How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, I'm not objecting to carbon-14 dating. I'm saying they may not be accurate, according to -- ?? -- -- scientists.
Waiting for your put-downs as usual -- but here is the name of the author as I see it: Malcolm W. Browne. Title of article is:
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING, and was written way back in 1990. Waiting for your put-downs once again, my dear Shunya.

So what? We are not discussing archaeology.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again your intentional ignorance of the sciences of evolution precludes my ability to answer your questions because you do not do your own homework.

I actually have seen this article in the New York Times before, and I believe it written by a non-scientific journalist with an ID agenda.

Again, again and again . . . there is no such thing as 'proof' in science.

So you say about no "proof." So why say all those numbers about billions and millions of years and anyway, what were the first mammals from? (Henceforth, trust me, and I say this with a smile, and again -- so glad we talked -- I hope no more questions that I hope, think, or expect you to answer with any verifiable certitude...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, the NY Times article you claim was written by a journalist with an ID agenda, you say? (wow.) So did he lie when he quoted the scientists, you think? OK, yes -- we're getting finished, you and I. Take care once again.

He probably did. ID pushers do that all of the time. And they try to raise it to an art form so that they can pretend that they are not lying.

Do you want to see a form of quote mining that you will not be able to refute:

"there is no God" source: The Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

First of all, I'm not objecting to carbon-14 dating. I'm saying they may not be accurate, according to -- ?? -- -- scientists.
Waiting for your put-downs as usual -- but here is the name of the author as I see it: Malcolm W. Browne. Title of article is:
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING, and was written way back in 1990. Waiting for your put-downs once again, my dear Shunya.

There is no question that there are errors in Carbon 14 dating, but you and the author of this article have failed to reslize that C14 dating does not stand alone it coordinated and compared to othe dating methods as cited and you have failed to respond to.

Just as I thought, Malcolm W. Browne is a photographer and journalist with absolutely no background in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you say about no "proof." So why say all those numbers about billions and millions of years and anyway, what were the first mammals from? (Henceforth, trust me, and I say this with a smile, and again -- so glad we talked -- I hope no more questions that I hope, think, or expect you to answer with any verifiable certitude...)

Your understanding of science is abominable. Yes there is overwhelming certitude in the knowledge of science, but you remain intentionally ignorant with a religious agenda.

Yes, the author of the New York Times article has no science background. You perpetually cite non-scientific layman articles to justify your religious agenda..

 

[YoursTrue]

It means exactly what it says. The dominate dating of the human habitation in the Levant dated to the 'Iron Age.

Your missing the main point here reflected in the article is that C14 dating methodes never stands alone, but used in combination of several or more dating methods to attain the result.

I didn't miss the "main point." Meantime, the dating is suggested by scientists, not me or you ... to be off. Bye for now again.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no question that there are errors in Carbon 14 dating, but you and the author of this article have failed to reslize that C14 dating does not stand alone it coordinated and compared to othe dating methods as cited and you have failed to respond to.

Just as I thought, Malcolm W. Browne is a photographer and journalist with absolutely no background in science.

Not true. But it doesn't matter because he wasn't speaking of everything. And you're not looking so good right now -- a little on the hysterical side -- Malcolm Browne - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

Your understanding of science is abominable. Yes there is overwhelming certitude in the knowledge of science, but you remain intentionally ignorant with a religious agenda.

Yes, the author of the New York Times article has no science background. You perpetually cite non-scientific layman articles to justify your religious agenda..

LOL. After talking with scientists like you, I'll pass. Have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no question that there are errors in Carbon 14 dating, but you and the author of this article have failed to reslize that C14 dating does not stand alone it coordinated and compared to othe dating methods as cited and you have failed to respond to.

Just as I thought, Malcolm W. Browne is a photographer and journalist with absolutely no background in science.

Not true about what Browne or I "fail to realize." Anyway, bye bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ya, we can't go by lookalikes. Instead, it's can a pair produce fertile off springs.

Yup.

 

[YoursTrue]

It strikes me that if you were serious about learning the answers to these questions, you'd take the initiative and do a bit of research by yourself.

Nonetheless...

Evidence of evolution - rock fossils - Evolution - AQA - GCSE Biology (Single Science) Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize.

After my discussions with you and Mr. Shunydragon and a few others promoting and espousing the veracity of the theory of evolution, my believing what evolutionists say has been diminished. But thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your understanding of science is abominable. Yes there is overwhelming certitude in the knowledge of science, but you remain intentionally ignorant with a religious agenda.

Yes, the author of the New York Times article has no science background. You perpetually cite non-scientific layman articles to justify your religious agenda..

Please do understand, shunyadragon, that most of my conversation with you is over. Most of the time all you do is name-call. You! have proved, yup, proved, a few things about -- personality, and I attach to that your insecurity about -- the rightfulness of the theory. And I thank you for that. Byyyeee....

 

[YoursTrue]

Your understanding of science is abominable. Yes there is overwhelming certitude in the knowledge of science, but you remain intentionally ignorant with a religious agenda.

Yes, the author of the New York Times article has no science background. You perpetually cite non-scientific layman articles to justify your religious agenda..

I have usually asked questions, and/or presented information of scientists. Bye again. You've helped.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no idea.

Why don't you provide a scientific source that says that the atmosphere (including sunlight) needs to meet a certain initial condition in order for carbon dating to work?

I mean, you're the one making the claim, after all, it's up to you to support it.

OK, now it's my turn to hope that you find substance in your claims. Bye for now...As the saying goes, I'm beginning to see the light... But because any information I offer is usually quoted from journals, I hope things go well for you. Btw, journals such as: the NY Times, Forbes, and other apparently "non-religious" sources, quoting scientists. So I hope things go well for you...I've learned a lot from my discussions with you all.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, now it's my turn to hope that you find substance in your claims. Bye for now...As the saying goes, I'm beginning to see the light... But because any information I offer is usually quoted from journals, I hope things go well for you. Btw, journals such as: the NY Times, Forbes, and other apparently "non-religious" sources, quoting scientists. So I hope things go well for you...I've learned a lot from my discussions with you all.

The New York Times and Forbes are NOT scientific journals, nor journals. They are layman magazines and newspapers. The article in the New York times is NOT written by a scientist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not true. But it doesn't matter because he wasn't speaking of everything. And you're not looking so good right now -- a little on the hysterical side -- Malcolm Browne - Wikipedia

There is no question that there are errors in Carbon 14 dating, but you and the author of this article have failed to reslize that C14 dating does not stand alone it coordinated and compared to othe dating methods as cited and you have failed to respond to.

Just as I thought, Malcolm W. Browne is a photographer and journalist with absolutely no background in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please do understand, shunyadragon, that most of my conversation with you is over. Most of the time all you do is name-call. You! have proved, yup, proved, a few things about -- personality, and I attach to that your insecurity about -- the rightfulness of the theory. And I thank you for that. Byyyeee....

Your understanding of science is abominable. Yes there is overwhelming certitude in the knowledge of science, but you remain intentionally ignorant with a religious agenda.

Yes, the author of the New York Times article has no science background. You perpetually cite non-scientific layman articles to justify your religious agenda..

 

[Bird123]

Then it is time to go to an eye doctor. The burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive claim.

What does an eye doctor have to do with anything? If you want to live on beliefs then I suppose that you need others to convince you to believe. If you care about facts or truth, you will take the responsibility to Discover for yourself the proof to guaranty what you have is the truth.

Stating facts or truth does not require any burden of proof unless the one stating the facts or truth wants others to believe, Example: The sky is blue or the Earth is round. Now you can ask me to convince you to believe what I say is true, however My reply will be: I will not do the work for you. If you SEEK proof, Discover it for yourself.

Haven't you and I been over this before? How does this confuse you?

God places Truth and Knowledge around us all. Has God supplied you with any proof at all or have you had to figure it out and Discover the proof for yourself?

It's so simply. I copy High Intelligence. I copy God.

Proof has always been within YOUR hands.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

No, the burden of proof always rests on the one making the claim.

Why do you Believe that? I can walk into the room and say the sky is blue then walk out. If you care about truth, you will Discover for yourself. On the other hand, If I want you to Believe what I said, then I must make an effort to convince you in some way.

God places knowledge and truth around us all. Has God given proof or have you had to figure it out on your own?

I copy High Intelligence. I copy God.

I will not do it for you. Burden of proof always rests with the one who seeks the knowledge. Do you seek or do you want it served up so you can create a new belief?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[shunyadragon]

I have usually asked questions, and/or presented information of scientists. Bye again. You've helped.

You have not cited one scientific journal article to support your agenda.

Your understanding of science is abominable. Yes there is overwhelming certitude in the knowledge of science, but you remain intentionally ignorant with a religious agenda.

Yes, the author of the New York Times article has no science background. You perpetually cite non-scientific layman articles to justify your religious agenda..