What is Digg?201 Comments
- samard2002, on 07/04/2008, -4/+57I hate Stromatolite. It just doesn't have the same great flavor as regular Stromato.
- aliekens, on 07/06/2008, -5/+395 feet in diameter? Only prehistoric animals do science without SI units.
- Rotzooi, on 07/06/2008, -6/+29I bet Jesus rode it.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -3/+22Evolution is not a religion, it is a field of science, and thus based on objective and empirical evidence. In the case of evolution, it is based on 150 years of such evidences, as well as all the criticism from minds much smarter than yours, and it has withstood that test.
YOUR religion still has NO evidence.
Creationists *ARE* nutters - they believe that a magical sky-fairy spooged them into existence on some 6th or 7th day that wasn't really a day because they decided that "day" in this case could mean billions of years. The only reason they decided to engage in this exercise in apologetics was because science said you were wrong. - jbeardsl, on 07/06/2008, -1/+18The stromatolite bears a striking resemblance to the torso of the gentleman on the right side of the picture...
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -1/+17From http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html
1. Radiometric dating shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old (see http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html regarding the reliability of radiometric dating).
2. If the earth is old, then radioactive isotopes with short half-lives should have all decayed already. That is what we find. Isotopes with half-lives longer than eighty million years are found on earth; isotopes with shorter half-lives are not, the only exceptions being those that are generated by current natural processes (Dalrymple 1991, 376-378).
3. Loess deposits (deposits of wind-blown silt) in China are 300 m thick. They give a continuous climate record for 7.2 million years. The record is consistent with magnetostratigraphy and habitat type inferred from fossils (Ding et al. n.d.; Russeau and Wu 1997; Sun et al. 1997).
4. Varves are annual sediment layers that occur in large lakes. They are straightforward to measure, cover millions of years, and correlate well with other dating mechanisms.
* In seasonal areas, sedimentation rates vary across the year, so sediments often show annual layers (varves) distinguished by texture and/or composition. We can be confident that the layers are seasonal because we see the same sorts of layers occurring today. Even if they were not seasonal, the fineness of the sediments is often such that each layer would require several days, at least, to form. Some formations have millions of layers, such as the varve record from Lake Baikal with five million annual layers (Williams et al. 1997), and the 20,000,000 layers in the Green River formation. They must have taken hundreds of thousands of years to form at the very least.
* Dates obtained by counting annual layers of varves match dates obtained from radiometric dating. One varve formation, covering 45,000 years, was used to calibrate carbon-14 dating using terrestrially produced leaves, twigs, and insect parts that also appeared in the sediments. The varves were easy to count because they included an annual diatom bloom (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998).
* Varves record climate changes, too, since climate affects the amount of sediments. Climate is affected by orbital cycles known to occur at about 400,000-, 600,000-, and million-year periods (the so-called Milankovitch cycles). Climate cycles of these durations occur in the varve records. For example, Lake Baikal contains annual layers from twelve million years ago to the present. These sediments contain periodic changes matching the orbital cycles (Kashiwaya et al. 2001).
5. The abundance and distribution of helium change predictably as the sun ages, converting hydrogen to helium in its core. These parameters also affect how sound waves move through the sun. Thus one may estimate the sun's age from seismic solar data. Such an analysis puts the age of the sun at 4.66 billion years, plus or minus about 4 percent (Dziembowski et al. 1999). - ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -1/+17Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).
In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.
Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
* The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
* Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
* Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
* Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).
The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990). - noen, on 07/06/2008, -1/+17You don't know what you are talking about. It isn't circular reasoning. It isn't done the way you describe.
- kleptomaniac, on 07/06/2008, -0/+15Carbon dating is only used to date specimens up to 50,000 years old, but within this limitation its accuracy has been demonstrated.
1. Bard, Edouard, Bruno Hamelin, Richard G. Fairbanks and Alan Zindler, 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
2. Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. MNSU, n.d. Radio-carbon dating. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_c ...
4. Watson, Kathie, 2001. Radiometric time scale. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
If you're going to make a claim like that you're going to need some sources to back that up. - inactive, on 07/06/2008, -1/+16Talk about circular reasoning - you start off with the assumption that the Bible is factually true, and then you look for evidence that supports that assumption, while discarding any evidence that does not support it. Science doesn't work like that. Scientists did not start from the assumption "Hmm, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, let's go prove it." No, they started with the question "How old is the Earth?"
