growlingsoulpup
New member
I think the point he's trying to make is that for raw material to change to a form that is substantially functional and serves a greater purpose, there has to be intelligent design involved.
Proof of Evolution
- Thread starter Vaiyen
- Start date
I think the point he's trying to make is that for raw material to change to a form that is substantially functional and serves a greater purpose, there has to be intelligent design involved.
Morlock:
pls refer to this link i posted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth
Backed by proper testing and data.
pls refer to this link i posted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth
Backed by proper testing and data.
Last edited:
EngelFaeuste
New member
He's smarter than you, I know him. So suck it up and accept the fact.
Morlock said:
Radiocarbon Dating you dimwit.
ymmak
New member
Haha, I know where you are coming from. I guess most of us who are following this thread closely would have gathered that the probability of such occurence is very small, close to impossible, unless time = eterinty (that means to say a very very very very very very long time like 50 million years, anyway, anyone wants to buy my lovepedal eternity?). The probability of it is slim, thus I feel it is not possible.
The "I dont think such a drastic change is possbile" is solely my opinion, and I have such an inclination towards this statement because I feel the probability of a drastic evolution over time (the drastic evolution here refers to successive evolution over a long time, not a single event) is so slim that I am uncomfortable with it. For me, I have explained that I am comfortable with my beliefs and they are good enough answers for me, what has it got to do with you? I may appear firm in what I said, but I have not forced the "I dont think such a drastic change is possbile" statement down anyone's throat, but you have persisted in convincing me otherwise? Why? Am I a such pushover?
I dont think any creationist here has tried to prove that creation is true, because like someone else said here earlier, they cannot even remotely prove the existence of their creator.At worst, they sound more like they are trying to prove that evolution is untrue, but not the latter half. Either case, I am sorry for your frustration, I hope I have not appear to force my beliefs on you.
If you feel offended by the "insisting evolution is untrue and creationism is right", then others may also feel offended when you repeatedly try to convince everyone that evolution is true and disprove religion. In this view, how are you different from those people you detest?
When you said "I see myself as the historian to the conspiracy theorist, the geographer to flat-earther, the rational one to the superstitious one", it shows that you are clearly in the first place biased. You have refered yourself as a "hero" and those who disagree as "villians", and this kinda suggest a narcissistic, egocentric and superiority complex in you. If you already have such a preconception about others and yourself, then I feel a discussion with you is redudant.
Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that you dont think that you are behaving like the same way as them. But frankly, this is not the same I feel about you, judging from the post above.
You sure? Apparently, this textbook (which is sitting beside me) called "Biochemistiry", 6ed, by Jeremy M. Berg, John L Tymoczko, Lubert Stryer, page 783, the chapter 28 on DNA replication, repair and recombination, says that errors in DNA replication (especially during meiosis and in gametes) or damaged DNA can lead to genetic disorders and mutations, and they have the possibility of being passed from one generation to another. If you can think that, given 50 million years, land-dwelling mammals can evolve into whales, why not given another 50 million years, successive mutations can eventually (and incidentally) develop gills for whales?
*Here are the lists of errors that can add or minus genes from the genome of an organism:
-chromosomal translocation
-chromosomal insertion
-failure of chromosome segregation during telophase of meiosis II
-frameshift mutation due to point addition or deletion of nucleotides in polynucleotide chain.
-Damage to repair mechanism like nucleotide-excision repair
-with alternate splicing of mRNA, leading to rapid protein evolution, it is also possible for an organism to mutate even when the genome is untouched by defects and alterations.
Any of these mutations above can lead to evolution, when other factors such as selection pressure and what not come into the picture. So it will seem that evolution can happen quite easily. But most mutations are bad, and a "good" mutation is remote. "Good" mutation coupled with favourable selection pressure is even less likely. "Good" mutation coupled with favourable selection pressure, and then repeat itself several times over many many years, the probability is not very high, in my opinion.
Last edited:
growlingsoulpup
New member
Sorry, I was just making a light-hearted joke. But nonetheless it's a law of the Net that bringing up evolution invariably brings up the Creationism debate.
theliverevolution
New member
Yes, but whales have extremely large lungs to compensate that lack of gills. I'm not sure how long they can stay underwater between breathes, but I'm pretty sure its more than an hour at least. So, how can you say that the designer did a terrible job?
Morlock
New member
http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/carbondatingac_szhq.htm
Read This you dimwit! Carbon Dating has a lot of problems.
