Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Randyvine2

The origin of life is a separate thing from evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life not its origin. The origin of life is a separate question.

Though “God did it” is a pretty bad answer to the question that is untestable, unable to be proven and does not expand our knowledge of reality at all.

I don’t disagree, but I’d just like to add that the “Big Bang” also hasn’t passed the scrutiny of the scientific method.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Apes. We are cousins of the ape family, specifically pan hominidae.

I was quoting south park.. I thought you were a fan? I edited my previous post to accomodate the semantic police.

originally posted by: LetTheColdCome

Also, the whole “magic man in the sky” trope is childish and unnecessary. Just my opinion.

Yeah whenever someone says that it is a clear clue that they haven't given much critical thought on what an extra-dimensional super-intelligent Being would be like.

"No you have it mixed up, we are not retard apess. We come from an Intelligence that transcends temporal and spatial limitations."

Oh like psychedelic mushroom spores

yeh I can get with that

originally posted by: Randyvine2Evolution is preposterous period. There is no blending of the two. The Bible is
the absolute correct truth. Prove me wrong with any bulsh1t you choose.

Have you heard of something called dendrochronolgy? It is a natural science involving the study of tree rings.

Scientists have a history of the ages of generations of trees going back over 12,000 years in Europe alone. According to the bible this is impossible so I don't see how you can prove anything 'using the bible' regardless of the discussion of evolution.

originally posted by: littlecorn
Have you heard of something called dendrochronolgy? It is a natural science involving the study of tree rings.

Scientists have a history of the ages of generations of trees going back over 12,000 years in Europe alone. According to the bible this is impossible so I don't see how you can prove anything 'using the bible' regardless of the discussion of evolution.

Do you have a source for this? From what I was aware the oldest tree is a little over 5,000 years old. If you're referring to clonal trees, there is no way to reliably date them like regular trees.

originally posted by: sapien82


"No you have it mixed up, we are not retard apess. We come from an Intelligence that transcends temporal and spatial limitations."

Oh like psychedelic mushroom spores

yeh I can get with that

It doesn't make sense that a mushroom could add 400,000 miles of neurons to a chimp's brain simply by being ingested. (humans have approximately 400,000 more miles of neurons than a chimp's brain)

I believe we are in a fallen state. Those mushrooms so happen to activate the unfallen state of human consciousness.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: littlecorn
Have you heard of something called dendrochronolgy? It is a natural science involving the study of tree rings.

Scientists have a history of the ages of generations of trees going back over 12,000 years in Europe alone. According to the bible this is impossible so I don't see how you can prove anything 'using the bible' regardless of the discussion of evolution.

Do you have a source for this? From what I was aware the oldest tree is a little over 5,000 years old. If you're referring to clonal trees, there is no way to reliably date them like regular trees.

It's not the oldest tree, it's the history of trees, like a generational family tree.

For instance, you have a set of tree rings from a tree today, say going back 200 years. You compare this to a dead tree ... the rings match up the last 200 years but they go back further in time say another 300 years. This way you keep going back and you find that trees have existed eg oaks have existed in Europe for over 12,000 years.

It's not the age of one tree, but how we can prove how long they have existed for.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: littlecorn
Have you heard of something called dendrochronolgy? It is a natural science involving the study of tree rings.

Scientists have a history of the ages of generations of trees going back over 12,000 years in Europe alone. According to the bible this is impossible so I don't see how you can prove anything 'using the bible' regardless of the discussion of evolution.

Do you have a source for this? From what I was aware the oldest tree is a little over 5,000 years old. If you're referring to clonal trees, there is no way to reliably date them like regular trees.

Primodial fossil of trees.

Researchers made the discovery after studying the fossils of 374-million-year-old trees found in northwest China. The fossils showed that these ancient trees had an interconnected mesh of woody strands, the researchers found.

"It's just bizarre," said study co-researcher Christopher Berry, a senior lecturer of paleobotany at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom. [Nature's Giants: Photos of the Tallest Trees on Earth]

The two specimens were found in 2012 and 2015 in Xinjiang, China, by study lead researcher Hong-He Xu, of the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The specimens belong to a group of trees known as cladoxylopsids,

Also from your previous reply.

