Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unexpected Dates.
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 6 of 33 (16811)
09-06-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by compmage
09-06-2002 11:29 AM


[QUOTE][B]If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Joe can be here if he pleases, and this debate is the business of anyone interested. In fact, as I understand, Meert is a geologist. He's one of the people that Creationists claim is deliberately misleading the public and concealing evidence of their young world. I think that gives him more right to participate here than anyone else, so you might take more care in trying to limit the opposition.
No Atheis can believe in creationism, therefore this debate is a waste of your time. This is a matter concerning mainly religious people, because there has to be a God for creationism to exist. If we are so very backward, why do you concern yourself with what we believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 11:29 AM compmage has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 33 (16812)
09-06-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by compmage
09-06-2002 3:10 PM


[QUOTE][B] You evolusionists like to tell us THIS is a "FACT" and THAT is a "FACT", 20 years down the line, a new discovery is made, which disproves these "FACTS"[/QUOTE]
[/B]
All science works that way, everything is tentative. There are no absolutes.
[QUOTE][B](Not by creationists, by evolisionists.)[/QUOTE]
[/B]
And that implies that Creationists aren't accomplishing anything useful. It also shows that the field of evolution is being studied by through honest, open-minded inquiry.
[QUOTE][B]If you could just admit that these "FACTS" are actually theories[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Evolution is a theory and a fact. When I show you evidence that one species diverged from another that is a fact. When I explain mutation and genetic drift to you as the mechanism for the divergence, that is a theory.
[QUOTE][B]and that the fossil record, even if completed, only give a glimse into the past[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Only a "glimpse"? We could say that but we would be incorrect in doing. Actually the fossil record is a seemingly limitless source of information and that's why we have people like Meert and Moose to tease out its secrets. These secrets are vital to the continued survival of our modern society. We need oil and we need mineral and ore deposits or civilization will crumble. Without historical geology we cannot locate any of these things.
Also we use the Theory of Evolution, and more specifically, the evolutionary history of man, in medical research. We have to know what genes are conserved across species in order to know which drugs can be tested on which animals. This will become even more important when we begin to investigate gene therapies. Evolution is important today and has been for a long time. Back in the earlier half of the 20th century Stalin's regime was disfavorable to Darwinian evolution
and put a "biologist" (actually a poorly educated fellow who was related to some important member of the party) who was favorable to Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution in charge of the agricultural production of seed. His attempts to improve the strains of plants by using the wrong theory of evolution resulted in starvation across the Soviet Union, millions died. The other countries have not had that problem because they used the Darwinian model.
The moral of the story is that this debate is not academic, it is serious business and Creationists that push incorrect models are bringing a great and unnecessary peril upon any nation that listens to them.
[QUOTE][B]Many became convinced evolution can't have happend THROUGH biology. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
Who?
[QUOTE][B]Please lighten up. You sound worse than polititions in parlement. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
You compared us to Nazis. What really do you expect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 3:10 PM compmage has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 33 (17031)
09-09-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by compmage
09-09-2002 9:21 AM


[QUOTE][B]It incidents like this that made me say evolusionists are over confident.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually few took it seriously in the first place. Read:
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man
[QUOTE][B]I.e. in America, it is a criminal offence to speak of Genesis in public schools[/QUOTE]
[/B]
It is against the Constitution of the United States for the government to teach religion. This is part of our Freedom of Religion.
[QUOTE][B]but evolution is taught to everyone[/QUOTE]
[/B]
So is gravity, what's your point?
[QUOTE][B]Theoretically, an evolusionist would've assumed it to be 2 milion years old of where it was found. But he went and carbon dated it[/QUOTE]
[/B]
It is impossible to carbon date anything older than 50,000 years.
[QUOTE][B]If you work thorougly, however, you sould date every single item you extract.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
The cost of dating one sample runs about $5000 USD.
[QUOTE][B]A living Mollusk was carbon dated, and found to have been dead for 3000 year.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
You cannot carbon-date molluscs and that was done to find out how far off the dates would be. That is why, in case you are wondering, somebody actually tried C14 on a living mollusc. I could explain this to you but I think you should read some basic texts on C14 first.
[QUOTE][B]The human footprints that were found in limestone along with dinasaur footprints near the Paluxy river in Texas. Has that been explained yet[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Weathered dinosaur tracks. Not even many creationists take them seriuosly.
[QUOTE][B]Lava rocks were dated by the more reliable Potassium Argon Method to be 3 billion years old, yet the volcano errupted in 1801.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Did you read that article or are you quoting a secondary source? This is important because I may check this out next time I go to the library and I don't want to waste my time otherwise. Also I don't want to wrongly accuse you of misrepresentation if that is the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by compmage, posted 09-09-2002 9:21 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 3:13 AM gene90 has replied
 Message 30 by compmage, posted 09-11-2002 3:44 AM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 28 of 33 (17131)
09-10-2002 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by compmage
09-10-2002 3:13 AM


[QUOTE][B]Well, actually, all my sources are secondary. Unfortunatly, I do not have the time to do the thorough research, because I'm not a scientist. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
Secondary sources are convenient but it helps to check. I don't have time to do really thorough research either but I might check that ref next time I'm in the library. I think Joe Meert goes on to point out that the reference is probably either (1) a commentary on why K/Ar didn't work on that particular flow because of some unusual circumstances or, (2) the possibility I find likely, the sample was a xenolith in the lava, that is, a piece of rock much older than the flow itself that broke off into the lava and was carried to the surface. One has to be careful in interpreting the conclusion of a source without actually reading it.
[QUOTE][B]But wouldn't It then show an infinite reading, instead of 36000 years?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
An infinite age result just doesn't happen because as you increase sensitivity of the instrument you will even begin to detect some source of carbon, even if that carbon is just from CO2 in the atmosphere or some microbes living in the sample. Also no machine is perfect and some noise in the data is likely to be detected. In order to get an infinite reading you would have to detect a perfect zero and that isn't to be expected. Some contamination and some instrument error is going to prevent it.
[QUOTE][B]I'll be doing some more reading. I'll be comming back later for more questions.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Sure. I'm not the one with all the credentials around here but I'll help you if I can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 3:13 AM compmage has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024