Mandalorian54 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 what the hell are you talking about. how does something older differ in a way that carbon dating can be tested on it and not on other stuff? no I didn't read the other freekin post It's so long I can't be botherd I don't have all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 what the hell are you talking about. how does something older differ in a way that carbon dating can be tested on it and not on other stuff? Ok, the half-life of a parent isotope in C(14) is around 5,587 years. It takes around 70,000 years before all those isotopes dissappear, which makes that C(14) (which has no been transformed into some other substance) unusable because it is no longer C(14). This explains it. In other words, after 70,000 years there is no more usable C(14) in that "patch", only decay. Originally posted by Mandolorian54 no I didn't read the other freekin post It's so long I can't be botherd I don't have all day. Huh? Are you talking to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 There are more than one method of isotope dating. Carbon dating has a comparatively tiny range when measured with the likes of Potassium-Argon and others. If you ask Skinwalker nicely, I'm sure he'll educate you on this. And no, one bad example proves nothing when measured against the countless of times isotope dating has worked flawlessly, within prediction. Don't make me beat you with the Big Bad Book of Logic, Mandalorian54. Reborn, shall we take your recent posts as a public statement of you accepting evolution as fact? If so, may I congratulate you on taking the first step into a larger, and most certainly older, world *Slithers away* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 but evolution is so bogus it's just not possible. And creation is? Of course, I can understand that evolution might seem a bit strange if you don't know enough about it. But the world is extremely "strange" anyway. I mean, would you ever belive it if someone told you 99,9+% of your computer is just emptyness when you were 7 years old? Doubtfully. But it's still true. Chemistry in general is "strange" because it turns a lot of your beliefs about the world upside down, but still we know it is true, and it all fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Reborn, shall we take your recent posts as a public statement of you accepting evolution as fact? If so, may I congratulate you on taking the first step into a larger, and most certainly older, world Ah well C'jais see, through this thread I have come to realize that, I don't think that God cares if you believe that He made the universe in 6 actual days or in 15 billion years. The Bible was not written for Christians to debate about that. It was written to show that God really wants a relationship with me and you and anybody. So in ohter words C'jai, yes I have stepped into a larger world of normalism and of my faith. And C'jais it may seem strange to you, but you were the one that helped me grow my faith and come to realize what I just told you. You C'jais, an atheist, helped me in my walk of faith, and for that, I thank you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Isotope dating is very accurate, given the timescale. Granted, they may be a few millions years off the scale when they're into the billions but this is to be expected, and is of no matter really. But earlier you said that: Originally posted by C'jais it can only go back 50.000 years [/b] So, don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand this, but are you stating different dating methods here? and btw some of this stuff you're saying is making sense, I just tend to disagree with you on some points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan But earlier you said that: So, don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand this, but are you stating different dating methods here? and btw some of this stuff you're saying is making sense, I just tend to disagree with you on some points. A long time ago, in a thread far, far away.... I made the following post: I noticed in going through this thread (took a while, whew!) that there was some typical "dating methods" arguments being made. I'd like to point out that Carbon dating is but one method that scientists use to date a find. Many times this can be done by merely examining the geologic strata that the find was located in. For instance, if I go behind my house, I'll find clam shells that are between 60 - 90 million years old. I know this is the case, because the Limestone formation here, known as the Austin Chalk, is that old. If I needed to be more specific, I could use many other techniques: Carbon 14 - works best on wood and plant material, less well on animal remains, such as bone. This is because it measures the amount of carbon-14 isotope remaining in the sample. C-14 has a half-life of 5, 570 years, making the identification a matter of mathematics. However, this is limited to artifacts of less than 70, 000 years. Potassium / Argon dating - Potassium 40 decays into argon gas at a known rate. When a volcano erupts lava the lava cools forming mineral crystals. The argon gas is trapped in the crystals. The relative proportions of Potassium 40 and argon gas are measured. From this the time since the lava was formed can be calculated. Uranium / Lead dating - Uranium decays into other elements at a known rate. There are intermediate elements produced which eventually decay into the final elements. There are two main atomic isotopes U235 and U238. They decay at different rates and go through different intermediate steps. These rates are constant. The different rates of decay act as a cross-checking mechanism to make sure the dating is consistent. The range of this dating method can be used to date geological deposits over 4 billion years of age. There are many other methods as well... Fission Track, amino racemization, Thermoluminescent dating, and paleomagnatism. The latter being where one would examine the alignment of magnetic molecules in relation to the magnetic north. Basically, mag north changes and by matching alignments with those of known dates one can determine the local date. Most of these methods are used in conjunction with each other. Frequently, specimens are dated by comparing to specimens above and/or below the specimen in the strata it was found. Scientist take into account tectonic and glacial movements as well as other factors. Scientists make mistakes... but they hold each other accountable by posting their findings in peer-reviewed journals and get "flamed" in public for being sloppy with research, so that helps keep them accountable. When mistakes are noted or found, their theories are revised. I forget what the fundalmentalist claim is for the age of the planet, but it is ridiculously low in that it doesn't account for the massive amount of time the Earth needed to get to the point it is Geologically. If you were to make a scale chart of the geologic timeline in which the time of man was the width of a dime, the chart would rival the tallest buildings of many cities. In geology, nothing happens fast. Even earthquakes are the result of millions of years of tension and stress. I can source most of this if anyone wants it (I typed most from memory, some from a set of notes I had from a class). I also noticed that I happened to get the last word on that thread... Ahem.... Anyway, that post was on page 4 and about 3/4 the way down. Here's the URL. Cheers SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker I also noticed that I happened to get the last word on that thread... Ahem.... I also noticed this. While amusing, it was hardly surprising Good work, good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 I'm pullin out of this thread... i've come to a decision. C'jais read my last post on page 7 to know how you helped me in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 yah, thats what I thought, but I found a pretty interesting site... herehttp://www.icr.org/ of course Im not gonna just cut and paste random things, are you crazy?Lol, anyway you can take a look, it's very good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan yah, thats what I thought, but I found a pretty interesting site... herehttp://www.icr.org/ of course Im not gonna just cut and paste random things, are you crazy?Lol, anyway you can take a look, it's very good... It seemed laden with heavy-handed, anti-evolution articles. Very few of the ones I looked at (which, admittedly, was few) sourced any data, but rather proposed how the world would fit their paradigm without regard to observed evidence. There also seemed to be an attempt to refute evidence observed by research as though this were a danger to their faith. One article even compared the recent PBS series 'evolution' to the attack on 9/11. These two "assaults" have similar histories and goals. Theories of evolution do not seek to replace religion. Evolution is not a religion. Nor is a creation story (religions other than 'christianity' also have creation stories) science. In reviewing the posts in this thread, I detect a very ethnocentric vibe from the anti-evolution viewpoints. These posts seem to be written strictly from a 'christian' perspective and through a 'christian' lens. The posts from the evolution side of the debate do not seem limited by paradigm and dogma, but rather open to new ideas based upon evidence. Perhaps it could be argued that many proponents of evolution seem to be on a 'crusade,' however, it cannot be suggested that we view evolution as anything more than a theory. It is not a religion and does not seek to destroy religious faith. Theories of evolution (there are more than one: some are contridictory, many are interconnected) seek only to explain Earth history using the best body of evidence that can be obtained from observation. Scientists welcome debate. They welcome opposing views. This is how theories are refined, corrected, and kept up to date. It is the refusal to accept evidence as being valid that confounds many scientists. Most opponents to evolution seek to point out that methods that determine, define, or discover evidence are not fool-proof and have margins for error. This is true. But this is true in nearly any data-collecting device or process. I'm reminded of the analogy of the police radar. It is accepted to have a margin for error that changes with conditions of use: weather, vector of travel, last calibration, etc. However, it is also considered that the margins for error are acceptable