The fact we can now consciously make this so-called ''Artificial Selection'' must be a huge leap forward for evolution. Ask the Nazi philosophers. They thought conscious natural selection was the cat's whiskers.
You still need to bring up Nazis and Hitler. Have you ever heard of Godwins Law?!! It is deemed natural if it is natural factors selecting it, such as long necks reaching trees, long legs meaning faster running, etc... Hence the name "natural" selection. Artificial selection is human controlled and is un-natural, hence the name "artificial". You should invest in a Biology book or something.
Natural selection is anything natural. Godwin's law is philosophic nonsense.
He ddn't kill millions of people like the Catholics. I'm not saying he is perfect, but who set the precedent? The Catholics. Cromwell thought like a protestant theologically, but acted like a Catholic politically and militarily.
Godwins Law is right. You couldn't resist using Nazis and Hitler in your argument.
Cromwell was a vile, nasty man. There was nothing good about him. He killed many thousands of people simply because of his own theological position and he despised Catholism.
Um... what? Godwin's law was a term made up for internet arguments that says the chances that someone in an internet debate will eventually bring up Hitler and the Nazis reaches 1, as in, it's inevitable.
Whoever does so first loses the argument automatically.
Artificial selection has been around for thousands of years. Animals have been bred for traits depending on the needs of their human handlers for as long as man has been keeping animals. The same is true for selective breeding in agriculture. There is NO SUCH THING as conscious NATURAL selection.
It was artificial selection that gave Darwin hints about how variation was selected for in nature.
Evolution isn't going in any set direction and it stops being natural when you try and influence it.
Well, i'm afraid many leading atheists would disagree with u. What about Comte, the father of modern secular sociology? He theorized evolution would progress through three stages. In the fist stage, humans would give divine properties to nature, in the second they would give divine properties to philosophy, and in the third they would give divine properties to themselves by controlling their evolution.
"Well, i'm afraid many leading atheists would disagree with u."
The only thing atheists have in common is a shared non belief in the supernatural, the fact they disagree on anything and everything else isn't surprising.
Never heard of Comte till I Google'd the name. The first thing I noticed is that he died a few years before Origin of Species was first published. So there's a *slight* problem with your theory that he's discussing Biological Evolution. I don't know why you dredged him up.
... ''The definition of natural selection is whatever man can do to to fellow man.'' (note u can't get ''ought's'' from ''can's.'') If i have the power to wipe out 6 million Jews, why shouldn't I?
Under evolution, u cannot separate evolution from the environment. Therefore, there is no such thing as ''artificial selection.''
The Protestants and Catholics have a long history of slaughtering each other in large numbers. Ever heard of Oliver Cromwell?
If an animal survives the cold weather because its genes enable it to have more fur than others in its species, it is NATURAL selection. Someone going nuts and killing everyone in sight is ARTIFICIAL selection.
Yes. I have. Good guy. Much better than the Catholics, i assure you. He did have some problems admittedly, such as his lack of respect for the delineation between Church and State. but i can assure u, for i have studied him, that if u were a catholic living under his rule, u would feel far more secure that a Protestant living under the Catholic King Charles, for example.
And u don't even under stand ur own theory. If everything is natural, nothing is not natural selection.
Good guy? XD He wiped out over 50% of the Irish population simply because they were Catholic, as well as many Scottish and English Catholics. Damn, you must be dense because the things that he said about the Catholics would not have put you at ease at the time. Both Protestants and Catholics were guilty of mass murder.
And the delineation between artificial and natural selection? My, that was clever. But u have a teeny philosophical problem. Since u deny the Supernatural, everything is natural, right? Humans have no divine element, and are only higher forms of animals, according to evolutionary thinking. So u can't say anything is ''Artificial.'' ''Artificial'' implies ''non-natural,'' which can't exist according to evolution. As one philosopher said.. cont ^
But that does not mean the Bible actually states those things. Yes, God let the Israelite engage in ethnic cleaning. And that was right for that time.
But we cannot apply that today! There is a totally different Gospel for us today! U can't mix Judaism and Christianity! Whenever the Bible is used for evil, it is mis-interpreted.
Carbon dating HAS dated things of known age and HAS provided consistent results. It HAS been used as far back as the 40's and is still used accurately to this day. If it didn't work, like you state, nobody would use it.
