{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/6/2015 2:44:32 PM
30
You put a lot of faith into an idea that was renounced by it's creator on his death bed when he converted to Christianity.
English
-
As true as this is, it's now a very solid theory.
-
Carbon 14 dating (radioactive decay) is limited to 40-60k years. Anything extended beyond that is done so at extremely low confidence (1% and decreasing every ~5-6k years). The timeline required for the theory to hold true is not supported by the scientific methodology that it claims to use. Taking it to the extremes of "special consideration" which is the common explanation given, it still doesn't overcome the inate limitations of the method itself or any principles of radioactive half lives. The science simply doesn't support it.
-
Carbon dating has almost nothing to do with evolution. You need to be talking about the fossil record.
-
Fossil records are a part of the theory of evolution. The claim being that some animals evolved from dinosaurs millions of years ago based off a technology limited to going back 60k years. See the hole?
-
Edited by Stickman Al: 7/19/2015 6:58:30 PMCarbon dating is only one part of radiometric dating. There are other isotopes that have much longer half lives that are used in dating older things. Whilst you are correct that carbon dating is only accurate to about 60,000 years, that's not what scientists are using to date fossils. This is a common misconception. I suggest you do some reading about the dating methods they use and address those instead. Here's a quote; The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age. Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.
-
The creatures that revolved from dinosaurs are birds. (They specifically evolved from theropods.) There is fossil evidence of this.
-
It is a shame that the dating of those fossils is limited to 60k years. Otherwise it would be relevant to the theory.
-
Carbon-14 dating isn't the only way to date things. Scientists can date the rock layers that fossils are found in, and even if they couldn't, the simple presence of fossils makes them hard to deny, even if the dating isn't 100% accurate.
-
[quote]Carbon-14 dating isn't the only way to date things. Scientists can date the rock layers that fossils are found in, and even if they couldn't, the simple presence of fossils makes them hard to deny, even if the dating isn't 100% accurate.[/quote] It isn't the only way to date things but is the only method used to date fossils. Indirect measurements even using thorium dating are still indirect and are of low confidence by the nature of an indirect measurement. The radiocarbon dating accuracy is closer to less than 0.001% accurate (It is actually magnitudes less accurate than that as it is not a linear extrapolation). So by your logic, the Shroud of Turin, by its simple presence, makes Jesus and ergo Creation by the Christian God hard to deny (even if dating isn't 100% accurate). Every theory has its holes when you pull it apart (both creation and evolution).
-
Did you skip over the part where I said they used other methods to date the rock layers?
-
The thing about science is that we don't just take one person's word for it. Others attempt to recreate results. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins could both convert right now to hardcore traditional creationist Christianity and it would have zero effect whatsoever on the validity of evolution or any other scientific principle.
-
If Issac newton renounced gravity would that debunk gravity? No, no it wouldn't.
-
Laws and theories are different things. I think you made a post about that.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/10/2015 7:21:50 AMYes i did. The theories of Evolution and gravity are both supported by laws.
-
You are half right on that. Feel free to name one animal that has evolved since the inception of the concept of evolution. Note: Do not give examples of adaptation or acclimatization based off environmental stressors as neither of these are examples of evolution but rather temporary epigenetic changes to favor a new environment.
-
Lol if you want some kind of major documented change where a species of animal became 100% unrecognizable from what it once was you're not gonna get that. We've been actively looking at and observing evolution for about 160 years. That's less than .000001% of the time the dinosaurs were walking around on earth. And even less of a percentage of the total time life has been evolving on earth. Adaptation to the environment is natural selection. Which is evolution. But if you want to say evolution isn't evolution, and set your own standard for what it is I can't help you.
-
Adaptation is adaptation. It is a form of natural selection but it is an unsupported jump to call it evolution. Adaptation has no change in DNA, just the expression of phenotypic traits. The theory of evolution makes the jump that serial adaptations create new organisms which has simply never been observed. It had been widely speculated about but that bridge has never been established. Epigenetics on the other hand accounst for all adaptations and variations among base species. I'm all for science. I just don't like holes in it.
-
Epigenetics is part of evolution. Traits are in genes, when traits change genes change. I'm so sick of people trying to say the very things that are evolution, aren't evolution.
