Theory of evolution

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda


Try doing the math of the chance of this happening (evolution)..

This gets into an entirely different scientific debate, over the so-called "Anthropomorphic" nature of Creation; the details would be a digression (even from this thread! ) but I'm sure you can Google it easily enough.

[...] and also try reading romans chapter 1 verses 18-32 ( I know its the bible, but give it a shot anyway...) I read secular science magazines even though I don't believe in most of it...Is broadening my horizon..You should definately try the same..

AP

I am an Episcopalean and have been quoting the Bible throughout, albeit spottily and with tongue-in-cheek. Romans I 18-32 ("The Guilt Of Mankind") has to do with the disobedient to God -- I don't recall Creationism in the 10 Commandments, nor do I believe myself " ... filled with unrighteousness ... wickedness ... full of envy, murder ..." Okay, I'll cop to the next one, "debate" -- but I mean, really, to introduce "Who, knowing the judgment ... are worthy of death ... [and] have pleasure in them that do them"?????????????????????

Sorry, but isn't that getting a tad personal????

-Oz

[BlueWaldo]

x

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


By analogy, you're attempting to apply a microscope's accuracy to a telescope. Carbon dating is used, by paleontologists, for relative accuracy within the 10s - 100s MM years range. So the dinosaurs became extinct ~65 million years ago; no one AFAIK is trying to pin it down to 64,994,037.385 years, on a Thursday.

-Oz

By MM do you mean million? Because carbon dating is not used for anything that onld. Carbon dating isn't even used on the order of 100k years.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


By MM do you mean million? Because carbon dating is not used for anything that onld. Carbon dating isn't even used on the order of 100k years.

My mistake, slipping from the generic to the specific -- you're correct re: carbon, but elements such as U235 (half-life = 713 MM - million - years) are also used, so my basic point -- is the decay of isotopes in question -- remains. (Other isotopes commonly used -- besides Carbon 14 -- are Potassium 40, Rubidium 87, Thorium 232, and Uranium 238.)

Thanks!

-Oz

[BlueWaldo]

My point is that if the samples had been kept in a lab for those millions of years then the tests would be just fine. However on a sample that has been sitting outside for thousands of years and has been in unknown conditions (say a huge flood), you cannot assume the test to still be accurate.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo
My point is that if the samples had been kept in a lab for those millions of years then the tests would be just fine. However on a sample that has been sitting outside for thousands of years and has been in unknown conditions (say a huge flood), you cannot assume the test to still be accurate.

Actually, you can -- it takes more than just a million years in salt water to alter the rate of nuclear isotope decay.

For a decent intro / overview for the matter at hand, see:

http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/biol106h/Lec9/Biol106_L9.html

Best,

Oz

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Actually, you can -- it takes more than just a million years in salt water to alter the rate of nuclear isotope decay.

For a decent intro / overview for the matter at hand, see:

http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/biol106h/Lec9/Biol106_L9.html

Best,

Oz

I don't claim to be an expert. All i know is there is petrified (sp?) wood in washington that was a forest 20 years ago.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


I don't claim to be an expert. All i know is there is petrified (sp?) wood in washington that was a forest 20 years ago.

Petrification is simply the process of other minerals taking the place of wood and water. It has nothing to do with, nor any effect on, radio-isotope decay.

Your point is of interest, however, in that we begin to see -- and this is by no means a criticism of you, who have conducted your side of this debate with both reason and gentility -- that misunderstanding of the issues being discussed is, as always, perhaps our greatest difficulty.

Best Regards,

Oz

[ariano_paluda]

Originally posted by Ozymandias






I am an Episcopalean and have been quoting the Bible throughout, albeit spottily and with tongue-in-cheek. Romans I 18-32 ("The Guilt Of Mankind") has to do with the disobedient to God -- I don't recall Creationism in the 10 Commandments, nor do I believe myself " ... filled with unrighteousness ... wickedness ... full of envy, murder ..." Okay, I'll cop to the next one, "debate" -- but I mean, really, to introduce "Who, knowing the judgment ... are worthy of death ... [and] have pleasure in them that do them"?????????????????????

