• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For the dismally ignorant

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It made me wonder... if external events can alter Carbon 14, how does one know without a shadow of a doubt that Carbon 14 has always been a constant when we date things? Is it possible that other factors can change radiocarbon age of organic materials that were of days gone by?
Most radioactive dating techniques use an establish half-life measurement, but with C-14 the problem is that the level of radioactively varies from year to year. Thus, what's done is to use tree rings and date them by measuring the degree of radioactivity each year. Therefore, it very much has limitations but are still useful for more recent evolutionary activity.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Most radioactive dating techniques use an establish half-life measurement, but with C-14 the problem is that the level of radioactively varies from year to year. Thus, what's done is to use tree rings and date them by measuring the degree of radioactivity each year. Therefore, it very much has limitations but are still useful for more recent evolutionary activity.
you caused me to search...
New radiocarbon cycle research may alter history | Cornell Chronicle

It really makes one begin to think that as science correct itself, other carbon dating positions (those dated by carbon-14) need to be readjusted.

Which throws me back to what I was saying... What was "normal" 1 million years ago? Do we really know?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
you caused me to search...
New radiocarbon cycle research may alter history | Cornell Chronicle

It really makes one begin to think that as science correct itself, other carbon dating positions (those dated by carbon-14) need to be readjusted.

Which throws me back to what I was saying... What was "normal" 1 million years ago? Do we really know?
C-14 is an anomaly because of local conditions and that of the sun that may vary, but this is not a problem with most other forms of radioactive dating. If physicists didn't know how this process works, then how could they build nuclear reactors and bombs? :shrug:
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
C-14 is an anomaly because of local conditions and that of the sun that may vary, but this is not a problem with most other forms of radioactive dating. If physicists didn't know how this process works, then how could they build nuclear reactors and bombs? :shrug:
I speak with utter lack of comprehension in this area.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I speak with utter lack of comprehension in this area.
I'm not that good at it but we had to be taught how the general process works since I was going into physical anthropology [human evolution].
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I thought I had explained... my apologies. The point I was making was that at some point those who were like unto today's man fell by the wayside because of external forces between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2
That would be after the formation of the Earth and before first life (4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago in real time). Evolution happen after that and human evolution at the tail end.
For evolution in general to have happened and human evolution not, the event would have to have been between 300,000 and 5,000(?) years ago.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
That would be after the formation of the Earth and before first life (4.5 to 3.8 billion years ago in real time). Evolution happen after that and human evolution at the tail end.
For evolution in general to have happened and human evolution not, the event would have to have been between 300,000 and 5,000(?) years ago.
Obviously I don't have a crystal ball that states exactly when and what happened. As noted, even today's carbon dating is being fine tuned and adjusted as science continues to correct itself. Even dating many times has tens of thousands of years variation.

Modern man is probably 7 to 12 thousand years old - that is when I would venture that God made man in His image and in His likeness.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Modern man is probably 7 to 12 thousand years old - that is when I would venture that God made man in His image and in His likeness.
That's a useful range I can work with. Humans had settled on all continents except Antarctica. H. Neanderthalensis and our other cousins went already extinct.
And then, according to you, h. sapiens also went extinct, all over the world, in an unnamed cataclysmic event. (Caused by god?)
Then "modern humans" were created by god, distributed all over the world with the same characteristics, down to ERVs in their DNA, as h. sapience which went extinct.

Do I get that right?

Or was it more an "invasion of the body snatchers" scenario? H. sapience wasn't replaced but their bodies used by some unnamed alien force?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
you caused me to search...
New radiocarbon cycle research may alter history | Cornell Chronicle

It really makes one begin to think that as science correct itself, other carbon dating positions (those dated by carbon-14) need to be readjusted.

Which throws me back to what I was saying... What was "normal" 1 million years ago? Do we really know?
Many rocks are dated by more than one method as a check. Since they run on different clocks it is very hard to posit that "rates were different in the past". And then we have beds like the Green River Formation with annual layers. There are also occasion layers of volcanic ash in that formation. That allows a check of the dating method by counting, or more probably estimating the numbers of layers between events. FYI the Green River Formation has six million years of continuous annual deposition.

