Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164795 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119911 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution builds upon abiogenesis (another unproven theory) in which the first simple life form came into being.
Evolution does no such thing.

Chemical abiogenesis is completely separate from the evolution of species.

HOWEVER the first life came about (abiogenesis, alien seeding, Jesus saying "POOF!"), we know conclusively that subsequently species evolved one from the other in nested hierarchies by means of genetic variation plus natural selection.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
(Funny we are not seeing abiogenesis today).
??? Life is already here. No need for the original abiogenesis to take place.

And the earth is greatly different than it was 4 billion years ago.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are saying there is not a necessity to get more complex. Then how did it become more complex?
It's not NECESSARY for successive generations to be more complex. Sometimes they are LESS complex, as polymath pointed out for example, the situation of cave fish losing their eyesight because they don't NEED it in the dark. Is that getting MORE complex or less complex?
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said it is faith. But until there is conclusive evidence for evolution, why should I believe it.
We don't "believe" in evolution, like you "believe" your Genesis myth as literal, factual history. We ACCEPT the science behind evolution because there is a mountain of evidence and experimentation to support it. If there were no such evidence, we would not accept evolution. You, however, would still accept your Bible stories, because you've been TOLD they are true.

And in SCIENCE, there has been conclusive evidence to support evolution for at least 150 years. It is only in some fundamentalist Christian sects that it is said "there is no evidence," by folks working an ignorant religious agenda.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119912 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another question for you. We have been culturing bacteria for at least 150 years. In that time approx 4 million generations of bacteria would have been born from one initial bacteria. What have we to show for all those generations? I will tell you.......... bacteria. No change to another kind in 4 million generations.
You haven;t a CLUE what you are saying here.

"Bacteria" is NOT the name of a SPECIES.

There are 8 main taxonomic ranks (in descending order):
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species (human beings, i.e. homo sapiens, are a species)

Bacteria is the name of one of the broadest possible classifications in biology -- it is one of the three Domains:
Archaea
Bacteria
Eukarya (Eukarya = ALL animals, plants, fungi)

Within their biological Domain of "Bacteria," bacterial species are as different from one another as a dog, a giraffe and an oak tree are different within THEIR Domain of Eukaryotes.

There are ZILLIONS of different species of bacteria, equivalent to (within THEIR domain of Eukaryotes) different species of animals, plants, fungi, etc.

So if we observe bacteria in the lab evolving into new SPECIES of bacteria, that is a strong demonstration of speciation, or what Christians mistakenly call "macro-evolution."

A bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119913 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
.
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
.
If there was measurable C14 in the fossil why would C14 dating be a wrong method? Because it didn't give the assumed date?
.
<quoted text>
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.
.
You need to address this to polymath and others who are saying evolution is not an upward moving (meaning more complex) force.
.
Even so I don't see a clear indication from you as to the certainty that evolution has shown a progression to better suited and more complex organisms. This would seem obvious to me if we are to assume that simple amino acids eventually evolved to life as we know it today.
Nope, now you are being a lying idiot. There have been cases, usually by creatards, of purposefully wrong uses of radiometric dating. Sometimes scientists have found that the method does not actually work. The first time a method does not work usually requires additional investigation. Once you know why a method does not always work that mistake can be avoided in the future.

For example it was found that you cannot date sea life very early. And that is because sea life does not get its carbon from the atmosphere, which is relatively "new" C14, but from carbon that is already in sea water. Much of that carbon has already been there thousands of years and that will give false old ages.

Do you understand this?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119914 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
.
How does this retard the decay of C14?
It doesn't. Do you understand how C14 dating is done? One of the first steps is determining the amount of C14 in your sample. If there is a background level of C14 in the environment due to local radioactivity, that will mean there is MORE C14 in the sample than would be appropriate for the actual age of the sample. That would mean you get a a younger age than is correct.

So, for example, if a sample starts out with 1 milligram of C14 and the background produces a constant level of 1 microgram of C14, you can get very accurate ages for the first 5 or 6 half-lives, but no date for 10 half-lives would be accurate. That is because the amount from the original sample would be about the same as the amount from background when 10 half-lives have passed.

