then again.. how does one know that the date is accurate?.. sure it decays.. who says that this much of this is whatever date?.. sure is easily done to current "things".. but what if you come up with two things that come up with same ratio. so you have 1 and 2. 1 lives to be 80 years, 2 lives to be 5 days but is born 5 days before 1 dies. now 1 has bilions more and 2 has uhh 10? lol on the day of death of both.. I got a hunch you'd be AMAZED! and not to mention you cant tell ancient conaminants
As long as its alive and eating? Would it not be the time of final bone formation? Not that the lifespan of the animal is in the error range of the date (I would imagine).
@IvanderHaisley No since life has been living with it for billions of years, and therefore has grown a risitance to the extremely tiny amount of radiation it gives of. Only very high amounts of radiation can "break" the gene that stops uncontrolled reproduction in cells. Such as staying in the shiny sun will flood cells with UV radiation. Also cells has ways of fixing damaged DNA, even though it isn't always successful. People will have thousands of cancers in their lives but will fight them off
@INKB0X The big "Band" lol. Phil Colins was a pretty big band. Of course marching bands are pretty big too. Seriously though, there is this thing called peer revue - A process where colleagues review research and either have the same finding or disprove a given hypothesis. This reduces the likelihood of reviewer bias.
I would rather listen to scientist making an honest, EVOLVING attempt at explaining 'all this' rather than an ignorant religi-nut that says "God did it" and it just stops there.
@worktosser OMG... I was just going to type the same thing you put before I read your comment.... you have to wonder who would not like this info... they are probably saying... dammit... now we have to find another way to be idiots...
"After 5000 years about half of the original number of carbon-14 atoms will have decayed. Using this fact, scientists can tell how long ago an organism died."
@Sirhansome They know this because they've measured the Carbon 14 ratios in bits of wood whose age they already know by other methods - eg wood from tombs of historically recorded dates (which takes you back about 5,000 years for Egyptian Pharoahs etc) - and from wood they can date using tree rings (which are accurate to a single year back to about 8,000BC). These samples all show that the Carbon 14 ratio decays very precisely - enabling reliable dating by this method back to ~60,000BC.
@Sirhansome not to be rude but, you are either stupid, intrasnsigent or 14 years old. why not watch a video about how a smartphone is made from scratch and ask where they got all of the facts to make that all work out? (i know that's not the perfect analogy, but it works) anywho, why believe in some science and not all...basically, carbon dating ultimately works on probability (u may not understand why), and probability is hard to refute or overcome
@Sirhansome ouch! i'm actually pretty smart, i'd tell you why, but it's a waste of time. half-lifes are reliable things...this knowledge led us to nuclear devices. unless you don't really believe that is the case, or believe in those devices at all. if we look at 7 carbon atoms, reliability would be out the window. but when we look at 10k or 100k or these c-14 suckers...it's pretty reliable. i told you it's all about probabilities, but you probably don't understand yet...open book stupid!!
@zlcap2011 Thanks again for demonstrating your lack of scientific knowledge, as you simply provide opinions without supporting data or even so much as suggesting an article or research.
If the best you can do to answer my legitimate question is insult me, I guess that science is in more trouble than I originally thought.
Go back to your belief that the world is flat, ass-hole
its pretty simple. get a known quantity of c14 and watch it decay. collect enough data points and you get a curve that you can use to predict future decay.
oh, so science can't predict anything, despite having done so successfully repeatedly? I'd hate to see your interactions with your doctors who use the same basic principle with your medications ( the whole point of medical testing is so they can say "this worked for 100thousand others with these effects, it should do the same with you")
theres more complicated probabilistic models that measure individual atoms. but its college level physics and gives the same damn result.
You CLAIM know science, sit at your computer pecking at the keyboard, & the best you come up with is anecdotal comparisons?
You may as well threaten to burn me at the stake for thinking the way I do.
By el way, if you have done YOUR research you should know that most medicines have pretty much been bull-shit too but people like YOU fall too easily for the propaganda machine.
""blah blah blah I can't explain so I'll change the subject"
you expect me to explain something that takes years of study in the space of a youtube comment? I'd give the same answer if you asked me to explain chemical kinetics or dynamic load assessment.
if you're actually interested, go to school and learn the subject matter.
and i cewrtainly havent changed the subject. there both valid methods of getting the information you want.
"By el way, if you have done YOUR research you should know that most medicines have pretty much been bull-shit too but people like YOU fall too easily for the propaganda machine"
"It is impossible to 'predict' what c-14 will do after 1K, 5K, 20K. Any assumptions, therefore, are based on pure FAITH!"
- incorrect, you've made this statement without a shred of evidence.
the fact is that we've independently verified it against other radiometric clocks, known age-dating and dendrochronology and a host of other things including but not limited to: the rate of movement of the Pacific ocean plate over hot spots, Milankovitch cycles, luminescence dating .etc
""It is impossible to 'predict' what c-14 will do after 1K, 5K, 20K. Any assumptions, therefore, are based on pure FAITH!""
- oh terrific you dont understand how nuclear decay works but think yourself a scientist.
whilst precisely predicting decay of individual molecules can be thought of as 'random' the trend it forms is not. You may as well have said quantum mechanics is random and unpredictable therefore everything in the universe is random and unpredictable.
If you are tired of dating sites with endless fake profiles and scams to take your money, then try e-datebook. E-datebook lets you sign up, search, and message members for free!! Check us out!!
its e-datebook with a dot com on the end. This is NOT spam!
Hi hi! Have you tried bee4biz (just google it)? It is a tiny url locker that pays. Its tons better than other sites and they pay on time. Check them out if you want to earn good money shortening and sharing links online
Sorry...This is bunk....Has been since 2006....Radioactive decay is NOT...NOT stable A new ghost partial being emitted from or around the sun is speeding up decay on all radioactive elements....
@Catsscratchfever This is very interesting. I suggest getting a hold of 'Time-Dependent Nuclear Decay Parameters' by Fischbach et. al. (2009) who originally made the discovery. It appears there are seasonal variations to do with the Earth-Sun distance as well as 33-day variations to do with the rotation of the core of the Sun.
@7373walker Thank you for your help...I found a pdf of the results.I just glanced over it quickly but their findings agree with. Rate of decay=a +or- of 5c.Temp...They cannot explane this finding...This all seems so clear to me but the science need to be proven....
@Catsscratchfever What paper and figure is this? I couldn't find anything relating to temperature in the one I mentioned. Even the 'drastic drop' that preceded a solar flare in 2006 reported in media articles is about 0.001%. It's real, but not dangerous.
Volcanoes and earthquakes haven't increased really. There doesn't appear to be a 200-year temperature/earthquake/volcano cycle, global warming is caused by increasing Carbon Dioxide: water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.
@Catsscratchfever Lastly, solar flares have a periodicity of 152 days and the Sun's activity has been decreasing slightly while temperatures have gone up. I don't want to debate global warming here.
There are also authors who claim the annual variations don't even exist (see 'Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance' by Norman et. al., 2009). Try to think of testable consequences of your claims first. None of them seem to be true.
1. they are small. Around 0.02%. This doesn't threaten claims of an Earth older than 6000 years.
2. they are oscillatory so that decay rates increase and decrease over these periods, not just speed up.
3. the particles are most likely not new. Neutrinos are not new, but are not completely understood
4. ghost particle only refers to the fact that most neutrinos pass straight through the Earth and hardly interact. This research could change that view.
1. There is a quasi-period of neutrino output from the Sun of 200 years which could effect carbon dating more significantly, but not significantly enough to invalidate all the data collected over decades. Again it is periodic and NOT monotonic.
2. The Sun was fainter earlier in the Earth's history but not faint enough to invalidate the data.
The physics is extremely interesting, but not enough to invalidate carbon dating. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
@7373walker I agree but this goes much deeper.....A study not to long ago has proven that Radioactive decay is 50 to 55% of what is heating the interior of the earth.If radioactive decay is sped up the heat also increases...This may reveal the sudden occurrence of earth changes..Volcanoes, Earthquakes,global warming.After all water vapor is the cause of global warming...I believe solar flairs and there rate of occurrence may correlate to this situation..If you disagree pls explane why Thanks...
@Catsscratchfever My main two points are that the effect is very small and it is periodic (radioactive decay SLOWS DOWN for half the year). This doesn't mean that rates weren't drastically different in the past, but if they are in some way related to the Sun, the Sun hasn't changed enough to produce what you are talking about.
