Then where are your fossils? Evolutionary theory states man has been in modern form for about 200,000 years.
I'm not going to argue the whole shebang with you. I'm just trying to set up the framework for a discussion regarding your assertion that there is no evidence for humans past 10,000 years ago. I haven't even brought up what evidence I might like to use. I just want to know that we're on the same page when it comes to the way things are dated so that we don't get sidetracked.
Like I said in the other thread, I'm signing off for the night but I'll probably be back tomorrow. It seems like you don't have a good understanding of carbon dating, how it works and its limitations. Again I'll be happy to discuss this later.
Ok well when you come back tomorrow you can tell me if you think radiocarbon dating is legit and keep in mind we're talking about things younger than 50,000 years old.
Every fossil that's ever been found is a transitional fossil. It's really not too difficult to understand.
ERR! WRONG, SORRY! Try again. The emission of an electron CANNOT change the atomic number. It is a proton decaying into a neutron and neutrino that can only change the atomic number, or simply the emission of a proton.
Jesus, what an annoying avatar. EDIT: That sounded WAY snarkier than it did in my head. Meant as a good-natured rib...
Regardless of getting the atomic number wrong; the decay is actually a good point. P.S. I am open to evolution and old Earth, just explaining that point is actually a valid argument.
I did know this. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html Then the article talks about "Young Earth Christians" using this to support their belief. And even though most old Earth science still agree that the earth is billions of years old; they are baffled by this feat. http://www.science20.com/curiousity...ls_survived_millions_years_trapped_bone-95449 This is a very good argument for "Young Earth Christians". Red Blood Cells are programed to deteriorate. I seem to remember that the longest carbon remains of plants and animal tissue can only last 40,000 years old. So if there was a dino that was supposedly extinct hundreds of millions of years ago, the timeline is in question.
Only because wikipedia won't support your claims. Human culture 40,000 years ago: Cave paintings are paintings found on cave walls and ceilings, and especially refer to those of prehistoric origin. The earliest such art in Europe dates back to the Aurignacian period, approximately 40,000 years ago, and is found in the El Castillo cave in Cantabria, Spain. The exact purpose of the paleolithic cave paintings is not known. Evidence suggests that they were not merely decorations of living areas, since the caves in which they have been found do not have signs of ongoing habitation. They are also often located in areas of caves that are not easily accessible. Some theories hold that cave paintings may have been a way of communicating with others, while other theories ascribe a religious or ceremonial purpose to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
OdenRoyLMA2 is right. Radio Carbon is not used to date rock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating Radiometric Dating is the dating tool for geologists. It basically reads the amount of isotopes and the decay. This is also a problem because science use "age" with the refraction or distance of light from our planet. AND in the other thread, the dating can be argued because no one knows just how far the universe expanded, moving faster than the speed of light, and without the normal limits of the universe. This same argument can be applied on the decay. There is an agreed moment when time and natural laws were not binding in this universe. For all we know, all of this mass was already formed in the great expansion.
Not sure where I'm wrong. I have only and repeatedly asked him about carbon dating and whether he thinks it works. You guys both tried to race ahead of me and assume I was going to talk about fossils or w/e but I was actually going to talk about fairly young things we can date with carbon dating that are still older than 10k years.
This was on your link. http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm Radiocarbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. So don't say this, as a matter of fact.