Since when was i concerned with arguing? I have argued with many creationists and have debunked them all. I just don't see the fun in it anymore. You can carry on with your deluded persona with a dogmatic view, and I will laugh at you. You fail at science, you fail at everything. It is a good thing real scientists run things, not bible literalists. Dogmatic creationism has given the world NOTHING useful.
well, Germany and the Next War was a Nazi book based on Ethical Darwinism. Hitler was a good evolutionist in practice, though in real life he was probably some stooge for the Satanists and Roman Catholic Church (which is evil beyond description.)
Marx based his ideas on the dialectic, which is a broad term for the ''Escalator theory.'' This theory holds not only biology, but every sphere of life is improving.
Hitler believed in Jesus, God, etc... Simply read his book, or hear his speeches, or take a look at his life in general. He was a theist and a christian.
The Bible has been used to justify mass-murder, racism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc... on a huge scale in past. It is still done to this day. Ever heard of KKK for example?
Evolution involves NATURAL selection. The acts you speak of involve ARTIFICIAL selection and is far from evolutionary theory.
If the Bible is true, it becomes a very powerful weapon either for good or ill. We can ''wrest the scriptures for our own destruction,'' as one of the books of Peter say.
I really couldn't agree more with u the Bible has been used to justify atrocious acts. As a protestant, i feel rather incensed the Roman Catholic Church used it to justify the slaughter of 68 million reformers though the inquisition alone!, not to mention the crusades etc, and persecution of Jews.
...been No globally catastrophic events in the past 50,000 years (such as a large meteor impact or Flood) if conditions on earth were very different in the past, and especially before a major catastrophe, then C-14 is nearly worthless, particularly for ages assumed to be older than 3,000 years.
Information sources:
Robert Whitelaw, ''Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,'' in Speak to the Earth, p. 339.
4. Ancient specimens are not contaminated with solutions containing modern amounts of C-14.
5. There is no loss of C-14 except by radioactive decay.
Carbon 14 can only be used to prove the age of specimens less than 3000 years old, and even then it must be used with circumspection, for Living plants growing by springs were dated as 17,300 years old!
How can we test any sample and estimate the effects of of past environmental changes? The C-14 system demands we assume there have... cont ^
Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris, p. 152; Also see Fletcher G. Watson, Between the Planets (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1956) (estimates accumulation of 300 thousand to 3 million ton per year deposited on the earth).
The Assumptions of Carbon-14 Dating:
1. The formation in the atmosphere has been constant for at least 70,000 years.
2. The formation is the same all over the world.
3. The content ratio is the same in all kinds of specimens worldwide.
the decay rate by about 25%. Yet the system assumes that decay and the formation of C-14 are in equilibrium, which would evidently be reached in 30,000 years of rather consistent environmental conditions wth no major catastrophic changes.
Information source:
Hans Pettersson, ''Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust, '' Scientific American, vol. 202 (2/1960).
Cross referencing historical documents and carbon dating put it at over 4000 years old and carbon dating confirms this. This debunkes the flood completely, bearing in mind that this is one example of many of a well known civilisation surviving their "supposed" great flood. Carbon dating has been validated numerous times by dating natural materials of known age correctly and accurately. The carbon content hasn't changed drastically in 4000 years. It's testable.
The atomic half-life of Carbon (C-14) is only 5730 years. In five half-lives (29,000 years) very little C-14 remains. An accurate age is impossible to know. (A half-life is the time required to half the unstable element to break down into its ''daughter'' element). If an object is presumed to be older than 50,000 years, a C-14 lab won't bother with it.
Worse yet, scientists, including a Dr. Libby, acknowledge that C-14 production exceeds the... cont ^
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.
@gregrutz What method was implemented for dating? C14 fluctuates over time to such a degree that there can be an error margin of thousands of years. Oh, but I'm not going to berate you for being selectively thruthful and honest. Not going to persecute you for your religion's sake.
@joroma77 Yup, those stupid dating methods, every one of them shows the earth is old, they must all be wrong. And why did the Carbon 14 in the air fluctuate in the last 60,000 years? And you can't count tree rings?
Cross referencing historical documents and carbon dating are NOT circular reasoning. Saying "creation is true coz it sayz it in da bible and da bible iz written byz god rofl lol" IS circular reasoning. Oldest pyramid goes back over 4000 years.
