Originally posted by dj_alfi
What are creationists view on carbon dating?
its radiometric (usually uranium) dating as carbon's half life is to short to make long predictions.
They believe its highly innacurate and completely unreliable
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
What is your perspective? what is the ID perspective?
Are you old world or new world creationists?
how do you define a fish between a nonfish?
what about organisms that are inbetween such as the lungfish?
Do smaller fish evolve into bigger or different types of fish?
What is the consensus with ID and organism progression?
Classification of organisms is simply semantics and an organizational system to attempt to differentiate. It is not meant to be a limiting factor intended to completely isolate organisms from one another without an inference of common descent. This is why we have phylogenetics and taxonomic systems, to create realtionships.
The naturalists reject ID since there is no consensus in the ID community on a standard theory. Furthermore, any theory that they may postulate has no testible proof. There is no one out there hindering the ID community in conducting tests and experiementation for their ideologies. The facts are that there are no facts to support their soluble ideas.
Reptiles don't become birds, and dog-like mammals don't become whales. We'v never seen it happen, and their physiological make up is completely different. These views have been observed. Who has ever seen a dog become something not considered to be a dog?
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Reptiles don't become birds, and dog-like mammals don't become whales. We'v never seen it happen, and their physiological make up is completely different. These views have been observed. Who has ever seen a dog become something not considered to be a dog?
This is true.. but your speaking on a grand scale of things. And mammals are whales lol. I'm sure that was just a typo. anyways, he have been able to manually manipulate the features of dogs significantly to the point where they barely even look like their true form (the grey wolf). Think about what nature could do to organisms over an even longer extended period of time.
Remnant bones have been found in whales which are clssified as femurs (rear upper legs) and are remainder for what is presumed to be a walking land mammal. Whales also have lungs and require air to respire.
I still dont have a conclusive argument from your side. What form of intelligent design do you speak of? What time frame am i dealing with?
dj_alfi
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Who has ever seen a dog become something not considered to be a dog?
LOL. Noone has seen it, seeing as this is something that happens over a period of time longer than any living beings timespan. Guess we'll just have to invent a way to translate the thoughts of rocks and trees and ask them.
Do you really believe in ID or are you just taking the piss?
dj_alfi
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
its radiometric (usually uranium) dating as carbon's half life is to short to make long predictions.
ah ok, in norwegian it's called carbon dating. some retards call it the "c-14 method" lol.
quote:
They believe its highly innacurate and completely unreliable
haha of course they do.
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by dj_alfi
ah ok, in norwegian it's called carbon dating. some retards call it the "c-14 method" lol.
haha of course they do.
well we do have carbon dating .. but you use it to date up to 70,000 years or so
You have to use other isotopes such as uranium for longer periods
dj_alfi
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
well we do have carbon dating .. but you use it to date up to 70,000 years or so
You have to use other isotopes such as uranium for longer periods
gotcha ;)
oh, and it seems like we can just put this discussion to rest, i found a youtube clip that explains everything..
i mean.. 10-0! you can't just ignore facts such as these..
edit: 70,000 years is still 60,000 years longer than what the creationists believe the earth is.
Spam
quote:
Originally posted by dj_alfi
LOL. Noone has seen it, seeing as this is something that happens over a period of time longer than any living beings timespan. Guess we'll just have to invent a way to translate the thoughts of rocks and trees and ask them.
Do you really believe in ID or are you just taking the piss?
If species evolve, then it would stand to reason that out of the billions of species on this planet, at least ONE of them would be found to exist in a half-way state. A fish with legs, a small rodent with a dorsal fin, etc.
Then again, maybe we already have those half-way critters. Like the platypus.
What confuses me is something like the whale. Wouldn't any of the half-way whale species have simply gone extinct in their "almost there" forms? How would a creature living on land eventually mutate into a whale, without the entire genetic line dying at the point where the creature can not function on land, or in the water?
Sunsnail
quote:
Originally posted by dj_alfi
ah ok, in norwegian it's called carbon dating. some retards call it the "c-14 method" lol.
haha of course they do.
its not retarded. they measure the amount of carbon 14 vs carbon 12 since carbon 14 decays over time
Sunsnail
quote:
Originally posted by Spam
What confuses me is something like the whale. Wouldn't any of the half-way whale species have simply gone extinct in their "almost there" forms? How would a creature living on land eventually mutate into a whale, without the entire genetic line dying at the point where the creature can not function on land, or in the water?
we got seals and walruses and other monstrosities
dj_alfi
quote:
Originally posted by Sunsnail
its not retarded. they measure the amount of carbon 14 vs carbon 12 since carbon 14 decays over time
yeah i know what they do, i just find the name "the c-14 method" to be a redonkalaz name. Maybe it's just in norwegian it sounds weird lol.
Spam
quote:
Originally posted by Sunsnail
we got seals and walruses and other monstrosities
Yes, but they exist and survive because their genetics perfectly fit the environment they live. It seems just a little bit of a grand coincidence that seals and walruses just HAPPENED to mutate into their present form at the shore of the water. Had they mutated just 10km inland, they would have been eaten by a raccoon and would currently be extinct. No?
Or were their ancestors simply fond of the water and enjoyed catching fish. Obviously without their current fins and such, they wouldn't have had much luck catching any fish, so the creatures that mutated fins and the like survived while the original genetic line died off?
