How Long Have Largemouth Bass Existed?

[retiredbosn]

We are the only ones to ask these questions, and many times, (most) we come up with the wrong answer. To believe the world is young or old is just that a belief, all of my biology books in college had words like "we believe, could have, seems to" all are words of conjecture and belief. To believe in a big bang and billions of years without documented empirical data is as much a leap of faith as to not believe that way. If all matter came from the same source and started at the big bang there is evidence that must be challenged or ignored to make it work. Laws of physics come into play and some are completely absent, if everything came from one explosion. The law of angular momentum comes to mind, this law states that if a mass is spinning,(which it must have been: think about planet rotation and orbits) and explodes then all particles from the mass will continue to spin in that direction. Yet there are planets and moons that spin on their axis west to east instead of east to west. There are so many instances that are ignored to make the argument that things just happened by chance over eons of time. Just never close your mind to possibilities when it comes to our being, our planet and animal kingdom. Evolution is still just a theory, all of it takes belief.

[5150bass]

retiredbosn I am sorry to have to say it but you could not be more wrong.

We are the only ones to ask these questions, and many times, (most) we come up with the wrong answer.

We (science) comes up with the wrong answer most of the time? We still have a lot to learn for sure. We are incredibly far away from knowing everything but to say we come up with the wrong answer most of the time? This statement is just false. All I need to do is look around the world to see that everything we know (as sure as we can know anything) was discovered by science.

To believe the world is young or old is just that a belief, all of my biology books in college had words like "we believe, could have, seems to" all are words of conjecture and belief.

To believe that the world is young or old is not just a matter of opinion. I like vanilla and you like chocolate, who is to say which is better? Beliving that the world is young or old "just because" and believing that the world is young or old for reasons are two very different things. There is not one thing in the world that makes sense if you take the view that the world is "young" by any meaning of the word. The idea that the world is 4.5 billion years old is not just a matter of opinion or something the majority voted on. It is a fact as sure as any other fact documented hundreds and thousands of times.

To believe in a big bang and billions of years without documented empirical data is as much a leap of faith as to not believe that way.

The big bang is accepted by every scientist and physicist I've ever seen. The universe is still expanding since the big bang and accelerating. The red light shift from stars and galaxies prove this as sure as any fact. Everything is space is flying away from us. To be more clear: everything is flying away from everything else.

Evolution is still just a theory, all of it takes belief.

Science does not use the word theory in the way we do. I may say "I have a theory the bass might be shallow today". I mean to say that that is my hypothesis (A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.)

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

It is called the theory of evolution similar to the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease. Someone who says that "Evolution is just a theory" has to realize that the idea that the earth is young doesn't even graduate to the level of a theory. It is just a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.

[redboat]

10 years, coincides with the date I bought my first bass boat. Before that they were called 'catfish boats'.

[retiredbosn]

my last post on this topic, don't want a flame war or contention in the ranks

4.5billion years for the earth??? Must be reliying on radiation type dating the only way to date rocks. The basalt field in Hualalai basalt, Hawaii, was made in 1800-1801, yet radiometric dating puts the new basalt at 1.7 million years, pretty neat for a rock that's only 200 years old.

A million is a huge number, just to give a time frame it takes over 117 years for 1 million hours to pass, kind of amazing to think that most ppl won't even live 1 million hours.

I like redboats answer, sounds bout right, lol

[Nitrofreak]

This looks like it is gonna turn into a religion vs evolution thread......But 3rd day sounds bout right to me.

It has to be the third day, on the seventh he rested, and went bass fishing...I wonder how big a deal it was back then.

[Kimist]

Retiredbosn, the rocks you are talking about are well known to give inaccurate dates, and are well understood. No professional would make that mistake. The rocks were submitted for dating to purposely try to discredit the technique. In addition, many of the dating techniques used would indicate that the date was inaccurate.

