Actually, to your note, carbon dating only works up to 12,500 years. And that's only generally speaking, and in a perfectly sterile environment.
Evolution is highly dependent on something we call circular reasoning. They date fossils by the rocks they are found in, and date the rocks by the fossils that are found in them. This is because evolution relies entirely on circumstantial evidence.
There are bigger problems than carbon dating and fossils. The concept of evolution is fundamentally contrary to scientific law. Namely the third law of thermodynamics. Remember, a scientific law has nothing to do with explaining anything, it merely describes a constant which is not overturned by any circumstance. Things like gravity. There's always gravity, even in space. The third law of thermodynamics is the law of entropy. Everything breaks down. Saying that a giant explosion created a complex universe is about on par with saying that a nuclear warhead would create a thriving metropolis. It's the rantings of lunacy.
Evolutionists will try to use carbon dating, even when they know that carbon dating is inaccurate. It's not a concept that is unknown to them, but they can calibrate it to give them whatever results they want, so they like it. They then procede to brainwash the public into believing their nonsense, and most people believe they are scientifically informed because they watch the Discovery Channel. (Yes, I'm talking to all you people that are going to give me a bad rating for the mere fact that you don't agree with me rather than whether I can point out facts.)
Evolution, even on a minor scale, has to be carefully cultivated. Ask any agriculturalist. At which point it ceases to be evolution, and becomes breeding. You can breed sweeter corn and faster horses, but you'll never breed corn into a horse. The fact that many ancient cultures in history has historical accounts of dinosaurs shoots a big hole in the head of the theory that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before man ever walked the earth. Some examples are: Hebrew, Sumerian, Egyptian, Chinese, Korean, European, African, Mayan, and Greek. And I'm sure there are more that I don't even know. Besides that, in 1977, Japanese fishermen off the coast of New Zealand actually caught a dead aquatic dinosaur in their nets. For those who aren't so saavy on what happens to dead creatures in the ocean: They get eaten. This thing still had plenty of flesh on it. So people who say dinosaurs and men didn't co-exist have a few screws loose at best. It's like those people who try to still claim the world is flat.
2006-09-11 19:57:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by GodsKnite 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
I think you need to take a Geology class... And this is coming from a Christian.
Fossils are when the bones of dead animals are replaced by minerals. By looking at them we can find out their bone structure and by finding fossils of pregnant animals, or baby animals, or eggs, we can learn about their offspring.
By looking at the type of rock the fossil is found in, where that rock is situated in relation to other rock, and how deep the rock is, we can try to determine when the animal died and thus when it lived.
Fossils are dated using radioactive isotopes. There are several different isotopes used, and each isotope has a different half life which can help determine the age of the fossil.
By putting together the isotopic data and the rock data we can roughly determine when the animal lived on this Earth.
However, there are some problems with the above and these problems are:
1) Rock layers are messy and it can be difficult to put them into the correct order.
2) An outside source of radiation can "reset" isotopes and make samples seem older than they are.
If you have been paying attention you may have noticed that none of this has anything to do with Evolution. That's because it doesn't prove the truth or falsehood of Evolution, only that there were animals who died at such and such a time and that their remains were fossilized.
EDIT: Carbon 14 is NOT the only isotope used in dating fossils. Not by a long shot. Carbon 14 is only used to date very recent stuff, and there are other isotopes with much longer halflives that are used to date dinosaur bones and other such fossils.
2006-09-11 19:27:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dysthymia 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
The scientific method works like this.
1. you gather data -in this case you stumble across yet another fossil.
2. you see that it looks like part of a tooth of a lizard that you already have in your collection. except this one is bigger, etc.
3. you do some dating -various means
The dates and similarities support your hypothesis that evolution has occurred.
now it is time to go look for more data and generate more hypotheses, etc.
if one finds a datum that does not fit the current theories then one proposes another hypothesis which can be supported or refuted and this hypothesis may be added to the current theory of evolution i.e. the theory of evolution itself will evolve.
thus, it is almost impossible to disprove the theory of evolution since, as a theory it is open to critical analysis and adjustment.