0.02% x 50% is 0.01%. This effect would be absolutely swamped by natural variations in pressure and temperature in the Earth's core.
"so it must be true, scientist are never wrong, right?"
Actually, there is a lot more "wrong" than "right" in science, so we know that when the "right" is defined as such, it is in fact right. Even then, if a "right" is proven incomplete or partially wrong (or even completely wrong) whatever proves it wrong is accepted as more accurate and science just continues from there. This is why religion is "wrong" and science is "right."
@TheTexanCanadian Religion and science do not go against each other. Many people think that it is always science vs religion but that is not the case.
Oh I don't think they "go against" each other, but they are completely different. Science is a method of finding truth, using existing facts and evidence, whatever that truth may be, and religion is a set of beliefs on what truth is regardless of facts and evidence. They're polar opposites, but don't have to be against each other, in terms of how a person views both. Religion is just the system we used before we developed science, indeed religion WAS science in a way, in the past.
@TheTexanCanadian The religion part is not a old science as it is a science that does have evidence and facts to back it up. And the two come together. As mentioned that our technology is moving at such a fast rate that soon genetic research will be able to design life. Intelligent design is something that is getting more attention day after day. As I stated that there is no evidence anywhere that evolution started on earth, therefore, it is not impossible for life to have been placed here
@KOTWBaron I will say that if you look deep at the Bible's version, no where did it say that God magically said the word, and pop there was the earth and humans. The Earth and it's water was already there before God even started the creation. And micro evolution is even mentioned in the form "each animal in it's own kind..." We are designed to look like our designer. Genetics is a designed code that comes together with micro evolution to make us who we are today.
@TheTexanCanadian Excellent answers Texan, I have taken the Bible to task and have found a lot of facts that match up with today science. I have also seen the arguments against the Bible and disagree with the people that state it is flat our wrong. I also do not agree with all creationists either. I too was a evolutionist until I was taken to task to do everything I can to prove evolution right, and then prove evolution wrong in 1986. Then in 1988 I wrote a paper on the flaws of evolution.
@TheTexanCanadian I don't think I said that I came here to prove evolution wrong. I did a typo in that quote. I meant to say "do everything you can to prove evolution right, then do everything you can to prove it wrong" Have you guys done that? You will find not just heated debates between evolutionists but evolutionists tearing down the tree of darwin. That is right out of evolutionists mouths. My argument is that there are flaws and limiting factors in macro evolution. Look at both sides
I have, and there is no one "tearing down the tree of darwin." There are no significant rational investigated arguments against evolutionary biology. Nothing disproves it. Geology proves it, biology proves it, genetics proves it, paleontology proves it, it's falsified every single day by thousands of scientists. The only arguments against it are made for theistic reasons, not scientific reasons.
@TheTexanCanadian Darwins tree is inaccurate. He wrote that 150 years ago and there are inaccuracies that have been agreed upon for a long time. I need to sleep now,lol I will provide you with the inaccuracies tomorrow. By the way, thanks for the chatting. I can chat about this stuff for a long time. :)
@TheTexanCanadian To this day I still do that. I research both the pro's and con's of both. Many things come into play that have me believe that God created us are true as many things line up. Here are some of the things that show a starting point. Our population J curve, Our family tree's , the oldest tree, documented human history, the lack of fossils (5 billion years worth) and many others all point to a similar starting point.
"Our population J curve, Our family tree's , the oldest tree, "
None of these have anything to do with geology, which shows conclusively that the earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old.
"documented human history, "
Regardless of what is documented, we have records of civilizations that existed before the biblical god was invented and cobbled into a monotheistic god from bablyonian gods.
It takes just the right circumstances to create fossils. Also, it's not like we've dug up every square foot of earth on the planet looking for fossils.
"documented history has a short time line. "
See XGralgrathor's answer to this, I agree with him.
@TheTexanCanadian The Bible says we were given intelligence since day one which separates us from all the animals. If we evolved for millions of years, documented history would have started hundred of thousands of years ago. Instead, documented history has a short time line. Family tree's also have a short time line. The population of the worlds J curve also has a short time line. Millions of years would have our population in the trillions and the fossils would be overwhelming.
« Millions of years would have our population in the trillions »
That's simplistically assuming a Malthusian exponential curve. But population growth is limited by resources and technological capability. Before agriculture was invented, human populations would be entirely dependant on what the wilderness could provide, and growth beyond that level would automatically mean starvation, disease.
@XGralgrathor Not so. Humans can produce at a very fast rate. And plants, animals and grass also. Even if you are right there would have to be ups and downs which would still produce great numbers of beings that have lived over that long time period.
Yes they can. And when their reproductive rate exceeds the capacity provided by the environments combined with technological means, mortality increases as well, limiting growth rate of populations. For most of human history, growth rate has been low, stable. Only when serious medical advances were made during the last 300 years did growth rate start to follow an exponential curve.
@XGralgrathor It is the opposite. Medical advances has help us live longer, but the growth rate in country's that have good medical care has dropped and immigration is what are keeping these countries stable, but it country's where not everyone has medical care, the population is skyrocketing.
It is elementary knowledge in biology, specifically population dynamics, that population growth is limited by environmental factors, such as the availability of food, or the technological means to exploit those resources. There is no getting around the fact that when populations grow faster than their environment can support, starvation will ensue. Only when mankind developed medicine and modern agricultural methods were such limitations overcome for humans.
@XGralgrathor I disagree. The earth produces a heap of food faster than humans can consume it on a natural basis. Plants produce at alarming rates and have spread around the world without human help or technology, thus highly increasing animal population and human. Millions of years would bring a massive amount of fossils. Heaps, Yes starvation has existed in portions. But starvation has not stopped world wide population.
« The earth produces a heap of food faster than humans can consume »
Perhaps, with the Haber-Bosch method and genetic modification to increase crop yields. But certainly not naturally, not in an area defined by a days traveling by foot. Take a wider area, and your transport's going to be costing you more energy than it yields, so there's a limit to how far you can range for food.
No they don't. Moreover, they naturally produce fruits and other edible parts only a couple of times per year. Without planned agricultural methods, wild plants would only feed a small population.
« Millions of years would bring a massive amount of fossils »
No, again, fossilisation is a rare phenomenon. It takes exactly the right circumstances for animal remains to fossilise - and it takes exactly the right circumstances for the following millions of years for those fossils not to be destroyed by erosion or geological processes. Erosion and other natural processes have destroyed many times more information about our natural history than we could ever dream to uncover.
« But starvation has not stopped world wide population. »
Because it's incidental. The human population globally is riding the wave of agriculture and technology. Sometimes there will be draughts and floods and earthquakes, crops will go lost, and people will go hungry and starve - but goods produced through technology are transported in using technology, and technology is used to help restore agriculture. Without these means, populations *would* soon dwindle.
There are a list of things that show curate dating such as historic documentation, rings of a tree, sea coral, heck even the age of a coin. The oldest civilizations. Family tree's, even the DNA chain as presented the researchers of National Geographic that points to the first human. What do they all have in common, all dating back within several thousands of years. (*National Geographic's opinion is not my own, just threw it in as a example and the coin I just put there for fun. )
« What do they all have in common, all dating back within several thousands of years »
Not if we're talking about the same DNA evidence; "Mitochondrial Eve" is dated back to some 200.000 years ago; "Y-chromosomal Adam" some 100.000 years ago.
@XGralgrathor Or how about no limitations, but the lack of need to have more kids. Which would fall into your cultural open end point,lol . But it is not due to medical or limitation, but in North America, you need 2.1 growth rate to keep maintain our population, we have a 1.6 growth rate and almost a unlimited supply of resources.
Non the less our population is rising because of immigration. That side of the world is full, now lets fill up this side. Bottom line is humans breed fast.
« Or how about no limitations, but the lack of need to have more kids »
Producing offspring is not about wants or needs: it's a biological drive. It's what people do. What is true is that environmental factors, such as population pressures, may affect that reproductive drive, cause growth to decrease. Then again, approaching hunger or disaster would, even in crowded lands, cause reproduction rates to rise again.
