Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[laurasaur]

Only dead things cant be carbon dated, as the carbom 14 levels in living plants and animals stay constant, it's only when it's dead that the carbon 14 level can be measured.



You should check your facts there, carbon dating only works up to 50,000 years.

You're right, I was a bit lost in the above example. However:

everyone who keeps going about carbon dating

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4


The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.


And before you say that evolutionists dont agree with the flood - think again. You will find the main "evolutionists" now acknowledge it occured.



The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.


Methods should work reliably on things of known age
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.14

Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.15 This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.16 If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!19

Carbon dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.

Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.



I think I will stop now as this post is becoming absurdly long.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

There is not one case of Gaining genetic material, ever.

Mutations would be a case of gaining genetic material, as that material would not be found in the parent, therefore the child would of 'gained' that new material.

[laurasaur]

Now, if these similarities arn't due to evolution, then what? There is remains of what we've evolved from and between the processes, prehistoric humanoid remains of differant stages (including various shaped skulls and body shapes, some races died out due to inability to change, those that could adapt did and are our ancestors) are scattered across Africa and some parts of Asia.

I presume here you are referring to the "Neandertal Man"?? If not then forgive my reply, Im trying to not "Fire off random answers" at you .


Here's some answers which I think some up the whole farse pretty well.

One of the world’s foremost authorities on Neandertal man, Erik Trinkaus, concludes: “Detailed comparisons of Neandertal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neandertal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.” (Natural History, vol. 87, p. 10, 1978). Why then are there continued efforts to make apes out of man and man out of apes?

In one of the most remarkably frank and candid assessments of the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam (professor of anthropology at Yale) suggested that:

"perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy. "(American Scientist, Vol. 66, p. 379, May/June 1978).

[laurasaur]

Mutations would be a case of gaining genetic material, as that material would not be found in the parent, therefore the child would of 'gained' that new material.

No. No no no nooo sorry, but that is not what anyone (scientists, creationists, evolutionists) think.

Mutation means that the genes from the parent are in some way lost, damaged or REARRANGED.

Gaining information means NEW genes that DID NOT occur in the parent now occurs in the child.  

SOrry just had to straighten that one up.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

No. No no no nooo sorry, but that is not what anyone (scientists, creationists, evolutionists) think.

Mutation means that the genes from the parent are in some way lost, damaged or REARRANGED.

Gaining information means NEW genes that DID NOT occur in the parent now occurs in the child.  

SOrry just had to straighten that one up.

I did biology, I know what mutations are, and I know that one kind of mutation is when an extra base pair is added to the dna chain, therefore material would have been gained.

[laurasaur]

Perhaps a real example of evolution is the battle against Bacteria with Anti-biotics. Penicillin is nearly useless now because bacteria have "developed" and become resistant to it. Qualified docters worry that anti-biotics will become useless when "super-bugs" that are resistant to anti-biotics sweep the earth, if they ever do.

For all their simplilarity, bacteria show an incredible resolve to adapt to their conditions within relatively short times. Penicillin has only been around in the last 50-70 years (i think) so they could well of developed fast in the billions of years leading up to other growth

Cold viruses are another example. Their DNA is constantly mutating and as such we have found no common factor to base a cure on.

Dude, I can't be bothered typing anymore so I will point you here: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm Please, if you are going to continue to post in this thread take the time to read it, as I will do if you link me anything.

In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance.  New traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).

Natural selection is not evolution. This merely weeds out organisms and the information they contain; it doesn’t generate new information. The creationist Edward Blyth discussed natural selection 25 years before Darwin, but recognized that it was a conservative, not a creative, force.

Mutations are not evolution. They are copying mistakes in the genes. No mutation is known to increase information content; every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of beneficial mutations.

[laurasaur]

I did biology, I know what mutations are, and I know that one kind of mutation is when an extra base pair is added to the dna chain, therefore material would have been gained.

dude, im not sure what school you went to and when you went but Im searching hard on google and not getting you eh. the extra base pair already exists within, therefore its certainly not adding informetion!!

taken from an american university website: many different types of chemicals act and react in deleterious ways with the bases in a DNA molecule. Some cause direct mutagenesis by altering the base pairing, others alter the DNA and its properties.
as cells try to repair this damage they make further mistakes which ultimately lead to permanently altered base sequences and thus permanent mutations. This sequence of events is called indirect mutagenesis.

right i get what you are talking about

Insertions[/url] and Deletions (Indels)
Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands. Collectively, these mutations are called indels.

 
Indels involving one or two base pairs (or multiples thereof) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless. Scroll up to see two other examples (Patients C and D).

Frameshifts often create new STOP codons and thus generate nonsense mutations. Perhaps that is just as well as the protein would probably be too garbled anyway to be useful to the cell.

Indels of three nucleotides or multiples of three may be less serious because they preserve the reading frame (see Patient E above).

However, a number of inherited human disorders are caused by the insertion of many copies of the same triplet of nucleotides. Huntington's disease and the fragile X syndrome are examples of such trinucleotide repeat diseases.

i think that pretty much answers itself. night night

[pukeko]

Darkov you know what you beleive in, that may be a good thing but your also beleiving what you have been told to beleive. No different no matter how logical.

Of course we all believe in what we are told because the fact is, no one really knows, or will ever know what the 'truth' is without some sort of some big discovery, as in, someone builds a time machine or a heavenly being visits us. Short of that, I think most of us are already pretty set in what we believe or just don't care to think about it.

[laurasaur]

Of course we all believe in what we are told because the fact is, no one really knows, or will ever know what the 'truth' is without some sort of some big discovery, as in, someone builds a time machine or a heavenly being visits us. Short of that, I think most of us are already pretty set in what we believe or just don't care to think about it.

true. but i believe its worth researching on, just for yourself. I had 17 years of evolutionary education, and I thought I was set in my beliefs but ~ look at me  now  no, there is no concrete evidence for or against, otherwise we wouldnt be having this debate now.  Its a faith and "presupposition" kinda thing. And im perfectly accepting of anyone believing what they want, and Im certainly not gonna go and force my beliefs on you.  Im not some nutter ( i hope)

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Insertions and Deletions (Indels)
Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands. Collectively, these mutations are called indels.


Indels involving one or two base pairs (or multiples thereof) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless. Scroll up to see two other examples (Patients C and D).

Frameshifts often create new STOP codons and thus generate nonsense mutations. Perhaps that is just as well as the protein would probably be too garbled anyway to be useful to the cell.

Indels of three nucleotides or multiples of three may be less serious because they preserve the reading frame (see Patient E above).

However, a number of inherited human disorders are caused by the insertion of many copies of the same triplet of nucleotides. Huntington's disease and the fragile X syndrome are examples of such trinucleotide repeat diseases.

i think that pretty much answers itself. night night

I'm sorry, but from what I can tell that extract only supports my point.

[Verrt]

One programing asignment later...

[Darkov]

Okay, Neanderthal probably wasn't the right example, because early man hunted and warred against them leading to their extinction. There are many other examples that fit the puzzle better. The exact criteria for membership in the Hominid family is not clear, but the family generally includes those species who share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language and for simple cultures beyond the family or band. The theory of mind, providing the capacity to lie convincingly, is a controversial criterion distinguishing the adult human alone among the hominids. Humans acquire this capacity at about four and a half years of age, whereas the bonobo, gorilla and chimpanzee never seem to do so. However, without the ability to test whether early members of the Homininae such as australopithecines or Homo erectus, had a theory of mind, it is irrational to ignore similarities seen in their living cousins.

Now these are definately not in the Homo Sapiens group yet, more than 97% of DNA? That's proof of evolution enough for me.

Current thinking is that life started this way.

   1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
   2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, one of the two basic components of a cell membrane.
   3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).

DNA may have come from this. It's unclear as noone was around to study such processes. Life is only what we perceive it to be, since we have no other examples bar what is on earth to study.

Another evolutionary theory, this time documenting on "Lucy" a humanoid found in Ethiopia.

The so-called 'savannah theory' on how A. afarensis evolved bipedalism hangs on the evidence that around 6 - 8 million years ago there seems to have been a mass extinction of forest dwelling creatures. This triggered a burst of 'adaptive radiation', an evolutionary characteristic that generates new species quickly. Lucy's 'grandparents' were tree dwelling apes, but in Lucy's world the trees would have gone, and Lucy would have been forced to find a living on the flat treeless savanna.

The article on anti-biotics was interesting, it shows Bacteria adapting to changes in their environment successfully. Regardless of whether it's in Evolution's "set rules" it still shows adaption via natural selection so why could the same not occur within humanoids or other early organisms. If a human's brain size increased, but not within the guidelines of evolution, what would you call it? I doubt the intracasies of evolution will ever be fully clear. Or Sharks. They have been around for millions of years. In that time the earth's climate has changed dramatically. If nothing in them changed, they would not have been able to cope and would've died out.

Viruses can also adapt. Some blur the distinction between sense and antisense, because certain sequences of their genomes do double duty, encoding one protein when read 5' to 3' along one strand, and a second protein when read in the opposite direction along the other strand. As a result, the genomes of these viruses are unusually compact for the number of genes they contain, which biologists view as an adaptation. The Human eye is an adaption, an enlarged brain from previous times is an adaption.

btw, noone can witness evolution because the theory has only been around for 100-200 years. Evolution takes thousands or millions of years depending on the organism. As such, we have only fossils of previous organisms that we have remarkable similarities to.\

There are many religions, each with differant principles

Marx believed that people turn to religion in order to dull the pain caused by the reality of social situations; that is, Marx suggests religion is an attempt at transcending the material state of affairs in a society — the pain of class oppression — by effectively creating a dream world, rendering the religious believer amenable to social control and exploitation in this world while they hope for relief and justice in life after death. In the same essay, Marx states, "...man creates religion, religion does not create man..."

And bY, if you were wondering my family is not strictly athiestic. Only my mum thinks about creation and she is more of an agnostic. I however decided to research evidence for both ways. Eventually I turned to Marxism, for a lot of things he has said make sense and there are true life examples. It's true though, unless god himself comes down and smites everything, I'm unlikely to believe.

As for your post on Carbon Dating, it's all true. Irrevelent, but true you see I was referring to uranium lead dating under the Radiometric Dating techniques which also include

    * rubidium-strontium
    * samarium-neodymium
    * potassium-argon
    * argon-argon
    * uranium-uranium
    * uranium-thorium
    * optically stimulated luminescence dating
    * iodine-xenon

[laurasaur]

I'm sorry, but from what I can tell that extract only supports my point.

No, the gene is not gaining dna from anywhere but itself. Ie it already had that information. Thats not gaining information in the sense that we are talking about. Did you click on the link, it explains it better if you dont understand..

[laurasaur]

Another evolutionary theory, this time documenting on "Lucy" a humanoid found in Ethiopia.

The so-called 'savannah theory' on how A. afarensis evolved bipedalism hangs on the evidence that around 6 - 8 million years ago there seems to have been a mass extinction of forest dwelling creatures. This triggered a burst of 'adaptive radiation', an evolutionary characteristic that generates new species quickly. Lucy's 'grandparents' were tree dwelling apes, but in Lucy's world the trees would have gone, and Lucy would have been forced to find a living on the flat treeless savanna.
If a human's brain size increased, but not within the guidelines of evolution, what would you call it?

Can I just ask where you are getting your "Lucy" evidence from? Because most "evidence" around her has already been disproved and disowned by the very anthropologist's who were right at the center of it all.
I quote:
According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’3

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of ‘missing link’ status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

I wish that people would stop promoting things which have been long since disproved in the hope of "proving evoution" (by that I dont mean you darkov i mean like school teachers etc).

The article on anti-biotics was interesting, it shows Bacteria adapting to changes in their environment successfully. Regardless of whether it's in Evolution's "set rules" it still shows adaption via natural selection so why could the same not occur within humanoids or other early organisms. If a human's brain size increased, but not within the guidelines of evolution, what would you call it? I doubt the intracasies of evolution will ever be fully clear. Or Sharks. They have been around for millions of years. In that time the earth's climate has changed dramatically. If nothing in them changed, they would not have been able to cope and would've died out.

Viruses can also adapt. Some blur the distinction between sense and antisense, because certain sequences of their genomes do double duty, encoding one protein when read 5' to 3' along one strand, and a second protein when read in the opposite direction along the other strand. As a result, the genomes of these viruses are unusually compact for the number of genes they contain, which biologists view as an adaptation. The Human eye is an adaption, an enlarged brain from previous times is an adaption.

Natural Selection, and Evolution are two COMPLETELY different things.  Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is adaption yes, but in no means when people describe eveolution are they talking about adaption. Natural Selection only works by adaptions being made within an orginism by genes it already has. Evolution, is organisms getting better. Think about it this way... natural selection is thought of as a downhill process, you kind of weed out the bad useless genes from the good ones. If the climate changes for example, your screwed and thats when species die off. Natural selection happens, its not a theory, it is proven.

Natural selection’ is often referred to as ‘survival of the fittest’ or, more recently, ‘reproduction of the fittest’. Many people are confused about it, thinking that evidence for natural selection is automatically evidence for the idea that molecules turned into microbes, which became millipedes, magnolias and managing directors. Most presentations of evolution add to the confusion by conveniently failing to point out that even according to evolutionary theory, this cannot be true; natural selection by itself makes no new things.

In such a way, creatures can become more adapted (better suited) to the environment in which they find themselves. Say a population of plants has a mix of genes for the length of its roots. Expose that population over generations to repeated spells of very dry weather, and the plants most likely to survive are the ones which have longer roots to get down to deeper water tables. Thus, the genes for shorter roots are less likely to get passed on (see box bottom left). In time, none of these plants will any longer have genes for short roots, so they will be of the ‘long root’ type. They are now better adapted to dry conditions than their forebears were.

The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of genes were present.

Evolutionist theoreticians know this, of course. They know that they must rely on some other process to create the required new information, because the evolution story demands it. Once upon a time, it says, there was a world of living creatures with no lungs. Then the information for lungs somehow arose, but feathers were nowhere in the world–later these arose too. But the bottom line is that natural selection, by itself, is powerless to create. It is a process of ‘culling’, of choosing between several things which must first be in existence.

[laurasaur]

As for your post on Carbon Dating, it's all true. Irrevelent, but true you see I was referring to uranium lead dating under the Radiometric Dating techniques which also include

    * rubidium-strontium
    * samarium-neodymium
    * potassium-argon
    * argon-argon
    * uranium-uranium
    * uranium-thorium
    * optically stimulated luminescence dating
    * iodine-xenon

You are right, I quoted on carbon dating not radiometric, which is just as flawed.

However, it is important to remember that all radiometric dating methods are based on three main assumptions:-

     *  The physico-chemical system must have always been closed. Thus no parent, daughter or other decay products within the system can have been removed, and no parent, daughter or other decay products from outside the system can have been added.

     *  The system must initially have contained none of its daughter elements or decay products, or at the very least we need to know the starting conditions/state of the decay system.
 
     *  The decay rate, referred to as the half-life of the radioactive parent element, must have always been the same, that is, constant.

The highly speculative nature of all radiometric dating methods becomes apparent when one realizes that none of the above assumptions is either valid or provable. Put simply, none of these assumptions can have been observed to have always been true throughout the supposed millions of years the radioactive elements have presumed to have been decaying.

Of the various radiometric methods, uranium-thorium- lead (U-Th-Pb) was the first used and it is still widely employed today, particularly when zircons are present in the rocks to be dated. But the method does not always give the ‘expected’ results, leading to fundamental questions about its validity. Indeed, the U- Th-Pb system is well known to be prone to open system behaviour, with U being particularly geochemically mobile, meaning that U is readily lost from the crystal lattices of the minerals used for ‘dating’, including zircons. Pb is also prone to diffusion from minerals. Thus it is questionable as to why this radiometric ‘dating’ method is still used. Instead, it is increasingly being applied in more sophisticated ways to geological ‘dating’ problems.



