Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
68,761 - 68,780 of 113,003 Comments Last updated 8 hrs ago

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73089
Jan 29, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Moving your goal posts much?
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
"Dr. Wiens ... has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other."
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
still doesn't prove that carbon dating does not break down over a long period of time...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73090
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Carbon Dating" is only good for organic remains of about 60,000 years of age.
Items OLDER than that are dated by one of the other FORTY OTHER radiometric dating methods.
Many of which over lap and confirm each other as to generalized dates.
So why in the article that you linked, carbon dating was specifically mention as the dating method?

If it's reliable for dating only to the point of 60,000 years, why is it referenced for millions of years?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73091
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpschweitzer-bo...
"Schweitzer [The lead researcher in your link] and her team also tested for the presence of DNA within the cellular structures, using an antibody that only binds to the “backbone” of DNA. The antibody reacted to small amounts of material within the “cells” of both the T. rex and the B. canadensis. To rule out the presence of microbes, they used an antibody that binds histone proteins, which bind tightly to the DNA of everything except microbes, and got another positive result. They then ran two other histochemical stains which fluoresce when they attach to DNA molecules. Those tests were also positive. These data strongly suggest that the DNA is original, but without sequence data, it is impossible to confirm that the DNA is dinosaurian."
Your Dino DNA claim hereby refuted.
So far.
Then there can be no real evidence to trace how chickens evolved from dinosaurs without DNA evidence.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73092
Jan 29, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
still doesn't prove that carbon dating does not break down over a long period of time...
"Carbon Dating" (14C)***ABSOLUTELY*** has a shelf-life of accuracy!

READ CLOSELY!!!

"CARBON" is limited to ORGANIC material. FOSSILS...as found in dinosaurs ... are NOT made of organic material, but are MINERAL matter that has taken the place of previous bone and other organic material that has long since rotted away.

The ORGANIC material is no longer present in fossils (except in VERY rare circumstances), and DNA has NEVER been isolated in fossils.

As such, "Carbon Dating" (C-14) cannot be used on NON-CARBON material. It would also not be accurate on items found in strata over 60,000 years of age.

There are OTHER methods used to date items found in this strata with greater accuracy.

Dr. Wiens link (Christian)- provided earlier - could give you some insight.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73093
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So why in the article that you linked, carbon dating was specifically mention as the dating method?
If it's reliable for dating only to the point of 60,000 years, why is it referenced for millions of years?
<<Sigh>>

I have to wake up in 5 hours.

Read Dr. Wein's link (provided earlier).

He discusses in full the concepts behind the FORTY DIFFERENT radiometric dating methods that reach back to BILLIONS OF YEARS.

Please get a basic education when trying to debate something.

Good nite.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73094
Jan 29, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So why in the article that you linked, carbon dating was specifically mention as the dating method?
The writer of the article (NOT the scientist) was likely under the same misunderstanding as to radiometric dating that you are that EVERY such dating is "Carbon Dating".

In fact, there are (as previously stated) over 40 different methods used for different time periods.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73095
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7803373/Fossil...

"A study by ancient DNA researchers at Western Australia's Murdoch University has found the hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years. Most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."

"To establish how long bone DNA could survive, Dr Bunce and fellow researcher Morten Allentoft carbon-dated bones from 158 moa, the extinct New Zealand bird."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73096
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7803373/Fossil...
"A study by ancient DNA researchers at Western Australia's Murdoch University has found the hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years. Most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."
"To establish how long bone DNA could survive, Dr Bunce and fellow researcher Morten Allentoft carbon-dated bones from 158 moa, the extinct New Zealand bird."
there was only one method of dating mentioned, and that was one of carbon dating.

how can you determine that "hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years" from carbon dating if it breaks down at 60,000years?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73097
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The writer of the article (NOT the scientist) was likely under the same misunderstanding as to radiometric dating that you are that EVERY such dating is "Carbon Dating".
In fact, there are (as previously stated) over 40 different methods used for different time periods.
oh, didn't see your post...so your saying the article was misconstrued by the writer.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73098
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocomputers#Eng...
The development of biocomputers has been made possible by the expanding new science of nanobiotechnology. The term nanobiotechnology can be defined in multiple ways; in a more general sense, nanobiotechnology can be defined as any type of technology that uses both nano-scale materials, i.e. materials having characteristic dimensions of 1-100 nanometers, as well as biologically based materials....
"as well as biologically based materials...."
(bi·o·log·i·cal...
Of, relating to, caused by, or affecting life or living organisms...)
You really are an idiot. Bone is a biological material, so is feces, so is saliva. You need to learn English.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73099
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
there was only one method of dating mentioned, and that was one of carbon dating.
how can you determine that "hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years" from carbon dating if it breaks down at 60,000years?
Because hereditary material is carbon based, duh.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73100
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have some evidence that the universe is intelligent, I'd love to see it.
<quoted text>
You're starting to sound like Chuckles.
Just admit that you have no defence of your point.
You have been pissing your self up since 1949. Huh!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73101
Jan 29, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
How about nuclear fusion...
would you say that a human built nuclear reactor was of intelligent design?...of course, anyone would.
But to claim that a star, doing the exact same process is undemonstrated as an intelligent process, is ludicrous.
Universal Intelligence is a term used by some to describe what they see as organization, or order of the universe. It has been described as "the intrinsic tendency for things to self-organize and co-evolve into ever more complex, intricately interwoven and mutually compatible forms."

In attempting to design an artificial machine intelligence, the term universal intelligence is a descriptive term based on a mathematical formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Intell...

There is math in everything. That's the universal language and the universal intelligence of everything! It's simple matrix.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73102
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the truth of the matter is, Science has to tie ID in with religious creationism to avoid the real issue...that of an obvious intelligent process behind the Universe.
The very same ploy is used to tie Christianity in with the barbaric practices of the historical hebrewic culture. The one's that the Christ abhored and spoke out against. There can be no real argument against the true teaching of Christ,so it's one of non existence...
That why on this thread there is very little mention about the Christ.
lol It's virtually the same ploy that they use when passing a bill...you have to accept this bill with these conditions....
But faith has no conditions...and that is why it is emphasized in many of his teachings.
You write:
“Actually the truth of the matter is, Science has to tie ID in with religious creationism to avoid the real issue...that of an obvious intelligent process behind the Universe.”

Well it was the courts that made the final decision; Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creation Science (religion) rebranded. And the court was right. There is no obvious intelligence process behind the universe, and there is no obvious intelligence behind Intelligent Design.

You write:
“The very same ploy is used to tie Christianity in with the barbaric practices of the historical hebrewic <sic> culture. The one's that the Christ abhored <sic> and spoke out against. There can be no real argument against the true teaching of Christ, so it's one of non existence...”

It is my understanding that Jesus was a Hebrew and remained one through-out his life. I think you would find that the dreams and aspirations of the average Jew today is about the same as the average Christian. They just don’t believe that Jesus was the messiah…and they might be on to something.

Anyway, all of that is superfluous to Intelligent Design being religion and you’re trying to insert Christian religion into secular schools. If you want your children to know the religion, teach it in your home or send your kids to religious schools.

Just be aware that you are dumbing down your children and they might not be able to integrate into modern work situations. Also, they may be pretty mad at you when they finally find out all that religious stuff is just a big scam.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73103
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>But your so called scientific evidence can not truly and sincerely answer the basic questions of humans and how the universe emerged.
That's right. We do not know everything about how the universe emerged. Neither do you. At what point can you be honest enough to say "I don't know, nobody knows"?

Yet we do know a lot. We know how life evolved, even if we do not know how it got started. We know how gravity works, even if we are not sure how at the fundamental level. We know how light and electricity and magnetism work. About tectonic plate movement. About stellar evolution. About the Big Bang and inflation. About how particles combine to form elements which combine to form molecules and all the substances we see around us. All of this was once a mystery, and now its not.

But you try to suggest that its all valueless because science can not answer the ultimate question of existence. Religion cannot either. Think just saying "God did it" really answers that question? It does not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73104
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ztormbringer wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, actually it has, over 20 years ago experiments with contained conditions holding what science at that time considered the "primordial soup" mixture of chemicals in solution and in atmosphere subjected to high voltage electrical arc to replicate lightning produced proto amino acid chains - the building blocks of life as we know it, those when further stimulated began to organize in more complex structures - indistinguishable from the posited first living things on earth - the experiment was shut down out of fear of and pressure from religious groups and the subsequent withdrawal of funding. The data published was directly instrumental in the later successful cloning experiments.
Even as an evolutionist I cannot accept your claims. We have produced many of life's building blocks, but still have not shown how they came together in the right way to produce the first living organism.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73105
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
At what point does carbon dating break down?
And how would you really know if it did or didn't?
Carbon dating is only good for up to 60,000 years because the material it measures, C-14, decays into other materials with a half life of just over 5000 years. By the time you get past 60K, there is so little remaining that its not measurable against background noise.

For older materials, other decaying isotopes are used with half lives from thousands of years to several billion years. However, only carbon-14 is actually IN the specimen. For the older datings, they date the rocks around and above the fossil, and they can only be certain types of rock too.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73106
Jan 30, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there can be no real evidence to trace how chickens evolved from dinosaurs without DNA evidence.
We still have the fossil record. It now includes 30+ species that share feathers along with characteristics of therapod dinosaurs.

A chicken would not have evolved from a dinosaur directly. Some early bird evolved from a dinosaur - from something like that bunch above. It then evolved into a bird that evolved in a radiation to other early birds which radiated to other bird and another bird etc. Meanwhile dinosaurs also continued to evolve until they were devastated 65 million years ago.

A chicken is just one of the recent iterations of bird evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73107
Jan 30, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You have no evidence either.
There is piles of evidence, from the cosmic microwave background radiation, to the red shift, to observations of galaxies billions of light years away (essentially looking at them as they were more than 10 billion years ago, because that is how long it took for their light to reach us).

These were the EVIDENCE that led scientists to accept the Big Bang, a theory that was not popular until observation confirmed its predictions. And we can now add inflation to that, as an event that occurred just after the big bang itself.
Anonymous

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73108
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
I recommend you to read Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••