Why don’t apes give birth to quazi-human things? I don’t think we’re that closely related to any animal… I think we’re alien to this planet. It just doesn’t seem proper. We’re viral, they’re reconstructive. We’re consuming on a larger scale then all of them combined. Doesn’t make any bloody sense. I think that we need a contained environment, reenacting our current theories of the begining. In a vaccum, we’ll put it on a centrifuge and speed it up about a million years a day, and then we’ll see if dinosaurs can evolve from single celled organism. Well, I know it can, just because at one point in time, I was a single cell. But why hasnt it happened in my life time? If these theories are correct, we’d see them every day. All I see is the destruction of plants and animals, and the growth of virus and disease.
We’re more lizard-like then ape-like, think about it… we shed our skin faster then any monkey/ape, we need to wear clothes to control the temperature, if you look closely at all of us, we have “fingerprint” lines everywhere looking much like a lizard. Did we evolve from dinosaurs?
What’s this shit I heard about them pulling some guy out of a mountain that can be dated back to dinosaur ages?
Fuck, is carbon dating even valid? Isn’t it possible that the changes in our atmosphere over time effected how the carbon in objects aged?
there is a huge branch of the 3 primates, monkeys humans and apes. Each got a trait, ours however, lack the extreme hair growth. becasue we trim our hair we have got nothing to block us from the sun, whos uv rays kill are skin cells, that is why we shed our skin fast.
Have you herd of the famous experiment that produced life giving amanio acids? I completly forget the name but it has been done.
It would be unethical to culcher human life in space, no i am not a libral hippie. even if you do aprove the experiment, you probly would not be able to do it in your live time because of it’s questionalblty.
Carbon dating uses the half life of carbon-14. half life is constant. there is no way the envroment can affect the decaying of it. if there is prove me wrong.
Carbon dating is a valid tool for determining the age of a sample, however it does involve the assumption that the level of C14 in our atmosphere is constant. Since volcanic eruptions release large amounts of it, asteroids may contain it, ocean/lake turnovers can alter the levels . . . Carbon dating is not without some spectacular errors.
That said, it is still an amazingly accurate system, as long as you keep its limitations in mind.
It is quite intresting, the thing you want to date has a set ratio of carbon 12 ( normal carbon element) and carbon 14. same is true to any other elment
But . . . we won’t. Anymore than we’ve dumped Newtonian gravity. Heck, with the discovery of Genetics, we’ve already had that revolution in Evolutionary thought.
MRM1101:Why is almost every thread in this forum about evolution?"
S: “Why do scientists persist with a theory that we all know that we’ll drop soon enough?”
K: Drop. UH, no. change, yes. Because that is what happens in
science. You develop a theory. For instance gravity is a theory.
You look around for evidence that a theory is correct or wrong.
Gravity seems to have a tremendous amount of evidence that
it is correct. You have the planets and stars and the sun, and
galaxies, all of which seem to show us that the theory of gravity
is the correct one. Now there have been changes in the theory
as when Einstein made changes from what newton did, and
that is the essence of science. Einstein came up with evidence
that refined our idea of gravity. For Einstein, gravity was part
of a whole, whereas with Newton, gravity was a separate
thing. The evolution of the theory of gravity did not mean they
had to throw the idea out. Not at all. And the next guy/gal will
add more into the mix of the theory of gravity.
The same for evolution. You get an initial theory, and you look
for evidence. Either the evidence exist and the theory goes on,
or the evidence fails and then so does the theory.
In 150 years the evidence still goes to show that evolution still
carries the day as a theory, just like gravity. There have been changes
in the theory, and plenty of people have attacked the theory
over the 150 years, but still evolution is king.
Now some common attacks on evolution is, no one has
seen evolution at work. but the same can be said about
gravity. Have you ever seen gravity? Not the effects of gravity,
but have you ever seen gravity? The actually force of gravity.