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

It would make more sense to regularly check the average thickness of the varves and estimate the number per unit length and then calculate a total depending o those averages. So here we have annual layers and radiometric dates that can be used to cross check each other.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Modern man is probably 7 to 12 thousand years old - that is when I would venture that God made man in His image and in His likeness.
The overwhelming evidence, including the fossil record and dna comparisons, indicates a likely splitting from the rest of the primate line somewhere around 6 million years ago, which is slightly before my time. There is 0 scientific evidence that it occurred 7-12 thousand years ago.

BTW, why would God supposedly have to wait to make man in His image only thousands of years ago, and by "image", I'm not referring to physical image?

Again, I feel that "ongoing revelation" is possibly the "key" here.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The overwhelming evidence, including the fossil record and dna comparisons, indicates a likely splitting from the rest of the primate line somewhere around 6 million years ago, which is slightly before my time. There is 0 scientific evidence that it occurred 7-12 thousand years ago.

BTW, why would God supposedly have to wait to make man in His image only thousands of years ago, and by "image", I'm not referring to physical image?

Again, I feel that "ongoing revelation" is possibly the "key" here.
I am purely speaking on opinion here since the Bible is silent on the matter. Ultimately I will find out all the details when I speak to those in the know in Heaven.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
How Scientists Are Using AI to Talk to Animals

As I have predicted too, as to AI making breakthroughs into animal communications - given not much else will likely do so as quickly.

There were numerous attempts in the mid-20th century to try to teach human language to nonhumans, primates such as Koko. And those efforts were somewhat controversial. Looking back, one view we have now (that may not have been so prevalent then) is that we were too anthropocentric in our approaches. The desire then was to assess nonhuman intelligence by teaching nonhumans to speak like we do — when in fact we should have been thinking about their abilities to engage in complex communication on their own terms, in their own embodied way, in their own worldview. One of the terms used in the book is the notion of umwelt, which is this notion of the lived experience of organisms. If we are attentive to the umwelt of another organism, we wouldn’t expect a honeybee to speak human language, but we would become very interested in the fascinating language of honeybees, which is vibrational and positional. It’s sensitive to nuances such as the polarization of sunlight that we can’t even begin to convey with our bodies. And that is where the science is today. The field of digital bioacoustics — which is accelerating exponentially and unveiling fascinating findings about communication across the tree of life — is now approaching these animals and not asking, “Can they speak like humans?” but “Can they communicate complex information to one another? How are they doing so? What is significant to them?” And I would say that’s a more biocentric approach or at the very least it’s less anthropocentric.

Pretty obvious, looking back, as to trying to understand their experiences of life and not projecting ours onto them. :oops:
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
How Scientists Are Using AI to Talk to Animals

As I have predicted too, as to AI making breakthroughs into animal communications - given not much else will likely do so as quickly.

There were numerous attempts in the mid-20th century to try to teach human language to nonhumans, primates such as Koko. And those efforts were somewhat controversial. Looking back, one view we have now (that may not have been so prevalent then) is that we were too anthropocentric in our approaches. The desire then was to assess nonhuman intelligence by teaching nonhumans to speak like we do — when in fact we should have been thinking about their abilities to engage in complex communication on their own terms, in their own embodied way, in their own worldview. One of the terms used in the book is the notion of umwelt, which is this notion of the lived experience of organisms. If we are attentive to the umwelt of another organism, we wouldn’t expect a honeybee to speak human language, but we would become very interested in the fascinating language of honeybees, which is vibrational and positional. It’s sensitive to nuances such as the polarization of sunlight that we can’t even begin to convey with our bodies. And that is where the science is today. The field of digital bioacoustics — which is accelerating exponentially and unveiling fascinating findings about communication across the tree of life — is now approaching these animals and not asking, “Can they speak like humans?” but “Can they communicate complex information to one another? How are they doing so? What is significant to them?” And I would say that’s a more biocentric approach or at the very least it’s less anthropocentric.

