Proof of Evolution

[Morlock]

Radiocarbon dating is just one of many methods outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Some of which have half-lifes of millions of years.

It is quite telling that creationists would focus their attention on radiocarbon dating, which is the most limited methodology in the geologist's arsenal.

Radio metric dating is a bit vague:
it includes

Uranium Dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating
"Therefore we can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic."

Samarium-neodymium dating method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium-neodymium_dating
"The mantle is ASSUMED to have undergone chondritic evolution, and thus deviations in initial 143Nd/144Nd ratios can provide information as to when a particular rock or reservoir was separated from the mantle within the Earth's past."


Potassium-argon dating method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium-neodymium_dating
Accuracy depends on the isotopic ratios included in the sample being normal, since 40K is usually not measured directly, but is ASSUMED to be 0.0117% of the total potassium.


Rubidium-strontium dating method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium-strontium_dating

The age of a sample is determined by analysing several minerals within the sample. The 87Sr/86Sr ratio for each sample is plotted against its 87Rb/86Sr ratio on a graph called an isochron. If these form a straight line then the samples are consistent, and the age PROBABLY reliable. The slope of the line dictates the age of the sample.


Uranium-thorium dating method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium-strontium_dating
Uranium-thorium dating has an upper age limit of somewhat over 500,000 years, defined by the half-life of thorium-230

(Note: it does not say how they got the 500,000 years and how they proved it. but still does not prove that the earth is billions of years old)

Radiocarbon dating method(Already Falsified when talking about billions of years old)


The 129I - 129Xe chronometer

129I beta-decays to 129Xe with a half life of 17 million years. Since xenon is a volatile noble gas it can be ASSUMED that there wasn't much of it in the rock to begin with.


I do not contend that these methods are great but I question their methods when it comes to billions of years. let me do an analogy.

let say we do a survey of the types of sand on a 10 mile beach.

Do I test the first mile only then assume that the rest of the beach is the same? or is it more correct and accurate to test and get samples for each mile? but scientist are comparing a few thousand years old vs billions of years old.

This is the same for all the dating methods. They test the methods by testing it with a material that is only a few thousand years old, then if it is accurate, they ASSUMED that it will also be accurate for all materials but they do not account that it may fail sometimes on certain materials that will give then a few billion years old. because they only test the decay of the certain material without accounting for contamination.

 

[Vaiyen]

The tester checks for consistency of results, and if there is a fairly straight line among all samples,
then it is a reasonable assumption that the conclusion is valid.

Of course everything can only be an assumption.
We can't prove anything with dead certainty, because no one was there in the beginning to see how it all began.

I personally am convinced by this methodology...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

 

[taypeng81]

basically the questions you are asking are about how they began, which I'm sure the theory of evolution isn't there to answer. Evolution answers the origin of species, not life. Which is 1.)
I don't know about 2.), but I'm not gonna jump to the biggest conclusion of them all and say it was a creator. Big claims require big evidence, not lack of evidence from the other party.
But I don't quite see the problem with 3.) If we already have multicellular organisms, like amoeba, then I don't find it hard to see a transition to plankton, worms and slugs

The questions you are asking are about the first step. The first step is always significant and difficult. Only because we don't know how anything could have taken the first step, doesn't mean we should throw away the staircase. Especially when we're already on the top of it, with evidence of how we got there from step 2.

1. in that case, science also should not rule out the possibility of a Creator because there is a perceived lack of evidence unless they have some solid evidence to prove otherwise.

2. i think its not possible to discuss origins of species without discussing origins of life because it species Z came from species Y...it eventually leads to the question of how did species A come together? its like how an indians once believed that the earth was supported by a large elephant but fail to explain what the elephant was standing on.(but i get what you mean.)

BTW off topic: if we found intelligent life on another planet, would they be worshipping jesus or allah too?

hahaha...