and traffic control by police radar is valid. (the errors do generally favor the driver, btw). Science does not seek to replace religion. On the contrary, many scientists are religious. Evolution and god can exist together. If life on Earth evolved from single-celled organisms, it cannot be said that evolution was not god's tool of creation. It can only be said that if god used evolution as a method of creation, he hid his tracks very well. If I were to accept a god, it would be one that clever. SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker are not fool-proof and have margins for error. This is true. But this is true in nearly any data-collecting device or process. Skip that "nearly". It is not, according to standing physical theories, possible to obtain 100% accurate date (I think it's called Heisenberg uncertainty, or something like that)... And nothing is foolproof (Murphy's law). Good example BTW. Oh, and while science is not trying to remove religion, it's doing a pretty fine job of it: There is a pretty neat correlation between the educational level of the population and the influence of the priesthood, or so I've heard. Science makes people think for themselves... Religion seeks to unify thought. And the site: There can be made no compromises with science without compromising the science. By integrating other methods into the scientific one you can only reduce its value. They have tried to do so. You do the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Before I'll start tearing into the flood myth, I want to make sure I understand this right: The Flood, as described in the Bible, is what literally happened. The ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. If we can once and for all prove that the flood story really having occured is impossibility, we can also nail the literal interpretation of the Bible's Genesis as false through and through. Am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Just wondering where plants come along in the evolutionary scale, they are living too, and there cells are much different than ours, so did humans and plants share a common ancestor? Did these cells decide to just stay in one area, and through luck happen to all have the same cell structure, and then, they all developed special sun-absorbing receptors that could give them a chemical reaction for energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan Just wondering where plants come along in the evolutionary scale, they are living too, and there cells are much different than ours, so did humans and plants share a common ancestor? Did these cells decide to just stay in one area, and through luck happen to all have the same cell structure, and then, they all developed special sun-absorbing receptors that could give them a chemical reaction for energy? Which part of 'algae' (sp?) did you fail to hear in Biology class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Which part of 'algae' (sp?) did you fail to hear in Biology class? So why is there still algae? Obviously plants were a better evolutionary design, so how is there still algea, wouldn't natural selection pick off this uneeded, and inferior species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan So why is there still algae? Obviously plants were a better evolutionary design, so how is there still algea, wouldn't natural selection pick off this uneeded, and inferior species? "If man descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" We've already answered this dung, and I'm not going to repeat myself more than necessary. Check the thread. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais "If man descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" We've already answered this dung, and I'm not going to repeat myself more than necessary. Check the thread. Please. Well I checked the thread(that was the first time Ive read through all the posts) And I noticed that the answer was that animals only need to evolve in a certain area, so that is the area they become more advanced in: "Why are there still monkies...." I thought this was obvious to pick up: The so called "monkies" that we evolved from needed to evolve to survive to their surrondings. We can all agree that every monkey in the world does not exist in one exact location. Lets say the monkies from Africa needed to evolve so that they could use their hands for more purposes (using tools, throwing rocks, etc, etc). While this is going on, the monkies in the rainforest are having a swell ole time living in the trees, they have no need to evolve. Basic Summary: You need evolution if you want your ancestors to survive. If one subject of a species evolves it does not mean that every subject of that specie will evolve as well. FIRST OF ALL, even evolution doesn't say humans came from monkeys, get the facts straight for your argument, Secondly your ancestors can't survive, they're gone, or at least older than you, the word is DECENDANT not ancestor... anyway.... Secondly, why don't all monkeys have the same needs? If it's possible for African monkeys to throw rocks, why can't the South American monkeys use it? Third, things don't evolve out of neccesity, animals don't "need " an extra toe, and over time all of their decendants have an extra toe. It's a mutation that gets passed on because it helps that organism to survive better, and therefore have a better chance of passing on its mutated genes. You can't will mutation, or evolution, so you can't help those decendants survive by gaining a toe, it will just happen if that makes them better. I guess what I'm asking is how did that one-celled amoeba(sp?) eventually reproduce, and one of its mutated offspring happen to be an algae? Plants and animals are so different, how would they happen to become that different? Plus, algae live in the same areas as plants(almost everywhere), wouldn't the obviously more evolved species win out, and dominate the algae? C'jais-you said way back(I never saw this b4): "I can prove we descended from a common ancestor to apes. I can prove all life didn't exist simultaneusly at one point in history. I can prove evolution happens on a daily basis right now. I can prove the earliest forms of life were very primitive and gradually evolved to the currents forms." OK, prove it,(besides the daily mutation/"evolution" thing) You can just post URLs like you usually do, but I'd like some specific proof of these arguments. Also, while looking through posts I noticed that several times, C'jais, you said that our Bible tells us not to believe in the Genesis, where does it say that? (I think you're taking it out of context;) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan FIRST OF ALL, even evolution doesn't say humans came from monkeys, get the facts straight for your argument, Actually there are many theories that comprise the study of evolution. Evolution in and of it self is not a theory. Different organisms have evolved in many ways, some continuing the line of their species, others mutating to create new species. Much of this has to do with environmental variables that change gradually, or sometimes rapidly in the case of an Ice Age (though 'rapid' refers to thousands of years rather than millions). Take, for instance, the tortoises that inhabit the various islands that make up the Galapagos chain. On one island, the tortoises have longer necks that can reach up high and on another they do not. The casual observer would note that these Tortoises appear to be the same species and, in fact, they are. However, in recent years (perhaps a few thousand to a few hundred thousand), the environment on one island includes abundant vegetation near ground level. On the other, the vegetation is higher up. Care to guess which Island has the long neck version of the Tortoise? Somewhere in history, there was a tortoise or two with a longer neck (we see physical traits this diverse in humans as well). They were able to continue to graze the higher vegetation whereas the short neck tortoises went hungry. Gradually, as the tortoises mated, these traits were passed on from one generation to the next. The lineage with the long necks were able to survive, the short necked lineage died off. Again... this is something you can see in humans. Physical traits are passed on to decendants. If it became a matter of survival for a human being to be able to do lay-ups (as in American Basketball) in order to survive, the decendants of Shaq, Jordan, etc. would have the advantage. Shorter humans that couldn't survive long enough to reproduce would not pass on the "short" traits. Originally posted by Psydan I guess what I'm asking is how did that one-celled amoeba(sp?) eventually reproduce, and one of its mutated offspring happen to be an algae? Plants and animals are so different, how would they happen to become that different? Plus, algae live in the same areas as plants(almost everywhere), wouldn't the obviously more evolved species win out, and dominate the algae? I honestly don't know the answer to your first couple of questions there. I do recall it being discussed in my college biology class, but the details elude me. If I still have my notes, I'll get back to you. However, the last question I think I can comment on. Species domination does occur on a frequent basis in different ecosystems. I've seen ponds where algae blooms kill off many of the other organisms and I've also seen ecosystems where the algae was nearly depleted. I would suggest also that the algae we have today is evolved from the algae of the past. Also, just because some members of a species mutate, it does not mean that the entire species mutates. (BTW, "mutation" in the genetic sense is not like the "X-Men" and science fictions sense... no monsters here) Use the tortoise example I mentioned above. I've no doubt that, eventually, the two groups of tortoises will develop into full fledged species of their own... if they are not already. I cannot remember if the two different groups were able to reproduce with fertile offspring. The hardest thing for man to get past in order to fully comprehend evolution of species is time. We have difficulty making comparisions of time that span millions of years and understanding the slowness with which evolution occurs. I will attempt to find the information about single and simple celled organisms mutating to plants and animals... I recall that within that lecture there was also mention of organisms that resemble both plants and animals... and they exist today. Perhaps one was the hydra.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pnut_Man Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan FIRST OF ALL, even evolution doesn't say humans came from monkeys, get the facts straight for your argument, Perhaps that's why I put monkeys in parantheses... I saw someone else above saying evolution stated that man came from monkeys.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Skin Walker, I got all that, if you'll notice I even mentioned that in my post(not the exact tortoise example, but I did state the basic idea. ) Also, They, the scientific community, has said that the fossil records show a common ancestor between monkeys and humans, not a monkey-to-human evolution, and that was really what I was talking about. BTW, If you can find that info it would be great, I think this whole thing is pretty fascinating. And Pnut I was more refering to how C'jais was using it, he didn't really bother to go in depth about this subject, but thanks for lettin me know . Lol, just wondering why humans haven't developed photosythetic cells yet, because that would be pretty nifty:).(This remark was purely in fun, I'm not requiring any proof about time and cell structure, etc. for this one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pnut_Man Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 I think as of now humans have no use for the photosynthetic cells.. Sure you might find a rare percentage of people that actually absorb energy from the sun, but that's mighty damn rare..heh.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan FIRST OF ALL, even evolution doesn't say humans came from monkeys, get the facts straight for your argument I never said that. I said we have a common ancestor, which is what evolution teaches. Secondly your ancestors can't survive, they're gone, or at least older than you Errrr...... just because a species is older than another, it's impossible for it to have survived to this day? Right. the word is DECENDANT not ancestor Our ape ancestor. The ape ancestor's descendants. I can't see where I've used this word incorrectly. Secondly, why don't all monkeys have the same needs? If it's possible for African monkeys to throw rocks, why can't the South American monkeys use it? Another switch of examples and beating the same drum. I've answered this before. Third, things don't evolve out of neccesity, animals don't "need " an extra toe, and over time all of their decendants have an extra toe. It's a mutation that gets passed on because it helps that organism to survive better, and therefore have a better chance of passing on its mutated genes. You can't will mutation, or evolution, so you can't help those decendants survive by gaining a toe, it will just happen if that makes them better. I'm sorry, this paragraph didn't make any sense to me at all. What are you trying to get across? That evolution happens? Plants and animals are so different, how would they happen to become that different? "Mice and humans are so very different, how could they possibly be related?" Are you done with your God-gapping yet? OK, prove it,(besides the daily mutation/"evolution" thing) DNA analysis, field research, observation of mutation and species differentation, the fossil record and simple logic. You can just post URLs like you usually do, Right. Of course I do. I haven't written half of all my posts in these debates to get this crap thrown at me. But since you're directly asking for a thorough link, here's one: http://www.talkorigins.org (very neat site, Skin btw.) The site appears down for me right now. Weirdness -C'jais C'jais, you said that our Bible tells us not to believe in the Genesis, where does it say that? (I think you're taking it out of context;) ) Since I wrote this "several times", it should be a small feat to just quote me on this. I'd like to see it in context, at any rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 The one, glaring problem with creationists as a whole is that they never take up the task of actually researching and testing their hypothesis. They're content with sitting back and finding loopholes in evolution, instead of going out and doing some actual field research which supports their interpretation of the Genesis. This would work fine, if there was only these two ideas of how the earth was created. Unfortunately, there are many. As it stands, we have one tested theory, backed up by the laws of physics, and a million of old creation stories, all of which are contending for the spot when evolution is disproven. The "t-key" on my keyboard is broken, I'm sorry if there are any missing t's in my posts -C'jais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais "Mice and humans are so very different, how could they possibly be related?" Actually, Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, but only a few hundred are unique to one species or the other. What I find fascinating is that DNA records indicate that mice and men went their separate ways about 75 million years ago. Mice DNA mutates more than twice as quickly as human, making them more adaptable as a species. That's not very unexpected, since rodents are a "problem" the world over. Anyway... while we are "very different" we're actually very similar as well. Gotta love genetics. SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.