Pretty obvious, looking back, as to trying to understand their experiences of life and not projecting ours onto them. :oops:
Probably would help if we tried that approach with other humans...just sayin'
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Your owned wisdom said when a sun was vacuum voided it's sacrificing form left earths heavens.

Gases set alight cooled. Only a small amount burnt. Fuel was star dust mass.

So what a moon isn't in mass as star the suns fuel is above. Firmament like a ground mass above us men said.

So when men applied technology as you are aware carbon mass unnaturally increases.

Then stars mass burning crossing again subjects earths life in heavens to a higher carbon gain.

Going against natural voided past.

Say we all die because of nuclear science. Already man has unnaturally consumed huge earths masses.

So how does future man begin again a theist scientist dating themes?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
How Scientists Are Using AI to Talk to Animals

As I have predicted too, as to AI making breakthroughs into animal communications - given not much else will likely do so as quickly.

There were numerous attempts in the mid-20th century to try to teach human language to nonhumans, primates such as Koko. And those efforts were somewhat controversial. Looking back, one view we have now (that may not have been so prevalent then) is that we were too anthropocentric in our approaches. The desire then was to assess nonhuman intelligence by teaching nonhumans to speak like we do — when in fact we should have been thinking about their abilities to engage in complex communication on their own terms, in their own embodied way, in their own worldview. One of the terms used in the book is the notion of umwelt, which is this notion of the lived experience of organisms. If we are attentive to the umwelt of another organism, we wouldn’t expect a honeybee to speak human language, but we would become very interested in the fascinating language of honeybees, which is vibrational and positional. It’s sensitive to nuances such as the polarization of sunlight that we can’t even begin to convey with our bodies. And that is where the science is today. The field of digital bioacoustics — which is accelerating exponentially and unveiling fascinating findings about communication across the tree of life — is now approaching these animals and not asking, “Can they speak like humans?” but “Can they communicate complex information to one another? How are they doing so? What is significant to them?” And I would say that’s a more biocentric approach or at the very least it’s less anthropocentric.

Pretty obvious, looking back, as to trying to understand their experiences of life and not projecting ours onto them. :oops:

In my experience with dogs, one can communicate with them, but via a type of blue tooth connection, associated with feelings. Humans mostly use word commands to create parallel emotions to the words. The animal senses the feeling, and this helps attach the word.

The human brain, when it writes to memory adds emotional tags to sensory content. With animals we induce the feeling first, and the word, by being a type of audio content, gets tagged for memory storage. Words can convey emotions; sit (stern warning) and point (visual cue) adds to the writing process.

With my Belgian Malinois, I invented a command I called "all done". This nebulous command meant that whatever we/he was doing, "all done", meant it was time to change what he are doing, no matter the circumstances, and do something new. He learned this open command and could be redirected from any behavior or fixation on any occasion. It worked because I originally associated all done and change to something new and fun. He associated it with happy to learn. This breed has very high adaptive intelligence. They can learn highly adaptive commands.

In a few experiments with my dog, I would use the learned command words but alter the emotion behinds the word to se if he reacted to the word or the new emotion. Bad dog with a playful smile and good dog with an angry voice, would reverse the meanings on command.

Sometimes, even today, if I am thinking and come to an exciting realization in my thinking, that causes a stronger inner feeling, my two smaller dogs will bark and start to act like an intruder is nearby, even from the other room. This may be connected to many years of censorship to new ideas. They feel a ping, and try to warn me of danger. I may tone down.

Language is newer than the domestication of dogs, so how did humans and dogs communicate before spoken language? The dog would associate visual cues based on human emotions. This is where AI has no clue, since machines lack feelings, Feeling are critical to writing to memory within animals. The AI will need a human to generate the feelings as an intermediary to words.
 
Last edited:
Top