It's always australians for some reason. What a bunch of idiots. Evolution is OBSERVED!!!! Genetic and fossil evidence in abundance. Has many applications and makes many predictions. There is no scientific debate over it's validity. Hell, the chinese, greeks, babylonians, even people in britain have been around for over 6000 years. They all predate your literal bible. Things like the pyramids and stonehenge outdate your bibles noah flood.
nobody calls me yellow! arrrgh, you better feel lucky your over the internets!
mboundtogether 2 months ago
@mackiemoo So why can't he prove evolution didn't happen?
gregrutz 1 year ago
The fact we can now consciously make this so-called ''Artificial Selection'' must be a huge leap forward for evolution. Ask the Nazi philosophers. They thought conscious natural selection was the cat's whiskers.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
You still need to bring up Nazis and Hitler. Have you ever heard of Godwins Law?!! It is deemed natural if it is natural factors selecting it, such as long necks reaching trees, long legs meaning faster running, etc... Hence the name "natural" selection. Artificial selection is human controlled and is un-natural, hence the name "artificial". You should invest in a Biology book or something.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
Natural selection is anything natural. Godwin's law is philosophic nonsense.
He ddn't kill millions of people like the Catholics. I'm not saying he is perfect, but who set the precedent? The Catholics. Cromwell thought like a protestant theologically, but acted like a Catholic politically and militarily.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
"Natural selection is anything natural."
Exactly. Anything natural and not artificial.
Godwins Law is right. You couldn't resist using Nazis and Hitler in your argument.
Cromwell was a vile, nasty man. There was nothing good about him. He killed many thousands of people simply because of his own theological position and he despised Catholism.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
"Godwin's law is philosophic nonsense"
Um... what? Godwin's law was a term made up for internet arguments that says the chances that someone in an internet debate will eventually bring up Hitler and the Nazis reaches 1, as in, it's inevitable.
Whoever does so first loses the argument automatically.
ScottishAtheist 2 years ago
Oh, go chew on a monkey.
InfiniteSky49 2 years ago
XD Oh, go chew on your book of 3000 year old desert myths written by tripped out, delusional psychopaths.
DisturbedbyDeth356 2 years ago
Artificial selection has been around for thousands of years. Animals have been bred for traits depending on the needs of their human handlers for as long as man has been keeping animals. The same is true for selective breeding in agriculture. There is NO SUCH THING as conscious NATURAL selection.
It was artificial selection that gave Darwin hints about how variation was selected for in nature.
Evolution isn't going in any set direction and it stops being natural when you try and influence it.
ScottishAtheist 2 years ago
Well, i'm afraid many leading atheists would disagree with u. What about Comte, the father of modern secular sociology? He theorized evolution would progress through three stages. In the fist stage, humans would give divine properties to nature, in the second they would give divine properties to philosophy, and in the third they would give divine properties to themselves by controlling their evolution.
InfiniteSky49 2 years ago
"Well, i'm afraid many leading atheists would disagree with u."
The only thing atheists have in common is a shared non belief in the supernatural, the fact they disagree on anything and everything else isn't surprising.
Never heard of Comte till I Google'd the name. The first thing I noticed is that he died a few years before Origin of Species was first published. So there's a *slight* problem with your theory that he's discussing Biological Evolution. I don't know why you dredged him up.
ScottishAtheist 2 years ago
@InfiniteSky49 ''give divine properties to nature''
Science does not use the supernatural or anything divine, it won't happen.
gregrutz 1 year ago
... ''The definition of natural selection is whatever man can do to to fellow man.'' (note u can't get ''ought's'' from ''can's.'') If i have the power to wipe out 6 million Jews, why shouldn't I?
Under evolution, u cannot separate evolution from the environment. Therefore, there is no such thing as ''artificial selection.''
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
The Protestants and Catholics have a long history of slaughtering each other in large numbers. Ever heard of Oliver Cromwell?
If an animal survives the cold weather because its genes enable it to have more fur than others in its species, it is NATURAL selection. Someone going nuts and killing everyone in sight is ARTIFICIAL selection.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
Yes. I have. Good guy. Much better than the Catholics, i assure you. He did have some problems admittedly, such as his lack of respect for the delineation between Church and State. but i can assure u, for i have studied him, that if u were a catholic living under his rule, u would feel far more secure that a Protestant living under the Catholic King Charles, for example.