Sorry, back to your question though. There are dates associated with the bones as we can carbon date stuff found in the same layer as the fossils and get a good handle on when these bones were living.
Agreed we dont have an unbroken fossil record of every offspring of a creature, but, that does not stop us from making a theory and setting up hypotheses which can be tested.
The whole idea of evolution has led us to think about heredity and genetics and DNA and so on. All these consequences of the initial theory have lots and lots of support.
So, yes, fossils count as evidence for evolution in the sense that their discovery is the raw data that caused someone to propose yet another hypothesis to add to the body of the theory of evolution
the theory itself is not "proven" but that is the nature of the scientific method.
2006-09-11 19:36:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Just keep reading about the subject. When I was a young girl, my family moved around the world every year. School was difficult because everywhere we moved, the schools were teaching something different. And, the students had been learning about the same themes and subjects for several years previously. That meant I basically was the dumbest kid in school everywhere I moved because there wasn't anyway to catch up with each new school's past material. But, I found a way. Don't laugh, but if you ever want to get a really quick, solid overview of a gigantic subject, such as archeology or chemistry or biology, go to the public library and read up on the subject, but, just at the pre-school thru 3rd grade level. No joking. Ask the librarian to direct you to the section of early childhood level books about, in this case:
1. Archeology
2. Dinosaurs
3. Anthropology
4. Biology
5. How Life Began
6. Evolution
7. Fossils/Paleontology
8. Chemistry
9. Geology
10. Museum Methods.
Remember, these books would be very, very, very simple. Just the plain basics. Easy to read ALL of them in ONE afternoon. In one afternoon, with the help of a librarian, you could have a solid command of this issue. Just using little kid books. It really works. This little trick provides enough information, most of the time, for you to be confident about knowing what is fact and what is not.
2006-09-11 19:43:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Of course they do. There are scientific ways to determine age and how long ago the fossils existed. That along with other findings offer viable proof. Scientist and explorers spend many years of study and hard work to try and establish where we came from. What alternate proof or theory(surely you don't offer your explanation in your question as anything viable) do you offer to disclaim what has been offered? All bones comes from the past. The past is our guide to the future.
2006-09-11 19:31:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Robere 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Nope, and neither does sedimentation of those fossils (God could easily have buried those fossils under tons of rock and earth just to cause us to doubt Him!) or that crap about our DNA being 98.5% the same as a chimpanzee (so what! could just be coincidence!).
Much better to accept something like Intelligent Design that has no scientific evidence and has not been the subject of a SINGLE scientific paper (because of the scientific conspiracy against the idea!).
2006-09-11 19:48:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Can you honestly sit at your computer, a virtual font of information IF YOU ACTUALLY USE IT ONCE IN A WHILE FOR SOMETHING BESIDES VIDEO GAMES AND YAHOO!ANSWERS, and ask these questions?!! You are in NO PLACE to make such ignorant statements, when scientists have been studying fossils for hundreds of years!! In a few sentences of YOUR OPINION ONLY, you're going to debunk the master scientists of anthropology, as if their work means nothing at all??! YOU are a COMPLETE DOLT with a fear of reading, science, and education! "Fear doth make cowards of us all!", and because you were more than likely a poor student, you fear knowledge, if it interferes with your beliefs!! Until you've spent your life with experiment after experiment in some type of anthropological field, don't pretend that you know ANYTHING by hastily spouting your idiotic opinions!!!
2006-09-11 19:46:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Rebooted 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
I used this answer for a different evolution question:
We never did "evolve". The reason scientist place dates so far back (ie, 2 million years ago we were monkeys) is because they can't prove it. We never have found proof of a "missing link".
And if we did "evolve", how come the only record in human history of humans is the same form we have now?
Why haven't we started growing horns yet or something?
2006-09-11 19:24:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Requiem for Insanity 2
·
4⤊
3⤋
of course there are technologies who invented by man to count how old is that fossil and they can identify what year they have exist before
that is human ability.
2006-09-11 19:22:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Brayan 1
·
3⤊
0⤋
the fossils are evidence of evolution he must be a christian who beleaves in talking snakes and adam and eve that fairy tail
2006-09-11 22:31:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