In the conclusion to a recent paper exposing shortcomings and criticising the validity of the popular rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) isochron method, Zheng wrote:

‘. . . some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods’1

Amongst the concerns voiced by Zheng were the problems being found with anomalous isochrons, that is, where there is an apparent linear relationship between 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr ratios, even an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from good cogenetic samples, and yet the resultant isochron and derived ‘age’ have no distinct geological meaning. Zheng documented the copious reporting of this problem in the literature where various names had been given to these anomalous isochrons, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron and pseudoisochron; secondary isochron, inherited isochron, source isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line, and mixing isochron.


I would love to go on, there is a HUGE article here LINK to dating

Current thinking is that life started this way.

   1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
   2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, one of the two basic components of a cell membrane.
   3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).

DNA may have come from this. It's unclear as noone was around to study such processes. Life is only what we perceive it to be, since we have no other examples bar what is on earth to study.

Self-replicating Peptides?
Amino acids can be formed (with difficulty12) in Miller-type experiments where reducing gases are sparked, unlike ribose and the nitrogenous bases. Thus some evolutionists are investigating protein-first rather than nucleic-acid-first theories of the origin of life. But proteins do not have anything analogous to the base-pairing in nucleic acids. So there was a surprise in August 1996, when some newspapers and science journals reported a peptide that can reproduce itself. David Lee et al. reported that a short peptide derived from part of a yeast enzyme can catalyse its own formation.13

Lee et al. made a 32-unit-long a-helical peptide based on the leucine-zipper domain of the yeast transcription factor GCN4. They found that it catalysed its own synthesis in a neutral, dilute water solution of 15 and 17-unit fragments. This was an ingenious experiment, but it does not help the evolutionary cause because:

Where would the first 32-unit long chain of 100 % left-handed amino acid residues come from? Amino acids are not formed as easily as Lee et al. claim. If they form at all, they are extremely dilute and impure, as well as racemic (50–50 mix of left and right-handed forms). Such amino acids do not spontaneously polymerise in water.

Where would a supply of the matching 15 and 17-unit chains come from? Not only does the objection above apply, but what mechanism is supposed to produce the right sequences? Even if we had a mixture of the right homochiral (all the same handedness) amino acids, the chance of getting one 15-unit peptide right is one in 2015 (= one in 3 x 1019). If it is not necessary to get the sequences exactly right, then it would mean that the ‘replication’ is not specific, and would thus allow many errors.

The 15 and 17-unit peptides must be activated, because condensation of ordinary amino acids is not spontaneous in water. Lee et al. used a thiobenzyl ester derivative of one peptide. As they say, this also circumvents potential side reactions. The hypothetical primordial soup would not have had intelligent chemists adding the right chemicals to prevent wrong reactions!

The particular 32-unit chain was an a-helix, where hydrogen bonds between different amino acid residues cause the chain to helicize. This common structure is more likely to be able to act as a template under artificial conditions. Lee et al. claim that b-sheets, which also depend on hydrogen bonding, might also be able to act as templates. This seems plausible. a-helices and b-sheets are known as the secondary structure of the protein.14

The exact way in which the protein folds is called the tertiary structure, and this determines its specific properties. Although Lee et al. say:

we suggest the possibility of protein self-replication in which the catalytic activity of the protein could be conserved,
they present no experimental proof.

"Life is only what we perceive it to be" exactly. I percieve it my way, you percieve it yours.

[laurasaur]

One programing asignment later...

 :ugh:  *sigh*



why did you have to remove your shark question so quickly darkov, i had an excellent answer for that one  :asian:

[Xt1ncT]

So Laura, what do you believe in - creation and God?? Hmm interesting. One thing that has always bothered me, is why patently intelligent people can believe in something so insubstantial, unsubstantiated and un-provable astounds me. Most of this has been great reading - I admit I didn't read all of it, at work so that makes it hard - for me it's as though they left the first page of the bible out - "All characters portrayed within are purely fictional and not based on anyone alive or dead".

[laurasaur]

So Laura, what do you believe in - creation and God?? Hmm interesting. One thing that has always bothered me, is why patently intelligent people can believe in something so insubstantial, unsubstantiated and un-provable astounds me. Most of this has been great reading - I admit I didn't read all of it, at work so that makes it hard - for me it's as though they left the first page of the bible out - "All characters portrayed within are purely fictional and not based on anyone alive or dead".

Yes, I believe in "creation and God".  Have you read any of the last few pages? Thats what this whole discussion is about "insubstantial, unsubstantiated and un-provable" - i suggest re reading. Do you have anything you want clarified? All you have said is completely unjustifiable so far, its just like saying, evolution is dumb, because, well just because it is.

[Xt1ncT]

Yes, I believe in "creation and God".  Have you read any of the last few pages? Thats what this whole discussion is about "insubstantial, unsubstantiated and un-provable" - i suggest re reading. Do you have anything you want clarified? All you have said is completely unjustifiable so far, its just like saying, evolution is dumb, because, well just because it is.

Isn't this thread about people's beliefs and their opinions? If so, I'm quite entitled to believe that God and creation is a load of old baloney dreamt (sp??) up by people who *need* to have a belief system for some unknown reason, or by people realising that it's a great way to make a lot of money. Have you seen how much money the Catholic Church has got? Have you seen how much money people in *sects* (that's what I think of them anyway) like the Mormons have to give to the church? Also, if there is such a benevolent being such as a god then why is there so much suffering and desease in the world. Yes, a lot of it brought about by man, but most of it is a part of nature and as such surely part of evolution? Thinks like cancer, aids, leprosy, plague. All things we don't really have a cure for and yet things on the earth which was supposedly created by this all-encompassing, all-loving god.

Funny way to show love IMO.

And if you believe in god and creation, then you are also saying that Earth is the only place in the universe/galaxy that has or has ever had life. Now from my point of view that's a pretty arrogant thing to think. IMO the fact that there is *intelligent* life on earth, only goes to show that there must be intelligent life somewhere else.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Insertions and Deletions (Indels)
Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands. Collectively, these mutations are called indels.

Extra base pairs may be added. I'm pretty sure that’s evidence enough to show that genetic material can be gained. Anyway, evolution doesn't just require the gaining of material, about 97% DNA in our genes is just junk DNA, which is most likely leftovers from the evolution process. So evolution can still occur with losing DNA.

Anyway, I want to explain my view of evolution, I belive that God exists, and I belive the evoultion happen and is still happing. I belive that God used evoultion as a tool to create us. Now with the Old Testament, the stories in there are thousands of years old, and where told my word of mouth for far longer, plus there translation errors that would of happened. The bible was written my Humans, and humans make mistakes, it's that simple. So therefore messages in the Old Testament can not be taken at their face value.
The New Testament will be for more accurate, as it is a lot more recent.

Now with Evolution, one of the main arguments against it is that the chance of a life form is so small, it would be almost impossible. But, if God wanted to create us, then the chance wouldn't mean anything, because God wanted evolution to take place.

[Black Heart]

tsk tsk, while the funny thing is there are huge flaws in both evolution and creation theories, so the rational thing is that they are both wrong.

Laura there are new diseases / bacteria ie bird flu / ebola  / AIDS , etc. these have essentially 'evolved.' they aren't what i would call blessings from a diety.

the basic argument we are too complex to have happened by chance is fundamentally flawed, as what ever 'created' us must also be even further complex and thus could not exist by chance, must have been designed / created, etc, etc.

that fact is we do exist. and that much of the earths past is revealed to us in small glimpses. we don't have a complete picture.

religion doesn't explain anything, simply provides an answer that requires blind faith.

I'd prefer to be unknowing than to comfort myself with a pseudo 'solution'

[laurasaur]

Isn't this thread about people's beliefs and their opinions? If so, I'm quite entitled to believe that God and creation is a load of old baloney dreamt (sp??) up by people who *need* to have a belief system for some unknown reason, or by people realising that it's a great way to make a lot of money. Have you seen how much money the Catholic Church has got? Have you seen how much money people in *sects* (that's what I think of them anyway) like the Mormons have to give to the church? Also, if there is such a benevolent being such as a god then why is there so much suffering and desease in the world. Yes, a lot of it brought about by man, but most of it is a part of nature and as such surely part of evolution? Thinks like cancer, aids, leprosy, plague. All things we don't really have a cure for and yet things on the earth which was supposedly created by this all-encompassing, all-loving god.

Funny way to show love IMO.

And if you believe in god and creation, then you are also saying that Earth is the only place in the universe/galaxy that has or has ever had life. Now from my point of view that's a pretty arrogant thing to think. IMO the fact that there is *intelligent* life on earth, only goes to show that there must be intelligent life somewhere else.

Of course you are entitled to think what you wish, I just wish you had backed up it with some facts like everyone else had.  Have you seen me attending catholic church? No. (cos i dont lol)

Death and suffering is the penalty for sin. When Adam rebelled against God, in effect he was saying that he wanted life without God. He wanted to decide truth for himself, independent of God. Now the Bible tells us that Adam was the head of the human race, representing each one of us, who are his descendants. Paul says in Romans 5:12–19 that we sin ‘in Adam,’ after the likeness of Adam. In other words, we have the same problem Adam had. When Adam rebelled against God, all human beings, represented by Adam, effectively said that they wanted life without God.

God had to judge Adam’s sin with death. He had already warned Adam that if he sinned, he would ‘surely die.’ After Adam’s Fall, he and all his descendants forfeited the right to live. After all, God is the author of life. Death is the natural penalty of choosing life without God, the giver of life. Also, because the Lord is holy and just, there had to be a penalty for rebellion.

The Bible makes it clear that death is the penalty for our sin, not just the sin of Adam. If you accept the Bible’s account of history, then our sins—not just the sins of ‘the other guy’—are responsible for all the death and suffering in the world! In other words, it is really our fault that the world is the way it is. No-one is really ‘innocent.’

I suggest if people are going to fight something (ie the bible) they should read it first, adn get all the facts. It never says that everyone will be perfect, infact it specifically explains why everything is happening as it is now. If you want to understand some more heres an article which sums it uphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/death_suffering.asp

[Growler]

My god has 8 arms, and can pay 4 diff games all at once (cs, cs:s, BF 1942 & BF2) and pwn all your arses!

oh, and Mr T. is the true god, he will strike fear into all of you with his wise ways! (watchu talkin about fooool!)

IMO we came from a egg planted here by some other superior race, we are nothing but their little test minions. What else can explain the 1000's of cases of anal probes in this world?

[laurasaur]

tsk tsk, while the funny thing is there are huge flaws in both evolution and creation theories, so the rational thing is that they are both wrong.

Laura there are new diseases / bacteria ie bird flu / ebola  / AIDS , etc. these have essentially 'evolved.' they aren't what i would call blessings from a diety.

the basic argument we are too complex to have happened by chance is fundamentally flawed, as what ever 'created' us must also be even further complex and thus could not exist by chance, must have been designed / created, etc, etc.

that fact is we do exist. and that much of the earths past is revealed to us in small glimpses. we don't have a complete picture.

religion doesn't explain anything, simply provides an answer that requires blind faith.

I'd prefer to be unknowing than to comfort myself with a pseudo 'solution'

Did you read the above posts on flu and bateria? Please go and re read them. It is well known by scientists and evolutionists that diseases have not EVOLVED. Please, please dont get sucked in by everything you hear on the news. This is not some christian view I am sharing here, it is a scientifically proven aethestic view.

Yes religion is based on faith, but it is a faith (In my own opinion) that is worth having. Hey, if im wrong, no big loss to me right?  But what if your wrong? Sucks to be you...

[laurasaur]

I give up, people have stopped reading the previous posts so theres not much point having to explain everything twice.