-
[quote]Epigenetics is part of evolution. Traits are in genes, when traits change genes change. I'm so sick of people trying to say the very things that are evolution, aren't evolution.[/quote] No. That is not correct. Gene expression or suppression determines which traits are present. Not the other way around. When traits change, genes do not change, they are simply activated or deactivated. You can learn this in the first quarter of a genetics course. Adaptation is the change of phenotypic traits, not necessarily the genotype, ergo adaptation is not evolution. Epigenetics presents a surprisingly strong argument for variations of base organisms which supports creation more so than evolution.
-
No dude, variation of base organisms directly supports evolution. How do you think things evolve? You realize every individual is genetically unique right? Genes from each parent combine and create a unique combination for the next generation. Through natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation the base species experiences evolution. Once you have enough speciation occur, and enough time passes, the ancestors of the observed species can appear to be 100% different from what you end up with. I don't understand how people can understand that a species will continue to adapt and split up based on natural selection like a family tree as time goes forward, and think the same thing didn't happen in the past.
-
[quote]No dude, variation of base organisms directly supports evolution. How do you think things evolve? [/quote] They don't evolve. Simple as that. Phenotypic variations of base genetic designs which is all that has been observed in recorded history supports Creation. Vary and adapt, sure. Evolve, not so much. [quote] You realize every individual is genetically unique right? Genes from each parent combine and create a unique combination for the next generation. [/quote] Kinda. The coding for each gene is the same, regardless. Every human has the same basic gene coding for say their ear but the variations of each ear is not found in unique genetic coding but rather the coding surrounding the gene (this is in effect the essence of Epigenetics). Genes are not unique. The coding around each gene is. Every species has the same fundamental coding for each of its genes. This is where Epigenetics presents a valid argument supporting the long standing belief of creation, as if God created a number of base organisms with minor variation within each set (color, size, shape, etc.). It may not agree with ideologies of evolutionists but the argument is supported all the same. [quote] Through natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation the base species experiences evolution. Once you have enough speciation occur, and enough time passes, the ancestors of the observed species can appear to be 100% different from what you end up with. [/quote] Still only speculation to support the theory. [quote] I don't understand how people can understand that a species will continue to adapt and split up based on natural selection like a family tree as time goes forward, and think the same thing didn't happen in the past.[/quote] Not sure what u meant in this part. Believe what you want but be very skeptical of science, it is just as easily manipulated as religion to push agendas. Enjoy your Sabbath.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/10/2015 8:43:09 PMVariety and adaptation equals evolution. If the only thing we had to support it was what we've recorded in recent history then yes, I would agree that it still has a huge hole in it. But the fossil record directly supports evolution and what we have observed as well. You will need to make the fossil record disappear or magically change to disprove evolution. Your taking aspects of evolution, saying its not evolution and then claiming it supports creation. Which is a bunch of crap.
-
[quote]Variety and adaptation equals evolution. If the only thing we had to support it was what we've recorded in recent history then yes, I would agree that it still has a huge hole in it. But the fossil record directly supports evolution and what we have observed as well. You will need to make the fossil record disappear or magically change to disprove evolution. [/quote] The fossil record only supports more speculation. Carbon 14 dating is out dated and gives highly questionable results. Newly created volcanic glass of recent years dates has been shown to date it several hundred thousand years. When the cumulative error of a series of tests to produce a result has an uncertainty greater than 100%, take the results with a grain of salt. [quote] Your taking aspects of evolution, saying its not evolution and then claiming it supports creation. Which is a bunch of crap.[/quote] The theory of Evolution may include serial adaptations but adaptation unto itself is not necessarily evolution, nor does it support evolution anymore so than creation. Saying evolution is adaptation and vice versa is as ignorant and incorrect as saying all scotch whiskey is whiskey and that all whiskey is scotch whiskey. Evolution is a concept derived from observed adaptation, not the other way around (like with laws and theories). With regards to Creation, Adaptation is a concept derived from Creation.
-
Well damn, first person I've seen stick it to Britton. Just an observer not giving a side but that definitely challenged him more than most posts lol
-
Adaptation is a concept derived from observation. Not creation.
