TheWhiteRaider Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 You do know that halflife means the matter will continually become halved? It can never become 0. You got that wrong. A half-life is how long it takes for something to reach 50% of what you started with. It's full-life is how long it takes to decay completely. If you have a pound of Carbon-14 and it takes 100 years to get a half pound the half-life is 100 years. You can not have a fraction of C-14. -Transitional fossiles have been found. Ok where and what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 21, 2002 Author Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg There is what is know as a "seed" most plants/trees drop them in their life and once they die the "seeds" that fell to the ground now produce a new tree/plant.... an endless cycle, there is no great evolution involved. That example was not intended to prove evolution in any way. I can only hope you understood the example, otherwise, I'll happily provide a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 21, 2002 Author Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Ok where and what? Fossiles, while I'm no expert on this subject, there've been found fossiles that prove the connection between flying and flightless insects, amphibian creatures that ere neither fish nor landwalking creatures, the archeopteryx and between fish and invertebrates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Frog Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider A half-life is how long it takes for something to reach 50% of what you started with. It's full-life is how long it takes to decay completely. If you have a pound of Carbon-14 and it takes 100 years to get a half pound the half-life is 100 years. You can not have a fraction of C-14. C-14 has an exponentiel graph, so when we talk about half-life, the time it takes to half the amount of C-14, sorry dude, the other guys right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Frog Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg The creationists see this lack of an explaination for the beginning of life as a major fault with evolutionary theory; the creationist theory does not have this problem given that at the heart of their theory they assert that god is the creator of all life. That I would say is the biggets flaw of the theory Originally posted by ZDawg The reason this is such an important problem for evolutionists is that if there is no definite mechanism for the origins of life, then life must have occured because of chance circumstances. Yep. There's an ongoing discussion on whether space is infinite, if we assume it is, the following happens: The number of planets is infinite. The number of planets with the ability to sustain life as our own is infinite. The chance of a planet sustain life like us is going towards 100% (going towards means as close as you can possibly get to) Originally posted by ZDawg For the creationist, the major source of evidence for their theory comes from the story of creation as told in the Bible. This story explains how god created the earth and all life that exists on it. The creation of life took about one day according to the Bible and no evolutionary processes took place. Since most creationists believe the Bible provides an accurate historical record, proving the Bible correct is not as important as showing that evolution is incorrect. This is reflected in the fact that a large portion of creationist literature focuses on disproving evolution rather than proving the claims of creationism. If the creationists theory is correct then empirical evidence should agree with what the theory claims. If the creationists theory is correct then the earth should be about 10,000 years old. There is a plenty of claims the creationists provide that agree with this prediction; here is sampling of some empirical evidence the creationists often use to forward their young earth claim: A guy in the 17th century used the bible to calculate the age of the earth, using Noahs family tree. He found that the earth was about 4.000 years old. So the 2 statements above can't be true at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 21, 2002 Author Share Posted November 21, 2002 http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/morris-zindler.html "...but that at that time Mt. Ararat was only about ten to twelve thousand feet high. Now if all the water came down in forty days and drowned all the mountains of the world, that would require the rain to come down at about eleven and a half feet per hour. John, that's not rain, that's hydraulic mining! Everything would have been swept off the surface of the continents. The continents would be absolutely denuded down to crystalline rocks. All the sedimentary rocks would have been deposited in the ocean basins. Now clearly, that's not the pattern that we see... and it would certainly imply... that does away with Noah's flood! I suggest you all read this debate (even if it's flaming personified), it gives some very valid points as to why Noah's flood (or Noah's ark for that matter) could not exist. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html This guy proves that God cannot have created the Big Bang, and even that God cannot exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Instead of trying to prove to Christians( creationist or traditional) how or why evolution is a more likely way to come into existance. It is much easier to point out the gaping holes in Christanity. I will do just 1 of many here. The Earth never flooded completely. It can't. If the ice caps melted and all the locked up water in the world entered the oceans it would only raise the oceans 400 ft. So even though large parts of the world would be flooded, any place on Earth above 400 ft would still be dry. That's alot of dry land Noah. To a fairly logical person this should be proof that the flood story is a mistake or at least exagerated. The flood story comes from a real event that occured about 7000 years ago. But it happened in a small area, the story passed on and became exagerated. So some guy who writes 1 of the gospels retells and old story in the context of his beliefs and time and I am supposed to believe this is proof that a god nobody has ever seen kills sinners? PLEASE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 21, 2002 Author Share Posted November 21, 2002 Oh, you're absolutely right Griff, but you have to remember one thing: Creationists aren't assuming it's the ice caps melting, but instead that it is heaven itself that rains down on earth (some sort of firmament)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Yes Cjais, those who use faith to make important descisions are not deterred by pesky facts. I think you can seperate this debate into 1 of 2 camps. Those who use faith and belief to make up their minds and those who use facts, and are willing to discard outdated ideas. Christians claim that the constant changing, correction and updating of evolution science is proof that it's wrong. But that updating only makes science stronger and stronger. Admitting you made a mistake and moving on is something Christianity just can't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 21, 2002 Author Share Posted November 21, 2002 Well said Griff. Also, check out this article on a "missing" link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00003F75-5EEC-1CE1-9EEC809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 ZDawg: I would appreciate if you posted sources in english. Remember to check that the link is valid: I failed to find one of your sources. You may want to copy-paste the relevant text into a .doc/.txt-file to ensure that it doesn't disappear (the WWW is an everchanging place). Pierre: Jeg mener ikke at have posted noget der går ud over hvad man burde have lært i folkeskolen. Hvis jeg skulle fremvise kildeangivelser for hele mit folkeskolepensum ville jeg stå over for en uoverkommelig opgave. Originally posted by ZDawg I havnt read the new posts, but i'm going to quote a freind of mine. ** Creationism Evidence Against Evolution Despite this fact, there are many arguments that provide a foundation for the creationist's position against the theory of evolution. One such argument attempts to deride the evolutionist's explanation of the process that supposedly led to the creation of life on our planet. The process describes life as developing out of basic chemicals that were present on the earth. The mechanism for the metamorphasis from molecules to life is not explained by evolutionary theory. The creationists see this lack of an explaination for the beginning of life as a major fault with evolutionary theory For one thing the Theory of Evolution does not seek to explain how life got there in the first place. Only what happened afterwards. Shoot at Molecular Biologi instead. For another God is actuall less probable: Since there is no evidence of Her existance at all, She is infinitly improbable. As stated below, there is a chance, however slim (which it is actually not (see below)), of life springing from a protoearth. This means that the "Life-from-protoearth" -theory is infinitly more probable than Genesis. Originally posted by ZDawg "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd His findings point out how improbable the spontanious formation of life is. Life is made up of O, C, H, P, S, and marginal amounts of other things (not including "Soul" (you have to search long and hard to find it among the elements). For each mg of one of those atoms there are: 1*10^-3 g * 6.02*10^23 1/mol / x g/mol = 6.02*10^20 / x atoms (where 6.02*10^23 is Avogadro's (probably misspelled) constant and x is the molar weight of the element in question (found on the Periodic Table of the Elements, which can be found in most reference books on Chemestry)). And that is pr. milligram. You were saying what about probability? BTW you still have not specified the timespan that that probability take into account. Originally posted by ZDawg Another problem that creationists point out with the theory of evolution is the lack of adequate transitional fossils. The creationists claim that if evolutionary theory is correct then there would be billions of fossils from intermediate species fullfilling the stages of evolution. This claim comes from the fact that evolution is supposed to be a continuous and gradual change; this implies that there would be many intermediate species between, for example, humans and our ancient ancestors. Duane Gish points out a specific case where evolutionary ancestors appear to be vacant from the fossil record. He points out that "...there are many fossils of very complex creatures that are soft-bodied, believed to be, originally to be jellyfish and things like that. It has been shown by the German paleontologist Seilacher, as confirmed by Stephen Jay Gould, that those creatures are very, very different from these Cambrian animals, they cannot possibly have been the ancestors of these creatures." Gish concludes that since there are no evolutionary ancestors found for these creatures, they must have been created as they appear in fossils. Gish also adds that this is just one piece of empirical evidence against the theory of evolution that stems from an incomplete transitional fossil record. I will not even bother to answer that. I have here provided a link that will adequadly explain my point: See page 5 # 13, but you will want to check out the rest of the article too. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2 Originally posted by ZDawg Evidence For Creationism Since most creationists believe the Bible provides an accurate historical record, proving the Bible correct is not as important as showing that evolution is incorrect. What the #### is this guy trying to do? In that one sentence he states a blanket disregard of every scientific method! Originally posted by ZDawg Magnetic Field Decay - The earth's magnetic field is declining. If this decline is extrapolated backwards then approximately 20,000 years ago the magnetic field would have been too strong for the earth to exist. But the Poles are also moving, which indicates a Polar Shift. We are actually overdue for one, and its effects on the magnetic field would be... interesting. Originally posted by ZDawg Dust Deposit - Interstellar dust is building up on the earth at at a rate that implies that there should be about 16 feet of nickle rich dust covering the earth. Exept that the surface of the Earth is not a static place. Erosion, eg, will deposit alot of stuff in the sea, which leads directly to my next point. Originally posted by ZDawg Dissolved Metals - The rate at which many elements (like copper, gold, and lead) enter the oceans is very rapid when compared to the current concentration of these elements presently in the oceans. There is not a concentration of these elements that is representative of their rapid influx into the ocean, therefore the earth must be much younger that a million years. Sedimentation, Black Smokers, and hydrothermal mineral deposits can explain that. Originally posted by ZDawg Rapid Cooling - The earth would have cooled to it's present temperature in a time period that is much less than billions of years. The surface would, yes, but the core? I think not. We are talking about energies so vast that they could wipe out God herself. Originally posted by ZDawg Young Comets - Comets within our solar system have a life span of about 10,000 years due to collisions with our sun and other planets. Since there are still comets in existence, our solar system and it's contents must be about 10,000 years old. New comets are continually created in the rim of our solar system. As an endpoint to my "age-of-earth" reply: Geologists have been able to locate vast, and I do mean vast, suplies of minerals using the models that you are shooting at. The availability of those models was an enourmous leap from having to go scratching the earth everywhere. This improvement suggests that the standing theories are correct. Originally posted by ZDawg If this evidence is valid then it also provides evidence against the theory of evolution. This is because evolution would require a longer period of time than 10,000 years in order to create the complex life that exists on the earth today. But your evidence is not valid (at least not in the present form), for the reasons that I have just pointed out. BTW: There is still no such thing as "Creation Science". For a full explanation read through the link I provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider First you you need to know how much you started with, you need to know that the rate of decay has been constant, and there can only so much C-14 to decay so it could not be used pass a certain date. This is great for small ranges, but over longer times it becomes less accurate. And also I think you quin-posted Shadow. Oh well I don't care. Oh no they are bringing out the Danish. HIDE! j/k Ich versteche Danish nicht. The amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere is constant (there is a slight variation, but that is inconsequensial and correctable). New C-14 is being brought to the atmosphere continously. Radon-222 is another good example: It constantly seeps up from the underground. The rate of decay is constant. As are the halflives of all radioactive isotopes. "Quin-posted"? What does that mean (I am a NOOB around here, remember)? The Danish aren't scary. At all. We have lost every war that we have been involved in for the past 2-3 centuries if not longer (not counting the Slesvigian War, which was just the matter of crushing a rebellion, or WWII, where we were conquered for an extended period of time (though we were on the victor's side, of course)). Nice German BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais Regarding all your extrapolations: You cannot extrapolate backwards that way unless you have the necessary timeframe. Extrapolating from what you have is at the core of science. The creationists' problem is that they have false facts and faulty logic (from what I have evidenced so far). Originally posted by Cjais Some things I'd like you creationists to understand: -Transitional fossiles have been found. -Evolution has been proven to occur, even in our short timespan as humans. -The chance that life could have spawned from amino acids or life was seeded from outer space in form those very same amino acids or backteria is not impossible, and very plausible. -Please leave the second law of Thermodynamics out of this, it'll do you no good. -You cannot simply take a fluctuating or non-steady variable and then extrapolate it backwards and assume it holds true. -It is pointless to question what happened before the Big Bang, or created it, since time or the laws of physics did not exist before then - it would be like questioning who created God. Concerning extrapolation: See above. Concerning the "what-was-before-the-big-bang"-question: It is certainly a most legitimate question, but it doesn't legitimize dismissal of Evolution: The Theory of Evolution says nothing about Big Bang. Besides: It is in