Let me just quote an excerpt from the website:
"Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination
of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities."
taken from: http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/carbondatingac_szhq.htm
How old are you? Please finish high school first before replying again.
predz23
New member
Ok so we don't know how we got from point A to point B, but we know how we got from point B to Point Z. And now scientists are trying to figure out how we got from point A to B. They're working on it. We know we evolved from point B to Z, whats your point with us not understanding A to B when B to Z has already been explained? The first step might be hard to explain but we are sure it happened when all the other steps already happened
Last edited:
predz23
New member
radiocarbon dating might not be able to give you a pinpoint accuracy of the date, but it can definitely tell you that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years old.
Morlock
New member
Please state your sources...
my sources say that :
Radio carbon dating can only provide accuracy up to 5730 years...
Got it from :
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php
Excerpt:
"Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left. "
also from a non Christian source:
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm
my sources say that :
Radio carbon dating can only provide accuracy up to 5730 years...
Got it from :
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php
Excerpt:
"Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left. "
also from a non Christian source:
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm
arent you coming back to what i've mentioned that it also takes a certain amount of faith to believe in evolution because not all of it is proven?
ymmak
New member
Hi taypeng81,
I think the prof is trying to be neutral. I suspect Singaporean academic staffs are suppose to be neutral in contentious discussions like this. I once asked Dr Lam Siew Hong of NUS (through a school forum), and his response was rather similar. His answer was something like "Oh, these are the mechanisms that can alter genetic sequences: <insert lists here>. Whether or not a combinations of these factors cause an evolution is really up to your own beliefs."
I think the prof is trying to be neutral. I suspect Singaporean academic staffs are suppose to be neutral in contentious discussions like this. I once asked Dr Lam Siew Hong of NUS (through a school forum), and his response was rather similar. His answer was something like "Oh, these are the mechanisms that can alter genetic sequences: <insert lists here>. Whether or not a combinations of these factors cause an evolution is really up to your own beliefs."
I didnt ask him in the same way this thread started. i checked with him about dna replication and mutation and then posted the qns to him, how is it possible for a multi-cell organism e.g. ameoba to take on the genes needed to become e.g. a worm?
he gave the same explanation, over millions and millions of year but they are not sure how.
he gave the same explanation, over millions and millions of year but they are not sure how.
Carbon-14 has a short half-life, yes. But you don't find carbon-14 in most ancient rocks-for example the plains in Siberia.
Actually, we should first question how did single-cell organisms originate in the first place.
I remembered watching a documentary which scientists tried to create single-cell organisms with water and electricity(Earth-like conditions).
i dont actually know much about that but scientist theorize that at one point the earth was in a chaotic state with lightning flashing frequently and the atmosphere was full of ammonia, methane and hydrogen. Under these conditions, the lightning+atmosphere formed amino acids.
in this primordial soup of amino acids, they came together (somehow) to form proteins and the eventual metabolic systems and pathways all contained within a cell membrane. I read this in a book i believe the title was "origins of life".
personally i would raise a few questions about this:
1. enzymes work by attaching to a bond in a chemical in a "lock and key" fashion ..What are the chances then for an enzyme to come together with a complementary bond + continue to do so in a cycle involving other enzymes and somehow end up in a cell totally by chance? by chance because there is no God/designer behind it. emphasis also on "lock and key".
2. assumption is made on earth's atmosphere. i believe there is no geological evidence for an ammonia rich atmosphere on earth or someone might say its too long ago for any evidence to remain.
I agree with this ammonia part. I highly find it unlikely that our atmosphere used to contain ammonia.
Even in neighbouring planets, ammonia makes up no part of their atmospheres.
EngelFaeuste
New member
Lame. How about YOU finish high school before replying? How is that site even remotely academic?
Last edited:
EngelFaeuste
New member
Are you an idiot or an idiot?
READ WHERE THE SUPPOSEDLY NON CHRISTIAN SOURCE GET'S IT'S INFORMATION YOU MANIAC.
D. R. Humphreys, J. R. Baumgardner, S. A. Austin, and A. A., Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003. See also: Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 75, under "Constant Decay?"
Brown, ibid, p. 246.
Creation science? Talk about oxymorons. Go back to your dungeons and start your holy wars and inquisitions! The modern world has no place for backward scum like you!
"The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left."
That's exactly why we use Carbon-14 to date stuff you dimwit.
Last edited:
Similar threads