And u don't even under stand ur own theory. If everything is natural, nothing is not natural selection.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Good guy? XD He wiped out over 50% of the Irish population simply because they were Catholic, as well as many Scottish and English Catholics. Damn, you must be dense because the things that he said about the Catholics would not have put you at ease at the time. Both Protestants and Catholics were guilty of mass murder.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
And the delineation between artificial and natural selection? My, that was clever. But u have a teeny philosophical problem. Since u deny the Supernatural, everything is natural, right? Humans have no divine element, and are only higher forms of animals, according to evolutionary thinking. So u can't say anything is ''Artificial.'' ''Artificial'' implies ''non-natural,'' which can't exist according to evolution. As one philosopher said.. cont ^
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
But that does not mean the Bible actually states those things. Yes, God let the Israelite engage in ethnic cleaning. And that was right for that time.
But we cannot apply that today! There is a totally different Gospel for us today! U can't mix Judaism and Christianity! Whenever the Bible is used for evil, it is mis-interpreted.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
cont from below...
Bruno Huber, ''Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions'', The Physiology of Forest Trees, K. V. Thinmann ed., (New York, 1958) p. 194.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Carbon dating HAS dated things of known age and HAS provided consistent results. It HAS been used as far back as the 40's and is still used accurately to this day. If it didn't work, like you state, nobody would use it.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
You haven't negated anything i said. YOu have just stated an opinion.
If u don't want to acknowledge a creator God, u certainly would uphold this faulty method.
At least i cited my sources and presented an empirically backed argument.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Since when was i concerned with arguing? I have argued with many creationists and have debunked them all. I just don't see the fun in it anymore. You can carry on with your deluded persona with a dogmatic view, and I will laugh at you. You fail at science, you fail at everything. It is a good thing real scientists run things, not bible literalists. Dogmatic creationism has given the world NOTHING useful.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
And Evolution gave us ''Germany and the Next War.''
And communism/dialectic! What an amazing theory!
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Evolution gave us modern medicine and modern Biology. Hitler gave us WW2. *cough*Godwins law*cough*
Communism? Are you high, or just dense?
Gravity makes you fall to your death! What an amazing theory!
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
well, Germany and the Next War was a Nazi book based on Ethical Darwinism. Hitler was a good evolutionist in practice, though in real life he was probably some stooge for the Satanists and Roman Catholic Church (which is evil beyond description.)
Marx based his ideas on the dialectic, which is a broad term for the ''Escalator theory.'' This theory holds not only biology, but every sphere of life is improving.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Hitler was a theist and a christian, not a satanist. Your dribble of an argument holds no water. Still I say, Godwins Law.
Sigmumd Freud was heavily influenced by Darwin, as were many other important people. Just what point are you trying to make?
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, not christian. Roman Catholicism is futher away from the Bible than taoism.
What i'm saying is, evolution has been used to justify mass-murder, racism, genocide, ethnic cleaning, etc.
Survival of the fittest in other words.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Hitler believed in Jesus, God, etc... Simply read his book, or hear his speeches, or take a look at his life in general. He was a theist and a christian.
The Bible has been used to justify mass-murder, racism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc... on a huge scale in past. It is still done to this day. Ever heard of KKK for example?
Evolution involves NATURAL selection. The acts you speak of involve ARTIFICIAL selection and is far from evolutionary theory.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
If the Bible is true, it becomes a very powerful weapon either for good or ill. We can ''wrest the scriptures for our own destruction,'' as one of the books of Peter say.
I really couldn't agree more with u the Bible has been used to justify atrocious acts. As a protestant, i feel rather incensed the Roman Catholic Church used it to justify the slaughter of 68 million reformers though the inquisition alone!, not to mention the crusades etc, and persecution of Jews.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
...been No globally catastrophic events in the past 50,000 years (such as a large meteor impact or Flood) if conditions on earth were very different in the past, and especially before a major catastrophe, then C-14 is nearly worthless, particularly for ages assumed to be older than 3,000 years.
Information sources:
Robert Whitelaw, ''Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,'' in Speak to the Earth, p. 339.
Bruno Huber, ''Recording Gaseous Exchange Under
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
4. Ancient specimens are not contaminated with solutions containing modern amounts of C-14.
5. There is no loss of C-14 except by radioactive decay.
Carbon 14 can only be used to prove the age of specimens less than 3000 years old, and even then it must be used with circumspection, for Living plants growing by springs were dated as 17,300 years old!