the nature of science (at least the science of today) to always have an outer, unexplored frontier. Science, contrary to theology, has so far opened more questions with each answer that it brings. And when the day is done and the dust has settled, it would be wise to remember that science has only been around for two centuries (one of which was spent trying to persuade overzealous priest to refrain from tying scientists to sticks and burning them alive). About the rest: Nothing. I just found it worthy of repetition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais You do know that halflife means the matter will continually become halved? It can never become 0. Needless though, there are other ways to prove the earth is way older - take a look at the stars: The light they shine is millions of years old, light travels at a speed, it is not instant. Empirically, though, it will reach zero. The exponential decrease comes about because of a set percentile chance that each of the unstable nuclei decaying. I am NOT going into interstellar arguments, as I know preciously little about that field, but this one does seem sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 21, 2002 Author Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Extrapolating from what you have is at the core of science. The creationists' problem is that they have false facts and faulty logic (from what I have evidenced so far). Empirically, though, it will reach zero. The exponential decrease comes about because of a set percentile chance that each of the unstable nuclei decaying. I stand corrected. However, what I meant with exponential decrease is that it will take a heck of a long time to reach zero Long time that will show the earth is older than some thousand years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider You got that wrong. A half-life is how long it takes for something to reach 50% of what you started with. It's full-life is how long it takes to decay completely. If you have a pound of Carbon-14 and it takes 100 years to get a half pound the half-life is 100 years. You can not have a fraction of C-14. C'jais is more right than you are: Half-life is, apart from a hugely successful computer game, a value associated with exponential decrease. You, on the other hand, are assuming linear decrease. And while you can't have a faction of C-14, you can certainly have a faction of a mol of C-14, as a mol is 6.02*10^23#. Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Ok where and what? I have supplied a link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A87F9-9FD8-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F&pageNumber=1&catID=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quotation Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Hmm....With this "exponential decrease" concept, are you referring to Carbon Dating? I'm not familiar with his Scientific Jargon, could somene please explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 Originally posted by Quotation Hmm....With this "exponential decrease" concept, are you referring to Carbon Dating? I'm not familiar with his Scientific Jargon, could somene please explain? It is actually math, not science (big difference, but i'll explain that some other time if you like). It is a group of functions, called f(x)=a^x*b, where a and b are constants and x is the independent variable. Basically this means that if you increase x by a set amount f(x) will increase or decrease by a set percentage (reversible of course: If you decrease x by the same amount you, respectively, decrease or increase f(x) by the same set percentage): For example: You start out with a set amount of C-14, and wish to know how much you will have when x days have passed. Then the number of mols (1 mol = 6.02*10^23 atoms) of C-14 will be f(x) and the number of days passed will be x. C-14 has a half-life of 5k-something- years, which means that if you increase x by those 5k-something times 365.25 (since x is in days) f(x) will decrease by 50% (ie be halved, hence the name). Hope this helped. If it didn't, or you want the full definition (I don't have my reference book on me right now), send me a PM. EDIT: Your bank accounts/loans work in the same way (only f(x) (your saldo) increases with increasing x (time passed)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 By the way Shadow what background do you have in chemestry? Besides you still have to know how much you started with and the rate of decay has been a constant there can be alot that change the rate of decay(Oh such as a flood). false facts and faulty logic I have seen a lot of darwinist with the same. I find a single celled animal coming from a bunch of goo, know how to survive and maintain itself from death, know how to create more single cell animals, turn into a multi-celled animal, and do this with out any help what so ever to be unlogical. Also that the DNA code which is one of the biggest code ever known came about by 15 billion of years of error. And untill one of the following is done by random chance I will not even start to believe darwinist. Boeing 767 Computer Monkey typeing Genisis 1-12 An award winning video game Color copier Fax machine PCI 10/100 Ethernet card Playstaion 1 or 2 Game Cube X-Box And just about any electrical device. "Quin-posted"? What does that mean Posted five messages in a row which the mods would get on your case. I am expecting StormHammer or some to come in and talk about the Edit button. I get mods on my case for posting two times in a row. Try not to post so many times. The Danish aren't scary............Nice German BTW. I know they are not. And thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Boeing 767 Computer