Originally posted by RJHindsYawn. That applies to modern cells, not ancient ones.
The observable science shows that RNA comes from DNA. RNA does not make DNA.
The central dogma of molecular biology explains that DNA codes for RNA, which codes for proteins. DNA is the molecule of heredity that passes from parents to offspring. It contains the instructions for building RNA and proteins, which make up the structure of the body and carry o ...[text shortened]... NA), and ribosomal RNA (rRNA).
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/molecules/centraldogma/
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell you could go a long way just looking at the word modern vs the word ancient.
I am not sure what you mean by ancient cells. Would you mind explaining?
Ancient is say 700 million years ago ancient simple one celled forms. Modern cells are much more complex even single cell forms because of the inclusion of mitochondria into the nucleus which was a much later adaptation where two types of earlier cells mixed together and the world of biology and evolution changed forever.
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseFor one thing there is no proof any ancient cells existed 700 million years ago because those radiometric dating methods are flawed. Anyway even evolutionary scientists estimate the half-life of DNA to be about 500 years under the best preservation conditions, so there is not going to be any trace of DNA in a so-called ancient cell, if it were 700 million years old.
Well you could go a long way just looking at the word modern vs the word ancient.
Ancient is say 700 million years ago ancient simple one celled forms. Modern cells are much more complex even single cell forms because of the inclusion of mitochondria into the nucleus which was a much later adaptation where two types of earlier cells mixed together and the world of biology and evolution changed forever.
Originally posted by sonhouseI was thinking more on the lines of 4 billion years ago.
Well you could go a long way just looking at the word modern vs the word ancient.
Ancient is say 700 million years ago ancient simple one celled forms. Modern cells are much more complex even single cell forms because of the inclusion of mitochondria into the nucleus which was a much later adaptation where two types of earlier cells mixed together and the world of biology and evolution changed forever.
Originally posted by RJHindsRadiometric dating is not flawed.
For one thing there is no proof any ancient cells existed 700 million years ago because those radiometric dating methods are flawed. Anyway even evolutionary scientists estimate the half-life of DNA to be about 500 years under the best preservation conditions, so there is not going to be any trace of DNA in a so-called ancient cell, if it were 700 million years old.
Originally posted by sonhouseYea, only an evolutionist is allowed to look for evidence they believe they
Some of these folks have valid Phd's but that does not mean they are doing real science since they come into the study with the agenda of proving creationism correct which means they will distort, bend, cherry pick data and so forth in an effort to shoehorn their data into a proof of creationism.
That is not science. Again, that is politics.
They are ...[text shortened]... in a science class as if creationism were a science which is far far from ANY scientific study.
will see.
Kelly
Originally posted by DeepThoughtA swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in measuring time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have an accurate, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?
Radiometric dating is not flawed.
When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, “Starting time?” You cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Without the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.
Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the edge at the end of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need at least two, sometimes three judges to measure the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books.
It would make no difference how accurate or high-tech the wristwatch was. You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism.
But without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.
This illustrates the whole problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
If you check this educational page by the US Geological Society you will see that they spend all their time talking about the technicalities of radioactive decay. But they do not even mention the basic problem that you cannot know the radioactive concentrations that existed in the rock in the past.
In other words, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up an assumed geological history for rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab.
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/
Originally posted by RJHindsFunnily enough they have methods for dealing with the initial ratios. In some samples they are guaranteed that there were negligible amounts of the daughter nucleii present in the initial sample because of the chemistry of the rocks on formation (lead is strongly expelled by zircon as it forms, but uranium can replace zirconium in the lattice). In other cases they make multiple measurements on different samples so that they can eliminate the extra unknown quantity. You can read about the methods on the Wikipedia pages and also here:
A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in measuring time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have an accurate, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?
When I ...[text shortened]... me from the geochronology lab.
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes05/656_05Lecture04.pdf
RJ do you really think that professional scientists don't think of these things?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtMaking measurements is not the same as having eyewitness to what happened. I believe that anyone, including scientists, who believe these methods give accurate ages, except by accident, are willing ignorant just like the Holy Bible says.
Funnily enough they have methods for dealing with the initial ratios. In some samples they are guaranteed that there were negligible amounts of the daughter nucleii present in the initial sample because of the chemistry of the rocks on formation (lead is strongly expelled by zircon as it forms, but uranium can replace zirconium in the lattice). In othe ...[text shortened]... ecture04.pdf
RJ do you really think that professional scientists don't think of these things?
Originally posted by RJHindsWhich eye-witness accounts? The Old Testament was written down in 500 B.C., so that's a whole 4,000 years after your start date.
Making measurements is not the same as having eyewitness to what happened. I believe that anyone, including scientists, who believe these methods give accurate ages, except by accident, are willing ignorant just like the Holy Bible says.
4 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou are referring to the scholars estimate of the completion of the Old Testament. The first book written down was Genesis and is attributed to Moses by biblical scholars, and it is the one that contains the creation account. The book of Genesis existed long before all the books were completed and compiled into what we now call the Old Testament.
Which eye-witness accounts? The Old Testament was written down in 500 B.C., so that's a whole 4,000 years after your start date.
Also Moses is believed to have gotten his information directly from the creator God about the creation account. You are not trying to say that the creator Himself was not an eyewitness are you? Most scholars that believe Moses wrote down the first five books, put the date between 1440 - 1400 B.C.
The Date of the Exodus: 1446 BC
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-date-1440bc.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Egyptian Genesis legend was pre-dated the bible version by another thousand years. That's a fact we shouldn't forget.
You are referring to the scholars estimate of the completion of the Old Testament. The first book written down was Genesis and is attributed to Moses by biblical scholars, and it is the one that contains the creation account. The book of Genesis existed long before all the books were completed and compiled into what we now call the Old Testament.
Also M ...[text shortened]... of the Exodus: 1446 BC
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-date-1440bc.htm