- Whackly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+15It's not hard to shock an idiot who doesn't really know what he's talking about.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -1/+15Strata can, have been, and still are independently verified without reference to fossils through any number of different methods, including the dating of radioactive isotopes present in igneous rock samples. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.
There is, however, a clear and undeniable pattern between the fossils and strata. Pointing out this pattern is not circular. Using fossils is a cheap and easy way to date strata, or vice-versa, but it is only possible because the evidence for the connection has already been well established as being very strong.
Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means. - leakus, on 07/06/2008, -1/+14I can seriously never tell if you guys are being sarcastic or really creationists. Parodies of creationism are indistinguishable from creationism. I wouldn't even know how to ridicule creationism and without being mistaken for a creationist.
- LemurHorde, on 07/04/2008, -4/+17But normal rocks don't grow over millions to even billions of years. Cyanobacteria build these rocks from scratch one thin layer at a time. Cut one open and you can see a tree-ring like pattern. Here is a cross section. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/06112 ...
- archiesteel, on 07/06/2008, -0/+12kelly, you are a religious fanatic, so there's no real debate possible with you, but you should know that radiocarbon dating is *not* the only way to date rocks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Also, the decay rate of radioactive materials is not significantly affected by its surroundings. Remember that radioactive decay is *not* a chemical reaction, but a physical one, and the chemical make-up of the environment is therefore irrelevant. - arcticblue, on 07/06/2008, -4/+16Anything that doesn't fit their biblical explanation of the world is just a "test of faith" that was planted there. The best thing to do is just ignore people who actually believe that.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -1/+13Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land.
If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind.
Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible:
* The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E. (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001).
* The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002).
* There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002).
Many claims that archaeology supports the Bible, especially earlier ones, were based on the scientists trying to force the evidence to fit their own preconceptions. - Musicmonkey34, on 07/06/2008, -2/+14Stromatolite = Algae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite
(yeah, i throught it was a dinosaur too) - inactive, on 07/06/2008, -1/+13Except all of those methods are equally flawed. How can we be sure they're flawed? Because they disagree with kelly's insane ranting, obviously.
- inactive, on 07/06/2008, -0/+12The evidence points to the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. No reputable scientist anywhere disagrees with that. And in answer to your question, right hear, you are dismissing over a century's worth of scientific research, as well as the very principle of radioactive dating itself, because you don't like the answer it gives.
- seltaeb4, on 07/06/2008, -2/+14Do you often vagina while reading similarly vagina related words vagina and phrases?
Or perhapsgina, you have some strange vagination with certain subjects.
There are specialists for this sort of this hoo-hoo-ation, and the cervix that they tirelessly proginavide may be of great benefit to those who might otherwise seek not help for their affliction.
Vagina. - kleptomaniac, on 07/06/2008, -0/+11science starts off with a hypothesis which is only confirmed as a theory after thousands of hours of testing and debate, there is no assumption that the hypothesis is valid. you continue to make claims that you have evidence supporting your argument, but insofar you have shown none. You obviously have a very flawed view of how the scientific process works.
- archiesteel, on 07/06/2008, -0/+11kelly: "Don't tell that to the evolutionists that continually use Archaeology to try to prove evolutionary theory."
Uh, no. Evolutionists do *not* often use archaeological evidence as proof, because archaeology does not concern itself with the origin of life or the continuous transformation and adaptation of biological life forms. Instead, as WP tells us:
"Archaeology, archeology, or archæology (from Greek: αρχαιολογία - archaiologia, from αρχαίος - archaios, "primal, ancient, old" and λόγος - logos, "study") is the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis and interpretation of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, features, biofacts, and landscapes." - ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -1/+12I prefer to keep my commentary in the open - that way, more perspectives and scrutiny can point out biases and fallacies as they appear.
- eir574, on 07/06/2008, -0/+11"Science works EXACTLY like that. You develop a theory and you find evidence to support it."
No. You look at the evidence and then you develop an hypothesis (not a theory). Note that the hypothesis is typically not something pulled out of thin air -- it's something suggested by existing data. Then, you think about how you could disprove your hypothesis and then try your hardest to do so. Typically, you invite other scientists to try to come up with something that would disprove the hypothesis, too. If the hypothesis stands up to that scrutiny, you consider presenting it to the rest of the scientific community. If it stands up to much scrutiny over time, it becomes a theory. - inactive, on 07/06/2008, -1/+12Wow - you really ARE stupid!! You took a phrase from Richard Dawkins - whom I have read his works - describing what creationists believe, then you have turned it around and attributed it as a quote of of what Dawkins BELIEVES!!
