How tis planet earth started actually? and how life form
-
slowmover, what it means is that,
1. There is no need for them to evolve. Why evolve when you can survive?
Note that evolution is not done by a wimp or sthing.
An example on minute transition states of evolution:
Evolution and domestication of dogs
http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/01/01/html/ft_20020101.1.html
an article debunking evolution theory:
http://www.helium.com/tm/97173
PLEASE note, that article is an opinionated one, just like our discussion, maybe be true, might be inaccurate, but worth a read to all evolutionist and Atheist like me.
Just like evolutionist(me) have their blind faith on their theory, religious people have blind faith on their religion.
Please keep an open eye and an open mind for both sides.
Time to lock this topic, it is going nowhere.
-
you call yourself an adult?Originally posted by banzie:That is genetic mutation, not evolution.
Anyway you should not debate here. its for adult.
and who told you thats genetic mutation?
besides, genetic mutation is evolution too. idiot.
you should shut the fuk up. -
Hey everyone, I have an idea, each of us can come up with a vote to have a conclusion about where/how humans come about.
A) First group of humans on Earth are created by God or celestial-beings.
B) Humans are aliens who came to Earth from somewhere out of this world.
C) Human evolves naturally on Earth from historical lifeforms.
D) None of the above.
You can only vote one.
Vote: B
-
B + C
-
we cant even solve the mystery of why we yawn.. how are we ever gonna find out how we started..
for that matter we don't even know for sure what happened to the dinosaurs..
anyway i think we evolved from the apes and monkeys.. in fact "homo sapiens" (humans) are classified under the primeape species.. same as all the other gorillas and monkeys and apes.. biologically also not much difference except things like less hair..
so anyway earth is made up of a bunch of matter.. the "life" on earth is nothing but carbon based lifeforms..
yawn. -
Yawn = need more oxygenOriginally posted by Vigelic:we cant even solve the mystery of why we yawn.. how are we ever gonna find out how we started..
for that matter we don't even know for sure what happened to the dinosaurs..
anyway i think we evolved from the apes and monkeys.. in fact "homo sapiens" (humans) are classified under the primeape species.. same as all the other gorillas and monkeys and apes.. biologically also not much difference except things like less hair..
so anyway earth is made up of a bunch of matter.. the "life" on earth is nothing but carbon based lifeforms..
yawn.
And when you hear or see people yawn or it is a neurological reflex. ( I think) -
The latest on evolution from the Pope
Pope Benedict XVI's views on evolution are back in the news, following the publication of Schoepfung und Evolution (Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2007), the proceedings of a seminar on creation and evolution that he conducted at Castel Gandolfo, the pope's summer residence, with his former doctoral students in September 2006. Reuters (April 11, 2007) reports, that in his contribution to the book, the Pope "did not endorse creationist or 'intelligent design' views about life's origins," adding, "In the book, Benedict defended what is known as 'theistic evolution,' the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this."
I am beginning to seriously like the Roman Catholic church... at least the RC church is not into stupidity... -
its usually the extremist viewpoints that gets the limelight.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:The latest on evolution from the Pope
Pope Benedict XVI's views on evolution are back in the news, following the publication of Schoepfung und Evolution (Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2007), the proceedings of a seminar on creation and evolution that he conducted at Castel Gandolfo, the pope's summer residence, with his former doctoral students in September 2006. Reuters (April 11, 2007) reports, that in his contribution to the book, the Pope "did not endorse creationist or 'intelligent design' views about life's origins," adding, "In the book, Benedict defended what is known as 'theistic evolution,' the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this."
I am beginning to seriously like the Roman Catholic church... at least the RC church is not into stupidity... -
Originally posted by kivine:
Search on the part about origin of carbon dating.
ok, Banzie, first, sorry about the 6000 years thinggy it doesnt really matter in the context.
Anyway to debunk on your different amount of carbon in each and every living things:
The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant.
AND ALSO, the only thing that affects the decaying of an isotope is when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started( anything that dies after the 1940s) changing things thus it will be harder to date [b]precisely.
Even then, it can be roughly gauge
Can give me any real reference about the egypt mummy...?[/b] -
Am I talking about human fossil? You people really like to assume everything.Originally posted by binarynwitz:banzie:
We have only found human fossils which date back to 40,000 years ago. Thus, logically, it is likely we've only survived for 40,000 years ago.
But that is impossible, because before homo sapiens, we have a previous "pre-evolved" species, known as the homo erectus. These are found to be at about 1.1 million years ago, to about 40,000 years ago.
So, if this is the case, we now push our assumption that humans are "created" about 1.1 million years ago.
But by accepting that, you've accepted evolution.