 

[predz23]

1. in that case, science also should not rule out the possibility of a Creator because there is a perceived lack of evidence unless they have some solid evidence to prove otherwise.

Scientist never ruled out a creator, Richard Dawkins himself said its unscientific to say theres ABSOLUTELY no creator. There's just no evidence of it. Again its about what evidence points to, and not what lack of evidence points to. Because lack of evidence can be pointed to anywhere for anything

2. i think its not possible to discuss origins of species without discussing origins of life because it species Z came from species Y...it eventually leads to the question of how did species A come together? its like how an indians once believed that the earth was supported by a large elephant but fail to explain what the elephant was standing on.(but i get what you mean.)

Actually you can, because evolution is about the origin of species only. its about how life evolves after it started, not how it started.
That elephant story reminds me. If we are too complex to exist without a creator, then who or what created the creator?

 

[taypeng81]

that question...its too deep for me man maybe i should introduce my pastor to you to answer that lol.

 

[predz23]

He'll probably say god is eternal, he doesn't have a creator, he exists outside of nature. oh how convenient! The thing is if life on earth is too complex to exist on its own, and therefore needs a creator. Then the creator himself is waaaay more complex then the life it created. so if the simple earth life is too complex to come to existence, how did the even more complex creator come to existence?

 

[Morlock]

I dont even wanna go into that dicussion... as I have seen so many great minds and scientist went mad trying to answer those... as the topic says "Proof of Evolution" not Proof of God...

 

[growlingsoulpup]

He'll probably say god is eternal, he doesn't have a creator, he exists outside of nature. oh how convenient! The thing is if life on earth is too complex to exist on its own, and therefore needs a creator. Then the creator himself is waaaay more complex then the life it created. so if the simple earth life is too complex to come to existence, how did the even more complex creator come to existence?

You're phrasing a logical fallacy as a question. The definition of God means that he is eternal and infinite. So what you're really asking is: What is the limit of infinity? Your question makes no mathematical sense.

 

[predz23]

You're phrasing a logical fallacy as a question. The definition of God means that he is eternal and infinite. So what you're really asking is: What is the limit of infinity? Your question makes no mathematical sense.

Its mathematical now? huh?

I don't think I was heading in that direction with a fallacy, at least I don't think I was.
Many creationists say, life on earth is too complex to originate on its own so there must be a creator. So I ask then what created the creator, since he must be more complex? then they say he's eternal and outside of nature so nature's laws don't apply to him.

to me thats like a defense attorney saying "My client is not guilty, he was framed" "by whom?" we ask. and the reply "by someone who is invisible, and leaves no evidence behind!" ...."aha..."

I was trying to say it more like that....

 

[growlingsoulpup]

Its mathematical now? huh?

I don't think I was heading in that direction with a fallacy, at least I don't think I was.
Many creationists say, life on earth is too complex to originate on its own so there must be a creator. So I ask then what created the creator, since he must be more complex? then they say he's eternal and outside of nature so nature's laws don't apply to him.

to me thats like a defense attorney saying "My client is not guilty, he was framed" "by whom?" we ask. and the reply "by someone who is invisible, and leaves no evidence behind!" ...."aha..."

I was trying to say it more like that....

You don't think you were, that's why you didn't stop to evaluate the logical consistency of your hypothesis.

The problem with asking who created God is a logical one, because you're trying to evaluate the infinite in finite terms. You're assuming that God is distinct and separate from existence, whereas the notion of God as infinite and omnipresent means that God by definition is the essence of existence. So taking God as x and existence as y, and asking why x=y, you're asking why x=x? Because it is you dolt.

 

[hifi_killer]

adaptation is generally destructive. It is at most variation, but never creative. Put a flock of birds in cold climate and at most they grow thicker coats of feathers, but will never grow blubber or coats of fur. Take this adapted species and put them in warmer climate and they might thin down their thick coats of feathers, put them in the desert and they may lose their feathers on certain parts of their bodies totally. The variable here is the difference in what they already have. Put a fish in the deep ocean, where there's no light and they lose their eyesight. that's destructive. you can lose something or have more of something you already have, but you can't create a new characteristic which wasn't part of you in the first place.

how do you want to define whats a new characteristic that wasnt part of an organism?