Sorry, but isn't that getting a tad personal????

OOPs...I forgot pointing out the part that I wanted to highlight....what Paul is ALSO adressing in the mentioned scripture...is that by looking at the wonder of creation, there is no excuse for denying the existence of a God, and that was merely the fact I whished to point out...sorry if I offended you

AP

[ariano_paluda]

typo

wish is without "H" after "w"

write that a million times

wish is without "H" after "w",wish is without "H" after "w",wish is without "H" after "w"......

AP

[arazok]

Originally posted by Azeem
If evolution is true, then why aren't we getting any smarter?

Actualy the average IQ from the early/mid 1800's to modern day has increased by about 20-30 points (from 80-90 to 110-120 today). This trend continues in industralized countries to this day...we ARE getting smarter.

Also, for some who thing that the universe and all of it's many wonders are just to great NOT to have been created by god...I ask where did god come from? Both are equal wonders, the existance of the universe does not prove the existance of the god.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda


OOPs...I forgot pointing out the part that I wanted to highlight....what Paul is ALSO adressing in the mentioned scripture...is that by looking at the wonder of creation, there is no excuse for denying the existence of a God, and that was merely the fact I whished to point out...sorry if I offended you

AP

Apology accepted.

Thank You,

Oz

[BlueWaldo]

Originally posted by BlueWaldo


I don't claim to be an expert. All i know is there is petrified (sp?) wood in washington that was a forest 20 years ago.

I am just pointing out that in Washington serveral thing that are supose to take longer than I believe the world has been around to happen happened over night.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by arazok


Actualy the average IQ from the early/mid 1800's to modern day has increased by about 20-30 points (from 80-90 to 110-120 today). This trend continues in industralized countries to this day...we ARE getting smarter.

Also, for some who thing that the universe and all of it's many wonders are just to great NOT to have been created by god...I ask where did god come from? Both are equal wonders, the existance of the universe does not prove the existance of the god.

The IQ of an individual is relative to the average IQ of the population measured, and this average is by definition 100. Probably the figures cited results from other evaluations of intelligence than the IQ test (which I think was developped at the end of the XIX° or beginning of XX° century).
I dont know of any proof that the mental human potential has increased in the historical times.

[Buckets]

Originally posted by ariano_paluda
I once discussed this with a college biology teacher:

He said that evolution is gradual mutation into something better, survival of the fittest and all that. I asked him wether the eye was functional without one of its parts. No he said...then I asked him why we have eyes..since a gradual mutation couldn't make such a jump. He started saying that maybe a thousand amoebas was born with that same half eye, and they mated (what do you call it, when amoebas do it? ) then it would evolve into a 75% eye....etc. etc. Then I asked him that nasty question about survival of the fittest...a half eye is'nt fit for anything.

AP

To elaborate on Ozymandias' response to this:

First, imagine a photosensitive cell evolving. Not too much of a stretch, right? And this cell could be quite useful.

Next, imagine these cells organized into clusters, on the outside of the body, not unlike compound eyes of insects (though without the sub-organization). Not a great leap here either, adding the ability to perhaps guage the direction of light.

Next, imagine these clusters concave, to the point the opening is quite small. this would protect the light sensitive cells and allow a more accurate sense of the direction of light. I believe spiders have such eyes.

Next, imagine developing a protective transparent membrane at the opening. Not a shabby mutaion, if i do say so.

Next imagine this membrane's shape developing into a lens, thus allowing the light receptors to get even more accurate about what direction or angle the light is coming from.

Now, from there, is it hard to imagine the development of an iris, colour receptors, eyelids, lashes, tears and all the other good stuff that helps us and so may other species see in their own way?

This 'eye argument' is very old, and long since debunked creationist propaganda, which causes me to doubt that your 'biology teacher' was of professional calibre or even real at all. i am no studnet of biology and this seems simple enough to me. In short i have a hard time believing you at all, ariano_paluda.