So the C14 continues to decay, but it is also made by the background radioactivity, so an equilibrium is reached. Once the amount of C14 from the original sample is comparable to the background amount, the results will be 'bogus', even though they will be quite fine previously.
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
.
What you would call a regression is what I call a pattern of general deterioration in life.
You asked for an example of 'regression' and I provided it. There are other examples of increased complexity.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119915 Aug 11, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven;t a CLUE what you are saying here.
"Bacteria" is NOT the name of a SPECIES.
There are 8 main taxonomic ranks (in descending order):
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species (human beings, i.e. homo sapiens, are a species)
Bacteria is the name of one of the broadest possible classifications in biology -- it is one of the three Domains:
Archaea
Bacteria
Eukarya (Eukarya = ALL animals, plants, fungi)
Within their biological Domain of "Bacteria," bacterial species are as different from one another as a dog, a giraffe and an oak tree are different within THEIR Domain of Eukaryotes.
There are ZILLIONS of different species of bacteria, equivalent to (within THEIR domain of Eukaryotes) different species of animals, plants, fungi, etc.
So if we observe bacteria in the lab evolving into new SPECIES of bacteria, that is a strong demonstration of speciation, or what Christians mistakenly call "macro-evolution."
A bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria.
wow you all have been busy here. I went back 10 pages and couldn't find where i loeft off so i will start here.

you say "a bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria".
using your word "kind", what "kind" of bacteria have we seen change into a new "kind" of bacteria"
1) what "kind" did it start as?
2) what changes happened?
3) how did the changes change it genetically?
4) how did the changes change it's classifications?
5) what "new kind" did the "starting kind" turn into?

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119916 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
In the first place they weren't scientists because scientists will not use C14 on specimen older than 50,000 years. It is 101 level of understanding when you study these methods on university as a geologist. NO scientists has EVER applied C14 on any fossil EVER. Because those "scientists" were creationists. Who tried to discredit the method. Only creationists are that stupid and ignorant. C14 is only used in archaeology and at most in very young
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
If there was measurable C14 in the fossil why would C14 dating be a wrong method? Because it didn't give the assumed date?
Well, what do you think will happen when you apply a method on a specimen that is not suited for it? Answer: you get false readings. Secondly, C14 is not used on fossils. The reason for it is that the method requires the original carbon from the died organism still to be in place. In >99% of the fossils this is not the case. Fossils are re-mineralizations by replacement of the original tissue by minerals from the surrounding soil.

Apart form their age, also the absence of the original carbon is a no-go for C14.
Hence, is someone dated a fossil, it should have been someone who has no idea of the method. For instance and particularly creationists.

Now it is PERFECTLY possible to find C14 in very old, former organic remnants. For instance, coal and oil. Both coal and oil are buried dead organisms after anaerobic decomposition, compression and geothermal heating. They do contain the original organic carbon but they tend to lay in underground pockets where there is natural radioactivity around. C14 is formed in the atmosphere by nitrogen isotopes being bombarded by cosmic radiation. Underground the nitrogen in the coal and oil layers is bombarded by the natural radioactive radiation.

THEREFORE, when taking samples for C14 dating, one of the methodological prerequisites is to measure the natural radioactive radiation on that spot. when it exceeds the average, natural radioactive background radiation, the specimen is discarded.
SunductionZone wrote:
<quoted text>
And it seems that you are forgetting there are two main driving forces of evolution. There is both random variation and natural selection. Natural selection is what allows evolution to adapt to new environments. It is what keeps "devolution" from occurring.

[QUOTE who="SunductionZone" ]<quoted text>
You need to address this to polymath and others who are saying evolution is not an upward moving (meaning more complex) force.
Again you have reading issues.
"Evolution is not an upward moving" is not an equivalent of "devolution is not occurring".

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119917 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even so I don't see a clear indication from you as to the certainty that evolution has shown a progression to better suited and more complex organisms. This would seem obvious to me if we are to assume that simple amino acids eventually evolved to life as we know it today.
In the first place the first life is not thought to have emerged from amino acids but from self-replicating RNA (the most prevalent hypothesis of abiogenesis -note - NOT evolution theory). RNA is not an amino acid.
this is not a major flaw here in this context but please stay tuned with what's ACTUALLY been said and - particularly - NOT what creationisms THINKS what has been said.

Evolution does not show a progression to "better" suited organisms.
The only thong happening is that individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements will have better survival and reproduction chances and will pass on their genes to the next generation. Species change when the environmental conditions change and require different traits.

I could live with the adjective "more complex" because it is neutral and doesn't presuppose unnecessary judgements.

The complexness of life is caused by life itself.
Because other species around are ALSO part of the environmental conditions. For instances, species that are on the menu. Or predators. Or infectious parasites.

When the first diversification occurred, life became self-affecting.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119918 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Firstly this is a free forum, you are not required to attend.
Secondly you are preaching yourself "Nihil curo de ista tua stulta"
Thirdly you are not required to answer.
You certainly got the third down good, eh Messy?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119919 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Well lets see, if the C14 was found in the quantities expected (in this case zero) then it would validate the dating by strata. But if the quantites are not found in the expected range, then maybe one would reconsider the strata dating method.
Or maybe by using something that is only expected to work on samples 50,000 years or less on samples expected to be out of its range would be pointless as the results would be unreliable no matter what showed up.