Source : , Haeckel (1892), reproduced in wikipedia

Notice that in stage I and stage III of each species , they look NOTHING like what they are when they're born, and also note the similarity across the different species

So i guess you can say that there are 'new characteristics' of the new born that wasnt part of the original embryo? These new characteristics are certainly not formed via destructive processes.

Why did these new characteristics that defines a species gradually appear ? Because of growth/development. Growth is a complex function of genetic and environmental variables.
Even if you assume that genetic variables are constant (which they are not in reality, as explained by many here), environmental factors can influence, and result in the development of these "new characteristics". For instance, extreme environmental events during the prenatal stage of fetal development can result in mutation/physical defects of the new born baby. If these mutations/defects are adaptive, they will be naturally selected and hence evolution would have taken place. As for harmful mutations/defects, evolution itself had designed prenatal biological mechanisms to weed out most of these undesirable mutations/defects.

In essence, its not that there arent any constructions, but many of these 'constructions' occur during the prenatal stage. Also do note that 'constructions' continue to take place within the human brain with response to environmental events, throughout one's lifetime.

Disclaimer: i'm aware that the above diagram is the subject of several controversies and the idea that similarity of embryos can be used to show that all these different species evolved from a common ancestor has been smashed to bits. But thats not my point here.

I think, the main problem with creation as a theory, is not so much about how life is 'created' or about existence of 'creator', but it pays less attention to environmental variables. Thus it is less able to explain the phenotypic and genetic variance due environmental influences.

 

[taypeng81]

I think, the main problem with creation as a theory, is not so much about how life is 'created' or about existence of 'creator', but it pays less attention to environmental variables. Thus it is less able to explain the phenotypic and genetic variance due environmental influences.

the creation account just gives a simpler explanation to the diverse phenotypic and genetic variances. it just says the diverse life was created and doesnt go into further details. It however maintains that man is created different from animals.

 

[Vaiyen]

to me thats like a defense attorney saying "My client is not guilty, he was framed" "by whom?" we ask. and the reply "by someone who is invisible, and leaves no evidence behind!" ...."aha..."
...

nice....
growlingsoulpup this is a good simile to illustrate what predz meant.

 

[Morlock]

I just hope that we stick to the topic no one can prove the existence of God. All we have is the Bible, Nature(but this is subjective). This is also why it was called faith in the first place.

but the topic is "Proof of Evolution" meaning show us proof of evolution. readers and members have the right to investigate and invalidate or validate the proofs being shown.

 

[predz23]

You don't think you were, that's why you didn't stop to evaluate the logical consistency of your hypothesis.

The problem with asking who created God is a logical one, because you're trying to evaluate the infinite in finite terms. You're assuming that God is distinct and separate from existence, whereas the notion of God as infinite and omnipresent means that God by definition is the essence of existence. So taking God as x and existence as y, and asking why x=y, you're asking why x=x? Because it is you dolt.

Oh right....
but thats kinda a lame excuse in a way. You know what I mean with the defense attorney right? Because it just is, is not really an answer. If I say god doesn't make sense, somebody says it doesn't make sense to you because he is outside of space and time, kinda runs in circles. Because somebody, I dont know who, for some reason declared that god is infinite, has just talk himself out of it

 

[Morlock]

This is what I hate about Evolutionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Egnor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Marks_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer)

These people of acedemia/scientist are fired and can't get anymore jobs just because they started to entertain the Thought of intelligent design.

 

[predz23]

This is what I hate about Evolutionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Egnor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Marks_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer)

These people of acedemia/scientist are fired and can't get anymore jobs just because they started to entertain the Thought of intelligent design.

what do you expect when historians become conspiracy theorists? Or surgeons become spirit healers? Did one of them get fired simply because of allowing discussion of intelligent design? or did they get fired for teaching it too?

