Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Questions for creationists

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Big Dave, you may want to read the work done by David Lack in the 1940s with respect to the Galapagos finches. His work was what "finally" put beyond doubt evolution. Darwins's work was much more conceptual than conclusive.

    Incidentally Lack was a staunch atheist, but after his work on proving evolution he became very much open to the idea of a God. Also, two of his children subsequently became preists.

    With regards uranium isotope aging of rocks and carbon dating of artefacts, it is not the total quantity that is important but concentrations/ratios. With uranium, the ratio of U-235 to U-238 can be used to determine how old the rocks are. As they decay at different rates they will have existed in different ratios in the past. As we know what the ratios of the isotopes is at the moment rocks are created, then we know when it was created by extrapolating back the ratios of uranium at various times.

    With carbon dating its the ratio of C-14 to C-12, in a similar fashion, the ratio of C-12 to C-14 is known at the time of death, and you back extrapolate decay rates. In this instance C-12 has an almost infinite half-life.
    One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

    Comment





    • ( this tripe is from Logical Realist )
      Who said it had to be either plant or animal? Sounds like a false dilema. If you had payed attention in biology class you would know there were other kigndoms out there besides plants and animals, like fungi and monera. The first lifeform may have been virus like and such...In between what we consider "life" and "nonlife".

      In fact I don't think any evolutionary scientist or advocater of abiogenesis ever said that the first life form was a plant or animal. The fact that you are unaware of this tells me you've done very little if any research in this area on your own.

      Ya know friend
      if you learn not to insult others when you think that you know it all, you may make more friends than enemies.
      Last edited by Docfeelgood; February 19, 2002, 19:41.

      Comment


      • Clarify please

        At any rate, your analogy is nothing but the thoroughly refuted "Watchmaker" analogy


        A) How is it refuted, many have said it has been but no-one has ever given me a proper explanation. (I know a statistical way, but I want people to clarify as I often think they say it without understanding the concept)

        B) If you were to travel to a distant planet (say Mars for feasability) and a watch was found on it, would you not presume someone had made it and put it there rather than random Martian sandstorms? Thats one interpretation of the analogy.
        One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

        Comment


        • Let me start by apologizing for the nested quotes and the bad paragraph structure I used in my original post that makes this necessary.

          Originally posted by Urban Ranger
          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Originally posted by Big Dave
          The evidence is that the Bible was written concurent with the events described in it.
          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          I was refering to the OT here, and several other places

          There's no such evidence. The earlist Synoptic Gospel, Mark, was written in around 60-70CE IIRC. That would be several decades after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, if such a person ever existed. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the gospels were written by any of the so called "Apostles."
          And no evidence that I'm aware of that they weren't. It is typical to attribute authorship to whomsoever claims to be the author unless you have evidence to the contrary. I'm certainly willing to add authorship of the Gospels to my research list, although that ought to be a topic for a different thread.

          The only person whose existence is certain is Paul. What's interesting is, of course, his acccount of the life of Jesus is very, very different than that of the gospels. What's even more interesting is Paul hardly used Jesus to promote Christianity, which would be extremely strange if Jesus did actually exist and had a life similar to the one described in the gospels.
          I don't mean to sound rude, but what Bible have you been reading? Paul writes " For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
          The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Co 2:2). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

          As for if Jesus existed, Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and numerous other Roman records all talk about Him.

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          quote:Originally posted by Big Dave
          We have historical evidence for most of the major players and can date the time of any given book's authorship with a fair degree if certainty.
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          What major players?
          Sorry, another reference to the Old Testament. Ahab, Senacherib, Nebuccadnezer, Hezakiah, etc. And "historical evidence" should read "extra-Biblical evidence".

          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          quote:Originally posted by Big Dave
          Since the peoples of those times had no study of history or archeology we can also be certain (due to the historical accuracy of the content of the books of the Bible) that they were not written after the fact.
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          On the contrary, the Romans were meticulous record keepers. Which is why historians could reconstruct most of the events that took place. Your passage confuses me however. Just because they didn't, eh, "study of history" doesn't mean the bible wasn't writtern after the "fact," assuming that you used "the bible" to refer to "New Testament."
          This was another reference to the validity of the Old Testament. The Assyrians kept records that would shame the Romans, the Babylonians and Egyptians weren't far behind them for accuracy and volume.