Anyway my point of the population curve is to show you a limited factor that did not come from a creationists argument but from accurate observation. You wanted me to show you my limited factors and that was one of them. Moving along are the longest or oldest known civilizations which match the population J curves. Some argue that the Persians are the oldest know civilization dating back to 7000 years. Others may argue another but what they have in common are "several thousands years"
"Some argue that the Persians are the oldest know civilization dating back to 7000 years. "
From what I've read, the earliest verifiable civilization is Mesopotamia which started around 3,000 BCE.
We do however have human bones which date back over a hundred thousand years, so what is the oldest civilization is a moot point. There we people around much, much earlier than 3,000 BCE.
Who is performing the observing in this accurate observation?
The earliest verifiable records of written history are from Mesopotamia as far as I know. This does not take into account cave paintings, etc., and archeological evidence which dates back over a hundred thousand years, nor does it take into account the genetic proof of human evolution which show us deviating from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5-6 mil. years ago.
@XGralgrathor I will say that millions of years requires millions of life forms to have come and go. Darwin and I agree that if it took millions of years, where are all the fossils to back up this claim. Even though the earth has not all been dug up, there are still far and few fossils to show the millions of years that have past and with so many life forms, fossils should be everywhere and that is not the case.
You seem to suggest that there should be many more fossils. Why?
You seem to suggest that Darwin thought there should be many more fossils, but: 1) Darwin knew that palaeontology was only in its infancy, and that little had been found yet, but more would be found; 2) Darwin would not have believed the vast amount of fossil evidence available today. Even if we only have a tiny fraction of all life that's ever existed, the wealth is still staggering.
@TheTexanCanadian LOL Bare with me as all this is off the top of my head, I love to talk about this and am very interested in your thoughts too. :) This is my favorite conversation and I can talk or type a mile a minute about this stuff. One thing I will agree on is that intelligent design and micro evolution come together as one here on earth. I will try to provide a list of the science that was written in the Bible that I believe is factual as well as other interesting points later. :)
Intelligent design might *accomodate* evolution, but observed instances of evolution are not tests of intelligent design. In order for intelligent design to be testable, it must be a limited phenomenon, we must be able to explain why certain things should not be expected, the model must be falsifiable. An omnipotent god has unlimited capabilities, and would accomodate anything, therefore explain nothing and not be testable.
@XGralgrathor Gods product is testable. The genetic code is a written book that defines us. You can not have a code without a writer. Our bodies contain 100 million cells each with a 6 foot long DNA strand with precise instructions of whom we are. You can look at bacteria and see that it works and acts like a programmed factory. The bacteria flagellum is the most efficient motor in the universe. A dragon fly has 30 000 lenses in each eye. A spider web is ounce for ounce stronger than steel
Testability requires logical consequences following from an explanatory model. For example: quantum mechanics shows how chemical properties follow from electron shells. It follows naturally from that model that a hypothetical element with a certain configuration of electron shells has certain chemical properties. When we find this element, we can test that natural consequence against its actual chemical properties. "Goddiddit" does not provide such testability.
No, the genome is a sequence of chemically active molecules. There is no postulated "sender" or "receiver" required to explain how it works and how its sequences are formed. Nor is there evidence of a "sender" being present. Furthermore, meaningful messages require an external grammar, that is defined separately from the medium of the message. Such a grammar does not exist in genetics: the medium *is* its *effect*, and no message is apparent.
@XGralgrathor LOL I did not mean literally a written book. :) I agree that it is a sequence. But I do not think that this code got here by fluke or chance. Give me a bit and I will do a write up for you and then it will give you the opportunity to comment on it. I need to make a website for this stuff. :) We can be at this for a long time. I will say this though, many major universities are considering intelligent design in their curriculum. in 100 years I we too will be able to design.
@XGralgrathor I will get back to you on this, I am not agreeing or disagreeing, I just do not have the wording properly which is not a bad thing, I just need to explain myself better. :)
@XGralgrathor How about something better. The evolution that we know about, starting from someone who developed a outside force to get it started. :)
"I will try to provide a list of the science that was written in the Bible "
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me how old you think the planet actually is, and also please define a scientific theory, and also (please) provide me with references to the scientific theory that supports intelligent design and which refutes evolutionary biology to include macro-evolution, which has enough examples/transitional forms to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.
@TheTexanCanadian Wow what great replies. :) I am going to have to write a book for you guys and I don't mind doing that at all. Those examples of population, history are just some of many. I simply want you guys to think about it when you have time. unbiased think of anything and see how far back you can go with it.
@TheTexanCanadian I can not tell you how old the universe is because as I said, the earth and it's waters existed before God started creating. I can tell you that Genesis chapter 1 was written long before we knew that the universe was expanding and long before we knew what micro evolution was. Yet for some reason there it is in Geneses chapter 1. Who gave humans that knowledge because I can tell you that no human would have known that back then.
"Who gave humans that knowledge because I can tell you that no human would have known that back then."
For this to be "knowledge" you'd have to show how you are not simply interpreting the bible based on today's scientific facts.
"I can not tell you how old the universe is because as I said... "
Basing your comprehension of the universe on a monotheistic deity which was created from several gods of babylonian mythology isn't a good idea, scientifically speaking.
@TheTexanCanadian I do not think that Babylon dates as far back as the Genesis creation. Babylon only dates back about 2000 or so years BC. My interpretation is by today's facts. All versions say the same thing and todays science matches it. Micro evolution, The expanding universe, Humans life starting point, spreading out and populating the world, intelligence and dominion over all the animals. It is all there and that is only the first couple pages. No interpretation needed.
"I do not think that Babylon dates as far back as the Genesis creation."
My understanding of the writings of the first books of the bible is that they were about 1500BC, and the writers were Babylonian in origin. Not only that, the biblical god mentions other gods and commands that people do not follow those gods, indeed Moses himself, coming down from the mountain with the ten commandments, found his people reverting to beliefs in the old gods and ordered genocide for it.
Upon some quick research, I see that the first Babylonian dynasty was around 1800-1900 B.C, and according to Jewish history, Moses started writing the Torah in about 1450 B.C.
@TheTexanCanadian The Biblical times date farther back than that. Some say 4000 plus BS. I say from my research is that it goes back even further. I am in the process of putting something together to argue my case a little better than the simple block of space that youtube allows us too. As for the other Gods, if you read on it will show that those other Gods did not exist. There are beings such as Angels and fallen Angels which are/were citizens of another world where God resides.
According to what archeological or historical (non-biblical) data?
"if you read on it will show that..."
Read what? I've read enough to know the genuine history of it, as clear as we can possibly know.
"...those other Gods did not exist."
As far as I'm concerned, no gods exist, so convincing me that those particular gods didn't exist is preaching to the choir. You're an atheist to those gods just like I'm an atheist to your god.
"There are beings such as Angels and fallen Angels which are/were citizens of another world where God resides."
We have archeological or historical data that angels exist or that there's another world where the biblical god exists? Please, refer me, as neither I nor anyone else has such data that I've ever seen.
@TheTexanCanadian 2 and 3. Scientific theory is a guess based on facts. I am not disputing evolutionary biology. Just because something exists does not mean it happened that way. I am stating that there are disputes in many theories and not all of them can be true, but some of them can co-exist together such as intelligent design and micro evolution. Perhaps even "some" macro evolution but I do not believe in the time lines. Selective breeding shows us fast results for example.
"Perhaps even "some" macro evolution but I do not believe in the time lines."
No one has to have "faith" in evolution. If something isn't correctly explained or incomplete, it's just studied more until we know more.
"Selective breeding shows us fast results for example."
Although there are surely benefits to taking the reins in some cases, the point (so i understand it anyway) is not to control evolution but to study its natural occurrences.
@TheTexanCanadian I will say that if you look deep at the Bible's version, no where did it say that God magically said the word, and pop there was the earth and humans. The Earth and it's water was already there before God even started the creation. And micro evolution is even mentioned in the form "each animal in it's own kind..." We are designed to look like our designer. Genetics is a designed code that comes together with micro evolution to make us who we are today.
Really think about it, where is there strong evidence that life started on earth?
Or weak evidence? We know that micro evolution is scientific and we know that genetic research is scientific, but where is the scientific facts that state life started on earth? Are we alone in this universe?
@KOTWBaron NO we are not alone. plain and simple. hydrogen and oxygen are one of the main components of our solar system and thoose molecules makes H2O, water. and were there is water there usually is life with the right conditions. and by the way: wat does this have to do with carbon dating?
Creationists have many theories and some may not be right but some provide strong evidence as well. I believe in intelligent design because genetic research backs it up and the universe is in a perfect mathematical order and both DNA and Mathematics are a product of intelligence. Even evolutionists argue with each other because there is no evidence that life started on earth and that is right our of the mouths of evolutionists. The new theory is life came from space then evolved.
@KOTWBaron generic research disapproves creationism and the universe is not in any order.
It's true life might not have started on earth but that is not against evolution. Evolution only explains what happens after life begins. Scientists not agreeing with each other is perfectly normal and expected.
@aierce I admire the answers you gave me and I am still dwelling on them. I will however disagree with you on Genetic research going against Creationism and/or intelligent design simply because of how fast technology is moving and where Genetic research will be 1000 years from now. In case you have not seen some of my other posts elsewhere I have always supported Scientific evolution, but believe that evolution has its limits..
Question 1. All experiments have proven that it is impossible for living matter to evolve from non living matter. My question to all of you evolutionists is how did that happen?
Question 2. Genetic research has proven that DNA is the blue print of life and even evolutionists agree it is a engineering mastermind. My question to you all is that since you can not have a book without a writer, where did genetics come from?
@KOTWBaron I'm going to try to answer this to the best of my knowledge :D
Question 1. The theory of evolution does NOT explain how living things were created but rather how these beings evolved overtime and came to be what it is today, but that doesn't mean creationist's theories were right because the theory of evolution itself contradicted creationist teachings.
@aierce I loved that video. See I am not some ignorant creationist,lol But I do not agree with that video completely. I also remember watching a seminar from a evolutionist that I have debated before and he pointed out a flaw in a similar video such as the one you presented. I have watched that video as well as some of the other videos linked to it and I agree and disagree with many points that those video series have to offer. But I have and will watch them more than once with open mind.:)
@aierce Just a question on that video if I may ask. Do you know of any flaws in not just that video but in the experiments conducted? Or do you see any flaws in evolution at all? Just asked your personal opinion if I may.
As I said before I do not believe that life started on earth and see no scientific conflict in supported a designer.
@KOTWBaron yes, the condition that life is created in labs are nothing like ancient earth. The lack of knowledge how life could start in earth condition could suggest life did not start on earth, but it doesn't necessarily point to a creator.
Science doesn't prove or disapprove of a creator/designer
@aierce Great answer again, the reason why I am asking is because there is something missing, which I like to call a secret ingredient. You would know the percentage of DNA that man and Ape share with is around 97-98% right? I feel that the small percentage left is massive and I mean gigantic massive that I feel is purposely put in place that separates us from all other animals which is our intelligence level in comparison.
@aierce I feel that the we were purposely designed to be different because of who we are in comparison. We have space travel, diverse art, nano technology, google earth and the age of the computer, electron flow, nuclear energy, and the list goes on. No other animal even comes close to us in this sense. I do not mean to get biblical with you but there are sciences told to us in that book long before we found them by our scientific means. Medical science is one of them. cont....
@aierce Some things that people take for granted are two things that the Bible says which our, "lets create man in our image" which tells me that the race that created us are not much different than us except of course different bodies and there leader is the God of the bible. The other thing is that God kept coming down to earth and going up, and coming down again,and going up again tells me that he is from space. Now take religion out of this and simply think about it. Your thoughts? :)
Thax 4 dlvrng gud ideology of why vn wt and vr?
azizullah51 6 days ago in playlist Earth science
then again.. how does one know that the date is accurate?.. sure it decays.. who says that this much of this is whatever date?.. sure is easily done to current "things".. but what if you come up with two things that come up with same ratio. so you have 1 and 2. 1 lives to be 80 years, 2 lives to be 5 days but is born 5 days before 1 dies. now 1 has bilions more and 2 has uhh 10? lol on the day of death of both.. I got a hunch you'd be AMAZED! and not to mention you cant tell ancient conaminants
pyrodion 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheExaltedPheonix 2 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
Comment removed
TheExaltedPheonix 2 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
Bias science is no science at all.
morrisdecat 3 weeks ago
"Can range from a few days to many thousands of years" lol. VERY accurate.
256tiberriver 3 weeks ago
No it doesnt work listen to shome one who knows and not trick people with smooth or big words this guy is lieing to you.
standingfirm2thend 3 weeks ago
Nice music. What is it?
DeadlyDreamerX 1 month ago
As long as its alive and eating? Would it not be the time of final bone formation? Not that the lifespan of the animal is in the error range of the date (I would imagine).
bombaykaizoku 1 month ago
This should be taught in elementary school.
Vislav 2 months ago
14 C14 atoms disliked this video.
SonOfEnkiGodOfWisdom 2 months ago
14 people think .. god put fossils to test their faith
waseem336 2 months ago
RATE project
GreenSlugg 2 months ago
are carbon 14 atoms in the body sometimes responsible for cancer ?
IvanderHaisley 3 months ago
@IvanderHaisley No since life has been living with it for billions of years, and therefore has grown a risitance to the extremely tiny amount of radiation it gives of. Only very high amounts of radiation can "break" the gene that stops uncontrolled reproduction in cells. Such as staying in the shiny sun will flood cells with UV radiation. Also cells has ways of fixing damaged DNA, even though it isn't always successful. People will have thousands of cancers in their lives but will fight them off
WAZZA1235 2 months ago
@WAZZA1235 thanks :D
IvanderHaisley 2 months ago
Fucking Carbon Dating, how does it work?
Nightwater91 3 months ago 2
Didn't god say the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe? What happened?
digitalkaos2374 3 months ago
@INKB0X The big "Band" lol. Phil Colins was a pretty big band. Of course marching bands are pretty big too. Seriously though, there is this thing called peer revue - A process where colleagues review research and either have the same finding or disprove a given hypothesis. This reduces the likelihood of reviewer bias.
I would rather listen to scientist making an honest, EVOLVING attempt at explaining 'all this' rather than an ignorant religi-nut that says "God did it" and it just stops there.
worktosser 4 months ago
X (currently 11) Christians clicked dislike when it started to make sense.
worktosser 4 months ago 2
@worktosser yup youve got it buddy
darkferiousity 4 months ago
@worktosser OMG... I was just going to type the same thing you put before I read your comment.... you have to wonder who would not like this info... they are probably saying... dammit... now we have to find another way to be idiots...
xguy1965 4 months ago
Comment removed
worktosser 4 months ago
"After 5000 years about half of the original number of carbon-14 atoms will have decayed. Using this fact, scientists can tell how long ago an organism died."
Where did they get THIS "fact" ? ? ?
Sirhansome 4 months ago
@Sirhansome They know this because they've measured the Carbon 14 ratios in bits of wood whose age they already know by other methods - eg wood from tombs of historically recorded dates (which takes you back about 5,000 years for Egyptian Pharoahs etc) - and from wood they can date using tree rings (which are accurate to a single year back to about 8,000BC). These samples all show that the Carbon 14 ratio decays very precisely - enabling reliable dating by this method back to ~60,000BC.
EqualAndFree 4 months ago
@Sirhansome not to be rude but, you are either stupid, intrasnsigent or 14 years old. why not watch a video about how a smartphone is made from scratch and ask where they got all of the facts to make that all work out? (i know that's not the perfect analogy, but it works) anywho, why believe in some science and not all...basically, carbon dating ultimately works on probability (u may not understand why), and probability is hard to refute or overcome
zlcap2011 3 months ago
@zlcap2011 Thanks for CLAIMING that you are not rude but you failed.
If we BELIEVE what we are being told without data to back it up we may as well call science a "FAITH"
There is absolutely ZERO verifiable data for carbon dating other than someone said "It works because we know this item is x years old"
Assuming carbon atoms will respond in a thousand years ten times as how it responds in a hundred years is ridiculous.
Who is stupid NOW ?
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome ouch! i'm actually pretty smart, i'd tell you why, but it's a waste of time. half-lifes are reliable things...this knowledge led us to nuclear devices. unless you don't really believe that is the case, or believe in those devices at all. if we look at 7 carbon atoms, reliability would be out the window. but when we look at 10k or 100k or these c-14 suckers...it's pretty reliable. i told you it's all about probabilities, but you probably don't understand yet...open book stupid!!
zlcap2011 3 months ago
@zlcap2011 Thanks again for demonstrating your lack of scientific knowledge, as you simply provide opinions without supporting data or even so much as suggesting an article or research.
If the best you can do to answer my legitimate question is insult me, I guess that science is in more trouble than I originally thought.
