I think the best thing to use is that our dating techniques have no way to be proven correct over large expanses of time. Sure, you can date several things from the same sedimentary layer but.. Nobody was there to observe it firsthand and there’s nothing to visually support it.
Scientists use Radiometric dating to determine how old something is.
Yes, but is there any way to prove that it’s reliable over anything more than a few decades or centuries?
you’re thinking of carbon-14 dating, which only goes as far as 60,000 years ago.
Radiometric dating uses different isotopes other than carbon. These isotopes have much larger half lives than 60,000 years
I think the best thing to use is that our dating techniques have no way to be proven correct over large expanses of time. Sure, you can date several things from the same sedimentary layer but.. Nobody was there to observe it firsthand and there’s nothing to visually support it.
Scientists use Radiometric dating to determine how old something is.
BTW Radiometric dating is very accurate
I’m going to have to agree with that one Cid.
I know you never claimed to be smart...and you can honestly believe whatever you want. But sometimes your arguments are a little lacking.
All dating techniques have their flaws. As for Radiometric dating, contamination of the isotopes can cause an inaccurate reading.
But all I am asking is.. Where is the proof? You can give a number, but since it was too long ago to be observed, you can’t really say with 100% certainty that it is correct.
I think the best thing to use is that our dating techniques have no way to be proven correct over large expanses of time. Sure, you can date several things from the same sedimentary layer but.. Nobody was there to observe it firsthand and there’s nothing to visually support it.
So, if evolution is caused by mutations, how did all the single celled organisms we originated from, all with the same DNA, become two gender organisms?
Scientists use Radiometric dating to determine how old something is.
Yes, but is there any way to prove that it’s reliable over anything more than a few decades or centuries?
you’re thinking of carbon-14 dating, which only goes as far as 60,000 years ago.
Radiometric dating uses different isotopes other than carbon. These isotopes have much larger half lives than 60,000 years
So, if evolution is caused by mutations, then how did single celled organisms all with identical DNA manage to mutate? And how did they become two gender organisms?
Cid wrote:
All dating techniques have their flaws. As for Radiometric dating, contamination of the isotopes can cause an inaccurate reading.
But all I am asking is.. Where is the proof? You can give a number, but since it was too long ago to be observed, you can’t really say with 100% certainty that it is correct.
Nothing is 100% certain hun, which is why we can choose to believe what we want.
Maybe you just need to really think about why you believe what you do. Because the “it’s not 100% certain” is just a cop out.
treeplanter wrote:
Nothing is 100% certain hun, which is why we can choose to believe what we what.
Maybe you just need to really think about why you believe what you do. Because the “it’s 100% certain” is just a cop out.
But that investigation is between you and you.
Honestly, I really don’t care about it. I don’t care about the past and what happened then. I only care about now and my future. I don’t even usually participate in these discussions because I never cared enough about to subject to learn.
treeplanter wrote:
Nothing is 100% certain hun, which is why we can choose to believe what we what.
Maybe you just need to really think about why you believe what you do. Because the “it’s 100% certain” is just a cop out.
But that investigation is between you and you.
Honestly, I really don’t care about it. I don’t care about the past and what happened then. I only care about now and my future. I don’t even usually participate in these discussions because I never cared enough about to subject to learn.
I’m just bored today. So, I quit. You guys win.
Aw Cid, it’s not about winning. And I’m glad you participated, I always have good discussions with you
It’s great that you’re focused on the present, but I’m glad you took some time to talk about this kind of stuff, 'cause thinking about things beyond the “self” makes you a better person I think
treeplanter wrote:
Nothing is 100% certain hun, which is why we can choose to believe what we what.
Maybe you just need to really think about why you believe what you do. Because the “it’s 100% certain” is just a cop out.
But that investigation is between you and you.
Honestly, I really don’t care about it. I don’t care about the past and what happened then. I only care about now and my future. I don’t even usually participate in these discussions because I never cared enough about to subject to learn.
I’m just bored today. So, I quit. You guys win.
Aw Cid, it’s not about winning. And I’m glad you participated, I always have good discussions with you
It’s great that you’re focused on the present, but I’m glad you took some time to talk about this kind of stuff, 'cause thinking about things beyond the “self” makes you a better person I think
Right now I’m just focused on getting to California. lol
Sean of the Living wrote:
So, if evolution is caused by mutations, then how did single celled organisms all with identical DNA manage to mutate? And how did they become two gender organisms?
Mutations happen with the replication of DNA. As a matter of fact genetic mutation happens much more in single celled organisms because single celled organisms are asexual and reproduce through cell division.