          My comment about people didn't study history didn't mean that the records weren't written after the fact. Obviously they had to be. I means that they were recorded by people of the generation those events happened to.

          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          quote:Originally posted by Big Dave
          The transmission of these books (actually scrolls at the time) was performed by a class of the priesthood called Scribes. Their job was not only to copy each scroll, but when finished to count the total number of characters in the scroll and make sure that it agreed with how many were supposed to be there. Then pick a letter, say an ayin (pronounce eye-in), and count that. So each scroll had the equivelant of two separate checksums performed on it to make sure that it was an accurate copy of the original.
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Just because the manuscripts were textually accurate has no bearing on it's historical accuracy. Take Moby **** for example. We can be rather sure that the books we can buy from bookstores today are very close to Hemingway's original manuscript. Still, it doesn't mean the work contained factual information.
          You gave me the impression you thought the Biblical record was changed after it was written. I have given you information to show you that this is not the case.

          We can compare the Biblical record against records from neighboring kingdoms (e.g. Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt) and see that they match up. But that is a topic for yet another thread. If you're interested start one and PM me the URL.

          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          quote:Originally posted by Big Dave
          That takes us up to 70 AD when the Romans sacked the Temple in Jerusalem. For the New Testament we have over 10,000 coppies and fragments of scrolls dating back to around 150 AD. Since there are no major differences in all these coppies we can be fairly certain that they are accurate representations of the letters (scrolls, books) of the New Testament.
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          It seems that the NT weren't written by the Jews since a) they were mostly written in Greek and b) Jews reject the notion of Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.
          Right, the NT was not written by "the Jews". I put that in quotes because all of the first Christians were Jews. When the NT talks about the Jews it is talking about the ruling class which was comprised of the Herodians, the Sanhedrin, the Saducees, and the Pharasees. My comment about the Temple was again refering to the OT, the rest of this paragraph is talking about the NT.

          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          quote:Originally posted by Big Dave
          Subsequent translations were based on that, for example the Latin Vulgate. The oldest surviving manuscripts we had were from around 1300 AD (I'm not positive on that date, someone correct me if I'm wrong). This is for the Tanakh (OT). However opening up the caves at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and piecing together one scroll of Isaiah we found there revealed fewer than a dozen changes, and none of those changes changed the meaning of the text.
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The Dead Sea Scrolls. Now that's interesting since much of the infomation in them pointed not towards a Jesus of Nazareth. Of course, there are also two interpretations of the scrolls, esp in regards to dating them. The, *cough*formal*cough* school disregards all internal reference. This raises a serious controversy since there is a heavy Christian influence within the "formal" school.
          Hmm, I'm going to have to read more on the Dead Sea Scrolls before I comment on this. My point was the consistancy of the Biblical text.

          I know a little about the Essenes (the sect that was living there) but for the exact dating of their residency I'll have to do some research.

          You got it completely wrong. Imagine this. You burn a candle in a sealed room. You know, with a very high degree of accuracy, the volume of room and the composition of the air inside in the room before lighting the candle. You also have a unit sample of the candle in question. As a matter of fact you sliced the top 1cm off the candle.
          With all this information you can tell how much of the candle has been burned, thus knowing how tall the candle was originally.
          Excuse me? How do you compare the whole earth with a sealed room? Assume that a given rock is 25% U-235 when it is created. As the U-235 decays into U-238, which then decays into lead this rock is also undergoing geologic changes. Either lead or uranium can be added after the initial deposition of U-235. Radiometric dating is a wonderful idea in the lab, but it doesn't pan out in an uncontrolled environment.

          and how did we get the top 1 cm of the candle?

          I have read this many times with no credible source given. This seems to be a creationist propaganda.
          The potassium/argon testing method was used on volcanic lava rocks from Hawaii, yielding ages from 160 million to 3 billion years. In fact, the lava rocks were formed from an 1801 eruption according to Funkhouser & Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research (July 15, 1968), p. 4601.

          P.D. Nunes and M. Tatsumoto in Science #182 (November 30, 1973), p. 916, tells how one particular rock from Apollo 16 gave uranium/lead ages from 7 to 18 billion years, so it was chemically treated until it yielded a "corrected" and "acceptable" age of 3.8 billion years.