Monkey typeing Genisis 1-12 An award winning video game Color copier Fax machine PCI 10/100 Ethernet card Playstaion 1 or 2 Game Cube X-Box And just about any electrical device. If the universe is infinite, then I assure you that they ALL have been made. Just because it's a very low chance of occuring,doesnt mean it's not possible. Hell, there could be an excact copy of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion If the universe is infinite, then I assure you that they ALL have been made. Just because it's a very low chance of occuring,doesnt mean it's not possible. Hell, there could be an excact copy of you! We do not know that the universe is infinite and right now there is no way to tell. So I do not buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider We do not know that the universe is infinite and right now there is no way to tell. So I do not buy that. Meh. Then again,there's no way to prove god either,so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider By the way Shadow what background do you have in chemestry?´ Translating educational standards internationally is a pain. We have a Public School, mandatory 9 years (+2 optional buff-years). Then we have a lot of 3-year-long stuff, optional (that would be like High School, I guess). And then (I think) you can elect to go to university (spanning 4-9 years). In Public I had two years of Physics/Chemestry, but Public is of very varying quality, due to lack of external control. I finished with 11 (meaning, oficially, that I had more than 90-95% right (give or take alot, due to aforementioned lack of control). I am 1½ year into an optional 3-year, with Chemestry on all three years. I haven't got my grades for the first ½year of the 2nd year yet, but I finished the 1st with 11. Anyway, the calculations that I have presented could have been done by any reasonable able and smart student 3 months into the first year. Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Besides you still have to know how much you started with and the rate of decay has been a constant there can be alot that change the rate of decay(Oh such as a flood). No known factors effect the rates of decay of radioactive isotopes. The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is constant. It is a part of a Radon family (I think. I'm not quite sure), and Radon constantly seeps into the atmosphere. Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider I have seen a lot of darwinist with the same. So have I, unfortunatly. However, I have also seen people who advocated evolution with sound points, whereas that has so far been absent from creationism. No offence intended. Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider I find a single celled animal coming from a bunch of goo, know how to survive and maintain itself from death, know how to create more single cell animals, turn into a multi-celled animal, and do this with out any help what so ever to be unlogical. Also that the DNA code which is one of the biggest code ever known came about by 15 billion of years of error. And untill one of the following is done by random chance I will not even start to believe darwinist. Boeing 767 Computer Monkey typeing Genisis 1-12 An award winning video game Color copier Fax machine PCI 10/100 Ethernet card Playstaion 1 or 2 Game Cube X-Box And just about any electrical device. But you are referring to stuff that is imnensly much more complicated than the first living cells. The necessary plasmides (DNA) are not inanly complicated, and the lipids will, as I stated above, form the cellular membrane all by themselves, if left on their own. Essecially, therefore, the first cells would have to be able to produce said lipids, a few simple proteins, and new DNA. As you will see from my above post, there were plenty of atoms to choose from. I have provided a link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=3&catID=2 Go to point seven. *Calls in C'Jais to back claims* Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Posted five messages in a row which the mods would get on your case. I am expecting StormHammer or some to come in and talk about the Edit button. I get mods on my case for posting two times in a row. Try not to post so many times. I'll try to keep that in mind. The messages that you refer to, however, are replies to different posts. Originally posted by TyrionIf the universe is infinite, then I assure you that they ALL have been made. Just because it's a very low chance of occuring,doesnt mean it's not possible. Hell, there could be an excact copy of you! I know where you got that: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams. A book that should certainly be read, but which, alas, does not provide a lot of info on the universe. BTW: What does the little black dot on the envelope next to the thread mean? It doesn't appear in the legend at the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacky_Baccy Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Posted by ShadowTemplar BTW: What does the little black dot on the envelope next to the thread mean? It doesn't appear in the legend at the bottom. That same thing puzzled me for ages too... It's there to show you which threads you have and haven't posted in - black dot = you've posted in that thread Keep the discussion going, guys - it's a very interesting read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Originally posted by Wacky_Baccy That same thing puzzled me for ages too... It's there to show you which threads you have and haven't posted in - black dot = you've posted in that thread Keep the discussion going, guys - it's a very interesting read Thanks. On both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.