132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 10:29 am
@Quehoniaomath,
"No complete forms!" Wow, you are stupid!

Your ignorance is overwhelming. In nature, there is decay as they age.
That idea probably never sunk into your brain.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 10:32 am
For beginners: http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/datingfossilrecord.html

Dating the Fossil Record

The study of the sequence of occurrence of fossils in rocks, biostratigraphy, reveals the relative time order in which organisms lived. Although this relative time scale indicates that one layer of rock is younger or older than another, it does not pinpoint the age of a fossil or rock in years. The discovery of radioactivity late in the 19th century enabled scientists to develop techniques for accurately determining the ages of fossils, rocks, and events in Earth's history in the distant past. For example, through isotopic dating we've learned that Cambrian fossils are about 540-500 million years old, that the oldest known fossils are found in rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old, and that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.

Determining the age of a rock involves using minerals that contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements and measuring the amount of change or decay in those elements to calculate approximately how many years ago the rock formed. Radioactive elements are unstable. They emit particles and energy at a relatively constant rate, transforming themselves through the process of radioactive decay into other elements that are stable - not radioactive. Radioactive elements can serve as natural clocks, because the rate of emission or decay is measurable and because it is not affected by external factors.

About 90 chemical elements occur naturally in the Earth. By definition an element is a substance that cannot be broken into a simpler form by ordinary chemical means. The basic structural units of elements are minute atoms. They are made up of the even tinier subatomic particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons.

To help in the identification and classification of elements, scientists have assigned an atomic number to each kind of atom. The atomic number for each element is the number of protons in an atom. An atom of potassium (K), for example, has 19 protons in its nucleus so the atomic number for potassium is 19.

Although all atoms of a given element contain the same number of protons, they do not contain the same number of neutrons. Each kind of atom has also been assigned a mass number. That number, which is equal to the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, identifies the various forms or isotopes of an element. The isotopes of a given element have similar or very closely related chemical properties but their atomic mass differs.

Potassium (atomic number 19) has several isotopes. Its radioactive isotope potassium-40 has 19 protons and 21 neutrons in the nucleus (19 protons + 21 neutrons = mass number 40). Atoms of its stable isotopes potassium-39 and potassium-41 contain 19 protons plus 20 and 22 neutrons respectively.


Radioactive isotopes are useful in dating geological materials, because they convert or decay at a constant, and therefore measurable, rate. An unstable radioactive isotope, which is the 'parent' of one chemical element, naturally decays to form a stable nonradioactive isotope, or 'daughter,' of another element by emitting particles such as protons from the nucleus. The decay from parent to daughter happens at a constant rate called the half-life. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is the length of time it takes for exactly one-half of the parent atoms to decay to daughter atoms. No naturally occurring physical or chemical conditions on Earth can appreciably change the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. Precise laboratory measurements of the number of remaining atoms of the parent and the number of atoms of the daughter result in a ratio that is used to compute the age of a fossil or rock in years.

Age determinations using radioactive isotopes have reached the point where they are subject to very small errors of measurement, now usually less than 1%. For example, minerals from a volcanic ash bed in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, have been dated by three independent isotopic methods (Baadsgaard, et al., 1993). The potassium/argon method gave an age of 72.5 plus or minus 0.2 million years ago (mya), a possible error of 0.27%; the uranium/lead method gave an age of 72.4 plus or minus 0.4 mya, a possible error of 0.55%; and the rubidium/strontium method gave an age of 72.54 plus or minus 0.18 mya, a possible error of 0.25%. The possible errors in these measurements are well under 1%. For comparison, 1% of an hour is 36 seconds. For most scientific investigations an error of less than 1% is insignificant.

As we have learned more, and as our instrumentation has improved, geoscientists have reevaluated the ages obtained from the rocks. These refinements have resulted in an unmistakable trend of smaller and smaller revisions of the radiometric time scale. This trend will continue as we collect and analyze more samples.

Isotopic dating techniques are used to measure the time when a particular mineral within a rock was formed. To allow assignment of numeric ages to the biologically based components of the geologic time scale, such as Cambrian...Permian...Cretaceous... Quaternary, a mineral that can be dated radiometrically must be found together with rocks that can be assigned relative ages because of the contained fossils. A classic, real-life example of using K-40/Ar-40 to date Upper Cretaceous rocks and fossils is described in Gill and Cobban (1973).
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 10:36 am
re quahog
Got nothing to do with religion., Got to do with evidence. You have none. We have tons. Ignorant idiot.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 10:59 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Got nothing to do with religion., Got to do with evidence. You have none. We have tons. Ignorant idiot.