As for multiple genders:
this happened because asexual reproduction was failing. Asexual reproduction meant no diversity in DNA. Because there was no diversity if one mutation happened it would automatically be passed on to the next generation. Since most of the time genetic mutations are not good asexual reproduction is not preferable. It’s for this reason why humans don’t have reproduce with their siblings. If you have sex with you sibling the DNA is too similar and recessive alleles that cause unwanted mutations are expressed more often.
To give an example of this think that you and your sister both have two genes to express number of fingers you will have. Now you have two genes one that is dominant(5 fingers) and one that is recessive(6 fingers), same with your sister. Now if you have sex with your sister there is a 1 in 4 chance that you will have a kid with 6 fingers. This is because you each will give one gene and the number of variations is only 4: 2 genes with 5 fingers, 1 gene 5 and one 6, one gene 6 and one 5, and 2 genes with 6 fingers.
To solve this problem all you would have to do is have sex with someone who has 2 genes for 5 fingers and there will be no chance.
To tie this back into evolution you see how it is preferable to have variations in DNA. Now that that is explained having single celled organisms that reproduce sexually (multiple partners) means that harmful genetic mutations happen less. Now over millions of year the organisms that reproduced sexually out competed the ones that reproduced asexually. This let the sexual organisms fill those niches and diversify even further. Through more mutations single celled organisms became multi-celled organisms.
{MILLIONS OF YEARS}
These multi-celled organisms continued to become more and more specialized. What eventually happened was the organisms with two x chromosomes became the egg carriers and the organisms with x and y chromosomes became the fertilizers.
{MILLIONS OF YEARS}
Once egg carriers and fertilizers were established further adaption happened and sexual reproduction evolved. Eventually over millions of years emerged...the penis and vagina.
Cid wrote:
All dating techniques have their flaws. As for Radiometric dating, contamination of the isotopes can cause an inaccurate reading.
But all I am asking is.. Where is the proof? You can give a number, but since it was too long ago to be observed, you can’t really say with 100% certainty that it is correct.
Thats why we dont just do 1 type of testing, the test many types of isotopes and they should all point at the same date if not then the sample has been contaminated and they need a new one.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
seed wrote:
first god created a human second animals.
Wow seed, the truck load of evidence you bring to every argument is astonishing!!
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
ramunematt wrote:
Don’t get excited Creationists, I’m not saying evolution isn’t true. I’m just clearing up one of the misconceptions that so many people can’t seem to get through their heads.
No credible evolutionist says we evolved from monkeys. Rather, that humans and monkeys both shared a common ancestor.
Can we put this misconception to rest now?
We did evolved from monkeys. That’s why I have a tail bone.
ramunematt wrote:
Don’t get excited Creationists, I’m not saying evolution isn’t true. I’m just clearing up one of the misconceptions that so many people can’t seem to get through their heads.
No credible evolutionist says we evolved from monkeys. Rather, that humans and monkeys both shared a common ancestor.
Can we put this misconception to rest now?
We did evolved from monkeys. That’s why I have a tail bone.
By your logic so did every mammal to ever live came from monkeys..
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
ramunematt wrote:
Don’t get excited Creationists, I’m not saying evolution isn’t true. I’m just clearing up one of the misconceptions that so many people can’t seem to get through their heads.
No credible evolutionist says we evolved from monkeys. Rather, that humans and monkeys both shared a common ancestor.
Can we put this misconception to rest now?
We did evolved from monkeys. That’s why I have a tail bone.
By your logic so did every mammal to ever live came from monkeys..
My logic is the same as yours because we are both monkeys. We are one combined monkey of superignorance. Sorry, superstrength.
ramunematt wrote:
Don’t get excited Creationists, I’m not saying evolution isn’t true. I’m just clearing up one of the misconceptions that so many people can’t seem to get through their heads.
No credible evolutionist says we evolved from monkeys. Rather, that humans and monkeys both shared a common ancestor.
Can we put this misconception to rest now?
We did evolved from monkeys. That’s why I have a tail bone.
By your logic so did every mammal to ever live came from monkeys..
My logic is the same as yours because we are both monkeys. We are one combined monkey of superignorance. Sorry, superstrength.
So you just decided you cant provide evidence I can not refute so now your trying to make everything look silly, but anyone with some common sense can see how desperate you’re really getting.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
GORILLAplex wrote:
Yes, I am desperate. I, GORILLAplex, am a very desperate hater. My hair has grown too thick for my own good.
fix.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
»
Religion
» We did not evolve from monkeys
