Proving Evolution

Originally posted by Starrman
[b]I challenge you dj2becker

I challenge you to lay out your own interpretation of the process of creation (ID or whatever) so that, instead of going on about how rubbish the TOE is, we can see how strong your position is. Please follow these simple processes, which should provide a clear framework for your evidence and stop the theory of getting amb ...[text shortened]... cannot, your constant slagging off of the TOE from a position of certanty is utterly unfounded.[/b]

Chalange accepted. I will be working on it so please be patient.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you Evolutions newly appointed spokesperson? Good to hear that.

So firstly, do you agree that "evolution" in the sense that all animal species "evolved" from earlier and different species, and ultimately from one common ancestor in a scientific fact?

I believe evolutionary theory is the best explanation of the origin and diversity of life on Earth. Evolutionary theory is not committed to their being one ancestor common to all living things.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
You're an idiot. It isn't very godly, is it, to wish people dead when they think a different idea than you? Especially when they're clearly correct and you're a wingnut? They teach you that joke in Sunday school?

Please, becker, enlighten us. I offer to you this: the Big Bang happened. Scientists know the conditions of the universe a mere f ...[text shortened]... t enough start. Do you care to counter those with your own, scientifically verifiable theories?

Odds just went up 27363/1 against dj providing a logical explanation.

39488/1 that he cannot do it without referencing the Bible

38399993033/1 that he can't do it without making some feeble-witted remark attempting to be clever.

3749938227277756404/1 that by the time he is about thirty years old he will have completely changed his thinking and reflect upon this time as coming off like a twit.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
That's my rec Joe, well done!

Thank you sir. I imagine it must get old at times beating up on the "beckerman" with logic, doesn't it? Oh well

"Some mother****ers always gotta ice-skate uphill"

Blade

Originally posted by sasquatch672
You're an idiot. It isn't very godly, is it, to wish people dead when they think a different idea than you? Especially when they're clearly correct and you're a wingnut? They teach you that joke in Sunday school?

Please, becker, enlighten us. I offer to you this: the Big Bang happened. Scientists know the conditions of the universe a mere f ...[text shortened]... t enough start. Do you care to counter those with your own, scientifically verifiable theories?

Hey sas. I know this was aimed at Dj2, but here's my 2 cents.

I offer you galaxy red-shifting.

Okay, this is considered to be like the doppler effect of light. Although this has not been conclusively proven, I find it quite reasonable and as such have no problem with it. This is entirely in keeping with my reading of the Bible where a verse in Isaiah says of God: "[during creation]...He stretched out the Heavens". The stars are moving away from earth as suggested by red shift, what of it? This is totally in keeping with my beliefs. The big bang model extrapolates this away motion of stars into a model where the whole universe is expanding. Of course extrapolate backwards and the universe shrinks towards the Big Bang. Great. No problems here either.

I offer you radiocarbon dating.

Here's where it gets tricky. Irrespective of other objections I have, I'm sure you know that radiocarbon dating in particular is only accurate up to 50,000 years, after that, the concentrations of C14 are too low for conclusive measurement. My other problem is that for radiometric dating one has to assume that the the rate of radioactive decay has always been the same and that the initial concentrations and injections have also been constant. This doesn't leave room for major catastrophies, which could have upset the whole ballance; this includes large asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions etc.

Essentially my problem lies with the uniformatarianism principle. I admit that my views are not in keeping with mainstream science, but they do hinge on something as unprovable as the uniformatarianism principle (which is as I'm sure you know the principle where one assumes that the same processes that shaped the Universe occurred then as they do now, unless there is good evidence otherwise).

Originally posted by dj2becker
Chalange accepted. I will be working on it so please be patient.

Please ensure you take as much time as you need, I would not want to see an unfinalised presentation.

Originally posted by Halitose
Hey sas. I know this was aimed at Dj2, but here's my 2 cents.

[b]I offer you galaxy red-shifting.

Okay, this is considered to be like the doppler effect of light. Although this has not been conclusively proven, I find it quite reasonable and as such have no problem with it. This is entirely in keeping with my reading of the Bible where a verse i ...[text shortened]... that shaped the Universe occurred then as they do now, unless there is good evidence otherwise).[/b]

Re: carbon dating

While I don't see how the rate of decay of radioactive carbon can change over time (without the laws of physics themselves changing over time), it seems you might have a valid point about concentrations.

Originally posted by Halitose
Hey sas. I know this was aimed at Dj2, but here's my 2 cents.

[b]I offer you galaxy red-shifting.

Okay, this is considered to be like the doppler effect of light. Although this has not been conclusively proven, I find it quite reasonable and as such have no problem with it. This is entirely in keeping with my reading of the Bible where a verse i ...[text shortened]... that shaped the Universe occurred then as they do now, unless there is good evidence otherwise).[/b]

Dj2becker, BF101, and the like (you know who are):

I would like you to consider having Halitose being your spokesperson for whatever points you are attempting to make....seriously. You see he, as far as I have read, doesn't create these idiotic, inflamatory blanket statement threads about what is wrong with Atheism, Evolution, Not being Christian, etc. Maybe he feels that way but he has the ability to express himself while being respected and being respectful of others.

I am willing to bet that his questions will be honestly and respectfully answered by those he asks because he comes from a place of being interested in what the other person has to say whether he agrees with them or not.

It is obvious by the constant spamming that you are not really interested in any others opinions except those who share yours

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Re: carbon dating

While I don't see how the rate of decay of radioactive carbon can change over time (without the laws of physics themselves changing over time), it seems you might have a valid point about concentrations.

well that throws out the young earthers, he admits the earth is
at least 50,000 years old not 8,000 like some miscreants claim.

Originally posted by sonhouse
well that throws out the young earthers, he admits the earth is
at least 50,000 years old not 8,000 like some miscreants claim.

Wow, learned a new word... although I don't think you really understand it. Unless you're to back up that people who claim the earth is "8,000 year old" are depraved, degenerate, neferious, unhealthy, rotten or putrid, I think you should recant you villainous statement.

He admitted no such thing - didn't you really read the post? And comprehend it?

The concentration of radioactive carbon14 in a fossil cannot be measured accurately a postulated 50,000 years after the specimen's death.

The assumption is made that the concentrations of C14 have reached an equilibrium (as it theoretically should take 30,000-40,000 years, evolutionists aren't questioning it). This is using a uniformitarian model (and while levels haven't reached equilibrium and are fluctuating, this puts a spanner in the works). And as Hal so aptly stated, there may have been times where the levels of C14 were dramatically different in the past and dramatically increased (by some catastrophy, like your great,great,great,greatgrandad's cremation).

And as it's been cleared up, please never use C14 dating as the method of accurately measuring the age of a fossil (especially as numbers hit the millions). The problems with the uniformitarian model also apply to other forms of radiometric dating...

Sonny, you're most disappointing.

Originally posted by RatX
The problems with the uniformitarian model also apply to other forms of radiometric dating...

Yes, we should all count backward from the genealogy in the bible to arrive at a correct figure.