Origin of humans on the Earth

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saint said:
if u r open minded, carbon 14 got error in dating.
Click to expand...
Something that you are very likely not familiar with is that Carbon-dating is only one of many dozens of techniques used to determine prehistoric ages.
Each technique on its own provides some peices of the puzzle, but it's the corroboration between all the pieces that makes our dating robust.

No one piece is depended upon solely. It is the preponderance of evidence that gives us the confidence in the prehistoric timeline.


Like a matchstick table made of only one matchstick would simply fall over. But thirty or forty matchsticks, all independent, but all supporting each other, will make a table robust enough to support an encyclopedia.

Geologic records, tree rings, rock striations, pollen sampling, magnetic sampling and dozens of other methods of dating corroborate that our understanding of carbon-dating is reliable and sufficiently accurate to date things.
 
The scientist never explain how they get the XXXXXX years dating.
They simply report the object they study can be dated hundreds thousands ago.
 
Saint said:
The scientist never explain how they get the XXXXXX years dating.
They simply report the object they study can be dated hundreds thousands ago.
Click to expand...
That's because they aren't employed to educate you. The net has that information. If you don't use it before complaining you are committing an act of willful ignorance.
 
Saint said:
The scientist never explain how they get the XXXXXX years dating.
Click to expand...
Of course they do.
This from the wiki page on carbon dating:

The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in 1960. It is based on the fact that radiocarbon (14C) is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting 14C combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire 14C by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and from that point onwards the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of 14C in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit accurate analysis of older samples.
 
Saint said:
The scientist never explain how they get the XXXXXX years dating.
They simply report the object they study can be dated hundreds thousands ago.
Click to expand...
You mean they don't explain it in baby-talk every single time a date is mentioned in some context. Or they explain it briefly while you're making popcorn. Or you just don't listen.
Or you ignore all the informative responses ^^^^^^^ to your question.
Dating methods for fossils are not a secret. Anybody who wants to know can find out.
 
Jeeves said:
You mean they don't explain it in baby-talk every single time a date is mentioned in some context. Or they explain it briefly while you're making popcorn. Or you just don't listen.
Or you ignore all the informative responses ^^^^^^^ to your question.
Dating methods for fossils are not a secret. Anybody who wants to know can find out.
Click to expand...
I think he meant "explained in ways that I could easily debunk." Not having an education gets people in that position.
 
scientist can just bullshit, fabricate data,
simply said millions years ago and so on.
 
Saint said:
scientist can just bullshit, fabricate data,
simply said millions years ago and so on.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can, just a religionists and politicians and salesmen can.
Do you think all of scientists are bullshitting all of the time?
Do you think all science is one big scam?
'Cos, in that case, I wouldn't get on an elevator or in a car or plug in a lamp, or... well, basically, live in the modern world at all, since everything that touches you is a product of science and might disintegrate or blow up or something.
 
Jeeves said:
Yes, they can, just a religionists and politicians and salesmen can.
Do you think all of scientists are bullshitting all of the time?
Do you think all science is one big scam?
'Cos, in that case, I wouldn't get on an elevator or in a car or plug in a lamp, or... well, basically, live in the modern world at all, since everything that touches you is a product of science and might disintegrate or blow up or something.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up :)
 
Any idea how many places yet to be dug up ?
The point is new discoveries are only dependant on where you look for them.
Out of Africa can quickly turn into Out of Greenland or Out of a submerged legendary Atlantis for all we know. Just a matter of looking i guess...and there's a hell of a lot of terrain to cover, and then some.

Newsflash: year 2200 - Ancient human bones discovered on the moon. (Or Mars etc...) lol
 
Last edited:
Scientists please tell us how they can date to millions or even billions years, where is the evidence in lab to indicate that?
 
Saint said:
Scientists please tell us how they can date to millions or even billions years, where is the evidence in lab to indicate that?
Click to expand...
Why do you ask for evidence? You will just deny it, since it won't support your preconceived notions.
 
origin said:
Why do you ask for evidence? You will just deny it, since it won't support your preconceived notions.
Click to expand...
And that is based on evidence:biggrin:

btw what got Saint responding to posts? It used to be a rarity(thought she was a bot actually)
 
Saint said:
science also got scam, like the Korean professor bullshit on stem cell research.
Click to expand...
But science is self-correcting. If one scientist is a scammer there are a hundred who are eager to expose the scam.

On the other hand, anti-science people like you repeat the same scams over and over again.
 
sideshowbob said:
But science is self-correcting. If one scientist is a scammer there are a hundred who are eager to expose the scam.

On the other hand, anti-science people like you repeat the same scams over and over again.
Click to expand...
Saint fails to understand the need for reproducible results. I remember back in the '80s when some guy came up with table-top fission. -_O
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top