You're using a car to swim. Unless you're James Bond you've alread sunk.
messianic114 wrote:
Oh my bad, that would be following the evidence and the scientific method which requires testing.
Yep. Testing via appropriate measures, which has already been explained to you to be not appropriate. But why are you pretending that this an issue for you when testing isn't relevant to your position?
messianic114 wrote:
Only to you, who would disregard the fact that this isn't occurring as it should. Oh my bad again, this would be testing a theory.
And since this point was already addressed by me, to you, personally, months ago, multiple times over, and I'm STILL waiting for you to address it, then yes it is your bad.

Since it's been tested and passed.
messianic114 wrote:
I don't ignore your posts I question them. So far you have not been answering the most obvious of questions.
So far I've answered every point you've raised to me. As has everyone else. But you do ignore the posts because you ignore what addresses your points, only to go onto a different one or repeat a fallacious point we addressed already. If you were honest there would come a point where you would stop responding with just questions each time and address the flaws in your position. Since you never can, this means your posts can never make a valid point. Oh well.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119920 Aug 11, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place the first life is not thought to have emerged from amino acids but from self-replicating RNA (the most prevalent hypothesis of abiogenesis -note - NOT evolution theory). RNA is not an amino acid.
this is not a major flaw here in this context but please stay tuned with what's ACTUALLY been said and - particularly - NOT what creationisms THINKS what has been said.
what did the RNA originate/emerge from? and what or how would you say they became programmed(so to speak) to code, decode and regulate genes?
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution does not show a progression to "better" suited organisms.
The only thong happening is that individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements will have better survival and reproduction chances and will pass on their genes to the next generation. Species change when the environmental conditions change and require different traits.
I could live with the adjective "more complex" because it is neutral and doesn't presuppose unnecessary judgements.
The complexness of life is caused by life itself.
Because other species around are ALSO part of the environmental conditions. For instances, species that are on the menu. Or predators. Or infectious parasites.
When the first diversification occurred, life became self-affecting.
"individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements" ----would that not be "better suited" for the environment? after all evolution over many many years build those traits up solely to insure the survival of those individuals right?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119921 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
.
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
You have a reference to which particular tests that took place and by whom, right?

(crickets)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119922 Aug 11, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
wow you all have been busy here. I went back 10 pages and couldn't find where i loeft off so i will start here.
you say "a bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria".
using your word "kind", what "kind" of bacteria have we seen change into a new "kind" of bacteria"
1) what "kind" did it start as?
2) what changes happened?
3) how did the changes change it genetically?
4) how did the changes change it's classifications?
5) what "new kind" did the "starting kind" turn into?
Go ask the fundies to define their own non-science terms.

Then get back to us once you can provide a meaningful query based on OUR alleged errors, not based on apologetics that we're addressing that we don't even agree with anyway.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119923 Aug 11, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask the fundies to define their own non-science terms.
Then get back to us once you can provide a meaningful query based on OUR alleged errors, not based on apologetics that we're addressing that we don't even agree with anyway.
oh look it is the "duh duh duh duh duh dude" with his normal meaningless posts.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119924 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Cambrian "explosion" lasted for 20 MILLION YEARS.
Where is the proof of this? This is just an assumption. I wonder if anyone ever did any C14 dating on this material?

C14, stupid (sorry, there is no other word for this utter ignorance), is not applied to fossils, for the following reasons:
1) C14 dating requires the original carbon of the dated organism to be still in place. Fossils are mineralizations where the original tissues are substituted by the minerals in the surrounding soil. No SINGLE scientist has applied and will ever apply C14 dating on fossils;
2) C14 is only used on specimen <50,000 years old. It is mainly used in archaeology. In palaeontology it is not used but for very young specimen. In palaeontology they use other dating methods.

The methods for dating the Cambrian fossils are: other radiometric techniques, biostratigraphy and the molecular clock. Look them up, it is too laborious to explain them here.

I was very merciful here: there are also many palaeontologists who think the Cambrian radiation (its correct name) took 30 million years or even 50-60 my. But I deliberately took the lower boundary within the current consensus to avoid overstatement in this debate.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of how long it lasted this is the last time period with a new phyla. Can you explain why we have had no new phlum in 500 million years?
The conventional view that all the phyla arose in the Cambrian has found to be flawed. The reason for this is the extending fossil evidence. While the phyla may have diversified in this time period, representatives of the crown-groups of many phyla do not appear until much later in the Phanerozoic. The phyla that form the basis of the Cambrian fossil record originated from the benthic zone (the community of organisms which live on, in, or near the seabed). This pertains a very concise part of total animal life. The fossil record is consistent with a Cambrian "explosion" that was limited to the benthos. The pelagic phyla evolved much later. The phyla were not found to emerge all at once together but in a rather orderly sequence of appearance.

