New Time Line for Appearances of Skeletal Animals

Nov 15, 2010 | Posted by: Noodly James | Full story: www.sciencedaily.com

So many life forms appeared during this time that it is often referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion." Geologists at UC Santa Barbara and a team of co-authors have proposed a rethinking of the timeline of these early animal appearances.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 30 of30
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 11

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 5, 2011
 
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are missing the point. Science has always claimed a certain level of accuracy, not that the dating claims are absolutely accurate. We are always improving and refining the dating techniques which improve their accuracy. What this is isn't an admission that Creationists were right, but an example of how science works.

No, but my point still remains, I find it quite humoress.
I never stated that it was a stark admission from scientists that dating is completely wrong, I just find it amusing on so many other forums when dating is bought up, its the evolutionists that has statements like "dating techniques are completely accurate you young earth creationist freak!" etc.

[QUOTE who="TedHOhio"]
A scientist improves dating techniques and shows that the so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' may have taken even longer than previous techniques have shown. This is science in action. Creationists don't just claim innaccuracy, they want all dating technique thrown out unless they support their own pre-determined dates, especially Young Earth Creationists.
There is a wide difference between claiming that the degree of error in a date just went from +/- 50 million years to +/- 10 million years and claiming that anything over 6,000 years is obviously bogus because it doesn't agree with the literal reading of the Bible. I've bene to the Creation Museum and it's little story of "We just come to a different conclusion based on the same data" is pure BS.
[/quote]

I agree and see it all too often with dating, the whole argument about empirical evidence etc.
BTW I wasn't aware that all creationists where young earthers?

[QUOTE who="TedHOhio"]
They toss anything they cannot twist to their own ends and try and justify it with comments like yours. "Oh even science admits how innaccurate dating techniques are, so God must be right!"[/quote]

I wasn't aware I made that comment?

[QUOTE who="TedHOhio"]
My suggestion is that you wander back through the histroy of radiological and other forms of dating and you will see a continuous improvement as the dating techniques get more and more accurate. This is done by scientists not Creationists who like to make unsupported claims.
No doubt. Science is evolving itself, new technologies and techniques are being developed, I'm not debating that.

Since: Jan 11

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 5, 2011
 
I stuffed the quotes up again! Apologies gentlemen.
How do you edit posts, I'm not use to this forum outlay?

Since: Jan 11

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 5, 2011
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We do? I was not aware of either of us having any psychic powers.
I'm reading your thoughts right now. You wish you had better broadband so this porno movie would load faster :-)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 5, 2011
 
Plankton75 wrote:
I stuffed the quotes up again! Apologies gentlemen.
How do you edit posts, I'm not use to this forum outlay?
If you mean edit a post you've already submitted, you cannot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 5, 2011
 
Plankton75 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I actually think you are not understanding it. The older technique/technology had been improved upon, therefore the old technology/technique was inaccurate. I don't feel that inaccurate implies that the the old method was completely wrong, that's your words and understanding. That's how I read into it. Not quite sure what the big deal on that one was.
I understood it quite well. The tone of your post suggested a certain criticism of the order method as evidenced by your use of the word 'inaccurate' rather than 'less accurate'. If that was not your intention, I apologize.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jan 5, 2011
 
Plankton75 wrote:
I stuffed the quotes up again! Apologies gentlemen.
How do you edit posts, I'm not use to this forum outlay?
If you mean to interject comments, you would have to edit the post as below:

{QUOTE who="Plankton75"}
Blah, blah, blah...
{/QUOTE}

Comment #1

{QUOTE who="Plankton75"}
Blah, blah, blah...
{/QUOTE}

Comment #2

...and so on. Notice I used {} rather than [] to avoid tripping the software into actual quote mode.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 5, 2011
 
Plankton wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what your point above is, I didn't mention anything about that dating techniques ever will be accurate? The new techniques/technologies are more accurate, therefore the PAST technique/technology was inaccurate. I think you taking my post out of context is dishonest. If you misunderstood what I posted then I apologize :-)
I didn't misunderstand anything. You said the new method is more accurate, therefore the past method was inaccurate. This is not correct. Again, you're stating a zero-sum situation where none exists. The past method was accurate within a given margin of error. With the new one, the margin of error decreases. So, the old system was accurate within a margin of error, and the new system is accurate within a margin of error. Neither is accurate, neither is inaccurate. One is simply MORE accurate.

Consider the following: you get a second degree sunburn. I get a first degree sunburn. You are more sunburned than I am. Does that mean that I am not sunburned?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 5, 2011
 
Plankton wrote:
<quoted text>
What's a few million years between friends right!? ;-)
Geologically speaking, a couple of hundredths of one percent.

Of course, if you believe that the Earth and the universe are only 6000 years old because that is what your bronze age book of myths, fables and fairy tales tells you ...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 5, 2011
 
Plankton75 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm reading your thoughts right now. You wish you had better broadband so this porno movie would load faster :-)
Darn, you're good.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 5, 2011
 
Plankton75 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm reading your thoughts right now. You wish you had better broadband so this porno movie would load faster :-)
Actually isn't porn funnier in slow motion? I'm no expert, but it certainly should be.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 30 of30
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••