Aliens and evolution

Aliens and evolution

There are 6310 comments on the Washington Times story from Jun 19, 2012, titled Aliens and evolution. In it, Washington Times reports that:

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#4079 Nov 5, 2012
Andre, there is no evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable. There is evidence that it can be used incorrectly, but then so can a hammer. Radiometric dating is a tool. A very accurate tool. If used incorrectly you will get incorrect results.

So where is your evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable? I am betting that at best you have evidence of it being used incorrectly.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4080 Nov 5, 2012
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>I am sorry to say, but an issue is yet again stated as fact although objective analysis of data would suggest that this is an incorrect assessment of all available data.
The reason for this is that there is evidence that radiometric dating is not reliable.
The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.

So, let's talk.

If the methodology of radiometric dating is wrong, then the rate of decay of particles is variable.

If the rate of decay of particles is variable, then at any given moment in time any given nuclear power plant should spontaneously explode or completely lose power inexplicably. People living in New Mexico or Colorado, near where Uranium deposits can be found, should have massive rates of cancer and radiation poisoning. People trying to get X-rays should, on a regular basis, find that the machine no longer emits radiation and/or burns a hole in people when used as the amount of x-rays being produced should fluxate wildly.

None of those things happen. Ever.

So, let's talk about cross checking with established dates.

First, radiometric dating is internally consistent. You don't test one end of a piece of wood and get a different date than you would testing the other end of the piece of wood. Same object, same test, same results.

Further, we can use radiometric dating on historical objects who's origin and date have been well established. The wreck of a famous ship, for example. Or the bones of a king. Or the beams in the wall of a castle. When we do this, the dates come out consistent with the historical record.

AND, when we compare radiometric dates to dates which are determined using other methods, like dendrochronology - we find the same thing. A piece of wood from the SW can be dated to the year using dend. It can be dating using radiometric and you get the same result.

AND, when we compare that with ice core dating, which is determined by the seasonal layers of ice being laid down in the polar regions, we find those dates are LIKEWISE consistent.

AND, when we compare ALL of those with sedimentary layers from the ocean floor, or lake bottoms, where the cycle of grown lays down specific layers of sediment over the course of a year, THOSE dates are likewise consistent.

So, INTERNALLY consistent, consistent with multiple different independent dating systems which rely on utterly different mechanisms, consistent with the historical record.

AND, if the mechanism were false, then entire field of nuclear physics would be falsified.

Compare that to: "My mom told me about a talking snake".

Seriously, get off the internet you boob.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#4081 Nov 5, 2012
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Read Genesis 1:29,30 and Gen 9: As basic as difference in diets.
<quoted text>It would seem from the Bible that vegetation may not have been so badly affected (dove with olive leaf Gen 8:11). They would have had ample to eat. Quite nutritious as well as it seems that somehow hyperbaric conditions existed at some time in the past – with about 50% higher oxygen levels.
If all animals were vegetarian in the past, why did they have fangs? And why did they change to eating meat? Surely, a peaceful loving god would not condemn the gazelle to a horrible death in the jaws of a lion if there is plenty of grass for both to eat.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#4082 Nov 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Morning,
Hawkwind??? Wow. I haven't heard that name is a long while. Saw most of those except for Tull and Rainbow/Blackmore. I think I still have a Rory Gallagher poster somewhere.
I saw Moody Blues once in Lakeland, Florida with a full orchestra. Very cool.(Actually have seen the band about five times).
Don't go to many concerts these days. Most of the bands are either past their prime or full of substitutions. And, as you said, the ticket prices are nuts.
Hi Mike

Yes, they were the days, alright.

I've only seen the Moodies twice. Once on their 1973 World Tour (still have the concert programme from that show) and later on the tour they did for Long Distance Voyager (1981 I think).

I did catch the Blue Jays in 1975 and they were great.

Have you picked up the DVD for the Moody Blues set at the 1970 Isle of Wight Festival? It's pretty good.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#4083 Nov 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Argus!
That's another one that's never been far from my stereo.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#4084 Nov 5, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Mike
Yes, they were the days, alright.
I've only seen the Moodies twice. Once on their 1973 World Tour (still have the concert programme from that show) and later on the tour they did for Long Distance Voyager (1981 I think).
I did catch the Blue Jays in 1975 and they were great.
Have you picked up the DVD for the Moody Blues set at the 1970 Isle of Wight Festival? It's pretty good.
Hey!

Haven't got that one. I need to add it to my list of things to do.

Check this one out. I was there.
http://www.frankfurthigh.com/history/img_musi...

Queen did *4* encores!

Yes, those were the days. Yes they were.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#4085 Nov 5, 2012
Here's the hall that concert was in. Doubt there was much more than a 1000 people.

http://www.fr-online.de/image/view/2012/8/3/1...

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#4086 Nov 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey!
Haven't got that one. I need to add it to my list of things to do.
Check this one out. I was there.
http://www.frankfurthigh.com/history/img_musi...
Queen did *4* encores!
Yes, those were the days. Yes they were.
Sounds like a good show!

Two quite different bands.

I only saw Queen once. It was around 73/74 and they were supporting Mott the Hoople.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#4087 Nov 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
Here's the hall that concert was in. Doubt there was much more than a 1000 people.
http://www.fr-online.de/image/view/2012/8/3/1...
Man that must have been great!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4088 Nov 5, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
If all animals were vegetarian in the past, why did they have fangs? And why did they change to eating meat? Surely, a peaceful loving god would not condemn the gazelle to a horrible death in the jaws of a lion if there is plenty of grass for both to eat.
What makes the death of the grass less horrific?

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#4089 Nov 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes the death of the grass less horrific?
UM...besides the fact you smoke it on purpose?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4090 Nov 5, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> UM...besides the fact you smoke it on purpose?
Erm, no comment.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4092 Nov 6, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I think it's up to 90 now. And there are probably still missing.
While you're there in Africa, how about you quit sending us these things, eh?
All time record low barometric pressure on this one, too.
Almost exactly a year after we had a freak blizzard with wet, heavy snow that came down while there were still leaves on the trees here in southern New England.
We had a triple whammy last year of an unprecedented tornado in June, hurricane Irene, which caused massive flooding and the October snowstorm.
Yeah. Climate change is a myth.
Thought you should know.
A lie, spread by communists...I know the story LOL.

Yeah, heard that factoid - lowest baromic pressure ever on an Atlantic hurricane - pressure is related to windspeed, if I can still recall my geography lessons. So, yeah, we knew this was gonna be a big'un

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4093 Nov 6, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a great album and ever since 1972, it's never been far from my stereo.
To my utter shame, never heard of the song.

Listening to it now...Brilliant song

I plead ignorance... In 1972, my father was just in high school

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#4094 Nov 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.
So, let's talk.
If the methodology of radiometric dating is wrong, then the rate of decay of particles is variable.
If the rate of decay of particles is variable, then at any given moment in time any given nuclear power plant should spontaneously explode or completely lose power inexplicably. People living in New Mexico or Colorado, near where Uranium deposits can be found, should have massive rates of cancer and radiation poisoning. People trying to get X-rays should, on a regular basis, find that the machine no longer emits radiation and/or burns a hole in people when used as the amount of x-rays being produced should fluxate wildly.
None of those things happen. Ever.
So, let's talk about cross checking with established dates.
First, radiometric dating is internally consistent. You don't test one end of a piece of wood and get a different date than you would testing the other end of the piece of wood. Same object, same test, same results.
Further, we can use radiometric dating on historical objects who's origin and date have been well established. The wreck of a famous ship, for example. Or the bones of a king. Or the beams in the wall of a castle. When we do this, the dates come out consistent with the historical record.
AND, when we compare radiometric dates to dates which are determined using other methods, like dendrochronology - we find the same thing. A piece of wood from the SW can be dated to the year using dend. It can be dating using radiometric and you get the same result.
AND, when we compare that with ice core dating, which is determined by the seasonal layers of ice being laid down in the polar regions, we find those dates are LIKEWISE consistent.
AND, when we compare ALL of those with sedimentary layers from the ocean floor, or lake bottoms, where the cycle of grown lays down specific layers of sediment over the course of a year, THOSE dates are likewise consistent.
So, INTERNALLY consistent, consistent with multiple different independent dating systems which rely on utterly different mechanisms, consistent with the historical record.
AND, if the mechanism were false, then entire field of nuclear physics would be falsified.
Compare that to: "My mom told me about a talking snake".
Seriously, get off the internet you boob.
ignorant rambling troll who doesn't know jack sh*t about the burden of proof,

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4095 Nov 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
ignorant rambling troll who doesn't know jack sh*t about the burden of proof,
Yo.