Your idea of the Cambrian explosion is based on decades-old, obsolete ideas when there still was very little evidence from fossils and a lack of suitable dating methods.

As the fossil evidence of pre-Cambrian species - hence phyla - continues to accumulate, the origin of several phyla are shifting out of the Cambrian time-frame back into the pre-Cambrian.

Statistical analysis on trilobite variation revealed that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.

To explain the REAL current state of affairs, go to http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyer... and look at the pictures "Marshall 2006" and "K.J. Peterson et. al.". Note that, according to the current fossil evidence and dating, there were already 10 classes and orders present AT THE START of the Cambrian. Hence, the Cambrian radiation is not an "explosion" because it took too long to be an explosion, there was no simultaneous generation of all kind of phyla but a rather chronological, ordered sequence in the chronology.

Also read the summation 1-9 below those pictures (which summarizes the pictures).

It is impossible to explain this in just one Topix post.
The best is you pose more questions of your doubts or for better understanding.
From there I shall try to explain the scientific points of view.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Hemet, CA

#119925 Aug 11, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
oh look it is the "duh duh duh duh duh dude" with his normal meaningless posts.
You're a fine one to call anyone's post meaningless.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119926 Aug 11, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
<quoted text>You're a fine one to call anyone's post meaningless.
i will give you one last response. you know how the discussion the other day was about hybrids? i think you are a hybrid of jimbo and shubee. nothing more needs to be said. end of story jack wagon!
KeepCalmNcarryON

Hemet, CA

#119927 Aug 11, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i will give you one last response. you know how the discussion the other day was about hybrids? i think you are a hybrid of jimbo and shubee. nothing more needs to be said. end of story jack wagon!
You're a non-fertile hybrid of your anterior and posterior.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119928 Aug 12, 2014
Messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
What you would call a regression is what I call a pattern of general deterioration in life.
Now, let's have a look on we OBSERVE, shall we?
In the geological record we observe stratification: if we dig into the ground (or go to places where erosion did that job, like the Grand Canyon), we observe thousands and thousands of layers. The deeper you go, the older, by very logic.

Each of these different earth layers has its own composition: kind of rock, chemical properties, physical properties and the types of fossils found in it.

Not all earth layers have the same fossil record.
The deepest, hence oldest, layers where we can find life, contain only single cellular life, starting with bacteria and LATER eukaryotes. Ascending in the geological record, thus more recent, we find the first, very primitive, multicellular life (Ediacara biota). A little bit later, the first worms. Then the first animals with (exo-)skeletons. then the first cnidaria. Then the first trilobites. to save place here, I shall now make bigger steps: in the Ordovician the first fish. After a while the first amphibians. then the first reptiles, then the first mammals.

In the meanwhile we ascended thousands of feet to the surface. Thus, what we see is a biostratification - each geological layer has its own distinct fossil record. AND this is a HIERARCHICAL stratification: life begins single cellular and ever becomes more diversified and more complex.

Now, explain this in the light of your "pattern of general deterioration in life".
I REALLY want an answer on this.

I shall elaborate a bit on the geological stratification.
In the Grand Canyon (and literally everywhere we dig) we see a great variety of layers. for instance, we observe former sea beds. How do we know that? Well, because we find fish fossils in it. If chemical analysis shows it is saline, we know it's a former sea floor. If not, it should have been a fresh water body.

In the same fashion we observe all kinds of geological layers and formations in the Grand Canyon record, each on top of the very previous one. There are coal layers (former forests) ON TOP of a former sea bed, ON TOP of a former desert floor, ON TOP of a semi-arid lowland, ON TOP of a mountain range, etc. etc. The Grand Canyon was MORE THAN ONCE a sea floor, MORE THAN ONE a desert, forests, lagoons, you name it, all on top of each other.

Now, I don't know of which branch of creationism you are, but this INEVITABLY implies long, long tome frames. The earth is old. Just to mention.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119929 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what did the RNA originate/emerge from? and what or how would you say they became programmed(so to speak) to code, decode and regulate genes?
<quoted text>
"individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements" ----would that not be "better suited" for the environment? after all evolution over many many years build those traits up solely to insure the survival of those individuals right?
Evolution does not "insure" not "builds up".
If an organism catches a mutation that makes it to retain water better, it would be an advantage when it lives in an arid environment. For organisms living in the sea, this might be a disadvantage. The advantage IMPLIES better survival and reproduction chances, the disadvantage lower. To insuring, no steering, no building up, nothing. Just mechanisms.

