Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
Right.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution and Creationism: because ...
- Thread starter Angy Ex Arcana
- Start date
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
I am not a scientist, put that in laymen's terms. Dendrichronological and stratigraphic, what does that mean? And ring-dates, what does that refer to?
Alright. That is wise.
Now, I have a question. Why do we, and presumably Adam and Eve too, have a silent gene that allows us to grow a tail if it gets active?
Ciao
- viole
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You demonstrated your understanding of carbon dating is almost nonexistence.
You demonstrated you do not know the limitations of carbon dating, the applications of carbon dating, the fact that other dating methods have confirmed the accuracy of carbon dating when applied correctly....
Further, you demonstrate a rather selective cherry picking process in your willingness to learn.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
That's a good question. God created everything including evolution. If you look back in the thread, God could have created the Sickle Cell Anemia gene, knowing someday it might help with Malaria. God had to create Adam and Eve in such a way to account for all the genetic diversity humanity has. Perhaps the tail gene exists because a tail might have some survival benefit. The way my God is, he plans for every possibility.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
He has to shift the burden of proof because he has no evidence of a standard high enough to be accepted outside his choir.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
Still doesn't answer the question.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
How do you know your god even exists?
Please keep in mind that I will be going back through this thread and applying all the "logic" you have used to your reply.
Good luck
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
The simplest answer that explains all the facts is always the preferred explanation.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
You appear to not want an answer to the question.
I mean, you rejected answers to it you do not understand.
What is the point of trying to educate someone who does not want the education?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
We expect you to show the initiative to use goodgle and wiki and not to demand to be spoon fed to make up for the inadequacies of your science education. Anyway, here you go from wiki:
Radiocarbon dating is also simply called Carbon-14 dating. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years,[24][25] (which is very short compared with the above isotopes) and decays into nitrogen.[26] In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas, meaning that any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now. Carbon-14, though, is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere and thus remains at a near-constant level on Earth. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
A carbon-based life form acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time elapsed since its death. This makes Carbon-14 an ideal dating method to date the age of bones or the remains of an organism.[27] The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[28]
The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the Earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are addressed in the radiocarbon dating scale.[29]
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Again you demonstrate my point.
since you are not interested in honest discourse, how do you expect to be taken seriously?
But the Bible doesn't explain anything. It just makes assertions.
Other Holy books make other assertions.
Books of fairy tales make still more assertions....
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I do believe you have revealed why you ignore so many facts....
Well, a wing gene would also have been nice. It is very convenient to fly away when you are attacked by a grizzly.
C'mon now. Don't you think it is vastly more plausible that we have a tail gene because we share a direct common ancestor with animals that have, indeed, a tail?
If you never heard of the Bible, what would your logical conclusion be?
Ciao
- viole
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
A Cheviot and a Mercedes are built pretty much the same way, but by different manufacturers in different countries. Maybe it isn't possible to build a car without all the same components. They all need an engine for example.Well, a wing gene would also have been nice. It is very convenient to fly away when you are attacked by a grizzly.
C'mon now. Don't you think it is vastly more plausible that we have a tail gene because we share a direct common ancestor with animals that have, indeed, a tail?
If you never heard of the Bible, what would your logical conclusion be?
Ciao
- viole
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
See that is the difference between you and me, you are trying to educate me and I'm trying to debate with you. I'm not trying to educate you, I personally don't give a damn if you ever learn the truth of a Creator. I'm just standing my ground.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
An assertion is much the same as a hypothesis. Many have taken these assertions and proven them. Just because all of them aren't proven or even provable doesn't mean anything.But the Bible doesn't explain anything. It just makes assertions.
Other Holy books make other assertions.
Books of fairy tales make still more assertions....