Of course not, no one has. Are you willing to deny gravity
on that basis? Quite a bit of science today, is about items
people have never, ever seen. but does that mean we doubt
them. For instance black holes, has anyone actually seen a black
hole. Not the effects of one, but an actually one? UMMMM.
Should we doubt black holes then?
So you doubt evolution? Great, offer us another theory
that explains who we are and how we got here, another
theory that explains as closely to the evidence as evolution,
to what we have today. Feel free.
Here’s a question: Suppose you have your way, and you force evolution from the podium of our universities, and otherwise frustrate the teaching of the theory, what will be your next target? There’s no shortage of them. Evolution is just one of the latest ones.
You could try to ban optics and the diffraction of light. After all, everyone knows there were no rainbows before the “great flood”. A rainbow is an arbitrary product of God placed in the sky, not a natural phenomenon based on natural laws.
You could try to ban the impertinence of man “misdirecting” thunderbolts with lightning rods. If God says your building has to go, who are you to have other ideas?
You could try abolishing intergalactic astronomy and cosmology. The distance scales in even our own galaxy put the lie to the Biblical time-scale of the universe.
Yes, those sneaky astronomers have always been a favorite target. Always finding some new inconvenient fact. The fact that the stars are not a mere decoration of the sky to be relegated to a footnote of Genesis, but other suns with planets of their own, hundreds of billions of hundreds of billions of them, was inconvenient indeed.
MRM1101: Here’s a question: Suppose you have your way, and you force evolution from the podium of our universities, and otherwise frustrate the teaching of the theory, what will be your next target? There’s no shortage of them. Evolution is just one of the latest ones.
K: Ahhhh, you are starting to get the point. it is not evolution
per se that bugs them, it is science. Remove science and
return to the word of god is the unspoken aim of these
attacks on evolution.
MRM: You could try to ban optics and the diffraction of light. After all, everyone knows there were no rainbows before the “great flood”. A rainbow is an arbitrary product of God placed in the sky, not a natural phenomenon based on natural laws.
You could try to ban the impertinence of man “misdirecting” thunderbolts with lightning rods. If God says your building has to go, who are you to have other ideas?
You could try abolishing intergalactic astronomy and cosmology. The distance scales in even our own galaxy put the lie to the Biblical time-scale of the universe. "
K: And you have the point. Houston.
Science always bad, god always good.
MRM: Yes, those sneaky astronomers have always been a favorite target. Always finding some new inconvenient fact. The fact that the stars are not a mere decoration of the sky to be relegated to a footnote of Genesis, but other suns with planets of their own, hundreds of billions of hundreds of billions of them, was inconvenient indeed."
K: and thus we get theories such as “Unintelligent design”
This wasn’t a matter of God versus Science, this is a matter of Science versus Science, I asked for more validity to the theory of evolution. I got rhetoric. I asked about Carbon dating, I got rhetoric. My questions are simple: How can we know evolution to be true when we only see it in virus and bacteria? & How can we know carbon dating to be true when we haven’t been around for 50,000 years doing it?
We can’t ponder the creation of the universe because we can only do so in language that the human developed, and if Humans weren’t the first thing, if language isn’t the initial. All of our philosophies on creation prove to be futile.
tell me about it… i really won’t bother going into this stuff again…
maybe people should try and read through the former threads first, might be very enlightening
MeJYouNotJ:This wasn’t a matter of God versus Science, this is a matter of Science versus Science, I asked for more validity to the theory of evolution. I got rhetoric. I asked about Carbon dating, I got rhetoric. My questions are simple: How can we know evolution to be true when we only see it in virus and bacteria? & How can we know carbon dating to be true when we haven’t been around for 50,000 years doing it?
K: Ok, I can help you. If you want to do the research yourself, I can
direct you to a website that will answer all your questions.
First of all, they don’t depend on carbon dating for all the answers.