          I've got plenty more if you want it.

          A "strain" as in a strain of bateria or virus?
          Yes

          Edit: Fixed mangled vB code.
          Last edited by Big Dave; February 19, 2002, 20:26.
          Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Big Dave
            Excuse me? How do you compare the whole earth with a sealed room? Assume that a given rock is 25% U-235 when it is created. As the U-235 decays into U-238, which then decays into lead this rock is also undergoing geologic changes. Either lead or uranium can be added after the initial deposition of U-235. Radiometric dating is a wonderful idea in the lab, but it doesn't pan out in an uncontrolled environment.
            No matter how much geologic change the rock experiences, the most it experiences are physical and chemical changes, neither of which will affect the decay of the atoms.
            Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff

            Comment


            • Part 2-Big Dave

              Big Dave is the typical creationist that must be answered point for point in the public arena. Though it is VERY tempting just to scough at his ignorance and misconceptions. Which is what many people do. I think such an approach is flawed though as it makes evolutionists look dogmatic.

              What one must always remember though is that talking to a creationist about evolution is a lot like talking to a child. They not only lack an understanding of evolution as a child does, but an understanding of science in general. Big Dave is especially stubborn as he seems to get the vast majority of his science in "Sunday School" from people like Kent Hovind. I know this because he uses lots of arguments that groups like ICR present when they lecture.(I have attended a few of these myself and let me say, if you've seen one creationist lecture....you've seen them all). The candle one is more then just coincidence(Kent Hovind uses that exact analogy against radiometric dating in his lectures).

              Such lectures are circus acts of pseudoscientists, that people like Dave think of as real science, for superstitions sake. When I went Kent Hovind's lecture, for example, half of it was jokes,then straw men, with some discussion of things like Big Foot,the Lockness Monster, UFOs, abortion and the upcoming "New World Order", which all somehow all tie into evolutionary theory.(all also discussed on Kent's website found at Dr.Dino.com)http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq(where there is also an interesting section on the Bermuda Triangle) What's sad is people like Dave put a man like Hovind on the same level as Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkins. An obvious pretender on the throne of science.



              Now that I've shown his source for Dave's points:

              BigDave
              Much of what we were taught in school as fact is actually opinion. This whole evolution business and the age of the earth being measured in billions of years is very questionable. But since it is pushed on the general mouth breathing public as Science they swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
              Dave is saying that since much is opinion....all is opinion. And that all opinions are equal. This is not true. Much of what is taught in science is fact(however badly taught) and even when its opinion, its usually the best opinion we have. People like Dave just like to imagine conspiracies to teach evolution...their evidence? None at all, the conspiracy is just there. "The Bible says people will deny God" so scientists must be making things up.....

              Also such an idea goes very much against how science works. Scientists make entire careers by proving eachother wrong. If evolution was bogus a real scientist would prove that long before a creationist ever could(creationists like to point to evolutionary hoaxes but who uncovered these hoaxes? Not creationists but evolutionary scientists.). But look at the National Academy of Science's website,Nature, and Scientific America. Evolutionary theory is stronger then ever. As is abiogenesis,the age of the earth and big bang theory.


              BigDave:
              The issue here is what constitutes science. The short answer is "that which can be verified by the scientifice method". Evolution does not meet that criteria. Neither does creation. Neither event/process is reproducable.
              This tells me you have no clue as to what science is about. Dinosaurs are likewise not "reproducable" nor whoolly mammoths nor fusion nor the fall of Rome. Should belief in the existence of those be labled pseudoscience now?

              Keep in mind that by "reproducible" it means the evidence is open to the public. Not that the event can necessarily be reproduced. Fossils and such are like that.

              BigDave:
              Unless of course you are wrong about the age of the earth. And even then evolution is in direct conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
              This argument has been refuted time and again. The fact that you use it Dave shows me how ignorant of the subject you really are.

              The second law says that objects in a closed system tend to increase in entropy. The Earth is not a closed system. Also keep in mind how it says "tends to", the process is not linear, as there are increases as well as decreases, overall though it tends to be linear. Think of how absurd the Second Law would be if it was now for all systems.... or even closed one's all the time. Growth would be a violation of the second law, caterpillar to butterfly...a violation. As would be replication of organisms,ice cube formations,snow flakes, and such.

