72 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

Evolution is the process of one species completely changing various aspects of itself to create another species or being.

I'm sorry, but that is so grossly incorrect, I just had to jump in.
What you wrote there was utter bollocks. Evolution is a biological change in a population.
It does not, in any way, necessitate the spontaneous generation of a new species.

As far as the "first" particle is concerned...
First of all, you get a phospholipid bilayer forming in a puddle. This happens naturally, due to physics. No higher power intervention required.
This can happen spontaneously billions of times a second, when you consider the probable size of a primordial ocean.
Eventually, one happened to form and become stable. Not so unlikely as you may be keen to point out.
Now, due to the nature of this type of membrane, certain things can get in, and certain things cannot.
This fundamental property has not changed for however many millions of years cells have been around.
Due to this property, however, conditions are created inside the cell for other molecules to form.
Thus, you produce archaebacteria, very simple cells.

And it all escalates from there. Theoretically.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Evolution is probably crap... But it's the most reliable crap we have so far. It's not that reasonable, but the only theories that get thrown up against it (primarily the religious ones) are even less reasonable, so Evolution wins by default.

I think Evolution is too readily accepted and some more thought needs to go into it beyond the whole "Evolution vs. Religion" argument.

[Ives]

Evolution is probably crap... But it's the most reliable crap we have so far. It's not that reasonable, but the only theories that get thrown up against it (primarily the religious ones) are even less reasonable, so Evolution wins by default.

I think Evolution is too readily accepted and some more thought needs to go into it beyond the whole "Evolution vs. Religion" argument.

I agree.

[Generic Nolander]

I'm sorry, but that is so grossly incorrect, I just had to jump in.
What you wrote there was utter bollocks. Evolution is a biological change in a population.
It does not, in any way, necessitate the spontaneous generation of a new species.

As far as the "first" particle is concerned...
First of all, you get a phospholipid bilayer forming in a puddle. This happens naturally, due to physics. No higher power intervention required.
This can happen spontaneously billions of times a second, when you consider the probable size of a primordial ocean.
Eventually, one happened to form and become stable. Not so unlikely as you may be keen to point out.
Now, due to the nature of this type of membrane, certain things can get in, and certain things cannot.
This fundamental property has not changed for however many millions of years cells have been around.
Due to this property, however, conditions are created inside the cell for other molecules to form.
Thus, you produce archaebacteria, very simple cells.

And it all escalates from there. Theoretically.

Who wrote the law/theory that makes that valid? A human?

[Sweeney]

I'd say the probability was pretty high on that front. Though of course, tisn't certain.
Have you, perchance, heard of Occam's Razor?

[Generic Nolander]

If you're going to apply that principle to me - apply it from your own standpoint to evolution and see what happens. In my eyes, It looks like that just about proves the theory wrong, since evolution is entirely made upon assumptions.

[Funnlecake]

Fundamentalists are sheer proof evolution does not exist.

I would say that would be a false statment. I think fundies are evolving so that their brains will not have to take in as much infromation. so, you know, not have to think anymore.

anyway theres alot of misconceptions of the sciences in this topic, and i urge you people, which you probly know who you are if you read back over your posts, to take education to a higher standard.

Anyway I say theory becuase i like standards.

also theorys can always addapt to new findings, and are not stiff like fundi thinking.

[Ives]

If you're going to apply that principle to me - apply it from your own standpoint to evolution and see what happens. In my eyes, It looks like that just about proves the theory wrong, since evolution is entirely made upon assumptions.

But that's pretty much any science. We can only do so much, and what we can do does point to ideas partial to evolution.

[Frizzle]

Evolution is exactly like history. We don't know what EXACTLY happened, but we look at the facts put together and the information we have to go on and come up with the most logical solution.

[Kimoflea]

Evolution is exactly like history. We don't know what EXACTLY happened, but we look at the facts put together and the information we have to go on and come up with the most logical solution.

Whereas fundamentalists look at the facts put together and the information, and come up with the most illogical unbelievabley stupid solution just to piss off scientists.

[Generic Nolander]

I've had the siutation clarified for me:

Evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis (creation from a scientifical standpoint). Evolution is quite plausible, but on a scale of ten thousand years, opposed to millions of years. From what accurate modern science can determine, the Earth has only existed for about twenty thousand years. 6000 of that is with human life.

Carbon dating has also been proven to be incredibly inaccurate.

[Frizzle]

You know that's wrong right? Dinosaurs - 65 million years old. So no, the earth is no 20,000 years old.

