Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#89242 May 16, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Some creatures who mate for life don't live long after their mate dies, why is that?
They heard you were going to be talking about them and couldn't go on with that knowledge.

What species would you offer as an example?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#89243 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.
No, all that means is that at worst the dates for times beyond 3,500 years are not as accurate as those from times before 3,500 years ago.. There is no reason to propose a massive change in the amount of C14 produced in the upper atmosphere.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89244 May 16, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Now please tell me again the number of years you served and to what rank you acquired,
7 billion, rank: Time Lord!

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#89245 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.
You simply claim that radiometric carbon dating is only good for a few thousand years. There is definitely no science behind that.
I haven't dodged anything and you are once again showing your dishonesty. Really, how are you going to be taken seriously at all when you throw away your ethics and credibility.
Would look up the word dogma for God's sake and read the definition. Do you need your hand held and walked to the truth. Read the article I sited. It will show you how.

Quick and dirty. If you want to know what a gene does, you knock it. You do understand that genes do something don't you? I ask because I already wonder what you know of science, biology and the like. Genes express themselves as traits. Traits are characters like height, weight, intelligence, number of legs, hair color, skin texture, etc., etc., etc. If you find a trait in a particular population that isn't in other populations, then maybe there is a new gene there too. What do you think sport? We can find those genes. Amazing isn't it. Where did this gene come from? Looking at the gene will tell you something about that. Stay with me now, I know this technical stuff really mires you down. Now read the paper and any others you find. They will tell you the rest. I am assuming you can read based on this forum, but I have doubts about the comprehension so take it slow.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89246 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
...and you feel this is a relevation of some sort?
Have you not been reading the reports of the impact of mankind on Climate Change?
Okay, what, have the fundies taken over you by remote control or something??

http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/201...

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#89247 May 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, all that means is that at worst the dates for times beyond 3,500 years are not as accurate as those from times before 3,500 years ago.. There is no reason to propose a massive change in the amount of C14 produced in the upper atmosphere.
So SD, I was under the impression from reading that the limit of C14 dating was with things 50,000 years of age or younger. Is this wrong or is it as you say, just decreasing the accuracy?
HTS

Williston, ND

#89248 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, you're ignorant.
Here, check out **THIS** guy:
Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. 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
Per Dr. Wiens: "Since the half-life of carbon-14 is less than 6,000 years, it can only be used for dating material less than about 45,000 years old."
<quoted text>
Is the Mayo Clinic good enough for you?
(a surprise awaits at the end of the paragraph)
There are three types of lactose intolerance.
1. Normal result of aging for some people (primary lactose intolerance)
Normally, your body produces large amounts of lactase at birth and during early childhood, when milk is the primary source of nutrition. <<truncated>>
2. Result of illness or injury (secondary lactose intolerance)
This form of lactose intolerance occurs when your small intestine decreases lactase production after an illness, surgery or injury to your small intestine. <<truncated>>
3. Condition you're born with (congenital lactose intolerance)
It's possible, but rare, for babies to be born with lactose intolerance caused by a complete absence of lactase activity. This disorder is passed from generation to generation in a pattern of inheritance called autosomal recessive. This means that both the mother and the father must pass on the defective form of the gene for a child to be affected. Infants with congenital lactose intolerance are intolerant of the lactose in their mothers' breast milk and have diarrhea from birth. These babies require lactose-free infant formulas. Premature infants may also have lactose intolerance because of an insufficient lactase level. In babies who are otherwise healthy, this doesn't lead to malnutrition.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lactose-into...
To be honest, I was under the impression that lactose intolerance was ONLY caused by genetic mutation, so I guess I have you to thank for my education. You can now thank ME for YOUR edcuation.
Quoting one PhD is not "scientific evidence". Radiometric C-14 dating is inaccurate for 45,000 years for four main reasons...
1. no calibration curve can be calculated, because no artifact proven by historical data exists that is 45,000 years old.
2. Given the short half life of C-14, the amount of C-14 in a 45,000 year old sample would be very scant. Any slight miscalculation would result in a potentially big swing in the calculation.
3. It is impossible to know the level of C-14 in the atmosphere 45,000 years ago. What basis do you claim for assuming that the level has remained unchanged for 45,000 years?
4. It cannot be assumed that no leaching of C-14 took place over the entire period of time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89249 May 16, 2013
Jenji wrote:
First of all let me say that creationism does not run counter to natural selection. However, evolution DOES run counter to biological science! Any time you have a naturally occurring change in a genetic structure, it's called a 'mutation' and to this day mutations are never a positive thing. They result in D formations, diseases, and things like that.
They also result in AIDS resistance, malaria resistance, citrate metabolism, cecal valves...

Fact is that ALL of us are born with around 125 to 175 mutations that our parents do NOT have. And in general most of us don't suffer any problems.

Creationists on the other hand prefer to ignore reality and argue against a caricature of evolution instead of dealing with the real thing.

So quite simply you are wrong.
Jenji wrote:
And besides that, when I stand on a mountaintop at sunset, just as God created me and watching the world around me shift from day to night as the place where I'm standing passes through the terminator line on the planet's surface, I see nothing but evidence of creation.
Actually all you see is evidence of the world around you shift from day to night as the place where I'm standing passes through the terminator line on the planet's surface.

That doesn't mean God didn't do it. But it doesn't mean it did either.
Jenji wrote:
Sorry, but I don't see things that used to be pond scum that somehow decided to become trees and the other millions of life forms before me!
Despite what you are capable of seeing, the fact is that life began with rather simple organisms and gradually changed from there. This is what the fossil record and our DNA structure indicates.

If you like you can believe that that's how God did it.

Or you can believe God is a liar. It's up to you.
HTS

Williston, ND

#89250 May 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You simply claim that radiometric carbon dating is only good for a few thousand years. There is definitely no science behind that.
There is no science behind a methodology that cannot prove accuracy through calibration curves with known standards.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89251 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's 45 seperate,individual scientific papers that address the mutation that determine lactose (in)tolerance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
So in other words, YES.

Cue HTS goalpost movement. Sort of akin to rapid bowel movement.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89252 May 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, I see you having some difficulty with this. Let me summarize the available information...
There are systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns.
I hope this helps.
Still don't care Mikey...

Wait. Now you're confusing me.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89253 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.
First, carbon dating works for a minimum of 50,000 years.

Second, belief is redundant when one has evidence.

Third, HOW do YOU know??? Where you THERE?!?

Duh.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89254 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What methology was used to date the mummy, and what is the proof that it is accurate and reproducible?
We put it in a dress, send it to your door, then do it again the next day. We record that both times you got lucky.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89255 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dodge, Dan.
You didn't explain how anyone has documented that the capacity to digest lactose is the result of a mutation. All you've presented is raw speculation.
"Dodge" is your first, second, third, middle, fifth, sixth and last names.

Level 2

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#89256 May 16, 2013
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89257 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.
You're a reality denying fundamentalist reality-denying young Earth creationist who thinks Goddidit with magic cuz the Bible is troo cuz teh Bible sez so.

Then you demonstrate massive hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty by asking for evidence which you cannot address and never had any interest in in the first place.

Fundie heal thyself.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89258 May 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, all that means is that at worst the dates for times beyond 3,500 years are not as accurate as those from times before 3,500 years ago.. There is no reason to propose a massive change in the amount of C14 produced in the upper atmosphere.
But you're not taking into account the "How do YOU know??? Where you THERE?!?" factor.

Because at any time in the past before you were born an invisible magic Jew wizard could have poofed anything to be totally different and leave a grand total of ZERO evidence in the process.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89259 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting one PhD is not "scientific evidence". Radiometric C-14 dating is inaccurate for 45,000 years for four main reasons...
1. no calibration curve can be calculated, because no artifact proven by historical data exists that is 45,000 years old.
2. Given the short half life of C-14, the amount of C-14 in a 45,000 year old sample would be very scant. Any slight miscalculation would result in a potentially big swing in the calculation.
3. It is impossible to know the level of C-14 in the atmosphere 45,000 years ago. What basis do you claim for assuming that the level has remained unchanged for 45,000 years?
4. It cannot be assumed that no leaching of C-14 took place over the entire period of time.
So I take it you did not read Dr. Wiens' paper that I referenced. He addressed, and refuted ALL the points you got wrong above.

And Dr. Wiens is by no means the ONLY professional geologist that is confident of the results found by the various radiometric methods used.

So I guess I have to choose between the BOATLOADS of professional geologists and other scientists that discovered, and improved upon the different radiometric methods of dating (all methods that agree with each other, btw) or ONE patently biased, clearly uneducated individual on an anonymous debate blog (ummmm...that would be YOU).

Not a difficult decision.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89260 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting one PhD is not "scientific evidence".
No, quoting evidence is evidence. But that's utterly irrelevant to your position. Plus we can point out that PhD's who accept scientific reality are in abundance, so the amount of PhD's is irrelevant. Again you are being disingenuous.
HTS wrote:
Radiometric C-14 dating is inaccurate for 45,000 years for four main reasons...
1. no calibration curve can be calculated, because no artifact proven by historical data exists that is 45,000 years old.
Historical data is irrelevant. Other dating techniques can be used to compare, and *when used correctly* they tend to line up.
HTS wrote:
2. Given the short half life of C-14, the amount of C-14 in a 45,000 year old sample would be very scant. Any slight miscalculation would result in a potentially big swing in the calculation.
See above.
HTS wrote:
3. It is impossible to know the level of C-14 in the atmosphere 45,000 years ago. What basis do you claim for assuming that the level has remained unchanged for 45,000 years?
Geological record. What basis are you assuming that it HAS changed?

Goddidit with magic.
HTS wrote:
4. It cannot be assumed that no leaching of C-14 took place over the entire period of time.
It cannot be assumed that leaching of C-14 took place over the entire period of time with no evidence. This game is fun!!!

What's the "scientific theory" of Goddidit with magic?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89261 May 16, 2013
mybackfkinghurts wrote:
PROFESSOR X wrote
Lies, lies and more lies for Jesus, because lying for Jesus is good and just ignore the 9th Commandment. By the way, you were refuted from page 1. Until your next drive by then.(shrug)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ohio Sam sucks Co ck 4 min Sam 3
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min Wolftracks 148,961
Truck containing 36,000 pounds of Crisco stolen 10 min Are you sure 34
During Obama's Speech at Democratic Campaign Ra... 24 min Mitt s Santorum S... 21
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 24 min a_visitor 22,218
Word Association (Mar '10) 29 min White Fire 16,109
News System Rigged 36 min Enter Username 3
True or False Game 2 hr Vector aka Victor... 377
Family shocked after texting dead grandmother, ... 3 hr Protoham 9
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 5 hr Juju Beans 6,829

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE