perhaps, revolves around the concept of uniformitarianism, which has been described simply in this way: