San Diego Zoo + Evolution
- 03-11-2010, 03:34 PM
San Diego Zoo + Evolution
Just hit the SD Zoo...Here's some of the clips...warning, primate does expose herself to camera...LOL
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEMFItG3UrM"]YouTube- Zoo Animals[/ame]
Got me thinking about evolution...what's your take on the entire creation/evolution/intelligent design debate?
As for me...I don't have an answer. I do think hardcore creationists are way to simplistic (Earth 10K years old) and many scientists are too close minded (pompous egos that think that their individual mind can grasp the unfathomable).
- 03-11-2010, 05:26 PM
- 03-11-2010, 05:37 PM
Evolution. It's science.
03-12-2010, 11:45 AM
Creationism. Science has always been faulty, and proven wrong with the next generation.
500 years ago people knew the earth was flat. Today they know the earth is a few billion years old...
Based entirely off of nothing.
Evolution has no facts supporting it. They will claim they have some, but they never provide any. Just "theories" and things that "when" they find it will show it true.
No missing links, no inbetween animals of evolution, nuffin.
Evolution is a religious believe. It is a faith.
But I prefer the faith of creationism. If you wanna be an inbred fish-frog-monkey freakspawn, I invite you to go right ahead lol. Me, I prefer to talk to my father, who has more than proven himself to me lol.
03-12-2010, 11:54 AM
Everything is faulty. The theory of evolution is not a perfect theory because the intricacy of it is beyond our scope of research. But to say that it is not true, is insane.
Keep refusing to believe you are the offspring of different animals. I will keep refusing to believe that the world is 10,000 years old and humans walked with the dinasours.
03-12-2010, 12:16 PM
Also, many dinosaurs are found in multiple levels of "million year old" layers of earth...SO when you explain how a brontosaurus did a headstand for 2.5 million years...
Essentially the best and almost only way a fossil is made is if it is instantly cut off from oxygen...
Well when an animal dies it sets on top tooo long for that to happen.
But the The great flood(old testament) would make perfect sense because it would cover creatures in layers of mud, instantly setting them up for fossilization.
There are even fossils of dinosaurs in the middle of a fight...explain that too me? I seen one in person of a small triceratops looking one fighting a raptor.
Also, most dinosaurs(and this is your science speaking) never NEVER reached the sizes show in movies. Few grew to such proportions, and they were ones who lived very long lives(i forget the age now though). Most raptors never got passed your knee high level, and most "rex"s never got passed a lil over human hight.
The church doesnt change, worst case scenario the governments "force" changes unto the church.
Most Christian girls you meet want the husband to be the lead, and to be the main provider. Every christian family I see like that runs so smooth, has amazing kids, and respect that I honestly have never seen outside of christian families. And I am speaking for real christians, not the "weekend warriors" kind of christians. You know piss off and do what you want in the week, then show up on sunday in a suite thinking your a good christian man,woman,child, etc.
The nation has forced its hand in our faith through laws.
You cant blame a mans leg for breaking if you smash it with a crowbar can you?
Besides, science never can explain the healings that we get and see at church. heck a long time resident of our chuch destroyed all 4 tendons of his knee, was unable to walk, and needed surgery to fix it. Even had X-Rays. He felt he had to come to church sunday night, came in, hobbled down to the altar, fell before God. Guess what the next X-Rays showed? It showed that he was perfectly fine the night before when he jumped up and ran around the church screaming Glory to God.
So science, can evolve itself into whatever it wants to. But it never can never provide for people, like faith does.
EDIT: Note just to be clear that behemoth is not a reptile, but still in that "prehistoric" class.
03-12-2010, 02:17 PM
Ok first off, the position of fossils as well as what they appear to be doing is irrelevant. There are two major reasons for this:
- Plate techtonics, the earth's plates move, MANY many times since the times of the dinosaurs
- The earth's land has also shifted in various ways since the time of the dinosaurs, the topography is completely different then what we could expect millions of years ago
These both could have caused various changes in position of the dinosaur, particularly after they became a fossil.
The idea of a giant flood that had covered the earth. There is not a true confirmation to if this has happened or it has not. In assuming that it did happen, why does it become an act of God? Everytime an earthquake erupts did God do it? Poor Haiti, god must hate them..
Remember you bible was written by people for people. Sure they was a divine intervention into the creation of the bible, in the same way that L. Ron Hubbard learned of the secret aliens and Xenu who took over our souls from space or whatever. Either way, he got what he wanted, a very profitable business. In the same way that Christianity has created what it wanted, a power. Do not claim to me that there is not strong political connections to the Christianity. The extreme christian right is one of the things insanely wrong with this country. This is not a political comment, it is the same thing wrong with extreme lefties.
The christian girl comment is ludacris. I make jokes with my GF all the time about "wearing the pants," but in reality she is my equal. I do not own her, she is not my property, and I would never in my mind put myself above her. We both put bread on the table, and not in the splitting one fish and loaf of bread to feed hundreds miracle sort of way. Welcome to 2010. Your one step away from covering her from head to toe. Some religions are ok with striking your wife. THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.
By the way, If your daughter gets raped, make sure you do the right christian thing:
- Deuteronomy 22:28 states that a woman must get married to a man if he rapes her.
I can't really comment on the government intervention with you in any way you could understand not having an outside perspective of the church. If it wasn't for government intervention we would see more and more war over religion, a giant christian political lobby, forced church contributions, who knows....
As for the healing and reversing of medical conditions through Jesus. Come on really?? I didn't think this was real, maybe I should send that 99.99 contribution to my local tv preacher and tell him to make me swole. The whole time I am wasting time in a gym. The situation you gave was a medical mystery. It happens. Again if those in such great faith are healed by said faith, why bother going to a hospital? Oh that's right, because now you can goto jail for that.
Please don't combat this by saying it is a different faith. There is no proof your faith is above any other.
Back to the dinosaur issue, why do we have carbon footprinting evidence about the age of the dinosaurs and last known human? There is evidence however about species that have seemed to evolve from each other.
All of these species were not documented through "divine intervention" their was proof of their existence.
Secondly, how can you refute science but be a member of a forum like AM? The majority of this board has to do with the science of your workout. Taking any supplements? Why? God didn't design them, science did.
03-12-2010, 02:23 PM
Also before this turns into an anti-religous argument, although I am an athiest, I believe everyone has their own opinion and that's fine. I won't stop someone from believing anything. But don't argue against science, its the almost the same as arguing against math.
03-12-2010, 02:53 PM
Ironically on the earthquake part...Haiti was the center of the worlds "Voodoo" culture. SO its possible...
As with Deuteronomy 22:28 nice way to twist it. It says if a man sleeps with a virgin he owes the father for taking his daughters innocence and MUST marry her and support her the rest of his life because she is of no value to another man now... Athiests always quote the way they want to.
I dont refute science, but I refute religious beliefs like evolution and atheism. (for both are a faith in something unproven. One evolution, and another a faith in nothingness).
And your comment about TV evangelists(which I dislike them as much as you do). is absurd. Asking for something out of greed, pride, and vanity will beget you nothing.
Science is an incomplete and completely fallible belief system. With a long history of mistakes, changes in what is stated. FACTS never change, unless its science, then it changes...
That chart shows nothing...Its a bunch of colors with labels placed by men of science seeking to make names for themselves?
I am a man of science myself, but I am not foolish enough to place my faith in the designs and understandings of men. I love biology, chemistry, pharmacology, a dash of physics, and so on.
And in my many studies, find nothing to support evolution. Just "Theories" that as you accuse Men of the Bible of not being able to prove themselves, neither can your men of science.
Less you know a 200 million year old man who can give us that timeline you posted...Other wise it is just as valuable and valid as a crackheads drawing on a toilet stall wall.
Man can scientifically justify nothing back more than 2000 years. And even then, there is a crapload of "mysteries" science cant explain and usually writes off as either a myth or "Freak incident".
As for healings, you can do without if you want. I have seen.
The whole point of this experience on earth is to see who passes...
03-12-2010, 04:03 PM
I have a question. The very premise of creationism begins with the big bang theory. Some even try to say that God created the big bang that got everything started. But if everything began from a single solid mass why are all of the planets radically different? Wouldn’t there be some similarities since everything came from the same source? However, the more we learn about our universe the more we realize how different each and every planet really is. Even the basic components and rock formations are different. Compare the sun, earth and moon all radically different, Jupiter and Mars, radically different. Moreover, the orbits of each planet seem to be completely random again there should be some predictable similarities however none seem to exist. A friend of mine is a Nuclear Physicist I have posed these questions to him; he readily admits that these are problems without answers.
03-12-2010, 04:03 PM
Neither of us can win this argument, nor is it a discussion appropriate for AM. I have my views and am quite strong in them. I have come to understand you are too. I choose to end this conversation on a high note, one that we may disagree but not to show apprehension towards each other.
You are a very respected member here and based on your postings quite to the bodybuilder too. Let's go on with our day and back to discussions that are worthy of this board.
03-12-2010, 04:41 PM
Please bear in mind, that when people say that the OT, NT etc... was divinely inspired, that is a response that really makes me ponder. As we know they were the thoughts of man, and were written, accumulated and organized by men. Therefore, faulty by your definition.
On the other side, your thoughts on the flood are quite true. There is evidence to support a flood, however, no evidence to say a "god" designed it. Most cultures have a flood story with all different pertinent characters (Gilgamesh for example). The most logical explanation is the great global thawing of the ice age.
Just my 2 cents
TEAM GET DIESEL
GET DIESEL NUTRITION | SINCE 2002 | GETDIESEL.COMLike us on Facebook: GET DIESEL Facebook Page
03-12-2010, 06:46 PM
That being said, I rely more on Gods workings on my heart than just the book alone. As a discussion we had awhile back with some like minded friends of mine(I am a very untraditional christian, hence my ideology of how criminals should be treated and such). If I or some others of the faith were to be stranded on an island without a Bible, God would not cease to exist. SO our faith is not just in the book itself. Its in his presence, and seeking him. I can go long periods of time wihtout reading the Bible(I in fact do during dry spells) yet my faith in him waivers none.
In all essence, it is for each man to find his own path in this world. Mine teaches us to win others to our path, and to try and be helpful to others in their journies regardless of destination. But it also teaches that all roads will meet in the end, with only two roads leaving that site. You know these two roads already.
Best we can do, is discuss it. I seen too much for anything to ever change my faith, and trust me I have been through, am going through, and still have to face some hellish times.
Still, nothing changes eternal wise.
Thats just me, your just you, and jane is jane and bob is bob.
03-17-2010, 01:46 PM
First, I'm sure Zero V will once again "zap" away my rep points like he did in the other religion/science thread because I don't agree with him.
"Evolution has no facts supporting it"
Really? You really want to stand by that?
"No missing links, no inbetween animals of evolution, nuffin."
Tiktaalik - "technically a fish, complete with scales and gills ó but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates ó a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans.
Archaeopteryx - numerous features of both bird and reptile
just to name a few
03-17-2010, 01:56 PM
How is NOT believing in something a religion?!
This explains my point:
"There is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief. I don't know any atheists who "believe" God (take your pick, there are plenty) does not exist. All the atheists I know simply do not believe God does exist.
There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence. In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes. In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory. If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith - this is reason.
If someone asked you about unicorns, would you say "I believe there are no unicorns", or would it be more honest to say "I do not believe in unicorns"? These are two different answers. Nobody disbelieves in unicorns purely as a matter of personal faith.
Again, apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions. Example : if you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh does not exist? Or do you not believe in Ganesh?
If you believe that unicorns do not exist, then may I say that you a member of the "No unicorns" religion? Is it a matter of faith that unicorns do not exist? Can I come along to your non-unicorn church with you tomorrow?
If you are a Christian, do you believe Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith!
If me not believing in your God is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is an equal faith. How many Christians do you know who would say they do not believe in other Gods as a matter of faith?
If my atheism with respect to your deity is a religion, then your atheism with respect to other deities is also a religion. "
03-17-2010, 02:01 PM
I'll throw in my .02 on this one. I don't believe that religion and science have to be mutually exclusive. In fact evening Stephen Hawking has stated that the more he explored the realms of the infinite, the more he found evidence of the divine. On the flip side, even the most literal interpreters of the Bible accept 90% of the basic tenets of science.
