100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Carbon Dating Fact or Fiction | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
if a catterpiller can become a butterfly, and was created by god, then what is not possible, lol....... are not all things said to be seen thru a "god" persepctive or sight to be as "all things are possible"...... It's still the same animal.....it's just part of it process of getting to be a butterfly.......but was it a dog first....and then went in the cacoon and came out a butterfly....NO NO NO No it is not the same animal, thats why its a different species. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3042781.stm With genetics, scientists have found that 99.4% of the genes in humans in chimps are the same. They are so similar in fact that they are pushing to put chimps in the genus Homo. If you remember KPCOFGS the genus is as close as you can get while still being another species. Either way, different species, different animal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are at all familiar with the definition of speciation which is a core component in the evolutionary process, then you might be interested to know that this has occurred not only within the last 500, but the last 100 years with certain finches, among other animals of those islands. Elephants turning into birds isn't evolution, that is silly. The gradual and progressive degrees of speciation over time are. If you want examples of this that occur even faster, the whole world of micro-biota lives and dies and evolves at a daily rate. It is in fact why medical researchers are seriously and rightly concerned that our antibiotics are becoming ineffective. Modern understanding of DNA also pretty much confirms the ideas behind evolution... but of course DNA isn't in the Bible now is it? Hello...I have worked with animals and done this kind of work for a very long time.....so yes I am familiar with classification.....This is the whole point....If we are to believe evolution and the whole bit about us coming from apes....then that is truly nonsense..Of course within a species they can evolve to adapt to environment etc. But no way shape or form does one species turn into a complete other species. Now the Galapagos Islands are a whole evolution onto it's self. The island was cut off.....so basiscally it was sink or swim...giggle.....which is what the Iguana did.......and it had to adapt as well as many species there....because it was cut off from everything. Redy.......information is mine....so reference #1000012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The great thing about those examples that you throw out to "disprove" carbon dating is that in almost every case they are exceptions to a general rule... not proven just 50 times for your 8 or 9, but hundreds and thousands.
You take a sample of the material and it ALWAYS has a half-life that is ALWAYS the same. How much material is accumulated in a biological system is what throws these tests off, but when you get anomalous results like a 3000 year old seal for example, you go looking for the source. What do seals eat? Fish and Mollusks. What do Mollusks eat? Sediment from the ocean floor where there are *surprise* sea-vents that spew out concentrations of carbon, sulfur, and other materials that accumulate in disproportionate amounts. These are anomalies and once detected can be accounted for. For the one or two locations where seals and penguins are found to be thousands of years old, you can sample hundreds of other locations and find that seals and penguins are a more expected 5 to 10 years old. Furthermore, Radio Carbon dating with C-14 is not the gold standard that anti-evolutionists would like to hold it up to be. Geology has a HUGE role in dating. If you find a fossil that by RC dating somehow comes out too only a few years old, but know that the rock layer it is found in is thousands of years old (because you know that samples taken from around the world of the same layer are the same composition and date) then obviously that is an anomaly and is not the new next best thing. You gotta remember that we sciencey types don't believe ANYONE, not even our selves.... that's why most theories and hypotheses are peer reviewed and shot down, ridiculed, re-written, and written off before they even get out of the lab. It isn't until evidence for an idea is overwhelming, and exceptions against are all accounted for or so insignificant in frequency that they are irrelevant that some thing becomes a "science fact". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember, I am an engineer not an ornithologist, but these show evolution exists. I am sure there are more drastic examples, I am just not well versed in them.
Not to mention you are using an argument to ignorance, a logical fallacy stating that an idea or fact is wrong just because the other can't prove it. (though this is all proof and I am sure an ornithologist could give you more) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if a catterpiller can become a butterfly, and was created by god, then what is not possible, lol....... are not all things said to be seen thru a "god" persepctive or sight to be as "all things are possible"...... It's still the same animal.....it's just part of it process of getting to be a butterfly.......but was it a dog first....and then went in the cacoon and came out a butterfly....NO NO NO No it is not the same animal, thats why its a different species. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3042781.stm With genetics, scientists have found that 99.4% of the genes in humans in chimps are the same. They are so similar in fact that they are pushing to put chimps in the genus Homo. If you remember KPCOFGS the genus is as close as you can get while still being another species. Either way, different species, different animal. I don't care what scientists show....just because our genes are the same doesn't mean squat......There are a lot of chimps that are smarter then some people I know...should we make them scientists..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how you say no way one species can become another and then say it can if everything is cut off.