What many people do not know, however, is that dinosaur fossils are not dated using carbon-14. They are dated by studying how deep the fossils are buried. Because they're usually buried in sedimentary rock, the rock layers can accurately measure the age of the fossil, with a slight error margin of one million years.
And in response to your last paragraph, actually that has ALL to do with the topic. Read the title.
About your last paragaph is even more inaccurate compared to the first in most part of the world. I starting to doubt your understanding of how they date fossil. There are a variety of of methods but checking the depth of how it was buried is the out of the question one. Carbon dating is the most used is becoz it is so called most accurate among the other radioactive dating -
Nice observation!Originally posted by Ito_^:its usually the extremist viewpoints that gets the limelight. -
Obviously you read nothing of carbon dating. You are puttin gyour understanding on one thing to another. Carbon decay faster to cosmic rays. there are still variety of issue, including things affecting the environment, and the availability of carbon in the atmosphere.Originally posted by binarynwitz:Do you not study even nuclear physics in secondary level? The rate of radio decaying does not change with the environment. It is fixed, as long as it is exposed to the nature in a natural way.
Despite the world being different, bones are all made up primarily of calcium. That is an undeniable fact. If you've read my previous post, you would have seen my post about how they date dinosaurs' fossils.
How the plants are different, is irrelevant, really.
This is not a creationist or evolution website.
It is a archaeology website. So it should be quite fair for both of us. Read about the controversial of carbon dating. The very FIRST part it talks about the rate of decay.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon-dating.htm
Another part in the website that talks about the limitation of carbon dating.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm
I quote a part of the passage for you.Unfortunately, we aren't able to reliably date artifacts beyond several thousand years. Scientists have tried to extend confidence in the carbon dating method further back in time by calibrating the method using tree ring dating. Unfortunately, tree ring dating is itself not entirely reliable, especially the "long chronology" employed to calibrate the carbon dating method. The result is that carbon dating is accurate for only a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is questionable. This fact is born out in how carbon dating results are used by scientists in the scientific literature. Many scientists will use carbon dating test results to back up their position if the results agree with their preconceived theories.
So, is carbon dating accurate? It is for specimens which only date back a few thousand years. Anything beyond that is problematic and highly doubtful.
So what now? Are you going to say the archaeology are wrong too? -
What you basically saying is that in hiroshima after atomic attacks the people having deform babies is also considered evolution.Originally posted by the.owl:you call yourself an adult?
and who told you thats genetic mutation?
besides, genetic mutation is evolution too. idiot.
you should shut the fuk up.
Frankly of all poster, your comments is actually quite redundant. Show quite abit of inmaturity. You only show how shallow knowledge and perjudice Sometime you athetist can by.
You just aim to flame the opposition with no bullets at all. Go pick up abook or go back to your athetist forum to post your comments. -
i have seen the discovery channels on human evolution.Originally posted by Vigelic:we cant even solve the mystery of why we yawn.. how are we ever gonna find out how we started..
for that matter we don't even know for sure what happened to the dinosaurs..
anyway i think we evolved from the apes and monkeys.. in fact "homo sapiens" (humans) are classified under the primeape species.. same as all the other gorillas and monkeys and apes.. biologically also not much difference except things like less hair..
so anyway earth is made up of a bunch of matter.. the "life" on earth is nothing but carbon based lifeforms..
yawn.
the straight line evolution of chimpanzee to human is wrong liao.
there are different species of bipedal apes which live together and sometimes fight.
homo sapien is the one that survive among the different species. got one bloody big volcano reduces human species to few thousands to near extinction. Then after surviving, they start reproducing to today time loh.....
Anyway, i feel u sound too nihilist. like it does not matter and it not important to progress science like that. -
mutation is a subset of evolution. But to me i think that the babies mutate rather then *evolve*. It is just a matter of phrasing.Originally posted by banzie:What you basically saying is that in hiroshima after atomic attacks the people having deform babies is also considered evolution.
-----------------
This is not a creationist or evolution website.
It is a archaeology website. So it should be quite fair for both of us. Read about the controversial of carbon dating. The very FIRST part it talks about the rate of decay.
The site you provided is a pro-bible site : http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/
and can be rather misleading
A misleading www link indeed.Just look at the bottom half of the site!
No matter though, it is still a good read. But I prefer a *scientific* site, a compilation of journals and research paper would be better.
If they say inaccurate because of environmental factors despite tree-calibration method then too bad.
The calibration method is still continuing as far as i know. I can't really rebut the fact about the inaccuracy of carbon dating, since I have lack of scientific knowledge .But one thing for sure is the accuracy of carbon dating, it should be bad. As for reliability it might be of still some use. BUT still...
If carbon dating really fall short, other isotope dating(longer half life) would help:
Some of them can be use for the dating of geological stones and can be use to gauge the age of fossil at their point of death.
* argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
* fission track dating
* helium (He-He)
* iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
* lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
* lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
* lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
* neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
* optically stimulated luminescence dating
* potassium-argon (K-Ar)
* radiocarbon dating
* rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
* rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
* samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
* uranium-lead (U-Pb)
* uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
* uranium-thorium (U-Th)
* uranium-uranium (U-U)
That is, instead of examining the fossil to find out when it died, we test the geological substances surrounding it via isotope dating -
some scientist on the view that life is formed by chance
W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.
(W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited)
The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
("Hoyle on Evolution," Nature magazine)
does a tornado or a any type of disaster decorate a town and make it more nicer even if it happens 10 by the power of 50(mathematic impossible to mathematician)times even make sense to you?
do note that evolution is solely base on CHANCE on the gene having a beneficial mutation before natural selection steps in. -
First there was nothing. Nothing felt very sian, coz there was nothing, and nothing itself didn't exist because, well there was nothing.
So feeling sian that nothing was nothing and there is nothing, nothing started to feel frustrated, and thus feelings were borned. Nothing den gained intelligence and created something. Something den slowly evovle to what we have now. -
Originally posted by Guilmon1987:First there was nothing. Nothing felt very sian, coz there was nothing, and nothing itself didn't exist because, well there was nothing.
So feeling sian that nothing was nothing and there is nothing, nothing started to feel frustrated, and thus feelings were borned. Nothing den gained intelligence and created something. Something den slowly evovle to what we have now. -
Science is religion. Period.
-
good one.Originally posted by Guilmon1987:First there was nothing. Nothing felt very sian, coz there was nothing, and nothing itself didn't exist because, well there was nothing.
So feeling sian that nothing was nothing and there is nothing, nothing started to feel frustrated, and thus feelings were borned. Nothing den gained intelligence and created something. Something den slowly evovle to what we have now. -
Still want to deny about carbon dating...Originally posted by kivine:Some of them can be use for the dating of geological stones and can be use to gauge the age of fossil at their point of death.
That is, instead of examining the fossil to find out when it died, we test the geological substances surrounding it via isotope dating
Ok sorry maybe my mistake didn't saw the part of the bible.
Now THIS IS FROM YAHOO ENCYCHOPIDIA!!!
Really NEUTRAL site.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/datingThe radioactive carbon-14 method of dating is used to determine the age of organic matter that is several hundred years to approximately 50,000 years old.
The page actually listed a couple of dating methods used. Carbon dating is the most suitable for orgnic. The rest used for other material are also listed. And unfortunately I didn't find anything you are looking for beyong the 100,000 years.
So we can't determine your bones that evlution find as as dated as accordance leh... How huh? -
Originally posted by Scape_Goat_Token:Science is religion. Period.
NO ONE DISRESPECTS SCIENCE.
By the way, Scape_Goat_Token you are back ar. -
Unfortunately they are using carbon dating with the tree ring concept. Maybe you should try doing what you or learn why these people uses carbon dating instead of what you suggest. maybe you found the right thing to determine the dates.... Then you will get a nobel. No point telling me what you think.Originally posted by kivine:Some of them can be use for the dating of geological stones and can be use to gauge the age of fossil at their point of death.
That is, instead of examining the fossil to find out when it died, we test the geological substances surrounding it via isotope dating -
banzie, I'm not sure what point are you trying to make.I'm feeling quite disappointed in several ways, I've reply to your comments point by point since page 3+. I've admitted to some of the flaws in all the stuff brought forward, yet you have chose to think that I'm not; saying what nobel. Why are you so eager in bringing out the flaws, I've stated in my post earlier that I have accepted the tree-ring calibration is flawed and on-going.I'm not even suggesting even the first place, the other dating methods are out there as you state.Originally posted by banzie:Unfortunately they are using carbon dating with the tree ring concept. Maybe you should try doing what you or learn why these people uses carbon dating instead of what you suggest. maybe you found the right thing to determine the dates.... Then you will get a nobel. No point telling me what you think.
And those comments I quote can be find in the wikipedia, an open-encyclopedia with reference attached.granted wikipedia is a public encylopedia, it is better than the so called archeology site you claimed to be standing on an equal footing.
Atheist and evolutionist have a hard time because they are guilty(wrong) until proved innocent(right) in a way, while religious have the morale high ground, that is they are innocent(right) until proven guilty(wrong).
And also note that the yahoo-site you provide too stated that other dating methods can be use in conjunction with carbon dating, such as Stratigraphic dating.
I should have listened to fatslob in the first place.I gonna quit this topic. I surrender. -
Took you long enough, heh. Debates are only fun when the other side bothers (or has the capability) to actually listen.Originally posted by kivine:I should have listened to fatslob in the first place.I gonna quit this topic. I surrender.