His post above was pretty good.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4096 Nov 6, 2012
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>I am sorry to say, but an issue is yet again stated as fact although objective analysis of data would suggest that this is an incorrect assessment of all available data.
The reason for this is that there is evidence that radiometric dating is not reliable.
You may also be familiar with problems associated with radiometric dating and the various assumptions on which it relies. So again, far from “disproving” the claim, it can merely question it based on its own questionable credibility.
<quoted text>“Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers” should give you a fair idea.
<quoted text>
Thank you for this question. It allowed me to gain some wonderful insight and especially in respect of recent discoveries. The data indicates that is was most likely the ocean floors. You may find these articles quite interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/...
http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html
<quoted text>
It seems that the catastrophic plate tectonics model provides some answers with seas deepening and upward movement of the continents. There may be other hypothesis as well.
<quoted text>Some interesting ideas and hints can be found reading on Krakatua. But I have no evidence, only speculation.
<quoted text>Read Genesis 1:29,30 and Gen 9: As basic as difference in diets.
<quoted text>It would seem from the Bible that vegetation may not have been so badly affected (dove with olive leaf Gen 8:11). They would have had ample to eat. Quite nutritious as well as it seems that somehow hyperbaric conditions existed at some time in the past – with about 50% higher oxygen levels.
1) If you claim that radiometric dating is unreliable, show by means of experiment, that the decay rates are consistent with the Biblical account.

2) Erosion do cut many paths in the topmost layers. We see that happening

3) Yes there is some water in the Mantle. That water STAYS THERE

4) Go buy a normal garden plant at a nursery. Put in in a jar. Submerse the plant for 40 days. Take it out. Will it still live?

5) Lions do not vegtation. Breaking down plant matter is not in their system.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#4097 Nov 6, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
To my utter shame, never heard of the song.
Listening to it now...Brilliant song
I plead ignorance... In 1972, my father was just in high school
YIKES! I was a staff sergeant in Germany.:-(

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4098 Nov 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
YIKES! I was a staff sergeant in Germany.:-(
You have been around, looks like?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4099 Nov 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.
So, let's talk.
If the methodology of radiometric dating is wrong, then the rate of decay of particles is variable.
If the rate of decay of particles is variable, then at any given moment in time any given nuclear power plant should spontaneously explode or completely lose power inexplicably. People living in New Mexico or Colorado, near where Uranium deposits can be found, should have massive rates of cancer and radiation poisoning. People trying to get X-rays should, on a regular basis, find that the machine no longer emits radiation and/or burns a hole in people when used as the amount of x-rays being produced should fluxate wildly.
None of those things happen. Ever.
So, let's talk about cross checking with established dates.
First, radiometric dating is internally consistent. You don't test one end of a piece of wood and get a different date than you would testing the other end of the piece of wood. Same object, same test, same results.
Further, we can use radiometric dating on historical objects who's origin and date have been well established. The wreck of a famous ship, for example. Or the bones of a king. Or the beams in the wall of a castle. When we do this, the dates come out consistent with the historical record.
AND, when we compare radiometric dates to dates which are determined using other methods, like dendrochronology - we find the same thing. A piece of wood from the SW can be dated to the year using dend. It can be dating using radiometric and you get the same result.
AND, when we compare that with ice core dating, which is determined by the seasonal layers of ice being laid down in the polar regions, we find those dates are LIKEWISE consistent.
AND, when we compare ALL of those with sedimentary layers from the ocean floor, or lake bottoms, where the cycle of grown lays down specific layers of sediment over the course of a year, THOSE dates are likewise consistent.
So, INTERNALLY consistent, consistent with multiple different independent dating systems which rely on utterly different mechanisms, consistent with the historical record.
AND, if the mechanism were false, then entire field of nuclear physics would be falsified.
Compare that to: "My mom told me about a talking snake".
Seriously, get off the internet you boob.
I am astonished.

A brilliant post.

To expand on your points, and as a matter of interest - when using the rate of continental drift, we calculate that South America and Africa broke apart 97 million years ago. This is reflected by radiometric dating performed on strata on both continents, as well as diversity in the fossil record. What a coincidence

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Rosa_Winkel 247,734
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 2 hr ORIGINAL WILLARD 51
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 3 hr woodtick57 47,893
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr dollarsbill 12,889
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 4 hr Eagle 12 28
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 22 hr Thinking 2,357
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Wed macumazahn 20,900
More from around the web