There is no known mechanism for self-catalyzed polymerization of amino acids monomers into the polymer form. This means you can't spontaneously get amino acid or DNA chains in water. The opposite is true. If any amino acid or DNA chains exist in water, they will eventually decompose back into the monomers. This is counter-productive for any hopes of a random chance abiogenesis event. If there were such a mechanism to reverse this natural process, it would be in every biology textbook and the discovery would grant nobel prizes. But it does not exist. The theory is not possible, biological creatures require a Logical designer.

This wouldn't happen in water, it would happen within the cell.
The evolution of DNA is known and understood.

NCBI

The origin of DNA also required the appearance of enzymes able to incorporate dNTPs using first RNA templates (reverse transcriptases) and later on DNA templates (DNA polymerases). In all living organisms (cells and viruses), all these enzymes work in the 5' to 3' direction. This directionality is dictated by the cellular metabolism that produces only dNTP 5' triphosphates and no 3' triphosphates. Indeed, both purine and pyrimidine biosyntheses are built up on ribose 5 monophosphate as a common precursor. The sense of DNA synthesis itself is therefore a relic of the RNA world metabolism. Modern DNA polymerases of the A and B families, reverse transcriptases, cellular RNA polymerases and viral replicative RNA polymerases are structurally related and thus probably homologous (for references, see a recent review on viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases.)12 This suggests that reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerases of the A and B families originated from an ancestral RNA polymerase that has also descendants among viral-like RNA replicases.

originally posted by: littlecorn
It's not the oldest tree, it's the history of trees, like a generational family tree.

For instance, you have a set of tree rings from a tree today, say going back 200 years. You compare this to a dead tree ... the rings match up the last 200 years but they go back further in time say another 300 years. This way you keep going back and you find that trees have existed eg oaks have existed in Europe for over 12,000 years.

It's not the age of one tree, but how we can prove how long they have existed for.

How do they know when the tree died that they are measuring? The oldest living tree dated with dendrochronology is only 5,000-some years olds.

a reply to: coopertonHaha, you do realise you are asking me for a lecture in dendrochronolgy, you have the internet, look it up.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Researchers made the discovery after studying the fossils of 374-million-year-old trees found in northwest China. The fossils showed that these ancient trees had an interconnected mesh of woody strands, the researchers found.

That's simply assuming that the rock layer that it was found in must be 374-million years old. But that timeline is way off... human footprints are consistently found in the same "super old" strata as dinosaur footprints:

human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs

And also, it's not well know that mostly all rock formations can form rather quickly. Consider how fast you can form a brick (mudstone) from mud. They assume these layers are super old because it fits evolutionary theory. It's literally circular logic. "evolution must be true, therefore these geological layers must be super old, which proves evolution is true"

rocks don't require millions of years to form

Everything we were led to believe growing up regarding evolution theory is a house of cards

originally posted by: littlecorn
a reply to: coopertonHaha, you do realise you are asking me for a lecture in dendrochronolgy, you have the internet, look it up.

The oldest tree dated with dendrochronology is 5,000-some years old. That's a fact. Your vague example of old maple trees in England doesn't have any empirical support.

a reply to: cooperton

That's simply assuming that the rock layer that it was found in must be 374-million years old. But that timeline is way off... human footprints are consistently found in the same "super old" strata as dinosaur footprints:

human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs

A link to a previous ATS threads alone isn't data and in what world is a brick the same as a rock?!
An ikea shelf is not a tree!

a reply to: coopertonYou can believe what you want and say what you want but you are wrong


physics2.fau.edu...


books.google.co.uk...=snippet&q=northern%20ireland%20dendroch ronological&f=false

You can buy these books if you like but I don't think you will. I also don't believe any evidence will move you from your position, but the fact remains, at least for others to see, that clear and repeatable empirical science shows that trees have existed for well over what's allowed in the bible. It's for others do their own research. Have fun.

originally posted by: Kurokage

A link to a previous ATS threads alone isn't and in what world is a brick the same as a rock?!