 

[growlingsoulpup]

Oh right....
but thats kinda a lame excuse in a way. You know what I mean with the defense attorney right? Because it just is, is not really an answer. If I say god doesn't make sense, somebody says it doesn't make sense to you because he is outside of space and time, kinda runs in circles. Because somebody, I dont know who, for some reason declared that god is infinite, has just talk himself out of it

No, you don't get my point. Nobody "declared" that God (capital G, not lowercase) is infinite. The definition of God as the monotheistic deity of Islam, Christianity and Judaism means infinite, eternal, uncreated. If you want to talk about a created "god", by all means, let's talk about the deities of Greek, Chinese, Hindu and Norse mythology. There are plenty of deity creation stories there. Talking about how God is created however makes no logical sense because you are not keeping in line with the intrinsic definition of that which you are debating.

Your defense attorney simile also fails. In that instance you are applying a finite, measurable query (culpability) to a finite, measurable subject (a legal person). Therefore, saying that the client was framed by "someone who is invisible, and leaves no evidence behind" fails because within the legal framework of our justice system, that evidence is not acceptable as proof of non-culpability.

That's not the case with your question of the origin of God. In that instance, you are applying a finite, measurable query (method and chronology of origin) to an infinite, immeasurable subject (the eternal, infinite God). Therefore, it makes no logical sense to ask for the zero point of God, because the zero point of God is the zero point of infinity is infinity. Do you understand what I'm saying mate?

It's a tad like asking what's beyond the boundaries of the universe. The universe by definition means all of space and time. Therefore, what is beyond the universe is non-existent. You're applying a finite query (boundaries) to an infinite quantity (universe). Comprehend?

 

[theliverevolution]

There is little point in debating on how God exists, or whether he was created. Those who believe in God would know that God is infinite, and using our finite minds to cmoprehend God would be illogical. Those who do not believe in God would find means and ways to counter that claim.

I don't think anyone wants to see this thread blow up to a huge religion debate/fight, then get it banned by James because it spiralled out of control

Can we don't deviate from the topic and get back to the evolution debate?

 

[predz23]

No, you don't get my point. Nobody "declared" that God (capital G, not lowercase) is infinite. The definition of God as the monotheistic deity of Islam, Christianity and Judaism means infinite, eternal, uncreated. If you want to talk about a created "god", by all means, let's talk about the deities of Greek, Chinese, Hindu and Norse mythology. There are plenty of deity creation stories there. Talking about how God is created however makes no logical sense because you are not keeping in line with the intrinsic definition of that which you are debating.

Yeah however Judaism, christianity and Islam kinda "defined" themselves that god is infinite. How do you know that humans didn't create the idea of a god that is defined as infinite and eternal? Why is he infinite and eternal? why is he defined like this? btw its the internet, don't be a grammar nazi

Your defense attorney simile also fails. In that instance you are applying a finite, measurable query (culpability) to a finite, measurable subject (a legal person). Therefore, saying that the client was framed by "someone who is invisible, and leaves no evidence behind" fails because within the legal framework of our justice system, that evidence is not acceptable as proof of non-culpability.

This time, maybe your missing the point. It wasn't meant as a direct comparison. By that I mean they are talking their way out of it, by saying there is no evidence, but having no evidence IS THE EVIDENCE!!

That's not the case with your question of the origin of God. In that instance, you are applying a finite, measurable query (method and chronology of origin) to an infinite, immeasurable subject (the eternal, infinite God). Therefore, it makes no logical sense to ask for the zero point of God, because the zero point of God is the zero point of infinity is infinity. Do you understand what I'm saying mate?

Yes I get it 'mate', but this IS talking around the issue. you're telling me that I'm wasting time by applying finite to the infinite, I get that, but how come the monotheistic god was declared/defined as infinite? This makes us both talk circles around each other