              BigDave:
              I'm familliar with the concept of radiometric dating. What I want to know is if you walk into a room and see a lit candle on the table, how long has it been burning? You have no idea how tall it was to begin with, so measuring it now, then after 30 minutes will tell you how far it burnt in 30 minutes, but it won't tell you how tall the candle was when it was lit.
              That exact argument and analogy(candle wax) was used by Kent Hovind when I went to his lecture,which is what makes me think Dave attended one of Hovind's or similar creationist's lecture.

              First off it fails, because radiometric dating deals with proportions and scientists thus have the whole thing in place already. Its about transmutation.(rocks are formed out of magma and when formed are wholly consisted of "parent" isotopes, this is why igneous rocks formed from magma are more easily dated then sedimentary rocks). Like if all the wax was collected in a bowel at the bottom and they saw how much wax melts away. In that way by measuring volume of liquid wax and how much turns to liquid in a given amount of time they could know how long the candle burned for. The elements are changing...not being removed. Like if we had a jar of six-hundred marbles, and hundreds were black...hundreds were white. Every thirty days half the marbles in the bag turn white. One could use such numbers to estimate how old the bag is.

              BigDave:
              Three attempts at radiometric dating of one single rock can yield ages over a billion years apart. You have no idea how much U-235 you started with in that sample, so you can't possibly know what half of it is to determine what percentage of U-235 is left.
              Actually scientists can tell how much of a parent isotope can be expected by means of studying what the rock would be like when magma cools. Also where did you hear of this "billions of years apart" idea? Give me a link to that.


              BigDave:
              More to the point, why would we evolve something we don't need or use?

              Because mutation is not an operational process, hence if something evolves which is neither harmful nor beneficial to a creature's survival, then it remains, the neutral gene is passed on with the creature's other succesful genes. More importantly though...why would a God make useless parts?

              BigDave:
              And how can it be observed since we've all been taught that it takes billions of years?
              By that line of reasoning Galileo's heliocentrism can be labled pseudoscience especially when heliocentrism was first presented. Lots in science(like heliocentrism)are not purely observed, most is inferred because science is not purely Baconian. Most knowldedge of all growth for example is inferred, scientists don't actually sit there and watch a tree's entire growth. What they do is see the same tree at different times and infer that the tree grew. Not that there is a new tree with every look.

              BigDave:
              The only transitional forms I have seen are artists conceptions. No fossiles exist that I am aware of.
              Really?Here are some at:

              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...rt1a.html#fish

              Now archeoptryx is a great example of a transitiuonal form. When it was first found scientists believed it to be a dinosaur but when it was later found with feather indentations it was labled a bird/dinosaur hybrid. Creationist object by saying its a bird. And indeed it is classified as a bird. But that's just because scientists have to draw a line for classification's sake(as there is no class of "bird/dinosaur" mix.

              Basically the creationists cop out here by saying that these are not "truly" tranistional forms. Which is absurd. They complain that there are still "gaps" this ignores the fact that there would be gaps in the fossil record even if life did evolved. We are talking about thousands of generations...not every specimen from a generation will be fossilized. The standard here is arbitrary when no form is considered transitional l because of "gaps". To show how arbitrary it is, lets say they want to know how entity 'A1' evolved into entity 'A20'. For this the evolutionist points to A10. The creationist complains that there's still "gaps". So we find A5. The creationist complains that there's still "gaps". Even when A2,3, and 4 is found they'd still complain about "gaps> (where's A 2.1?) The standards are impossible to meet. The expectations are unrealistic.

              Creationists also expect scientists to find some mutated monster as well with the label "tranistional" on it and complain that all the "Transitional" forms we find are self-contained species and hence not "truly" transitional. That's again ridiculous. In evolutionary theory they forget for a creature to survive and be naturally selected; it must be well adapted to its enviroment and pass on its genes. Hence every "transitional form" is going to be a fully formed, self-contained species. Not half built mutants. What makes them transitional then is that they are the fully formed species in between other fully formed species that they are related to. Not half formed limbs and such.