Go back to your belief that the world is flat, ass-hole
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome
you mean the 1/2 life of c-14?
its pretty simple. get a known quantity of c14 and watch it decay. collect enough data points and you get a curve that you can use to predict future decay.
pyr666 3 months ago
@pyr666 It is impossible to "predict" what c-14 will do after 1K, 5K, 20K.
Any assumptions, therefore, are based on pure FAITH!
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome
oh, so science can't predict anything, despite having done so successfully repeatedly? I'd hate to see your interactions with your doctors who use the same basic principle with your medications ( the whole point of medical testing is so they can say "this worked for 100thousand others with these effects, it should do the same with you")
theres more complicated probabilistic models that measure individual atoms. but its college level physics and gives the same damn result.
pyr666 3 months ago
@pyr666 So, THIS is your argument?
You CLAIM know science, sit at your computer pecking at the keyboard, & the best you come up with is anecdotal comparisons?
You may as well threaten to burn me at the stake for thinking the way I do.
By el way, if you have done YOUR research you should know that most medicines have pretty much been bull-shit too but people like YOU fall too easily for the propaganda machine.
Stick to the topic & answer my question;
Where did they get THIS "fact" ? ? ?
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome
"Stick to the topic & answer my question;
Where did they get THIS "fact" ? ? ?"
"theres more complicated probabilistic models that measure individual atoms. but its college level physics and gives the same damn result."
already answered, 2 different ways.
pyr666 3 months ago
@pyr666 Sorry, dude; all I hear from you is "blah blah blah I can't explain so I'll change the subject"
If you don't know then stop fucking around & shut the hell up
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome
""blah blah blah I can't explain so I'll change the subject"
you expect me to explain something that takes years of study in the space of a youtube comment? I'd give the same answer if you asked me to explain chemical kinetics or dynamic load assessment.
if you're actually interested, go to school and learn the subject matter.
and i cewrtainly havent changed the subject. there both valid methods of getting the information you want.
pyr666 3 months ago
@pyr666 Loser.
Let someone else try to explain & YOU go back to your faith-based way of believing in science.
"... go to school and learn..."
What an arrogant & idiotic reply.
I say again (I insult you only because you keep coming back for more):
If you don't know then stop fucking around and shut the hell up
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome
again, i do know
t(subscript1/2)=(1/k) ln([A](subscirpt0)/1/2[A](subscript0)
^thats the 1/2 life formula
pyr666 3 months ago
@pyr666 Whatever, asshole.
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome I like how theists are not able to use logic and constantly switch back to between faith based arguments and ad hominem.
Way to go tiger!!!
and pyr666 is right, open a book, visit a library, try experimenting yourself. Make your own damn mind.
sylvanha 3 months ago
@sylvanha Well, the reason that I'm ASKING a question is because my research has yet to answer it.
Of course, as a scientist, I actually entertain that idea that I am failing to see the facts.
However, all I am getting here are insults & 'faith-based' factiods sans actual evidence of the assumptions made on this video.
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome
you havent actually made an argument against either method.
pyr666 3 months ago
@pyr666 Screw you and your argument... I'm ASKING a question !
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome
if you were just asking a question, you wouldnt say unsupported things like "It is impossible to "predict" what c-14 will do after 1K, 5K, 20K."
pyr666 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pyr666 Look.
You are obviously in over your head.
Just shut the fuck up already & stop wasting my time.
You are just embarrassing yourself.
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 3 months ago
@Sirhansome
"By el way, if you have done YOUR research you should know that most medicines have pretty much been bull-shit too but people like YOU fall too easily for the propaganda machine"
- yeh fuck penicillin, it's all a scam!
types10000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sirhansome
"It is impossible to 'predict' what c-14 will do after 1K, 5K, 20K. Any assumptions, therefore, are based on pure FAITH!"
- incorrect, you've made this statement without a shred of evidence.
the fact is that we've independently verified it against other radiometric clocks, known age-dating and dendrochronology and a host of other things including but not limited to: the rate of movement of the Pacific ocean plate over hot spots, Milankovitch cycles, luminescence dating .etc
types10000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000
""It is impossible to 'predict' what c-14 will do after 1K, 5K, 20K. Any assumptions, therefore, are based on pure FAITH!""
- oh terrific you dont understand how nuclear decay works but think yourself a scientist.
whilst precisely predicting decay of individual molecules can be thought of as 'random' the trend it forms is not. You may as well have said quantum mechanics is random and unpredictable therefore everything in the universe is random and unpredictable.
types10000 1 month ago
I expected a better explanation with less cynicism
:{ jmg
Sirhansome 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are tired of dating sites with endless fake profiles and scams to take your money, then try e-datebook. E-datebook lets you sign up, search, and message members for free!! Check us out!!
its e-datebook with a dot com on the end. This is NOT spam!
edatebook 5 months ago
Video for Anthropology class: Acquired.
xLinaChansDEADx 5 months ago
Hi hi! Have you tried bee4biz (just google it)? It is a tiny url locker that pays. Its tons better than other sites and they pay on time. Check them out if you want to earn good money shortening and sharing links online
audobaldawin 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
local job finder careerstartnow.info i found my job on this site
nataliagill301 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
local job finder careerstartnow.info i found my job on this site
trudysimmons544 5 months ago
So much for an unbiased video.
It should have been titled... "I hate anyone that doesn't think dating methods are reliable so nah, nah, nah, nah, nah."
karozans 6 months ago
@karozans this video expressed no emotions, such as hate, it merely expressed F A C T S. fucker
OZDE32 5 months ago
@OZDE32
Yes it does. But I can see how someone who is filled with as much hate as you wouldn't be able to see it.
karozans 5 months ago
Comment removed
OZDE32 5 months ago
when/where is the hate in the video expressed
OZDE32 5 months ago
@OZDE32
The entire video is narrated in a snooty condescending tone.
karozans 5 months ago
Comment removed
OZDE32 5 months ago
no it is not, it is objectively expressed scientific facts. your conscious interpretetations stems from your christian upbringing
OZDE32 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OZDE32
"no it is not,"
yes it is.
"it is objectively expressed scientific facts."
No it doesn't.
"your conscious interpretetations stems from your christian upbringing"
And your unconscious consensus stems from your atheistic upbringing.
karozans 5 months ago
carbon dating isn't reliable.
RespectMyHate 6 months ago
@RespectMyHate Why - because it revealed the Turin Shroud to be a big fat fake? LOL!
ilkinond 5 months ago
i feel sorry for creationists they merely believe what they are told. they should check the sources people use to see if they are telling lies.
MrChristainchris 6 months ago
Sorry...This is bunk....Has been since 2006....Radioactive decay is NOT...NOT stable A new ghost partial being emitted from or around the sun is speeding up decay on all radioactive elements....
Catsscratchfever 6 months ago
@Catsscratchfever Please provide a link to this claim and/or elaborate on the physics behind it.
7373walker 6 months ago
@7373walker Google... Mystery Particle Sun Or youtube search...Tried to send ya links but it won't let me...
Catsscratchfever 6 months ago
@Catsscratchfever This is very interesting. I suggest getting a hold of 'Time-Dependent Nuclear Decay Parameters' by Fischbach et. al. (2009) who originally made the discovery. It appears there are seasonal variations to do with the Earth-Sun distance as well as 33-day variations to do with the rotation of the core of the Sun.
7373walker 6 months ago
@7373walker Thank you for your help...I found a pdf of the results.I just glanced over it quickly but their findings agree with. Rate of decay=a +or- of 5c.Temp...They cannot explane this finding...This all seems so clear to me but the science need to be proven....
Catsscratchfever 6 months ago
@Catsscratchfever What paper and figure is this? I couldn't find anything relating to temperature in the one I mentioned. Even the 'drastic drop' that preceded a solar flare in 2006 reported in media articles is about 0.001%. It's real, but not dangerous.
Volcanoes and earthquakes haven't increased really. There doesn't appear to be a 200-year temperature/earthquake/volcano cycle, global warming is caused by increasing Carbon Dioxide: water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.
7373walker 6 months ago
@Catsscratchfever Lastly, solar flares have a periodicity of 152 days and the Sun's activity has been decreasing slightly while temperatures have gone up. I don't want to debate global warming here.
There are also authors who claim the annual variations don't even exist (see 'Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance' by Norman et. al., 2009). Try to think of testable consequences of your claims first. None of them seem to be true.
