If ww flood, why are there insects?

Originally posted by sonhouse
If they proved you can't carbon date anything past say 1000 years or so. Or finding a parakeet fossil in a coal deposit, evolution would be out the window, a 200 million year old parakeet proven, end of evolution. Till then, business as usual.

But there is literally hundreds of years of real science where the motivation is to get to the truth and we hav ...[text shortened]... be known in science circles much less the general public. THAT is not science. THAT is politics.

Some examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.
A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old.

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Some examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.
A petrified miner’s ha ...[text shortened]... said that they were 6000 years old.

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html

There you go. These well known variances are studied up the kazoo but used by creationists to cast doubt on the technique. That is PRECISELY what I was talking about.

That is exactly how they bend science to try to destroy the whole evolution deal.

Creationists can not allow the truth, Earth being billions of years old, to be gospel.

They will do anything to foist their biased views on the country and preferably the entire planet. They would be as happy as pigs in shyte if the captured the US though.

That is why it goes from being science to being politics. They are after votes from uninformed people they hope to rope into their corral. Enough votes and they don't NEED bad science. They get to make the rules of education and goodbye evolution as taught now, instead the new norm, the world is 6000 years old and Goddidit.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There you go. These well known variances are studied up the kazoo but used by creationists to cast doubt on the technique. That is PRECISELY what I was talking about.

That is exactly how they bend science to try to destroy the whole evolution deal.

Creationists can not allow the truth, Earth being billions of years old, to be gospel.

They will do a ...[text shortened]... goodbye evolution as taught now, instead the new norm, the world is 6000 years old and Goddidit.

So these variances should just be ignored and we should just blindly accept that the dating techniques are flawless?

Also when a scientist that already believes in the preconceived idea of evolution looks only for evidence to support their belief then they are not being bias right? Wake up and smell the roses.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So these variances should just be ignored and we should just blindly accept that the dating techniques are flawless?

Also when a scientist that already believes in the preconceived idea of evolution looks only for evidence to support their belief then they are not being bias right? Wake up and smell the roses.

The point is they KNOW the technique is NOT flawless. But when they know known problems they know also how to get around them. Sometimes they cannot use C14 to date at all, for instance, if there is no carbon there is no carbon dating. That does not mean you through out the bath with the bath water, much as creationists WANT to do just that.

REAL scientists know EXACTLY when they can count on C14 dating and when they can't and when they can't they use other techniques to date stuff, like stratify dating, counting the layers of dirt with stuff in them, if they see a fossil at layer X and on top of that is 40 feet of other layers, they can be pretty sure layer X is older than the upper layers, MOSTLY, but even that has to be carefully considered, all is not bread and roses even there because you can get tripped up if you don't know the flow of water and such, where newer stuff gets flushed down the drain so to speak, ending up on a lower level.

But that kind of thing can be sussed out also, it only trips up newbies, kids with their fresh Phd on their first dig, not completely understanding the kind of flows and conditions that can confuse a simple layer analysis but a more experienced scientist would come along and point out the errors of the newbie and they come up with a better date.

I am just bringing up hypothetical situations that can illustrate where people can be mistaken about dates. But the experienced scientist has been through that before and won't be fooled by say a fossil bear down so deep it looks like it should be a hundred million years old when in fact it is only 4000 years old but some flood or other puts it down mixed with older stuff way deep because of riverbed erosion of the surface and later there is no river any more which would make it LOOK like a bear was around at the time of the dinosaurs but that would never be the case so the experienced scientist has to look at a larger picture, what does the fossil data look like a hundred yards to the north or whatever, getting a better picture of the whole area.

That's what it is all about, getting a bigger picture, not looking deeply into any one piece of data.

But again, that is a side issue, the question was, why would there be insects AND a million species of insects at that if they were 99.9999% killed in the so-called ww flood. My point is they wouldn't, if the WW flood actually happened there would either be no insects at all or a greatly reduced number of species AND the species that did survive would have a greatly reduced genetic diversity compared to what we see now.

The long and short of it is, the FACT we clearly have over a million species of insects with long deep time genetic diversity proves there never was this so-called WW flood.

The problem with that is, even assuming some insects survived, there would not be enough time in the few thousand years left after the so-called WW flood, the genetic diversity of the survivors would be measurably low. You can't have a single reproducing pair producing the vast array of genetic diversity we see today in ALL animals and insects.

There just was no such ww flood. Genetic analysis proves that if nothing else will and good luck tearing down THAT argument.

I suppose you could fall back on the 'Goddidit' card but that does not cut the mustard in the real world.

You would require your so-called god to be actively effecting the genetic make up of literally millions of species and doing that for thousands of years, guiding the evolution of fly's, roaches, termites, ants and so forth by the TRILLIONS, making sure each one has the proper genetic diversity just to fool humans coming along a few thousand years later with our genetic sciences.

Sure it could happen. In a pigs eye.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The point is they KNOW the technique is NOT flawless. But when they know known problems they know also how to get around them. Sometimes they cannot use C14 to date at all, for instance, if there is no carbon there is no carbon dating. That does not mean you through out the bath with the bath water, much as creationists WANT to do just that.

REAL scient ...[text shortened]... s what it is all about, getting a bigger picture, not looking deeply into any one piece of data.

Dude all the variants were carbon dated because they had carbon in them. Still they were way off. And they were done by REAL scientists.

Also how do you know that enough species of insects could not have survived a world wide flood on floating debris, etc to have the variations we see today? Also if your dating techniques are not flawless how do you know for sure that evolution (variations within species) takes as long as you think it does?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So these variances should just be ignored and we should just blindly accept that the dating techniques are flawless?

The variances should be understood. You simply don't understand how carbon dating works. Nobody should blindly accept things, they should get an education and try to understand things. Education is free on the internet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The variances should be understood. You simply don't understand how carbon dating works. Nobody should blindly accept things, they should get an education and try to understand things. Education is free on the internet.

And this post clearly demonstrates that you do. Not.

Clearly your free 'wikipedia' education is benefitting you. Not.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And this post clearly demonstrates that you do. Not.

In what way?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way?

Lol so you think by simply claiming that someone else doesn't understand something it demonstrates that you do? Did you learn that on the internet? You could aid your cause by demonstrating some form of understanding about the topic.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Lol so you think by simply claiming that someone else doesn't understand something it demonstrates that you do?

No, I never said not implied any such thing.

You could aid your cause by demonstrating some form of understanding about the topic.
Demonstrating your lack of understanding is more than sufficient.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I never said not implied any such thing.

[b]You could aid your cause by demonstrating some form of understanding about the topic.
Demonstrating your lack of understanding is more than sufficient.[/b]

Demonstrating your lack of understanding is more than sufficient.

Which in your mind you have clearly done? With your self acclaimed free internet education. Great job. Now give yourself a pat on the back.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Which in your mind you have clearly done?

No, you did it for me.

With your self acclaimed free internet education.
I never claimed any such thing. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
What I did do, was give you some good advice for the next time you wish to discuss carbon dating - learn what it is before making a fool of yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you did it for me.

Yes clearly I have, as once again this post clearly demonstrates. Not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you did it for me.

[b]With your self acclaimed free internet education.
I never claimed any such thing. Once again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
What I did do, was give you some good advice for the next time you wish to discuss carbon dating - learn what it is before making a fool of yourself.[/b]

The only thing that leaves much to be desired is your ability to back up your claim that I simply don't understand carbon dating. For which I am not holding my breath.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The only thing that leaves much to be desired is your ability to back up your claim that I simply don't understand carbon dating. For which I am not holding my breath.

I don't need to back it up, you have backed it up for me by your ridiculous responses over the last few posts. You didn't say that you do actually understand it, but instead chose to deliberately misinterpret what I said.

If you really want to demonstrate that you understand it, then instead of holding your breath to try and manipulate the carbon dating results, you could simply explain in a few words how you think it works and why you think it didn't work well in the examples you cited earlier.