              BigDave:
              Macro evolution would be the introduction of new genes.
              BigDave is saying that macroevolution, which defines in many different ways(In one case as speciation, then change in phyllum, then introduction to new genes) is not observed or possible.


              A counterexample is brought about by normal mutations and can be seen in normal sex. Remember that being XX or XY determines whether a person is male or female? Well in some cases you get XYY and such. That is new DNA being added. It can happen with other strands too. Mutations like that are enough to disprove the "no knew information can be created" myth.Mutations are the results of new DNA being used,added and deleted. According to you that is an inroduction of a new gene and hence macroevolution.As any mutation would be. What you need to do is be more clear on what you mean by introducing a new gene.

              Edward Max(Ph.D.) lists some examples here of gene increases:

              An example that I have already mentioned in another posting on Talk.Origins is the hemoglobin/myoglobin family. The gene for a primordial oxygen-carrying protein is thought to have duplicated leading to separate genes encoding myoglobin (the oxygen-carrying protein of muscle) and hemoglobin (the oxygen-carrying protein of red blood cells). Then the hemoglobin gene duplicated, and the copies differentiated into the forms known as alpha and beta. Later, both the alpha and beta hemoglobin genes duplicated several times producing a cluster of hemoglobin-alpha-related sequences and a cluster of hemoglobin-beta-related sequences. The clusters include functional genes that are slightly different, that are expressed at different times during the development of the embryo to the adult, and that encode proteins specifically adapted to those developmental periods. Other examples of gene families that appear to have developed by such duplication and differentiation include the immunoglobulin superfamily (comprising a large variety of cell surface proteins), the family of seven-membrane-spanning domain proteins (including receptors for light, odors, chemokines and neurotransmitters), the G-protein family (some members of which transduce the signals of the seven-membrane-spanning domain family proteins), the serine protease family (digestive and blood coagulation proteins) and the homeobox family (proteins critical in development). A large part of the increase in information in our genomes compared with those of "lower" organisms apparently results from such gene duplication followed by independent evolution and differentiation of duplicated copies into multiple genes with distinct function. If an information theory analysis claims that random mutation cannot lead to an increase in information but the analysis ignores gene duplication and differentiation through independent mutations, such an analysis is irrelevant as a model for gene evolution, regardless of its mathematical sophistication.

              BigDave:
              Don't forget that scientists are human beings with their own world views. They can live in denial as much as any of us.
              Yes, but science has methods and checks in it which make it self-correcting which is why it changes. Whereas religions lacks these methods and peer reviewed checks and is hence far more static.


              Overall Dave's criticism of evolution are that it's not "testable", "repeatable" and "observed". This view of science is very narrow and if taken seriously, one would have to discard half of all modern day science. As well as all of scientific history. Galileo's heliocentric system was not "repeatable", was not directly observed(nor has the Earth's rotation been fully observed today). Yet such a thing is still science. That's because the inferences implied by the evidence was overwhelming. That's not saying heliocentrism was a matter of faith. It was testable mathematically, the inferences were all based on solid rational evidence. As is the inference of life evolving. It is testable in that it can be checked by every field of biology, geology and such. If the Earth was found by means of radiometric dating to be 10k years old. evolutionary theory would be in trouble, a 60 million year old human fossil would seriously undermine evolutionary theory, as would genetic anamolies and such. It is completely testable, men like Dave just don't accept that because Science did not support the view Christians wanted to hear. Had all the evidence supported young Earth creation, these people would be all for science, labeling their opponents as dogmatic,irrational and stubborn. Science doesn't support them so they make up conspiracy theories and turn to the worse of pseudoscience. They advocate that we narrow the scope of science for the sake of their personal beliefs.
              Last edited by Logical Realist; February 19, 2002, 21:41.

              Comment


              • In regards to the appendix--

                In some creatures (birds, for instance), what we know as the appendix serves as an immune organ, developing B lymphocytes. That function is filled by the bone marrow in our species. What remains of the appendix is just basically a blind-end out-pouching of the large intestine; it is not, in and of itself, a separate organ, just a rather bothersome part of a much larger one.
                "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ranskaldan
                  No matter how much geologic change the rock experiences, the most it experiences are physical and chemical changes, neither of which will affect the decay of the atoms.
                  So changing the chemical makup of the rock will not change the ratios of u-235 to u-238 to lead? Since this ratio is what uranium-lead dating is based on when you change this ratio by a method other than atomic decay you have change the precieved age of the rock.

                  David
                  Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Big Dave


                    So changing the chemical makup of the rock will not change the ratios of u-235 to u-238 to lead? Since this ratio is what uranium-lead dating is based on when you change this ratio by a method other than atomic decay you have change the precieved age of the rock.

                    David
                    u-235:u-238 ratio is the same unless the isotopes magically get separated inside the earth. Very unlikely that you will separate isotopes by mistake.
                    I refute it thus!
                    "Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"

                    Comment


                    • Actual Questions for Creationists

                      Why are 99 percent of all animals that ever lived extinct? One would think God would have loved his creations and preserved them.

                      Why are there so many sedimetary layers? So many would have taken millions of years to develope.

                      Why do animals get diseases? Why did God make diseases for animals?

                      How did Adam name deep sea fishes?

                      Why are squid eyes better then human's?(Squid's don't have a blind spot).

                      Why are almost all marsupials in Australia? Especially when they can survive in other places. One would think that marsupials would spread out from the Ark...not all decide to head to a certain island. Also how did the Kangaroo's sim down there?

                      Why are only certain exotic species located on islands when they can survive elsewhere and other animals can flourish on those islands? Seems odd how they migrated from the Ark in such a orderly manner.

                      Why do certian moles have eyes which they never use? And which only become useless later as dirt is constantly shoved in them?

                      There are huge meteror craters on the Earth, many compable of wiping out many lifeforms with dust clouds and explosions which would kill almost all, if not all, complex animals at this time. Its amazing many lifeforms survived, afterwhich they recovered at an astonishing rate.

                      How did delicate ecosystems recover from a world wide flood and these meteor strikes so quickly and completely? They don't seem to recover THAT fast now at days.

                      There isn't enough water on Earth to make a world wide flood. So how did it happen?

                      Why hasn't anyone even found God? If they haven't ;is it really apropriate to posit God as a mechanism?

                      What is the mechanism for creation? How did God do it in seven days?

                      Why are certain fossils always found in certain strata?

                      How come they found swamp plant fossils in Antarctica? If Antarctica wasn't always a frozen area; where did penguins live?

                      Why do men have nipples?

                      Why are there deformities? And ugliness? Seems kinda messed up how God made some people ugly to others.

                      Many of you speak of mankind "devolving". In that case ancient civilizations should have left some amazingingly advanced artifacts. I mean such smart people should have been able to discover electricity. Where are these artifacts and huge monuments? Where are the signs of this civilization?

                      If all language were created at the tower of Babel; how come the English language wasn't around in Roman times?

                      How did the human race survive two inbreedings?(Noachian and Adam/Eve).

                      There isn't enough capacity in a given person's DNA to account for all the variety contained within the human species. How did Adam/Eve and the Noachian family then contain all this DNA?

                      Why do whales have little feet?

                      How did fish survive the huge salinity changes of water during the flood? (Anyone with an aquarium knows how sensitive fish are to this).

                      Please answer these questions with something more then speculation. Use hard empirical evidence. Thanks.

                      Comment


                      • The potassium/argon testing method was used on volcanic lava rocks from Hawaii, yielding ages from 160 million to 3 billion years. In fact, the lava rocks were formed from an 1801 eruption according to Funkhouser & Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research (July 15, 1968), p. 4601.
                        Ah, yes, Austin's Hawaii samples.

                        Radiometric dating works from the time the rock last solidified from a completely molten state. This seals the isotopes within the rock. It's especially relevant for Potassium/Argon, as argon is a gas: it will escape from molten lava, and cannot begin to accumulate from radioactive decay of potassium until the rock solidifies.

                        It will give indeterminate results if old rock is partially melted and then solidifies again. That's what Austin sampled.