When you ask whether "to fit" equals "to suit better", it will be nothing but a language issue. Like anyone else, scientists are thrown on language as it is. Our language is blurry. The same words have a multitude of connotations. There are almost no words without different meaning and many words come with meaning and emotion. Nothing wrong with that of course, language meets more ends than science alone. Of course scientists developed a very special language that hasn't all those double meanings, emotions and connotations: mathematics. But you can't communicate with maths alone.

Hence you may set up a linguistic discussion about the meaning of "to fit" but science says evolution is driven by mechanisms and uses the verb "to fit" to capture that.

The RNA is a macromolecule that consists of ribose, a phosphate, 2 purines and 2 pyrimidines. The biochemical pathway from simple molecules to each of these components is already pretty much on its way, by a range of experiments. The gaps are not filled yet and a lot of work still to be done. But the results until now are very promising. There is no single reason to abandon this line of research. On the contrary.

And THIS is PRECISELY why we don't need creation to be invoked. At the very moment when creation is invoked, this line of research will be abandoned. And science will perish.

By "simple molecules" I mean the ones that we know by other experiments could have emerged spontaneously in pre-biotic conditions.

In their 2009 experiment, Joyce and Lincoln showed that RNA starts to self-replicate even when there are no proteins around. More interestingly, the different RNA strains stated to "compete" and some of them became dominant in the "population". they correctly concluded from their experiment that natural selection is ALREADY a a-biotic, PURE BIOCHEMICAL property of RNA molecules. Some RNA strains "fitted" that particulat biochemical environment better.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119930 Aug 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe by using something that is only expected to work on samples 50,000 years or less on samples expected to be out of its range would be pointless as the results would be unreliable no matter what showed up.
You're using a car to swim. Unless you're James Bond you've alread sunk.
Well, what they (creationists) did was using C14 dating on oil and coal.
They said: if we do that, there should be no C14 traces left in the specimen because "evolutionists say that oil and coal are a remnant of ancient life and the original organic carbon is still in it". And indeed they found substantial traces of C14. See? These samples aren't that old as evolutionist think. Hence the earth is not that old. Or, else, C14 dating is invalid and can't be trusted. And if C14 isn't valid, the old age of the earth is hereby refuted.

As follows:
- these invalid measurements yielded the oil and coal to be 40,000 years old, if I recall well. That's STILL older than 6,000 years, but gee, who cares. They just debunked their bible but there is always an apologist who finds some bible quotes to babble it away.
- "That's because C14 is invalid" some little bit smarter ones answered. But if C14 is invalid, the results on the coal and oil samples are AS WELL. But gee who cares about circular reasoning.
- C14 isn't used for dating the earth because of its methodological restraints. Its main appliance is in archaeology. In palaeontology it is only used for specimen of the Tarantian and Holocene. There must have been a creationist who once set his eyes on C14 dating and all misunderstood it to be used for dating the age of the earth. Since than all creationists think that. Hence they are busy debunking a dating technique pertaining a purpose that in reality isn't applied. How idiot idiocy can be. But, again, gee, who cares.
- C14 is formed in the atmosphere by bombardment of nitrogen isotopes by cosmic radiation. But C14 is also formed by bombardment of nitrogen by natural radioactivity in geological layers. Coal and oil layers mostly contain nitrogen. Mostly it is about a slightly 1%( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac00298a0... ). There are oil and coal layers that contain considerable amounts of radioactivity. Sometimes its concentration urges to take protection measures especially for the on-site oil company workers. Hence, C14 will be formed in those oil and coal layers. But gee, who cares about ignorance.
- hence, if a palaeontologist applies C14 dating, he always will measure the natural background radiation at the site of the specimen. This will lead to corrections in the calculations or the specimen to be dated in other ways. But gee, who cares about a methodologically valid application of techniques.

-

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
motorcycle traveling stories 4 min Fuzzy Sock 794
Impossible brand and product combinations (Jan '12) 12 min greymouser 576
letter H 26 min Crazy Jae 54
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 27 min Jennifer Renee 11,475
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 27 min greymouser 2,030
News Charges: St. Paul Teacher Touched Student Inapp... 28 min space ace 7
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 28 min Crazy Jae 14,336
News Texas waiter fired after racist remarks show up... 1 hr Spotted Girl 42
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Wolftracks 163,272
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr lost in Mississippi 40,833
More from around the web