For one its not because everything is cut off, its for survival. The birds did it because of ineffeciency at getting food with competing birds. They did it in as little as one generation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have written about the flaws of it all........it's science it's theory.......thats it....
The great thing about those examples that you throw out to "disprove" carbon dating is that in almost every case they are exceptions to a general rule... not proven just 50 times for your 8 or 9, but hundreds and thousands. You take a sample of the material and it ALWAYS has a half-life that is ALWAYS the same. How much material is accumulated in a biological system is what throws these tests off, but when you get anomalous results like a 3000 year old seal for example, you go looking for the source. What do seals eat? Fish and Mollusks. What do Mollusks eat? Sediment from the ocean floor where there are *surprise* sea-vents that spew out concentrations of carbon, sulfur, and other materials that accumulate in disproportionate amounts. These are anomalies and once detected can be accounted for. For the one or two locations where seals and penguins are found to be thousands of years old, you can sample hundreds of other locations and find that seals and penguins are a more expected 5 to 10 years old. Furthermore, Radio Carbon dating with C-14 is not the gold standard that anti-evolutionists would like to hold it up to be. Geology has a HUGE role in dating. If you find a fossil that by RC dating somehow comes out too only a few years old, but know that the rock layer it is found in is thousands of years old (because you know that samples taken from around the world of the same layer are the same composition and date) then obviously that is an anomaly and is not the new next best thing. You gotta remember that we sciencey types don't believe ANYONE, not even our selves.... that's why most theories and hypotheses are peer reviewed and shot down, ridiculed, re-written, and written off before they even get out of the lab. It isn't until evidence for an idea is overwhelming, and exceptions against are all accounted for or so insignificant in frequency that they are irrelevant that some thing becomes a "science fact". |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Thu 08/14/08 07:32 PM
|
|
With genetics, scientists have found that 99.4% of the genes in humans and chimps are the same. They are so similar in fact that they are pushing to put chimps in the genus Homo
there is the ultimate shortcut using semantics to scapegoat proof. they might as well just do it then and call it a day. they are 99.4% sure that it is a fact that a monkey is a man. those are better odds than the ones given the Supreme Court to agree. I say do it. it doesn't get any better than that. that is evolution theory's best and most logical bet as i see how they come to rightful conclusions. shall we vote on it? I say yea. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how you say no way one species can become another and then say it can if everything is cut off. For one its not because everything is cut off, its for survival. The birds did it because of ineffeciency at getting food with competing birds. They did it in as little as one generation. I didn't say even if cut off...the iguana will always be an iguana it just has to adapt differently because of being cut off....for example because it was cut off from fresh water in adapted by spraying out the salt water.......or it would die........get it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At no point did I say we evolved from apes. All I said is that evolution exists. I just also happen to show genetic research that shows that chimps and humans should be in the same genus. The probably won't change it, but the fact remains still the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how you say no way one species can become another and then say it can if everything is cut off. For one its not because everything is cut off, its for survival. The birds did it because of ineffeciency at getting food with competing birds. They did it in as little as one generation. I didn't say even if cut off...the iguana will always be an iguana it just has to adapt differently because of being cut off....for example because it was cut off from fresh water in adapted by spraying out the salt water.......or it would die........get it. and if you look up the scientific name of the iguana that spits water and the one that doesn't you will see that their species classification is different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Thu 08/14/08 07:40 PM
|
|
we have enough racial profiling as it is Chazter.
do you think they will stop there? monkeys work cheaper than illegal aliens. there is less labor liability in cost efficiency analysis in commercial trade to waarent spending exhorbitant sums of money to reduce risk of lawsuit or collective bargaining agreements that afford workers rights due their effort and dedication to a profit driven endeavor, why wouldn't the captains of industry not invest in such a matter as training monkeys to replace cheap offshore labor someday? A monkey is unaware of any unfair and unequitable balance of trade. It would enhance the bottom line. It is the kind of logic that is being sampled upon the citizenry to accept as fact sooner or later. JMHO. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those changes accumulate over time... And the amount of time it takes is really the key isn't it?
Evolution certainly isn't viable for life as we know it if we limit the time frame to some 6000 years or so. Of course that notion is just silly. There is absolutely NO PLACE AT ALL in the Bible that says the world is only 6000 years old... Ussher back in the 1650s came up with that figure by doing fuzzy math on the begats part of the bible. The closest you get to hard time frames is the 6 days of the creation. The other point you hinted at which is unfounded is the notion that evolution means that things change from a basic form to a more advanced one. This is simply not true. We still have planerians, amoebacytes, spider monkeys, and parakeets. If things only evolved up the tree, then these "simpler" life forms wouldn't be here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 08/14/08 08:03 PM
|
|
There is proof all around us that evolution happens and it exists. Changes happen. Even the mule who gave birth to a foal will be a new species if it continues to develop offspring that reproduces.
Evolution exists and is happening. It can't be denied. Neither can you demand proof of a bird evolving directly into a monkey. That's just silly. If it happens on the smallest scale, no matter how small, there is no denying that it happens. It's like saying that you are just a little bit pregnant. If you are pregnant, you are pregnant, there is no "little bit" about it. I'm not saying that is how all of life came to be. I believe the creator wrote the DNA smart programs that were smart enough to evolve. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant."
— Richard Dawkins 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant." — Richard Dawkins You realize that a lot of us dont think the creation didn't happen. I personally think evolution is just part of the world God created. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 08/14/08 08:25 PM
|
|
Those changes accumulate over time... And the amount of time it takes is really the key isn't it? Evolution certainly isn't viable for life as we know it if we limit the time frame to some 6000 years or so. Of course that notion is just silly. There is absolutely NO PLACE AT ALL in the Bible that says the world is only 6000 years old... Ussher back in the 1650s came up with that figure by doing fuzzy math on the begats part of the bible. The closest you get to hard time frames is the 6 days of the creation. The other point you hinted at which is unfounded is the notion that evolution means that things change from a basic form to a more advanced one. This is simply not true. We still have planerians, amoebacytes, spider monkeys, and parakeets. If things only evolved up the tree, then these "simpler" life forms wouldn't be here. Yes of course they would. Why wouldn't they? The entire species is not going to evolve together all of a sudden. One member of the species changes. For example, one female mule has a foal. Not all female mules, only the one. Okay, lets just say that her offspring are endowed with the ability to reproduce given the same circumstances. That is the new line. What about the other mules? They are still sterile, they still are the result of a horse and a donkey. People can still get a mule with a horse and a donkey. But now there is a new species. It will probably get another name. This all hinges on what actually happens next with these mules, but you get my point. Two different families of birds could split off and evolve in different directions. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is proof all around us that evolution happens and it exists. Changes happen. Even the mule who gave birth to a foal will be a new species if it continues to develop offspring that reproduces. Evolution exists and is happening. It can't be denied. Neither can you demand proof of a bird evolving directly into a monkey. That's just silly. If it happens on the smallest scale, no matter how small, there is no denying that it happens. It's like saying that you are just a little bit pregnant. If you are pregnant, you are pregnant, there is no "little bit" about it. I'm not saying that is how all of life came to be. I believe the creator wrote the DNA smart programs that were smart enough to evolve. JB JB. a bird's wing contains feathers. That feather has innate characteristics. as with the theory that all things slowly evolve and cchange, the chance of a feather appearing soon enough, consistently enough tto cause mating and reproduction is liudicrous. Be it birds or whatever. It would require a whole hatch from the same mother at the same time to exhiit the change and make a feather what a feather is. sme with fish, let's say. that involves also the male. odds are getting tougher, but still not the dilemma. the feather is unique and the requirements to make a feather what it is to a bird are just as impossible as the bird is itself. Furthermore, there is no reason or need for adaptation to the entire structure of the bird short of including the feather in those adaptations which are necessary to accomodate the feather being a necessary adaptation for the bird in and of itself. Study that. there are other equally impossible several and instantaneous adaptations suggested upon other genus which are as impossible according to the fuzzy science attached to the transitions and intermediates of every genus, species, and , unecessarily mentioned, sub-species. study the butterfly. same thing, too many adaptations instantaneously required to make adaptation the answer for their being. Intelligent design is not the answer either. have fun with the homework. You will learn a lot, wherever it takes you. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I'm saying... there was an implication made that evolution means "better" species completely replace "inferior" ones... I.E. man is better than monkeys, monkeys are better than rats, etc.
That isn't the case... there isn't a better, there is a different. Mutations occur in the DNA, new characteristics are exhibited, and the natural environment acts as a proving ground for these new traits. Those that inhibit survival in a given set of environmental parameters prevent replication of these characteristics. That's whey there aren't too many fish that walk around on land, birds that live in the water, or flying monkeys. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 OK
|
|
|
|
|