7373walker 6 months ago
@Catsscratchfever However:
1. they are small. Around 0.02%. This doesn't threaten claims of an Earth older than 6000 years.
2. they are oscillatory so that decay rates increase and decrease over these periods, not just speed up.
3. the particles are most likely not new. Neutrinos are not new, but are not completely understood
4. ghost particle only refers to the fact that most neutrinos pass straight through the Earth and hardly interact. This research could change that view.
7373walker 6 months ago
@Catsscratchfever However again:
1. There is a quasi-period of neutrino output from the Sun of 200 years which could effect carbon dating more significantly, but not significantly enough to invalidate all the data collected over decades. Again it is periodic and NOT monotonic.
2. The Sun was fainter earlier in the Earth's history but not faint enough to invalidate the data.
The physics is extremely interesting, but not enough to invalidate carbon dating. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
7373walker 6 months ago
@7373walker I agree but this goes much deeper.....A study not to long ago has proven that Radioactive decay is 50 to 55% of what is heating the interior of the earth.If radioactive decay is sped up the heat also increases...This may reveal the sudden occurrence of earth changes..Volcanoes, Earthquakes,global warming.After all water vapor is the cause of global warming...I believe solar flairs and there rate of occurrence may correlate to this situation..If you disagree pls explane why Thanks...
Catsscratchfever 6 months ago
@Catsscratchfever My main two points are that the effect is very small and it is periodic (radioactive decay SLOWS DOWN for half the year). This doesn't mean that rates weren't drastically different in the past, but if they are in some way related to the Sun, the Sun hasn't changed enough to produce what you are talking about.
0.02% x 50% is 0.01%. This effect would be absolutely swamped by natural variations in pressure and temperature in the Earth's core.
7373walker 6 months ago
hmm, I've dated quite alot of black girls, but never pure carbon, how is it like?
helehole 6 months ago
the guy sounds really intelligent, like a really well paid scientist, so it must be true, scientist are never wrong, right?
123traitor 6 months ago
@123traitor
"so it must be true, scientist are never wrong, right?"
Actually, there is a lot more "wrong" than "right" in science, so we know that when the "right" is defined as such, it is in fact right. Even then, if a "right" is proven incomplete or partially wrong (or even completely wrong) whatever proves it wrong is accepted as more accurate and science just continues from there. This is why religion is "wrong" and science is "right."
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian Religion and science do not go against each other. Many people think that it is always science vs religion but that is not the case.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
Oh I don't think they "go against" each other, but they are completely different. Science is a method of finding truth, using existing facts and evidence, whatever that truth may be, and religion is a set of beliefs on what truth is regardless of facts and evidence. They're polar opposites, but don't have to be against each other, in terms of how a person views both. Religion is just the system we used before we developed science, indeed religion WAS science in a way, in the past.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian The religion part is not a old science as it is a science that does have evidence and facts to back it up. And the two come together. As mentioned that our technology is moving at such a fast rate that soon genetic research will be able to design life. Intelligent design is something that is getting more attention day after day. As I stated that there is no evidence anywhere that evolution started on earth, therefore, it is not impossible for life to have been placed here
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron I will say that if you look deep at the Bible's version, no where did it say that God magically said the word, and pop there was the earth and humans. The Earth and it's water was already there before God even started the creation. And micro evolution is even mentioned in the form "each animal in it's own kind..." We are designed to look like our designer. Genetics is a designed code that comes together with micro evolution to make us who we are today.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron This was meant for TexanCanadian :)
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"We are designed to look like our designer. Genetics is a designed code that comes together with micro evolution to make us who we are today. "
And the scientific theory supporting this hypothesis is what?
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"as it is a science that does have evidence and facts to back it up."
Not conclusively, and a great deal of the "scientific" evidence in the bible has been shown to be flat out wrong.
"As I stated that there is no evidence anywhere that evolution started on earth, therefore, it is not impossible for life to have been placed here"
Granted, panspermia is an interesting concept, but is not supported by evidence or facts.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian Excellent answers Texan, I have taken the Bible to task and have found a lot of facts that match up with today science. I have also seen the arguments against the Bible and disagree with the people that state it is flat our wrong. I also do not agree with all creationists either. I too was a evolutionist until I was taken to task to do everything I can to prove evolution right, and then prove evolution wrong in 1986. Then in 1988 I wrote a paper on the flaws of evolution.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« Then in 1988 I wrote a paper on the flaws of evolution »
I can take a guess at what kind of 'flaws' you wrote about. But rather than guess, I'd like you to summarise, so that we might discuss them.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor Sure, I will do my best. :)
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"I have also seen the arguments against the Bible and disagree with the people that state it is flat our wrong."
It is not FLAT OUT wrong but it is wrong often enough to be discounted as any source of supposed divine knowledge.
"I can to prove evolution right, and then prove evolution wrong in 1986. "
Luckily no one has yet been able to prove evolution is wrong.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian I don't think I said that I came here to prove evolution wrong. I did a typo in that quote. I meant to say "do everything you can to prove evolution right, then do everything you can to prove it wrong" Have you guys done that? You will find not just heated debates between evolutionists but evolutionists tearing down the tree of darwin. That is right out of evolutionists mouths. My argument is that there are flaws and limiting factors in macro evolution. Look at both sides
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"Look at both sides"
I have, and there is no one "tearing down the tree of darwin." There are no significant rational investigated arguments against evolutionary biology. Nothing disproves it. Geology proves it, biology proves it, genetics proves it, paleontology proves it, it's falsified every single day by thousands of scientists. The only arguments against it are made for theistic reasons, not scientific reasons.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian
Edit:
by falsified I meant that it is shown to be accurate by people TRYING to falsify it.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian Darwins tree is inaccurate. He wrote that 150 years ago and there are inaccuracies that have been agreed upon for a long time. I need to sleep now,lol I will provide you with the inaccuracies tomorrow. By the way, thanks for the chatting. I can chat about this stuff for a long time. :)
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
Of course the tree Darwin came up with is wrong, there have a been quite a few advancements in biology in the last 100 years.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian To this day I still do that. I research both the pro's and con's of both. Many things come into play that have me believe that God created us are true as many things line up. Here are some of the things that show a starting point. Our population J curve, Our family tree's , the oldest tree, documented human history, the lack of fossils (5 billion years worth) and many others all point to a similar starting point.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"Our population J curve, Our family tree's , the oldest tree, "
None of these have anything to do with geology, which shows conclusively that the earth is in fact 4.5 billion years old.
"documented human history, "
Regardless of what is documented, we have records of civilizations that existed before the biblical god was invented and cobbled into a monotheistic god from bablyonian gods.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"the lack of fossils (5 billion years worth) "
It takes just the right circumstances to create fossils. Also, it's not like we've dug up every square foot of earth on the planet looking for fossils.
"documented history has a short time line. "
See XGralgrathor's answer to this, I agree with him.