[Hawk]

Carbon dating has also been proven to be incredibly inaccurate.

You know that's wrong right? Dinosaurs - 65 million years old. So no, the earth is no 20,000 years old.

Did you even take a second to read his post?

[Alex]

From what accurate modern science can determine, the Earth has only existed for about twenty thousand years.

Huh, typo?

Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents.
http://pubs.usgs.gov...eotime/age.html

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
http://www.talkorigi...e-of-earth.html

[Generic Nolander]

Huh, typo?

Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents.
http://pubs.usgs.gov...eotime/age.html

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
http://www.talkorigi...e-of-earth.html

http://en.wikipedia....iocarbon_dating

Carbon dating has been proven to be significantly inaccurate.

Let me highlight a extremely interesting word from the radiocarbon wiki: estimate

Estimates are not definate answers. Therefore, in my eyes, carbon dating is immediently disqualified as a "definate measurement concerning age". Unless it's been proven, and somebody has been sent 3.5 billion years in the past to confirm it, I'll refuse to qualify it until then.

At most, I'd say the earth has been around for the maxmium of 60,000 years. No longer, no less.

Edited by Generic Nolander, 13 October 2006 - 08:05 PM.

[Plew]

so ur saying that an estimation is not very accurate but it is pretty precise... hehe i learned the difference between precise and accurate in physics today

[redlion]

http://en.wikipedia....iocarbon_dating

Carbon dating has been proven to be significantly inaccurate.

Let me highlight a extremely interesting word from the radiocarbon wiki: estimate

Estimates are not definate answers. Therefore, in my eyes, carbon dating is immediently disqualified as a "definate measurement concerning age". Unless it's been proven, and somebody has been sent 3.5 billion years in the past to confirm it, I'll refuse to qualify it until then.

At most, I'd say the earth has been around for the maxmium of 60,000 years. No longer, no less.

If it is impossible to prove that the earth was around 6 million years ago, how can you prove that it was around 60 thousand years ago?

I swear, if you try to validate your number with the bible, I'll tie you up and leave you in between a bear and a honeycomb.

[Generic Nolander]

It's a theory of mine. I cant back it up, just like people cant back up radiocarbon dating.

The Bible is also a historical record that goes back to the creation of the earth, what makes that a bad reference?

[Kimoflea]

I'm going to stay out of this topic, it's making me angry- I believe in religious tolerance and all, but not at the sake of common sense and good science. The error margins on carbon dating (or any form of dating) aren't +- millions of years, so you can't use that to try and make your theory -read BS- that the earth is 20,000 years old. Christ, Mick Jagger's older than that.

[Sweeney]

I believe it's necessary to point this out:

The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years.

From that, it is clear to me, though obviously not to you, that Carbon-14 dating is not the method used to determine the age of the Earth.

[Generic Nolander]

http://www.talkorigi...e-of-earth.html

Okay, let me explain something:

Science is based off educated assumptions. We assume there is radioactive decay, therefore any form of dating we have availible is plausible. However, whatever dating system we used is based off these educated assumptions. If any one of those assumptions is wrong, the outcome can change or be completely void.

I admit, I was wrong relating Carbon-14 dating to the age of the Earth. A mistake on my part.

I'm also just wondering how this evolved (lel) from a conversation on the evolution theory to carbon dating and then the age of the earth. Besides, why i'm pressing an argument concerning how old something is, it's beyond me.

[Kimoflea]

They're not assumptions, we know radioactive decay takes place because we can measure the resulting elements/ isotopes.

[Christopher Robin]

I believe in it, but there are other possible ways... just a theory. A good one. That I believe.

[Sweeney]

http://www.talkorigi...e-of-earth.html

Okay, let me explain something:

Science is based off educated assumptions. We assume there is radioactive decay, therefore any form of dating we have availible is plausible. However, whatever dating system we used is based off these educated assumptions. If any one of those assumptions is wrong, the outcome can change or be completely void.

I admit, I was wrong relating Carbon-14 dating to the age of the Earth. A mistake on my part.

I'm also just wondering how this evolved (lel) from a conversation on the evolution theory to carbon dating and then the age of the earth. Besides, why i'm pressing an argument concerning how old something is, it's beyond me.

I'm entirely unsure why you posted that, since it appears to me to disagree with what you said, and side with my point of view...
But thank you, for that, anyway.

[Kimoflea]

I'm just saying that pure science is slightly more believeable than a dusty old book written by a random bearded bloke's mates 2000 years ago when they still thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth