Darwins Stepchild

Evolution Debate

Should evolution be taught in high school?

Oh Noz! Here we go with the quote mining. If you really think that Gould did not accept the theory of evolution, then you are an even bigger fool than I already suspect.  (16 min ago | post #30757)

Evolution Debate

Should evolution be taught in high school?

Take any creationist claim you desire. Look it up in the following index and find a scientific response to the claim. Every single one. http://www.talkori gins.org/indexcc/l ist.html  (18 min ago | post #30756)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Brian: "I am not the messiah!" Follower: "Only the messiah would deny his own divinity." Brian: "All right. Have it your own way. I am the messiah." Follower: "He admits it. He IS the messiah."  (Yesterday | post #17491)

Evolution Debate

Theory of Intelligent Design

QUOTE who="Infinite Force"]<qu oted text> Yeah I know! How have you been doing Divine Alien? Haven't seen you in a while?[/QUOTE] OH. Noz. DA and IF iz on the same thread!!! And they iz tryin' to communicate!!!  (Yesterday | post #1951)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

As I understand it, there is one major difference between the method used in carbon dating and other radiometric dating. Most forms of radiometric dating measure the ratio of a radioactive isotope with a daughter isotope which is a different element. An example is uranium-lead dating which measures the ratio of U238 to Pb206 or the ratio of U235 to Pb207. (It is true, though, that in measuring the amount of U238 and Pb206 (for example) does give you, in a sense, the amount of U238-then and the amount of U238-now.) Carbon-14 dating works differently in that the ratio measured is that of carbon-14 to carbon-12. C14 is radioactive while C12 is stable. The ratio of C14 to C12 in the environment is known to fairly good levels. Thus, seeing how much this ratio has changed gives the age since the biological material died (and new C14 could no longer be introduced.) The reason a daughter isotope is not used in carbon dating is that C14 decays into N14, which is very plentiful in the environment and thus very plentiful in biological material. Measuring the ratio of C14 to N14 would not give you any useful information. <pm...I realize I am not telling you anything new. You know this stuff better than I do. I post it mainly as additional material for others.>  (Yesterday | post #17453)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

When you saidAs I pointed out, some people accept wacky views all the time...you included.  (Thursday | post #17434)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

But, according to your logic, the astronomers were wrong to even look to see if Neptune was really there. By your logic, Neptune hadn't been seen, therefore the astronomers were wrong to hypothesize it existed, and thus wrong to look where they hypothesized it should be. At least, according to you. "Seeing" is not, however, the only way to make scientific observations. There are many, many things in science that have never been seen, yet have still been observed... Electrons Black holes The solid iron core of the Earth Volcanic formation The cause of Earthquakes Quarks Neutrinos The core of the Milky Way Gamma rays X rays Gravity Magnetism Just to name a few. All of these have been inferred by observations, but have never been seen directly. Are you going to claim that all of these are un-scientific?  (Thursday | post #17415)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Marky, you claim that people don't accept wacky views. If so, please explain Scientology. A great many people accept utter BS all the time. Astrology, numerology, Pyramidology, fundamentalism...t he list goes on and on.  (Thursday | post #17413)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

But, marky... The hypothesis that Neptune existed included a prediction of precisely where the planet would be found. Astronomers turned their telescopes there, and sure enough...there was the planet. If a scientific hypothesis has the ability to make predictions that powerful, why do you say it is not scientific. It was not happenstance that Neptune was predicted, nor that it was found right where they said it would be. Observations had been made of Uranus's orbit that showed there must be another planet at that location. No, Neptune itself had not been observed, but other observations made the hypothesis valid. Just as other observations make human evolution a valid hypothesis.  (Wednesday | post #17346)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Actually, Einstein made the prediction earlier, but the official publication was not made until 1915. The first efforts to observe the bending of spacetime were in 1914, but were interrupted by WWI. The effect was first observed in the solar eclipse in Australia in 1919, where star positions were seen to be off their expected positions. The effect of gravitational lensing around galaxy clusters was not observed until much later. However, you are quite right. Gravitational lensing is another case where a hypothesis was made before the reality was seen by the human eye. marky is full of it.  (Wednesday | post #17344)

Evolution Debate

Theory of Intelligent Design

Right. We got the message. <wink, wink, nudge, nudge> [/sarcasm]  (Wednesday | post #1893)

Evolution Debate

Richard Carrier on the ancient creation/evolution debate

Shubee...or not Shubee...that is the question.  (Wednesday | post #9)

Evolution Debate

Should evolution be taught in high school?

Hi, LW. Long time, no see. Still debating the Muslims?  (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #30464)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Pyramidiots. Gee, I learned a new word today.  (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #17315)

Evolution Debate

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

So, marky... Answer a question for me... Astronomers hypothesized the existence of Neptune before it was ever seen. Were they wrong to do so?  (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #17312)