[lmoore]

Retiredbosn, the rocks you are talking about are well known to give inaccurate dates, and are well understood. No professional would make that mistake. The rocks were submitted for dating to purposely try to discredit the technique. In addition, many of the dating techniques used would indicate that the date was inaccurate.

An honest question here...if these rocks are "known to give inaccurate dates," then why should anyone believe the dating system which led to the belief of 4.5 billion years? In other words, if on error was discovered, how many are left undiscovered?

[Kimist]

An honest question here...if these rocks are "known to give inaccurate dates," then why should anyone believe the dating system which led to the belief of 4.5 billion years? In other words, if on error was discovered, how many are left undiscovered?

To say it is an error is being generous. I'm trying hard not to offend. The age of a rock is the time since it was last melted. In this case, as in some others, people have submitted samples known to be xenoliths , which are usually inclusions of unmelted, older rock embedded in younger rock. That is, the Hawaii lava flow mentioned contains rocks which would be expected to be much older than the surrounding rock. A geologist would recognize that. In fact, that is what was done. These rocks were purposely chosen to try to discredit the technique. The fact that the fraud could be committed proves that it isn't a problem.

There is plenty of evidence to show that radiometric techniques work and give consistent results. I don't wish a long heated argument. My only desire was to correct some misinformation. There is plenty of information available on the subject if anyone wishes to google it.

[lmoore]

Thanks. I'm not nterested in an argument here either, but it peaked my interest.

I know 3 things without a doubt,

1) I was born

2) I will die

3) I'm gonna do a whole lot of bass fishing in between those 2.

After that, I have my beliefs and other people have their's. If people spent less time trying to change everyone else, they'd have a lot more time to spend fishing

[Catt]

Radiometric dating not give dates beyond 150,000 to 200,000 years peroid

[5150bass]

I know 3 things without a doubt,

1) I was born

2) I will die

3) I'm gonna do a whole lot of bass fishing in between those 2.

We agree on all of the above!

I don't wish a long heated argument. My only desire was to correct some misinformation.

My sentiments exactly. If I spend all my time debating on here how am I supposed to spend all my money on fishing tackle on eBay?

[Catt]

The misinformation in the dating method. The precision of a dating depends on the half-life of the radioactive isotopes involved. For instance, carbon-14 has half-life of 5,730 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years so little cabon-14 is that accurate dating can be established. The next problem is contamination of parent or daughter product.

[grampa1114]

Yeah.....that's great.....I'm goin' fishin' now.......thanks....

[Ratherbfishing]

Interesting question. We still haven't found the missing link yet. The fossil record indicates there were sabertooth bass and the wolly bass but those were distinct and separate species. There are cave paintings in France depicting fishermen drinking beer and clubbing bass (this was before catch and release-and before wine was invented) dating back some 100,000 years. These were the first bucket fishermen.

[Nitrofreak]

Interesting question. We still haven't found the missing link yet. The fossil record indicates there were sabertooth bass and the wolly bass but those were distinct and separate species. There are cave paintings in France depicting fishermen drinking beer and clubbing bass (this was before catch and release-and before wine was invented) dating back some 100,000 years. These were the first bucket fishermen.

So what you are saying is that a bunch of drunk rednecks actually started the whole bass fishing thing, then someone invented wine and civilised the whole d**n thing.

[grampa1114]

Yup...that's right...by the way I caught a couple of fish...

[Ratherbfishing]

So what you are saying is that a bunch of drunk rednecks actually started the whole bass fishing thing, then someone invented wine and civilised the whole d**n thing.

No. This was a cave in France. If it were in Russia, they'd have been drinking vodka. And they'd have been clubbing sabertooth sturgeon.

[Nitrofreak]

No. This was a cave in France. If it were in Russia, they'd have been drinking vodka. And they'd have been clubbing sabertooth sturgeon.

I'd still say it was us rednecks, we have been loving french women for a long time, just look at the proof it's painted on the cave wall, where there is beer there are rednecks, WEE !!