How can we test any sample and estimate the effects of of past environmental changes? The C-14 system demands we assume there have... cont ^
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris, p. 152; Also see Fletcher G. Watson, Between the Planets (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1956) (estimates accumulation of 300 thousand to 3 million ton per year deposited on the earth).
The Assumptions of Carbon-14 Dating:
1. The formation in the atmosphere has been constant for at least 70,000 years.
2. The formation is the same all over the world.
3. The content ratio is the same in all kinds of specimens worldwide.
cont above ^^^
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
the decay rate by about 25%. Yet the system assumes that decay and the formation of C-14 are in equilibrium, which would evidently be reached in 30,000 years of rather consistent environmental conditions wth no major catastrophic changes.
Information source:
Hans Pettersson, ''Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust, '' Scientific American, vol. 202 (2/1960).
cont above^
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Bonkers,
youwillBsorry 3 years ago
u know ur name.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Good Post, good lesson!! Thank you for sharing. Yah bless you.
valambiguous 3 years ago
Thank you for posting this! Well thought out and presented.
thefirstdaveprime 3 years ago
The pyramids can't be much older than 4000 years.
daro2096 3 years ago
Cross referencing historical documents and carbon dating put it at over 4000 years old and carbon dating confirms this. This debunkes the flood completely, bearing in mind that this is one example of many of a well known civilisation surviving their "supposed" great flood. Carbon dating has been validated numerous times by dating natural materials of known age correctly and accurately. The carbon content hasn't changed drastically in 4000 years. It's testable.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
Carbon dating has severe problems.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
You have severe problems - not carbon dating.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
no, no, i ran a test, and it was def carbon dating and its purveyors that had a severe problem.
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
Your test has severe problems, as do you. Carbon dating is used to date a vast number of things and provides consistent, reliable results.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
OK, lets look at the science.
The atomic half-life of Carbon (C-14) is only 5730 years. In five half-lives (29,000 years) very little C-14 remains. An accurate age is impossible to know. (A half-life is the time required to half the unstable element to break down into its ''daughter'' element). If an object is presumed to be older than 50,000 years, a C-14 lab won't bother with it.
Worse yet, scientists, including a Dr. Libby, acknowledge that C-14 production exceeds the... cont ^
InfiniteSky49 3 years ago
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.
They did not all die in a flood
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz What method was implemented for dating? C14 fluctuates over time to such a degree that there can be an error margin of thousands of years. Oh, but I'm not going to berate you for being selectively thruthful and honest. Not going to persecute you for your religion's sake.
joroma77 1 year ago
@joroma77 Yup, those stupid dating methods, every one of them shows the earth is old, they must all be wrong. And why did the Carbon 14 in the air fluctuate in the last 60,000 years? And you can't count tree rings?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Jesus did not say he was the creator or god!
SevenLivesManyFaces 3 years ago
Before Abraham was I am. The Jews wanted to kill him because he made himself equal with God. See John chapter 8.
The Word was God(John 1:1). The Word was made flesh and dwelt amoung us(John 1:14).
daro2096 3 years ago
MacKay - crackpot extraordinaire. Just like Ham.
franknhonest 3 years ago
How utterly depressing!
Gorteenminogue 3 years ago
Cross referencing historical documents and carbon dating are NOT circular reasoning. Saying "creation is true coz it sayz it in da bible and da bible iz written byz god rofl lol" IS circular reasoning. Oldest pyramid goes back over 4000 years.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
Haha, nice one :D
kageromaru 3 years ago
If I understand carbon dating correctly it is assumed that the carbon 14 in the air back then is what it is now.
Am i correct?
daro2096 3 years ago
It's always australians for some reason. What a bunch of idiots. Evolution is OBSERVED!!!! Genetic and fossil evidence in abundance. Has many applications and makes many predictions. There is no scientific debate over it's validity. Hell, the chinese, greeks, babylonians, even people in britain have been around for over 6000 years. They all predate your literal bible. Things like the pyramids and stonehenge outdate your bibles noah flood.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago
No, micro evolution is observed.
This is all we see but you and others assumed that this equals macro evolution given enought time.
Fossils do not count. All they tell you is it died. You can't tell what if any kids it had and you can't tell if it had any different kids.
daro2096 3 years ago