You are not only an uneducated ignoramus and a low life Christian, but you are a LIAR as well. Why would an omniscient and omnipresent God need YOU to LIE for him?? - ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -2/+13The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not. For example:
* Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs (Hastings 1987; Kuban 1989).
* Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting.
* Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration (Godfrey 1985).
The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it (Schadewald 1986).
There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs, and there are no dinosaur fossils found with human fossils. Furthermore, there is an approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places. At the very least, there should not be such a dramatic separation between them. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -0/+10"Not true."
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.h ...
"No, It's a book written by though by God."
Compiled at the First Council of Nicea in 325AD - was it written "by God" before or after that?
"Thankfully, there is a great deal of evidence that does exist which supports the Biblical account."
Name it, please.
"I've found that not to be true. Can you give me an example?"
Zircon dating shows this to be true. We've already been over why radiometric dating is reliable, provided you use the tools properly and use the correct isotopes for the correct time scale.
"Not true either however I don't doubt that those scientists that do believe in this will regard those that don't as not being reputable."
If it does not survive peer review, it is because scientists have found the claim to be false.
"Uh, no. right back at you. The geologic column is a prime example of supposed proof of evolution and is often presented as such."
But the geological column is for geology and paleontology, not archeology. - xptweakerntn, on 07/04/2008, -9/+19Looks like a rock to me.
- nitsuj, on 07/06/2008, -0/+10""The evidence points to the fact that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old."
I've found that not to be true. Can you give me an example?"
The evidence is conclusive. No amount of apologetics or wriggling escapes it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.h ... - inactive, on 07/06/2008, -0/+10I'm not trying to provoke the wrath of god fearing Americans here (of which there are many), but you really can't use the Bible as evidence. First off, the Bible is not consistent. It doesn't even portray Jesus consistently much less provide a working description of the cosmos. In one Book Jesus is knocking over tables in a Jewish temple and scaring the living daylights of his followers, in the next he's a kitten, spreading love and happiness. In one Book Jesus preaches the empowerment of women, in another, he casts them down. Which is it? I'm seriously wondering?
The problem with the Bible is that it was written by (in the opinion of the worlds most respected scholars) SEVERAL different people and over the span of at least 50 years not to mention many, many years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth (possibly 100+). So tell me, are the authors (human beings) really so infallible that they simply get everything right 100 years after the death of Jesus without consultation with either themselves OR God? It's a book written by MAN. Man is capable of not only deceiving and being deceived, but of believing things that have no basis in reality. The Bible itself is a theory. Now, what can we do TODAY to prove the theory of Genesis in the Bible. As far as I understand: nothing.
"Some things have to be taken on faith" Fine. I have faith that certainty is more important than belief. You can BELIEVE in anything, but you can't support an argument with evidence that doesn't exist. When I have this conversation with my Christian friends they say "How do you know God doesn't exist" I say "I don't. But I also don't know if I'll be able to fly someday." It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove I CAN'T do something (for certain), but entirely possible (and indeed necessary) to prove that I CAN. (For example: "I can jump over that ravine." "No you can't." "Prove I can't." - Does this logic work in everyday life? Of course not.)
So now, if God revealed himself so readily 2000 years ago, why is he so shy today? Can't we collect some NEW evidence to support the existence of God? If you can't there is no real reason to believe he exists. I know it's scary to think that your parents, your grandparents, and your great-great grandparents COULD have been mistaken about God, but instead of defending their beliefs so blindly, why not HONOR them and try to discover the truth? I'm not saying that I have the truth, I'm simply saying that I need evidence to even make a claim for truth.
I have traveled to many different countries in this world, and spoken with successful, intelligent, KIND people who barely even ponder the existence of God. It seems strange that the quality of their character could be so great having never heard the wisdom or guidance of God. Not only that, I find it even more curious that the best Christians in the entire world, who happen to live in Africa, and pray harder every single day than you ever have, seem to have nothing to show for it. They die of Malaria and dysentery and HIV. But in America, you KNOW God loves you. You have iPods and Cable television and you can blog on the internet. How GENEROUS God can be!
It's time to step out of the box people. Head in the sand Christians have more in common with militant Islamists than you could possibly imagine. Lets look for shared solutions to the worlds problems. And seek real answers that we can touch and feel and measure. Lets stop using fables that aren't even as old as the Greek Myths to run our lives. God, I can't even write anymore. My Grandfather left the church when he was a teenager because what they were teaching him and what he observed in the real world didn't match up. Is that so hard to do? - eir574, on 07/06/2008, -0/+10@kelly,
The rest of my post was important as well. You said that the next step after formulating the hypothesis is to look for evidence that supports it. That's incorrect, though it's usually what creationists do. You look for ways to falsify the hypothesis. It's not enough to find evidence that's not inconsistent with your hypothesis. - earthforce1, on 07/06/2008, -8/+18How long before the religious nutters come out of the woodwork to "prove" it is only 6000 years old?
- nitsuj, on 07/06/2008, -0/+10Kelly, don't be evasive. Please explain Endogenous Retrovirus.
"There's a world of difference between micro and macro evolution."
Please explain what this 'world' of difference is. What exactly is the boundary between 'micro' and 'macro' and what specific mechanisms are in place to prevent micro adaptations leading to macro adaptations over time. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -0/+10@Kelly
Read the following articles on the Taylor site - it does a better job debunking the "man track" theory than I could.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/elong.htm - eir574, on 07/06/2008, -2/+11@kelly,
Supposition and "common sense" are not scientific in and of themselves. You can't just say that something must be true because it makes sense to you or seems more plausible than an alternative explanation. You need to seek physical evidence to support your supposition. Your analogy to footprints in concrete isn't evidence; it's just more supposition. - BattleChimp, on 07/06/2008, -3/+12Satan did it! Satan did it!
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/06/2008, -1/+10"And probably a lot more than you know (or probably are willing to accept)"
If the evidence points to it, it would be dishonest of me not to accept it. The evidence, however, does not point towards biblical accuracy.
"Nor does archaeology support every evolutionary claim."
Archaeology is defined as the scientific study of the physical evidence of past human societies recovered through excavation. As such, it would not have a great deal of interaction with the field of evolutionary biology.
"However there is a great deal of evidence that lends credence not only to ID (i.e. creation) as well as a global flood."
Name this evidence.
This page from talkorigins details the flaws with the idea of a global flood:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
"The Bible is not just a holy book of dos and donts but is a historical record. Any evidence that camels were used before 1000 B.C.E. would be the Bible itself."
You cannot use the bible as evidence for itself - that is circular reasoning, and further, the bible has not been shown to be a historically accurate and reliable source.
"That actually is what today's scientists are so often guilty of."
The conclusions of scientists are based on evidence, and the evidence remains for all to see. Scientists know that their ideas must stand the scrutiny of other scientists, who may not share their preconceptions. The best way to do this is to make the case strong enough on the basis of the evidence so that preconceptions do not matter. And scientists themselves condemn preconceptions when they see them. (Stephen J. Gould, the most vocal recent crusader against preconceptions in science, was vehemently anticreationism.)
The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, ice ages, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads.
Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions; they do a good job, on the whole, of reducing bias. They do such a good job, in fact, that what creationists really object to is the fact that scientists do not interpret evidence according to certain religious preconceptions.
"That's how the scientific process works."
"You develop a theory and you find evidence to support it. If the evidence continues to point in that direction then you keep going in that direction while considering and adapting to any evidence that might suggest otherwise."
Incorrect - science works by first observing a phenomenon that needs explanation, gathering evidence, testing, submitting hypotheses for review, more evidence gathering, more testing, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. You are confusing Christian apologetics with the way Science works.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Treve ...
"What caused them to even consider an old earth is that natural processes would have had to happen over a long time and the only other alternative is that it was *created*. Unfortunately, these scientists neglect any and all evidence that shows that these processes could not have taken millions or billions of years to achieve."
If scientists had ignored evidence, others would have called them on it - that's what the peer review process is for. - Fratz, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9Why do you keep offering to have a private discussion? If your point of view doesn't survive in public, maybe you should reconsider it.
- archiesteel, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9"For carbon-14 dating to be accurate on ANY level, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true."
Please provide this evidence. - inactive, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9There are modern forms of stromatolites in Australia, they live in a shallow water. So when I saw these on hilltops in New York state about 8-900 feet above sea level, that tells me a lot about how the earth has changed.
- inactive, on 07/06/2008, -1/+10Wow, really. I guess we can't know anything about anything. Science is all just one big waste. Perhaps we should just go back to living in huts and making virgin sacrifices, because clearly we're too stupid to make any rational conclusions about the world, so it's best if we just devote all our energy to appeasing the thunder gods.
- eir574, on 07/06/2008, -1/+10"I used the analogy to discredit the debunking of the evidence I provided."
Supposition (that is, your analogy), is not sufficient to falsify someone else's evidence. If you want to show that the footprints were made at the same time, you need to think of evidence that would debunk that hypothesis (some of which was provided to you) and then disprove it, not just provide an analogy that describes why you think the attempt at falsification doesn't hold up. - inactive, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9Well - I didnt fall - but I would not know how it FEELS. Try this on for size - and get back to me if you cant understand anything I have said. I take Master Card and VISA for my education services.
What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution?
Endogenous retroviruses are a great example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance.
Kent Hovind was asked this when he called into IG.com - he had no answer.
What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?
The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.
In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.
Also, there are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.
All of this points to a common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.
Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.
Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.
The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.
What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized “missing links” now? - archiesteel, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9"My argument thus far has been entirely based on scientific evidence"
Actually, it hasn't. The (few) links you've provided are not scientific evidence, but pseudoscientific BS which you parrot as valid scientific proof.
"however if you feel there is no possible debate with me, that says more about the lack of evidence you're able to provide than it does about what I have or my supposed status as a "religious fanatic."
No, I'm saying that no amount of evidence we'll provide will be sufficient because you'll always claim it's false, irrelevant, or the work of a vast scientific conspiracy. I've been on the Internet long enough (over 20+ years) to know someone who doesn't want to debate rationally when I see one; you're one of these people.
"Wow, a wikipedia reference. I stand corrected. (I never said it was just to date rocks)"
You couldn't even parse the simple sentence I wrote (hint: I never implied it was "just to date rocks", but rather that there were *other* ways to date rocks). If you can't understand a simple sentence, why should we believe you are able to understand scientific theories?
Now, what was incorrect in that Wikipedia link? I want you to give me solid evidence that the methods indicated in that article are incorrect.
"And you know this how?"
Because I listened in Physics class. But since you're the one contradicting decades of scientific research, the burden of proof is on you. Please explain to us (no links) how a non-exotic environment (i.e. one that can be found on Earth) can significantly affect the rate of decay of radioactive material. I'll be waiting.
"Its not irrelevant if the environment affects the decay rate."
Well, since the environment doesn't affect the decay rate, it *is* irrelevant.
"I'll assume that you disagree because its not what your science text book told you."
It's not only a matter of reading a textbook - it's *understanding* the science behind it, and verifying it through experimentation. You know, what you can't do with *your* book. - Coestar, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9If any of those "discoveries" were anything more than a hoax, you wouldn't have to go looking for them on websites sporting animated GIFs and videos about "debunking evolution" - Instead, we'd be watching it on the Discovery Channel right now.
Additionally, I'm sure none of those who you've quoted would regret their statements, if TRUE empirical evidence actually existed (which your website fails to provide) to prove that humans and dinosaurs walked together. That's what you creationists don't understand... they (and we) "believe" in truth, and will follow it where it leads. YOU believe in a book, and call it truth, and attack all of those who do not share your belief.
Also, where's Jimmy Spaza? Shouldn't he be getting dugg down right about now? - nitsuj, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9"That actually is what today's scientists are so often guilty of. I'm actually writing a book that deals with this very subject."
And:
"You're right. My bad.
Regardless, it still doesn't negate where the evidence points to."
Which is an admission that you totally didn't understand how science works at all regarding hypothesis proposition and theories.
As a result of this misunderstanding, does this now mean that you're not going to bother with your book as maintaining your original opinion in it would be fundamentally dishonest. - pigfister, on 07/06/2008, -4/+12so will the Creationalists be invading digg to post things like "god put it there to test our faith"
ain't science great. - archiesteel, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8"No, It's a book written by though by God."
Prove it. - Jareth86, on 07/06/2008, -1/+9I believe you mean "5000" year old. I believe that the theory that Jesus used it as a table when he wrote the declaration of independence deserves equal time.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 208 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 