Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually seals are more closely related to dogs than they are cats

Correct! Their lineages split about 50 million years ago.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually seals are more closely related to dogs than they are cats

Correct! Their lineages split about 50 million years ago.

One stayed in the water and one didn’t.

It’s a common mistake theists make when they mock science.

 

[Syriusly]

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

>>@Syriusly: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net. As usual, atheists are wrong. It is circular reasoning.

We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years

And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

• 2Modern dating methods
  • 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating method
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
  • .......
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
  • `

Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'

Why do you accept what he posted? He just discussed different techniques for dating. It doesn't mean they're true nor the methodology based on their assumptions is correct. It could be wildly incorrect. Which method can one use to date rocks that have been underwater for years? What method does one use to date objects/fossils in sedimentary layers?

YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!

You have only answers you find in your big book of fairy tales.

Have you been to your Ark museum yet- to see the dinosaurs that were on Noah's Ark?

 

[Big Black Dog]

I’m a child of God. I was made in His image. However, I do believe my wife evolved from a monkey.

 

[Rambunctious]

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????

 

[ChesBayJJ]

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????

If evolution is real why are there still monkeys? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

Why There Still Are Monkeys: Lessons Learned From Teaching Evolution In Kansas – The Evolution Institute

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Read and learn, doofus

 

[Syriusly]

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????

Why do you think that we evolved from monkeys?

 

[Rambunctious]

Why do you think that we evolved from monkeys?

I don't....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????

My eight-year-old asked me that once. I explained it to her. Now she understands.

 

[Rambunctious]

My eight-year-old asked me that once. I explained it to her. Now she understands

8 year olds are gullible by nature.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My eight-year-old asked me that once. I explained it to her. Now she understands

8 year olds are gullible by nature.....

But lifelong scientists are not. And all of them and many 8 year olds grasp a concept that you don't.

 

[Rambunctious]

But lifelong scientists are not. And all of them and many 8 year olds grasp a concept that you don't

So you think you and your family evolved from monkeys? Fine knock yourself out....my family did not...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you think you and your family evolved from monkeys?

No, and neither do scientists. But it is indeed a fact that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that lived about 7 million years ago.

 

[Rambunctious]

No, and neither do scientists. But it is indeed a fact that chimps and humans share a common ancestor that lived about 7 million years ago

When you find the missing link you be sure to let me know....okay?
This sin't 1980....we have the technology to search the planet like we never have before and still no Sasquatch....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When you find the missing link you be sure to let me know....okay?

Your statement belies a deep ignorance of the theory of evolution. There have been found several "missing links" between this most recent common ancestor and modern humans. Nobody with knowledge of evolution would make such a silly statement. Given your apparently vast ignorance of this material, I suggest you start with a very basic, beginner's primer.

 

[Rambunctious]

Your statement belies a deep ignorance of the theory of evolution. There have been found several "missing links" between this most recent common ancestor and modern humans. Nobody with knowledge of evolution would make such a silly statement. Given your apparently vast ignorance of this material, I suggest you start with a very basic, beginner's primer

That's ridiculous nonsense....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your statement belies a deep ignorance of the theory of evolution. There have been found several "missing links" between this most recent common ancestor and modern humans. Nobody with knowledge of evolution would make such a silly statement. Given your apparently vast ignorance of this material, I suggest you start with a very basic, beginner's primer

That's ridiculous nonsense....

Which part? Use your big boy words.

 

[Rambunctious]

Which part? Use your big boy words

Your whole post....if we evolved from monkeys we would have found the evidence by now....its more likely we came from another planet than evolved from monkeys....nonsense!!!! Like I said when you find the missing link call me....until then stop lying and misleading your kin.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

if we evolved from monkeys we would have found the evidence by now..

Again, we did not evolve from monkeys. But we did evolve from primates, and we have found mountains of evidence of this. You confuse your abject ignorance of the existence of this evidence with the idea that none has been found.

And again, we have found several species linking modern humans to this most recent common ancestor. And -- get this -- we have found fossils linking that common ancestor to its most recent common ancestor with other orders of mammals.

 

[james bond]

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????

If evolution is real why are there still monkeys? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

Why There Still Are Monkeys: Lessons Learned From Teaching Evolution In Kansas – The Evolution Institute

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Read and learn, doofus

LOL. The so called expert is using circular logic. There is no common ancestor because monkeys and humans cannot mate. We do not observe any common ancestor today.