A brick is a mudstone. Mudstone is a type of sedimentary rock.

So yes, sedimentary rock can form very quickly. It does not require the fabled millions of years.

a reply to: cooperton

You would think right , but there have been studies which have indicated that Pscilocybin actually helps neurogenesis

so if it works on our brains why not on others.

its already mind blowing enough that we either came from random chance nothingness or we were made by a space god
or a mushroom that has sentience

what if god is a mushroom, that can travel through space by spores and seed life on planets

a reply to: cooperton

It's not the same formation in the slightist.
Sedimentary rock is formed in layers whislst mudstone lacks laminations.

How long do rocks form.

one on top of the other. Thus, in any sequence of layered rocks, a given bed must be older than any bed on top of it.

This Law of Superposition, created by the Danish scientist Nicholas Steno, is fundamental to the interpretation of Earth history. At any one location, it indicates the relative ages of rock layers and the fossils in them.

Most typically, a geologist estimates the age of an outcrop of rock by looking at fossils present or by measuring the decay of a radioactive isotope.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

It's not the same formation in the slightist.
Sedimentary rock is formed in layers whislst mudstone lacks laminations.

Mudstone IS a type of sedimentary rock!

Take some time to digest that. The rocks that they make you think are hundreds of millions of years old can be formed in the same way as brick.



This explains the London Hammer^

originally posted by: littlecorn
a reply to: coopertonYou can believe what you want and say what you want but you are wrong


physics2.fau.edu...


books.google.co.uk...=snippet&q=northern%20ireland%20dendroch ronological&f=false

You can buy these books if you like but I don't think you will. I also don't believe any evidence will move you from your position, but the fact remains, at least for others to see, that clear and repeatable empirical science shows that trees have existed for well over what's allowed in the bible. It's for others do their own research. Have fun.

No trees were dated to be even 1,000 years old in the study with dendrochronology. They essentially used carbon-dating to determine the ages. If you believe carbon-dating is infallible then you'll have to admit dinosaurs are less than 40,000 years old too. They found soft tissue, consistently, in dinosaurs and it is carbon-dated to less than 40,000 years old:



The presence of soft tissue alone is enough to prove dinosaurs aren't as old as evolutionary theory assumes.

the thing I never undestood about the whole religious idea of creationism and in general the religious world embracing science to explain creationism

so if they accept scientific principles and understanding of the universe
then it basically proves the bible wrong with the age of the world and heavens
as some light from distant stars was emitted long before the 6000yrs or however old they say earth is.

So how do they reconcile that

a reply to: coopertonYou do not understand.

No person is said to be 1000 years old. But we know people have existed for over 1000 years.

The study of tree rings is a natural science and infact carbon dating is not used in its study. Tree rings are used to validate dates given by radiocarbon dating.

I cannot make you drink and I do not want to, but ... thank you for your time.

originally posted by: sapien82
the thing I never undestood about the whole religious idea of creationism and in general the religious world embracing science to explain creationism

so if they accept scientific principles and understanding of the universe
then it basically proves the bible wrong with the age of the world and heavens
as some light from distant stars was emitted long before the 6000yrs or however old they say earth is.

So how do they reconcile that

It was only life that is specifically stated to be 6,000-some years old. The earth and heaven existed before God started creating. With that being said, I don't think we understand the metrics of the universe. Dark matter is forced into the theories because the equations don't match up on the galactic scale. So they literally made up the existence of some type of undetectable matter so the theory could work. This deserves it's own thread to be honest.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

You would think right , but there have been studies which have indicated that Pscilocybin actually helps neurogenesis

so if it works on our brains why not on others.

its already mind blowing enough that we either came from random chance nothingness or we were made by a space god
or a mushroom that has sentience

what if god is a mushroom, that can travel through space by spores and seed life on planets

I think God created these things to help us, in moderation.

Mushrooms promoting neurogenesis does not mean it could grow 400,000 miles of neural circuitry in a pre-human organism. The changes wouldn't be inheritable.

originally posted by: littlecorn

The study of tree rings is a natural science and infact carbon dating is not used in its study.

your link

Yes it does. Go to page 1121 in your link.