First thank you for your Ad Hominem. Always proving lack of argument and evidence. So, thank you for that one.
Of course the whole evolution shite is a religion! How can it not be?
It has their blind followers like you. the high priest who utter their nonsense
(Dawkins)
and the whole thing just like a religion is full with LACK of evidence!
And by now, I hope you understand what I mean by evidence?!
But probably not.
but a mutating bacteria is of course not evidence, and if you by now don't even understand why that is, you haven't read my postings and are shooting in the dark, as you, actually, always was.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 11:29 am
@Quehoniaomath,
You're one ignorant sob. You think nature has to follow your demands or it's not evidence. What are you afraid of? That your belief in your god is a hoax, and you can't accept that fact?

PROVE TO US - WITH EVIDENCE - THAT YOUR GOD EXISTS?

You demand much of science, and ignore the fact that you can't even provide one iota of evidence for your god. You lack the ability at logic, common sense, and judgment of reality.

You're a big waste of time. BYE; you're now on my IGNORE list.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 12:26 pm
There is no contradiction at all between the theory (and observed process) of evolution, and the idea that the universe may have had a creator, God. The former merely describes an observable process through which life evolves and adapts to a changing environment. There are some unexplained gaps between our suspected antecedant species and humans, but even these may one day be filled by science. Narrow- minded zealots on both sides have created a dispute in the absence of any logical necessity for it.

Science can only speculate about the origins of the universe. We can, for example, detect and analyze the microwave ratiation that attended the Big Bang as it's called, and measure space time since then. However we don't know where it all came from or who/what did it. The answer to those questions are as yet is outside the domain of science based on observation and measurement, and can neither be proved or disproved by it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 01:24 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

There is no contradiction at all between the theory (and observed process) of evolution, and the idea that the universe may have had a creator, God. The former merely describes an observable process through which life evolves and adapts to a changing environment. There are some unexplained gaps between our suspected antecedant species and humans, but even these may one day be filled by science. Narrow- minded zealots on both sides have created a dispute in the absence of any logical necessity for it.

Science can only speculate about the origins of the universe. We can, for example, detect and analyze the microwave ratiation that attended the Big Bang as it's called, and measure space time since then. However we don't know where it all came from or who/what did it. The answer to those questions are as yet is outside the domain of science based on observation and measurement, and can neither be proved or disproved by it.


Very well stated, George.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 02:26 pm
@georgeob1,
somehow the argument about "the age of the Universe" becomes the central issue in evolution when it is not even remotely a part (other than to speculate that life begn)
EVIDENCE strongly suggests that life proceeded in a slow(very slow) deliberate fashion from extremely simple forms, and , after several tens of unique earth centered and extra planetary events, life had made certain "adjustments in form and function".
Its easy to argue the lack of any direction, "design" or "intelligence" when everything we see can pretty much be defined by chemical , biochemical, and physical reactions through time.
We pretty much can see these events and their consequences and as such, most inquiries seem to discount anything that reads "intelligence".
Actually,the arguments I find have more cred than "universal intelligent design" is "Intervention" after these planetary events or catastrophy.

Still, uch intervention does not leave a clear enough mark to discount ordinary Darwinian Evolution with maybe a smittering of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Hubris? yeh so what?

Howd you like to have some street guy call one of yourwater treatment plants "UGLY"?


Herald
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 02:36 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
If, as per your original example, knowing about something in detail means one should be able to manipulate it and produce it in less than an hour then the amount of knowledge we have of hurricane formation and behavior (which enables us to predict their formation, strength and path) should enable us to make one.
     1. How did you come to know that you have 'enough knowledge' ... and abilities to make a hurricane.
     2. If a butterfly can initiate a hurricane, what is the problem for you to invoke it ... if only you knew how to do that.
     3. What does the hurricane have to do with your inability to understand the basic processes that are driving life ... and evolution?
FBM wrote:
The logic is broken.
     Nothing new under the Sun ... the question is what is going on 'above it'. The Big Bang has broken logic (and even more broken assumptions), the 'theory' of Evolution is based on fake logic built on quicksand ... so what is the problem to have a broken logic. The logic of the quantum theory is not entirely entire as well - one cannot be on two places in one and the same time ... just accept it that some theories might be valid, and some other might be fake ... from the very beginning.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 02:52 pm
Not sure how FM’s reply applies to what you wrote, George, but your posting was right on the mark.

Even if every element of current thinking on evolution is spot on…that does not mean there was no “creator GOD” as part of the REALITY of existence.

The argument between the two factions here is artificial…and, as you put it “a dispute in the absence of any logical necessity for it.”

A GOD may have set everything in motion…with the intention of letting things work out as they will. Scientists often do that…a part of research in many instances.