They use other means to verify carbon dating. guy687 is right about
carbon dating, it has limitations. Now they carbon date carbon 14
which has a half life of 5,700 years. Now, carbon 14 enter the body
and exits a body at the same rate while living, but once a living
body dies, no more carbon 14 enters the body. Then all you have to
do, is measure how much carbon 14 has left the body and you get the
years since the living material died. this method works for other
material such as potassium 40 which has a half life of 1.3 billion
years and Thorium 232 which has an half life of 14 billion years.
MJ: We can’t ponder the creation of the universe because we can only do so in language that the human developed, and if Humans weren’t the first thing, if language isn’t the initial. All of our philosophies on creation prove to be futile."
K: yes we can ponder the creation of then universe in the language
of science. And if we tried, we can ponder the creation of the universe
in the language of philosophy. What we can’t do in the language of
science is ponder what the universe means. for that we need
the language of philosophy or religion.
You know I never asked you to click on this, I never asked for you’re opinion. This thread isn’t solely evolution either. It’s about my doubts with current sciences… so if you don’t like it, that’s fine. Don’t share it with me and make me think that there’s a relevant comment here. It’s really disappointing to find this crap here, when I’m trying to discuss other things!
Damn you blasphomers!
That’s not my aim, nor ever has been. Why does every person who asks a question about evolution get labelled a religious maniac? Perhaps because the scientific community who bums the theory on a regular basis knows how shaky it is…
The presumption of natural laws is as ludicrous as the presumption of the existence of God, we’ve been through this a dozen times…
Again, why does a critic of science automatically get labelled ‘religious’?
I’m not religious, never have been. It is the scientists who try to dismiss every countertheory as ‘religious’ in the hope that contemporary secularity will marginalise the countertheory and therefore maintain science’s position as the main epistemology of our age. But this is a historical point that I don’t expect people who assume that it is only religious zealots who disbelieve evolutionary theory to understand…
If you self-constructed, based-on-guesswork ‘natural law’ says that you must do something, who are you to disagree?
You mentioned the Bible, not me…
Distance scales presume uniformity of motion, which is not in evidence, therefore is taken purely on faith, how ‘religious’ of you…
Because the scientific method presumes that if it works a couple of dozen times that it must be an inherent law…
Uniformitarian presumptions can be found all over the shop, but you’ll do well to get a scientist to admit it. Generally, as can be seen here, you’ll get branded a religious nutjob and then insulted…
Personally I think that the question of the origin of life is unanswerable, but you’ll never a scientist to admit such a thing because, again, it would place the whole scientific institution’s authority under question…
By this measure the theory of Intelligent Design (of some form or other) has been around and accepted for over 2,000 years and hence is superior…
That’s the whole point, a theory being taken as valid now by an instititution known for changing it’s mind on things is not proof anymore than accepting the word of the guy in the pulpit is proof. It’s simply deferring the question onto another authority which has proven itself to be changeable. No doubt if you were born 750 years ago you’d believe that the world was flat and deny any claims to the contrary…
Yes I know what carbon dating is, If i didn’t, would I be posting a thread questioning its validity? My problems aren’t with knowing what carbon dating is, it’s knowing what was in our atmosphere, what was in the water and what was in the earth that can effect how much C leaves the living thing. We can’t presume to know what was in our atmosphere. We can’t say dinosaurs died this long ago… because we don’t know how carbon dating works. We weren’t alive in dinosaur age, we didn’t count the suns to this day from when a dinosaur died to know that we are accurate. Who’s to say that trillions of dioxides were in our atmosphere, there was some sort of polar distortion and it sucked the carbon out of everything.
I’m talking literal language here. English for example, we cant contrive thoughts beyond our own ego. We’ve become to melded with language, we can’t see the begining, because from our perspective… it never happened. We were just born, time began at each one of our births and time will stop at our death. No one else exists in language, just I.
- The Natural ‘Science’ forum just gets better and better.