"Millions of years would have our population"
See XGralgrathor's answer to this.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian The Bible says we were given intelligence since day one which separates us from all the animals. If we evolved for millions of years, documented history would have started hundred of thousands of years ago. Instead, documented history has a short time line. Family tree's also have a short time line. The population of the worlds J curve also has a short time line. Millions of years would have our population in the trillions and the fossils would be overwhelming.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« If we evolved for millions of years, documented history would have started hundred of thousands of years ago »
Not if it took millions of years to evolve a species capable of documenting its history.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« Millions of years would have our population in the trillions »
That's simplistically assuming a Malthusian exponential curve. But population growth is limited by resources and technological capability. Before agriculture was invented, human populations would be entirely dependant on what the wilderness could provide, and growth beyond that level would automatically mean starvation, disease.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor Not so. Humans can produce at a very fast rate. And plants, animals and grass also. Even if you are right there would have to be ups and downs which would still produce great numbers of beings that have lived over that long time period.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« Humans can produce at a very fast rate »
Yes they can. And when their reproductive rate exceeds the capacity provided by the environments combined with technological means, mortality increases as well, limiting growth rate of populations. For most of human history, growth rate has been low, stable. Only when serious medical advances were made during the last 300 years did growth rate start to follow an exponential curve.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor It is the opposite. Medical advances has help us live longer, but the growth rate in country's that have good medical care has dropped and immigration is what are keeping these countries stable, but it country's where not everyone has medical care, the population is skyrocketing.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« It is the opposite »
It is elementary knowledge in biology, specifically population dynamics, that population growth is limited by environmental factors, such as the availability of food, or the technological means to exploit those resources. There is no getting around the fact that when populations grow faster than their environment can support, starvation will ensue. Only when mankind developed medicine and modern agricultural methods were such limitations overcome for humans.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor I disagree. The earth produces a heap of food faster than humans can consume it on a natural basis. Plants produce at alarming rates and have spread around the world without human help or technology, thus highly increasing animal population and human. Millions of years would bring a massive amount of fossils. Heaps, Yes starvation has existed in portions. But starvation has not stopped world wide population.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« The earth produces a heap of food faster than humans can consume »
Perhaps, with the Haber-Bosch method and genetic modification to increase crop yields. But certainly not naturally, not in an area defined by a days traveling by foot. Take a wider area, and your transport's going to be costing you more energy than it yields, so there's a limit to how far you can range for food.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« Plants produce at alarming rates »
No they don't. Moreover, they naturally produce fruits and other edible parts only a couple of times per year. Without planned agricultural methods, wild plants would only feed a small population.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« Millions of years would bring a massive amount of fossils »
No, again, fossilisation is a rare phenomenon. It takes exactly the right circumstances for animal remains to fossilise - and it takes exactly the right circumstances for the following millions of years for those fossils not to be destroyed by erosion or geological processes. Erosion and other natural processes have destroyed many times more information about our natural history than we could ever dream to uncover.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« But starvation has not stopped world wide population. »
Because it's incidental. The human population globally is riding the wave of agriculture and technology. Sometimes there will be draughts and floods and earthquakes, crops will go lost, and people will go hungry and starve - but goods produced through technology are transported in using technology, and technology is used to help restore agriculture. Without these means, populations *would* soon dwindle.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
There are a list of things that show curate dating such as historic documentation, rings of a tree, sea coral, heck even the age of a coin. The oldest civilizations. Family tree's, even the DNA chain as presented the researchers of National Geographic that points to the first human. What do they all have in common, all dating back within several thousands of years. (*National Geographic's opinion is not my own, just threw it in as a example and the coin I just put there for fun. )
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« even the DNA chain as presented the researchers of National Geographic that points to the first human »
No, it points to ancestors, not to any "first human". The concept of "first human" doesn't even make sense in light of what we know about evolution.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« What do they all have in common, all dating back within several thousands of years »
Not if we're talking about the same DNA evidence; "Mitochondrial Eve" is dated back to some 200.000 years ago; "Y-chromosomal Adam" some 100.000 years ago.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« the growth rate in country's that have good medical care has dropped »
Which suggests that we're running into new limitations, environmental or cultural.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor Or how about no limitations, but the lack of need to have more kids. Which would fall into your cultural open end point,lol . But it is not due to medical or limitation, but in North America, you need 2.1 growth rate to keep maintain our population, we have a 1.6 growth rate and almost a unlimited supply of resources.
Non the less our population is rising because of immigration. That side of the world is full, now lets fill up this side. Bottom line is humans breed fast.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« Or how about no limitations, but the lack of need to have more kids »
Producing offspring is not about wants or needs: it's a biological drive. It's what people do. What is true is that environmental factors, such as population pressures, may affect that reproductive drive, cause growth to decrease. Then again, approaching hunger or disaster would, even in crowded lands, cause reproduction rates to rise again.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« Bottom line is humans breed fast. »
Yes, they do now, because agriculture and technology makes sure they're well fed, and medicine makes sure they don't die young.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
Anyway my point of the population curve is to show you a limited factor that did not come from a creationists argument but from accurate observation. You wanted me to show you my limited factors and that was one of them. Moving along are the longest or oldest known civilizations which match the population J curves. Some argue that the Persians are the oldest know civilization dating back to 7000 years. Others may argue another but what they have in common are "several thousands years"
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"Some argue that the Persians are the oldest know civilization dating back to 7000 years. "
From what I've read, the earliest verifiable civilization is Mesopotamia which started around 3,000 BCE.
We do however have human bones which date back over a hundred thousand years, so what is the oldest civilization is a moot point. There we people around much, much earlier than 3,000 BCE.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"but from accurate observation."
Who is performing the observing in this accurate observation?
The earliest verifiable records of written history are from Mesopotamia as far as I know. This does not take into account cave paintings, etc., and archeological evidence which dates back over a hundred thousand years, nor does it take into account the genetic proof of human evolution which show us deviating from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5-6 mil. years ago.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
« longest or oldest known civilizations which match the population J curves »
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide references.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor I will say that millions of years requires millions of life forms to have come and go. Darwin and I agree that if it took millions of years, where are all the fossils to back up this claim. Even though the earth has not all been dug up, there are still far and few fossils to show the millions of years that have past and with so many life forms, fossils should be everywhere and that is not the case.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« where are all the fossils »
You seem to suggest that there should be many more fossils. Why?
You seem to suggest that Darwin thought there should be many more fossils, but: 1) Darwin knew that palaeontology was only in its infancy, and that little had been found yet, but more would be found; 2) Darwin would not have believed the vast amount of fossil evidence available today. Even if we only have a tiny fraction of all life that's ever existed, the wealth is still staggering.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian LOL Bare with me as all this is off the top of my head, I love to talk about this and am very interested in your thoughts too. :) This is my favorite conversation and I can talk or type a mile a minute about this stuff. One thing I will agree on is that intelligent design and micro evolution come together as one here on earth. I will try to provide a list of the science that was written in the Bible that I believe is factual as well as other interesting points later. :)
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« intelligent design and micro evolution »
Intelligent design might *accomodate* evolution, but observed instances of evolution are not tests of intelligent design. In order for intelligent design to be testable, it must be a limited phenomenon, we must be able to explain why certain things should not be expected, the model must be falsifiable. An omnipotent god has unlimited capabilities, and would accomodate anything, therefore explain nothing and not be testable.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor Gods product is testable. The genetic code is a written book that defines us. You can not have a code without a writer. Our bodies contain 100 million cells each with a 6 foot long DNA strand with precise instructions of whom we are. You can look at bacteria and see that it works and acts like a programmed factory. The bacteria flagellum is the most efficient motor in the universe. A dragon fly has 30 000 lenses in each eye. A spider web is ounce for ounce stronger than steel
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« Gods product is testable »
Testability requires logical consequences following from an explanatory model. For example: quantum mechanics shows how chemical properties follow from electron shells. It follows naturally from that model that a hypothetical element with a certain configuration of electron shells has certain chemical properties. When we find this element, we can test that natural consequence against its actual chemical properties. "Goddiddit" does not provide such testability.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« The genetic code is a written book »
No, the genome is a sequence of chemically active molecules. There is no postulated "sender" or "receiver" required to explain how it works and how its sequences are formed. Nor is there evidence of a "sender" being present. Furthermore, meaningful messages require an external grammar, that is defined separately from the medium of the message. Such a grammar does not exist in genetics: the medium *is* its *effect*, and no message is apparent.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor LOL I did not mean literally a written book. :) I agree that it is a sequence. But I do not think that this code got here by fluke or chance. Give me a bit and I will do a write up for you and then it will give you the opportunity to comment on it. I need to make a website for this stuff. :) We can be at this for a long time. I will say this though, many major universities are considering intelligent design in their curriculum. in 100 years I we too will be able to design.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« I did not mean literally a written book »
I wasn't suggesting that you did. You meant to imply the genome is like a message, a language. I have explained why it is not.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor I will get back to you on this, I am not agreeing or disagreeing, I just do not have the wording properly which is not a bad thing, I just need to explain myself better. :)
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
« But I do not think that this code got here by fluke or chance »
Neither does biology. They've found an explanation for how it got here: evolution.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor How about something better. The evolution that we know about, starting from someone who developed a outside force to get it started. :)
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"I will try to provide a list of the science that was written in the Bible "
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me how old you think the planet actually is, and also please define a scientific theory, and also (please) provide me with references to the scientific theory that supports intelligent design and which refutes evolutionary biology to include macro-evolution, which has enough examples/transitional forms to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian Wow what great replies. :) I am going to have to write a book for you guys and I don't mind doing that at all. Those examples of population, history are just some of many. I simply want you guys to think about it when you have time. unbiased think of anything and see how far back you can go with it.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
I don't really see what the point of your argument is based solely on population.
Please answer the following questions (you can make them short)
1) How old is the earth (and the universe)
2) What is a scientific theory
3) What is the scientific theory that demonstrates why evolutionary biology is not a fact
Thanks
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian I can not tell you how old the universe is because as I said, the earth and it's waters existed before God started creating. I can tell you that Genesis chapter 1 was written long before we knew that the universe was expanding and long before we knew what micro evolution was. Yet for some reason there it is in Geneses chapter 1. Who gave humans that knowledge because I can tell you that no human would have known that back then.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"Who gave humans that knowledge because I can tell you that no human would have known that back then."
For this to be "knowledge" you'd have to show how you are not simply interpreting the bible based on today's scientific facts.
"I can not tell you how old the universe is because as I said... "
Basing your comprehension of the universe on a monotheistic deity which was created from several gods of babylonian mythology isn't a good idea, scientifically speaking.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian I do not think that Babylon dates as far back as the Genesis creation. Babylon only dates back about 2000 or so years BC. My interpretation is by today's facts. All versions say the same thing and todays science matches it. Micro evolution, The expanding universe, Humans life starting point, spreading out and populating the world, intelligence and dominion over all the animals. It is all there and that is only the first couple pages. No interpretation needed.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"I do not think that Babylon dates as far back as the Genesis creation."
My understanding of the writings of the first books of the bible is that they were about 1500BC, and the writers were Babylonian in origin. Not only that, the biblical god mentions other gods and commands that people do not follow those gods, indeed Moses himself, coming down from the mountain with the ten commandments, found his people reverting to beliefs in the old gods and ordered genocide for it.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian
EDIT:
Upon some quick research, I see that the first Babylonian dynasty was around 1800-1900 B.C, and according to Jewish history, Moses started writing the Torah in about 1450 B.C.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian But biblical times date before Moses if you follow the family tree.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KOTWBaron
"But biblical times date before Moses if you follow the family tree. "
And that family tree starts with... ?
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian The Biblical times date farther back than that. Some say 4000 plus BS. I say from my research is that it goes back even further. I am in the process of putting something together to argue my case a little better than the simple block of space that youtube allows us too. As for the other Gods, if you read on it will show that those other Gods did not exist. There are beings such as Angels and fallen Angels which are/were citizens of another world where God resides.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"The Biblical times date farther back than that."
According to what archeological or historical (non-biblical) data?
"if you read on it will show that..."
Read what? I've read enough to know the genuine history of it, as clear as we can possibly know.
"...those other Gods did not exist."
As far as I'm concerned, no gods exist, so convincing me that those particular gods didn't exist is preaching to the choir. You're an atheist to those gods just like I'm an atheist to your god.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
"There are beings such as Angels and fallen Angels which are/were citizens of another world where God resides."
We have archeological or historical data that angels exist or that there's another world where the biblical god exists? Please, refer me, as neither I nor anyone else has such data that I've ever seen.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian 2 and 3. Scientific theory is a guess based on facts. I am not disputing evolutionary biology. Just because something exists does not mean it happened that way. I am stating that there are disputes in many theories and not all of them can be true, but some of them can co-exist together such as intelligent design and micro evolution. Perhaps even "some" macro evolution but I do not believe in the time lines. Selective breeding shows us fast results for example.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
@KOTWBaron
"Perhaps even "some" macro evolution but I do not believe in the time lines."
No one has to have "faith" in evolution. If something isn't correctly explained or incomplete, it's just studied more until we know more.
"Selective breeding shows us fast results for example."
Although there are surely benefits to taking the reins in some cases, the point (so i understand it anyway) is not to control evolution but to study its natural occurrences.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian I can agree to that
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTexanCanadian I will say that if you look deep at the Bible's version, no where did it say that God magically said the word, and pop there was the earth and humans. The Earth and it's water was already there before God even started the creation. And micro evolution is even mentioned in the form "each animal in it's own kind..." We are designed to look like our designer. Genetics is a designed code that comes together with micro evolution to make us who we are today.
KOTWBaron 6 months ago
Fantastic video. This is going in the archive.
Mycophilliac 6 months ago
watch?v=ZD-VBdsbAXY&NR=1
:)
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
Really think about it, where is there strong evidence that life started on earth?
Or weak evidence? We know that micro evolution is scientific and we know that genetic research is scientific, but where is the scientific facts that state life started on earth? Are we alone in this universe?
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
@KOTWBaron NO we are not alone. plain and simple. hydrogen and oxygen are one of the main components of our solar system and thoose molecules makes H2O, water. and were there is water there usually is life with the right conditions. and by the way: wat does this have to do with carbon dating?
Deathatheist 7 months ago
Creationists have many theories and some may not be right but some provide strong evidence as well. I believe in intelligent design because genetic research backs it up and the universe is in a perfect mathematical order and both DNA and Mathematics are a product of intelligence. Even evolutionists argue with each other because there is no evidence that life started on earth and that is right our of the mouths of evolutionists. The new theory is life came from space then evolved.
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
@KOTWBaron generic research disapproves creationism and the universe is not in any order.
It's true life might not have started on earth but that is not against evolution. Evolution only explains what happens after life begins. Scientists not agreeing with each other is perfectly normal and expected.
aierce 7 months ago
@aierce I admire the answers you gave me and I am still dwelling on them. I will however disagree with you on Genetic research going against Creationism and/or intelligent design simply because of how fast technology is moving and where Genetic research will be 1000 years from now. In case you have not seen some of my other posts elsewhere I have always supported Scientific evolution, but believe that evolution has its limits..
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
i need this in german ^^
kosova00kosova 7 months ago
Question 1. All experiments have proven that it is impossible for living matter to evolve from non living matter. My question to all of you evolutionists is how did that happen?
Question 2. Genetic research has proven that DNA is the blue print of life and even evolutionists agree it is a engineering mastermind. My question to you all is that since you can not have a book without a writer, where did genetics come from?
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
@KOTWBaron I'm going to try to answer this to the best of my knowledge :D
Question 1. The theory of evolution does NOT explain how living things were created but rather how these beings evolved overtime and came to be what it is today, but that doesn't mean creationist's theories were right because the theory of evolution itself contradicted creationist teachings.
miyavizim 7 months ago
@KOTWBaron it has been demonstrated in labs, multiple times, non-living matter can become living matter. and that has nothing to do with evolution
origin of the genetic code:
watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc&feature=channel_video_title
aierce 7 months ago
@aierce I loved that video. See I am not some ignorant creationist,lol But I do not agree with that video completely. I also remember watching a seminar from a evolutionist that I have debated before and he pointed out a flaw in a similar video such as the one you presented. I have watched that video as well as some of the other videos linked to it and I agree and disagree with many points that those video series have to offer. But I have and will watch them more than once with open mind.:)
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
@aierce Just a question on that video if I may ask. Do you know of any flaws in not just that video but in the experiments conducted? Or do you see any flaws in evolution at all? Just asked your personal opinion if I may.
As I said before I do not believe that life started on earth and see no scientific conflict in supported a designer.
I look forward to reading your thoughts.
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
@KOTWBaron yes, the condition that life is created in labs are nothing like ancient earth. The lack of knowledge how life could start in earth condition could suggest life did not start on earth, but it doesn't necessarily point to a creator.
Science doesn't prove or disapprove of a creator/designer
my 50 cents
aierce 7 months ago
@aierce Great answer again, the reason why I am asking is because there is something missing, which I like to call a secret ingredient. You would know the percentage of DNA that man and Ape share with is around 97-98% right? I feel that the small percentage left is massive and I mean gigantic massive that I feel is purposely put in place that separates us from all other animals which is our intelligence level in comparison.
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
@aierce I feel that the we were purposely designed to be different because of who we are in comparison. We have space travel, diverse art, nano technology, google earth and the age of the computer, electron flow, nuclear energy, and the list goes on. No other animal even comes close to us in this sense. I do not mean to get biblical with you but there are sciences told to us in that book long before we found them by our scientific means. Medical science is one of them. cont....
KOTWBaron 7 months ago
@aierce Some things that people take for granted are two things that the Bible says which our, "lets create man in our image" which tells me that the race that created us are not much different than us except of course different bodies and there leader is the God of the bible. The other thing is that God kept coming down to earth and going up, and coming down again,and going up again tells me that he is from space. Now take religion out of this and simply think about it. Your thoughts? :)
KOTWBaron 7 months ago