If there is a GOD…and the GOD intelligently designed how we became what we are…

…science is discovering the way the GOD wanted things to happen. The GOD, if IT exists may well have wanted the system IT set into being to “evolve” as it has…and as science is attempting to discover it did.
Wilso
 
  2  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 04:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:


A GOD may have set everything in motion…with the intention of letting things work out as they will.[/b]


A view that wasn't considered until science showed most religious belief to be pure claptrap.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 04:42 pm
@Wilso,
Quote:
A view that wasn't considered until science showed most religious belief to be pure claptrap.


ok, now then this is claptrap too! where and when did science do that?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 04:43 pm
@Wilso,
Wilso wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:


A GOD may have set everything in motion…with the intention of letting things work out as they will.[/b]


A view that wasn't considered until science showed most religious belief to be pure claptrap.


Really!

I doubt you could substantiate that claim...

...but even if you could, that would not make it wrong.

It is one of the possibilities.

But as George said: "Narrow- minded zealots on both sides have created a dispute in the absence of any logical necessity for it."
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 04:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Ok Frank, I think I understand your obsession. Now lemme get back to work.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 04:48 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Ok Frank, I think I understand your obsession. Now lemme get back to work.


Fine with me, FM.

You oughta start with explaining what your last post had to do with the post to which it was supposedly responding.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 05:30 pm
@Wilso,
Actually, Frank has a right to be wishy-washy about the existence or non-existence of any god(s). After all, the majority of humans on this planet believe in one god or another; and Frank is no different than the majority - except he's playing both sides of the issue. Safety first!

LOL
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 05:32 pm
Nothing "wishy washy" about saying, "I do not know."

It has the element of truth...which seems to turn some people off.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  4  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 07:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Wilso wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:


A GOD may have set everything in motion…with the intention of letting things work out as they will.[/b]


A view that wasn't considered until science showed most religious belief to be pure claptrap.


Really!

I doubt you could substantiate that claim...

...but even if you could, that would not make it wrong.

It is one of the possibilities.

But as George said: "Narrow- minded zealots on both sides have created a dispute in the absence of any logical necessity for it."



Are you telling me that religion hasn't tried to re-invent itself in the face of scientific discovery? The precedents are too numberous to list. For ****'s sake pull your head out of your arse. Jesus, that's the most ridiculous piece of crap you've ever written on this site.
FBM
 
  2  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 08:52 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
     1. How did you come to know that you have 'enough knowledge' ... and abilities to make a hurricane.
     2. If a butterfly can initiate a hurricane, what is the problem for you to invoke it ... if only you knew how to do that.
     3. What does the hurricane have to do with your inability to understand the basic processes that are driving life ... and evolution?


a. I didn't say we had enough knowledge and ability to make a hurricane. Strawman much?

b. Knowing that minor disturbances can accumulate into larger ones doesn't imply knowledge of which ones actually will. You've really missed the mark with this one. Look more closely at what the Butterfly Effect actually says instead of distorting it into another Strawman.

c. The hurricane exampls is a extension of your nonsense about if we knew enough about DNA we would be able to make vaccines and medicines "in under and hour." The hurricane analogy shows how much pure nonsense is contained in your original statement. You seem to be the only one here who can't follow those simple logical steps.

FBM wrote:
The logic is broken.
Quote:
     Nothing new under the Sun ... the question is what is going on 'above it'. The Big Bang has broken logic (and even more broken assumptions), the 'theory' of Evolution is based on fake logic built on quicksand ... so what is the problem to have a broken logic. The logic of the quantum theory is not entirely entire as well - one cannot be on two places in one and the same time ... just accept it that some theories might be valid, and some other might be fake ... from the very beginning.


You're back to making bold claims without logical or empirical support. Rather than just making spurious claims, how about showing us exaclty what's wrong with Big Bang cosmology. Explain exactly how the theory of evolution is based on fake logic. (Your use of single quotes around 'theory' suggests to me that you don't know the difference between the scientific use of the term and the vernactular. I recommend a good dictionary.) If QM says a particle can be in two places at once, show us some research that disproves it. Making the claims is easy; supporting them with empirical evidence and necessary inference is tough. It's what scientists do that you don't seem to be capable of.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 12 Nov, 2014 10:46 pm
@FBM,
FBM, You're trying to have a discussion with a dummy who finds every which way to twist facts and evidence to fit their weird kind of reality. It's a waste and time and effort; it doesn't matter how many different ways you explain science and evolution; they've got a lock on their brains that doesn't allow them to accept what are so obvious to the 'rest of the world.'

If you say 'cat,' they'll ask 'what dog?'

They even question the use of DNA, a well known system of fingerprinting for use as identification, geneology, anthropology, ability to predict disease, GM foods, and even cloning. They have absolutely no understanding of basic science, and the ability of humans to modify living organisms.

These idiots are spammers with no intention of accepting any information on science or evolution. You're just wasting your time with these jokers.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 08:28:27