My question is why is the argument always drawn up as science versus religion? The existence of one does not negate the existence of the other. For example, the basic scientific laws do not negate the possibility of the existence of God. Nor would/does the existence of God negate the fundamental laws of science.
03-17-2010, 06:24 PM
I love chemistry, biology, natural sciences, and technically a "dash" of physics. Evolution is just something I have found no proof in. Hell even Carbon dating is showing to be a faulty set of gestimations essentially letting a scientist get whatever results they want.
And a "belief" there is nothing is still a "belief"...and you have faith in that belief that you will not be judged by God. Men do not belief something unless they have faith in it. Be it a person, an ideal, or a religion.
03-17-2010, 06:57 PM
"Many from my understanding, many in the science community are making a swing back towards acknowledging God."
Can I have some evidence of this, or do you just pull this out of thin air?
"But a recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2 % were overtly atheistic, 20.8 % agnostic, and only 7.0 % believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didnít respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The unbelief is far higher than the percentage among scientists in general, or in the whole population.
Also, is your carbon dating argument the debunked Kent Hovind Argument?
Where is your evidence of this as well?
03-17-2010, 07:00 PM
"If you are a Christian, do you believe Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith!"
And when did I say I believe in nothing?
I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any (REAL) evidence.
03-17-2010, 08:35 PM
And you cant classify 517 NAS members as even a percentile of the scientific community around the world... Thats like saying out of 5,000 Americans interviewed, 4,000 supported Communism....
So that would make us a communist nation, right?
Survey's dont work because its easy to "screen" and select what you need to get what you want. You know as well as I do if a Christian posted something like that but in favor you would accuse the same thing.
A survey never means anything, hell even on a campus before there was a guy asking first "do you support Obama" then, and only if you anwsered "yes" he would give you a survey.
How do you think politicians work things...same thing applies to athiests, and sadly Christians.
And I did kinda just glance over your post. I just worked a 10 hour day, and had to rush off after I got home. So things like this are maybe 20th in my top 10.
I have a crapload of sources, currently got them stored up in random files. Dont think the carbon dating thing is from that guy though, it was from multiple reports from various scientists over the world. Not just one. But Carbon dating is kinda invented by humans, with human assigned conditions...They really cant go back more than the last 2000 years to use as a gauge for the science's "measurements" yet they get "Millions" out of a 2,000 year guage...no...just..no. Thats like sleeping with 12 girls, and saying so many out of 20,000 are "this" and so many are "that" out of your understanding of 12....But its ok because the people saying it wear a white coat!
03-17-2010, 10:24 PM
The nice thing about science is that although scientists are stubborn people, they acknowledge when they are wrong. It continuously grows and builds itself up over time. Part of the reason I believe in god is because of how beautiful and mathematical nature is in all its forms. I think it shows reverance for god that we strive to understand his creation. I also think it pleases him that we do this, and that we apply what we learn to try to better the lives of the people around us.
03-17-2010, 10:36 PM
03-18-2010, 12:20 AM
03-18-2010, 10:36 AM
The 2-part episode of South Park that has Mrs. Garrison (lol) forced to teach evolution in science class (to which he/she objects) was on comedy central last night. It is also the episode in which Cartman freezes himself so that he can jump to the future and get a Nintendo Wii, but ends up 500 years in the future and caught up in a war between atheists.
Twas hilarious, and very relevant to this thread.
Episodes were titled "Go God Go" and "Go God Go XII", and it's from season 10. I'm sure you can find it on southparkstudios.com, where they have all the episodes viewable for free.
Oh, and last night's episode on "sex addiction" was great. Synopsis from wikipedia:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
03-18-2010, 10:50 AM
03-18-2010, 11:46 AM
Assume these are genes. DNA is proven, so I don't think anyone can debate this. Now assume I am only showing the dominant genes In this diagram of 3 genes (Now before I get accused of being uneducated towards the dominance/recessive properties of genes, I understand the above demonstration would not theoretically work, but its for illustrative purposes only). Now after all that reproduction, we have a bunch of end products that have gathered genes. Certain genes have not survived the reproduction. Now assume Q is dominant for not having a tail, and W is recessive for having a tail. In the begining this species, in certain subjects, would have a tail. However, over time the recessive gene died out, now that species will never have a tail. That species has now evolved to no longer have a tail. Among the course of time, survival of the fittest may have had an effect on this as well. The tail was actually quite heavy, and caused the species to not be able to escape from predators, taking that gene out of the gene pool slowly. Through survival of the fittest, those reproducing tended to not have tails, and passed on that dominant gene.Code:QAZ WSX QSX WAZ QSZ WAX \ / \ / \ / QAX QSZ WAZ \ / \ / QSZ QAZ \ / \ / QSZ
This is proven science. This is also evolution. Imagine changes like these happening in the thousands, over the course of thousands of years, slowly evolving a species over time. This scenario does not even take into account genetic mutation, which can cause radical differences in genes passed on through reproduction.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CAZfz2uLr4"]YouTube- SOUTH PARK MRS.GARRISON IM A F*CKING MONKEY[/ame]
03-18-2010, 03:03 PM
So from many things I have read on the creationism v. evo arguments, one thing that glares at me as a problem, is the dating fossils to point out events:
1. Carbon Dating Method:
There are two types of carbon; Carbon-12(stable) and Carbon-14(unstable). Carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed. The problem is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. Also, there really isn't a way to prove that the rate of decay of Carbon-14 has remained constant. So when comparing an extremely old specimen, there is no way for a scientist to be able to guarantee the accuracy of age. Not to mention, the older and more ancient a sample, the greater the possibility of contamination. The last argument (and to me the most compelling) is that it is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine different ages for the same artifact!
2. I had a college text book that claimed another dating method. Fossils can be dated according to what layer of earth the are recovered from. Which seems to make perfect, logical sense until you read later that the layers of earth can dated by what fossils are found in them. Now that is definitely some circular logic. I wish I would have brought that one to the professor's attention now.
So take those for what you will. It isn't meant to change anyone's mind and I hope no one feels disrespected by what I had to say. Just thought I would throw some more discussion out there.
03-18-2010, 06:14 PM
Let's go over some of the most commonly used dating methods, and what Creationists have to say about them.
Also known as Radiocarbon dating, this is a commonly used method to date organic (carbon containing) material. It uses the radioactive decay of Carbon-14 (carbon atoms with 14 neutrons) into Carbon-12 (carbon atoms with 12 neutrons). As you may remember from school, plants take Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere and use it to grow; with oxygen as a by-product. Plants, therefore, are full of carbon from the air. Most of the carbon in the atmosphere (in the form of CO2) is Carbon-12, but a small amount of Carbon-14 is present. Carbon-14, however, is unstable, and over time will decay into Nitrogen.
Materials that undergo radioactive decay have a half-life (how long it takes for half of a given sample of that material to decay) these are steady, and so can be used as a clock. If a radioactive material has a half-life of 50 years and ĺ of it has decayed then the sample is 100 years old. Carbon-14 has a half life of about 6000 years, and this can be used to find the age of any material containing Carbon up to the range of about 60,000 years.
Carbon-14 dating is the most well known dating method, and gets a lot of attention from Young Earth Creationists claiming that it doesn't work; they even cite cases where Carbon dating has been shown to give inaccurate dates. What they don't tell you is that Scientists know all about these cases and all the effects they display are controlled for in a proper Carbon-14 test.
All dating tests, including Carbon-14, have built in error bars. Error bars are the range of dates that a given date can be off by; so a date of 50 years old with error bars of +/- 5 years means that the sample can be between 45 and 55 years old. So if it is important that you know if a sample is either 50 or 53 years old then this test isn't the right one to do; this effect is more pronounced when error bars range in the millions of years. Carbon-14's error bars are generally in the region of +/- 40 years; however these can change based on the sample that is being tested a young sample can be dated a lot more accurately than one tens of thousands of years old. Error bars also mean that a legitimate dating test can give the age of a sample of living tree bark to be thousands of years old. This doesn't mean that the dating test is useless, but rather that you've chosen the wrong dating method.
There are also other factors that can cause Carbon dating to give inaccurate results. Creationists often parrot a study that used Carbon-14 dating on the shells of living Snails which showed them to be 27,000 years old. This isn't to do with error bars, but rather has to do with where the Snails (and the Carbon in their shells) came from.
The Snails in the study where water dwelling Snails and so the food they ate (and so the Carbon in their shells) came from the water. The problem with this is that they're not getting their Carbon from the air, but from the water. The Carbon in the water may have been dissolved from the air, nearby Carbon containing rocks, old decaying plant matter, or any other sources of Carbon. All this extra Carbon contaminates the results, and can give an inaccurate measurement during a Carbon-14 test. This is a well documented phenomenon called the Reservoir effect. Creatures such as Seals, Penguins, and Whales can also give unusual Carbon dates as they feed on animals in the Sea.
Where a particular sample was collected can also effect the Carbon date. Antarctic creatures give especially inaccurate dates as the Carbon in the surrounding Oceans started out in the Pacific many years ago. Different areas have varying amounts of carbon contamination; it is up to the Scientists performing the tests to decide if the contamination is so great as to make the results useless. The reservoir effect means that carbon dating may not be appropriate for determining the age of marine life.
Oh and that study that the Creationists cite? That study's aim was to alert scientists as to the Reservoir effect and the impact it had on Carbon dating."
03-18-2010, 06:18 PM
03-18-2010, 06:30 PM
These are the top scientists in the world, not just Joe Schmoe the scientist from Kansas.
The majority of ID/Creation Supporters aren't even biologists and have no education in anything having to do with evolutionary biology or paleontology.
03-18-2010, 06:54 PM
03-18-2010, 09:01 PM
2. You wouldn't date a fossil based on what layer it is in unless the layer date is already verified. If you have a fossil in a deposit that is not dated, and you know the fossil is of a species that went extinct 12 million years ago, then you can get a relative age of at least 12 million years for that deposit. They aren't perfect dates, because it takes a long time for a deposit to form, and fossils from the same species can span a long time before they go extinct. So if you don't have the deposit date, and you discover a new fossil species that has never been dated then you can't come up with a date unless you find a different species in the same layer with a known extinction date.
03-18-2010, 09:13 PM
All the pictures of gorillas i've seen doesn't show any change. None have evolved that i've seen. Haven't seen a new fish crawl out of the water either. I don't believe in evolution but still enjoy learning about science.
03-19-2010, 09:30 AM
We know the rate of carbon-14's decay has varied over time. We also know the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has changed over time. That is why carbon dating cannot be considered the "be-all, end-all". No one has touched on what I consider to be the most compelling argument against c-14 dating. The fact that there have been several studies where the same materials have been sent to separate labs for dating, and each lab gave drastically different ages. That right there proves the the flaws.
03-19-2010, 11:01 AM
No one argues the point of evolution within a species, it happens every day with or without the help of science, it's called adaptation. Evolution between species is a completely different matter. Most people and scientists want to run them together. If evolution between species was possible, why would it have ever ceased, why would we need procreation. There would be a complete line of evolution from the ocean, where life supposedly began, to modern man. The theory of evolution is full of holes and yes it is a religion. You have placed your faith in man and manís explanation of the origin of life. Creationism is the only religion that I know of that eliminates the possibility of a creator.
03-19-2010, 11:56 AM
Depending on the calibration I would assume there'd be some differences but nothing "out of the ballpark."
"The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to Ī2.0 per mille or Ī16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods"
03-19-2010, 12:02 PM
03-19-2010, 12:03 PM
[QUOTE=BBB;2351742]The theory of evolution is full of holes and yes it is a religion. You have placed your faith in man and manís explanation of the origin of life.QUOTE]
Ok this argument is getting old...using this logic:
I am of the religion of supplements, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of cars, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of buildings, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of gadgets, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of weight machines, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of alcohols, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of drugs, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of computers, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of phones, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of microwaves, I place faith in man they work.
I am of the religion of vitamins, I place faith in man they work.
Wow and I thought I was athiest?
03-19-2010, 12:14 PM
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
03-19-2010, 12:19 PM
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220).
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.