                        Also, the various radiometric dating methods have minimum and maximum date ranges, where either the parent or the daughter product becomes too scarce to measure accurately. Because the atmosphere contains 1% argon, the method should not be used on lava which has been exposed to air within the last 2 million years or thereabouts, where the tiny amount of argon produced in this relatively short period will be swamped by atmospheric contamination: K/Ar is for old rocks. Austin knew this, and ignored the lab's advice.
                        P.D. Nunes and M. Tatsumoto in Science #182 (November 30, 1973), p. 916, tells how one particular rock from Apollo 16 gave uranium/lead ages from 7 to 18 billion years, so it was chemically treated until it yielded a "corrected" and "acceptable" age of 3.8 billion years.
                        Probably the removal of contamination. Later contamination can penetrate the sample in some cases, but not the individual rock crystals within the sample, which seal in the isotope and its decay products.
                        I've got plenty more if you want it.
                        I'm sure you have, creationists love to churn this stuff out. But all of it has a perfectly normal explanation which the creationists don't publish. There is no genuine, unrefuted evidence which either confirms creationism or contradicts evolution.

                        And they won't tell you about the evidence which disproves creationism.
                        Last edited by Jack the Bodiless; February 20, 2002, 06:56.

                        Comment


                        • About the appendix

                          The appendix contains a significant amount of lymphoid tissue. Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue (known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues, GALT) occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal system. The GALT are involved in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens in ingested material.

                          The human appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its greatest development shortly after birth and then regresses with age. The appendix also develops mucosal immunity, being specially important in neonatal.

                          I knew the answer since friday, but I've been really busy!
                          And thank you for the question, UR! I didn't know what was the appendix for either!

                          And it does not have a digestive function. That is true.



                          Well, since I'm here wasting my valuable time let me just say this:
                          *The Gospel of Mark was written in early 40s (I think it was in 43 CE)
                          * "Luke" was the Gospel written by himself between 60-70 CE

                          *Ecowiz, the OT was originally written in hebrew and a little aramaic (I think it's spelled like this)
                          *All of the NT is written in greek, although in the Judea's diallect (IIRC, and just the gospels were)



                          Have a nice troll!
                          "BANANA POWAAAAH!!! (exclamation Zopperoni style)" - Mercator, in the OT 'What fruit are you?' thread
                          Join the Civ2 Democratic Game! We have a banana option in every poll just for you to vote for!
                          Many thanks to Zealot for wasting his time on the jobs section at Gamasutra - MarkG in the article SMAC2 IN FULL 3D? http://apolyton.net/misc/
                          Always thought settlers looked like Viking helmets. Took me a while to spot they were supposed to be wagons. - The pirate about Settlers in Civ 1

                          Comment


                          • Well, since I'm here wasting my valuable time let me just say this:
                            *The Gospel of Mark was written in early 40s (I think it was in 43 CE)
                            * "Luke" was the Gospel written by himself between 60-70 CE
                            According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Gospels were written from 70 CE onwards.

                            So who's saying otherwise, and on what is that based?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
                              I'm sure you have, creationists love to churn this stuff out. But all of it has a perfectly normal explanation which the creationists don't publish. There is no genuine, unrefuted evidence which either confirms creationism or contradicts evolution.

                              And they won't tell you about the evidence which disproves creationism.
                              I am not out to disprove evolution, nor to prove creation. As I stated in a previous post, neither can be done since they are both irreproducable. I do not deny that there is alot of evidence that seems to point to evolution. Nor do I deny that there is a large body of evidence that points to creation, as some in this forum would.

                              Neither do I deny that there are problems with the theory of creation.

                              However (and here is where we really differ) I do recognize that there are big problems with the theory of evolution, where as many in this forum will swear up, down, and sideways that it is fact and refuse to even speculate that there might be "inconsistencies" or "issues" with it.
                              Respectfully,

                              David

                              PS I'm not ignoring the long posts above, it just takes me some time to research them. Lots of info on that talkorgins site.
                              Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.

                              Comment


                              • They are not comparable.

                                Evolution is entirely devoid of the problems creationism has: problems such as the existence of the fossil record, the overwhelming evidence for an ancient Earth, and all the rest.

                                There is no genuine evidence that contradicts evolution: there is plenty that contradicts creationism. Science operates primarily by falsification. A theory is provisionally accepted as true if it fits the data, but must be discarded if it does not.

                                Creationism was discarded about two centuries ago.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X