Page 2 of 57 FirstFirst 1234561252 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 846
  1. #16
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Originally posted by nxtrastout
    Not sure what you're getting at here...

    ...but these landlocked bodies of water are isolated systems. They don't have outlets therefore salt concentrations build because of evaporation, but will also be diluted through rain, snow run-off etc.
    What I am getting at is the oceans are basically a very large land locked system.
    Brian

  2. #17
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789
    Originally posted by nxtrastout
    These arguments against an "old earth" have all been examined in the scientific literature and found wanting.
    These things are not quite the simple studies you are implying. Things such as the earth's magnetic field changes are quite complex studies, and many scientists don't agree. We are not dealing with A + B = C here.

    But here is some reading if anyone would care to expand their knowledge.

    Helium evidence in atmosphere:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asp

    Earth's magnetic field:
    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm

    Yes, I realize people will be bothered that these are from Christian organizations, but that is considered the alternative if you don't believe evolution.

    Sadly, most people I meet that say they believe in evolution won't even read something like this, or won't pay attention to it if they do read it. In the same way, most Christianity haters don't dislike it cause they know or understand it, but because they know it says they should be living their lives in a different way.

  3. #18
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    789
    and speaking of salt....

    Israel's Dead Sea is perhaps the best, most credible of all geochronometers available simply because it is a closed system. At one end of the valley lies the Afar region, where Donald Johanson discovered the infamous "Lucy". Textbook authorities date the Afar region at three million years of age (Johanson and Edy, 1981, 187). At the other end of this unique valley which is below sea level, fresh water from the Sea of Galilee flows through the Jordan River, into the Dead Sea which is the lowest point on earth. The only outlet for the Dead Sea is evaporation. Water is evaporated at the same rate in which it enters the sea, however, salt is not evaporated, allowing the salt to concentrate in the sea.

    The fourteenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the figures needed for the calculation of age:

    The Dead Sea, which covers an area of 394 square miles, contains approximately 11,600,000,000 tons of salt, and the river Jordan which contains only 35 parts of salt per 100,000 of water, adds each year 850,000 tons of salt to this total (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1973, 19:995).

    Based on these figures, the age is calculated to be a mere 13 thousand years old, quite a difference from the three million years claimed at the other end of the valley. Clearly, this special valley gives ample evidence for a young earth.


    - quote from http://genesis.amen.net/earth.html

  4. #19
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    just around the bend
    Posts
    482
    -originally posted by wardog25- These things are not quite the simple studies you are implying. Things such as the earth's magnetic field changes are quite complex studies, and many scientists don't agree. We are not dealing with A + B = C here.
    I'm sorry, but I don't believe I ever stated they were simple. That's my point exactly, they are not simple studies. In fact they are so complex it is at this time virtually impossible to scientifically quantify helium or the earth's magnetic field as viable means for dating the age of the earth. There are too many unknown variables. Perhaps future knowledge will bring more light to these ideas.

    Actually, I don't mind reading these types of articles. As soon as I get back from a weekend at the inlaws I'll give them a read.
    The only difference between a madman and myself is...I am not mad.
    --Salvador Dali

  5. #20
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    37
    Posts
    72
    I just took an evolution class last semester, and its concepts are used in my current bio classes so this stuff is still fresh in my mind.

    Just to make sure the public understands this, we need to define evolution. Evolution is not exclusively phenotypic change. Rather, evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time within/among population(s) (micro/macro-evolution). These changes in gene frequencies may have no effect on the phenotype (physically expressed traits) of an organism.

    Schools that don't teach the flaws and shortcomings of evolution are promoting bad scientific process. Science is largely built upon examining and correcting inconsistencies.

  6. #21
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    115
    nxtrastout don't bother reading that crap. First one goes on about how much Helium should "wiggle" out of rocks and then makes a big conclusion that there simply isn't enough Helium in the atmosphere if the earth is billions years old. The only minus they use is what escapes into space...well it also disolves into water. Also it only "wiggles" out when you heat up rocks enough and then theres the argument on how much concentration there is in rocks in the first place....its here where they work their voodoo science.

    Second with the Earth's magnetic field, I didn't bother reading much. Its nothing new! Its a property of the Earths motlen iron core and it fluctuates. Due to solar gravitational forces from the Moon, Sun and planets (mostly moon) the Earth is slowing in its rotational spin on its axis. Yes, days are getting longer and utlimately one side of the Earth will face the Sun and the other will be in darkness. Earth will also lose its magnetic field at that point to because the molten iron core is not moving anymore. Nothing to do with creationism here, byproduct of calculus.

    I think the school did the right thing, why confuse kids with this propaganda crap. They get enough of it from TV, magazines, movies, MTV, video games...etc.

  7. #22
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    115
    Almost forgot to respond to wardog25.

    All your numbers only calculate the last Ice Age, or when the last Ice Age had an effect in that part of the world to create the sea in the first place.

    Watch more Discovery channel guys. Less Phil Gram or whatever his name is.

    The smarter the fewer...

  8. #23
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Originally posted by Mellowman
    I think the school did the right thing, why confuse kids with this propaganda crap. They get enough of it from TV, magazines, movies, MTV, video games...etc.
    Evolution is an unproven THEORY. Alternatives should be presented. The truth can stand the light of scrutiny.
    Brian

  9. #24
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    115
    Visit any Natural History Museum or Museum of Man to see and read about the evidence and theory. Evolution is a FACT, the method is a theory that most everyone agrees with and hence the theory is deemed proven.

  10. #25
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    37
    Posts
    72
    The general idea of evolution is widely accepted by fact, and it is the basis of modern biology on all levels of abstraction from molecular to population biology/ecology.

    All scientific knowledge is formulated into theories. Fact and theory are not mutually exclusive.

  11. #26
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Danville,Ca
    Posts
    698
    Even if the thoery of evolution is flawed, I regard creationism as a absolute fairy tale and can not be considered as a viable alternative explantion for life as we know it. No reasonable person would view it otherwise.

  12. #27
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    Scientific "facts" are observable and reproducible, neither of which is applicable to evolution. Evolution has so many holes. It cannot explain in origins of structures that need to be fully functional to work at all (DNA, metamorphosis, eyes, sexual reproduction, etc.). So I do consider myself a "reasonable" person. I am NOT saying the creationism can be proven but I would maintain the someone who accept evolution as a "fact" is the one who is not applying reason.

  13. #28
    Joined
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    37
    Posts
    72
    Evolution is observable. Here's a simple experiment you can do if you have the equipment: Grow a culture of E. coli in a petri dish. Take DNA sample and run electrophoresis. Put some penicillin or some other antibiotic in a portion of the dish. Wait a few hrs/days. Take another DNA sample from bacteria in antibiotic area. Run electrophoresis again, compare w/ original strain. The gene frequencies and perhaps some of the genes will have changed. [ Assume template strain is no resistant to the antibiotic used. ]

    DNA --> probably originated from RNA, changed in base suger from ribose to deoxyribose (w/ a hydroxyl group on 3' ) allowed DNA to form dimers w/ another DNA molecule. RNA originated early on, as viruses and 'accessory' proteins such as RNA polymerase show (template model for some DNA polymerases). RNA is a self-catalytic molecule in some cases.

    Metamorphosis --> Imparts a selective advantage in that each stage of the organism's life cycle is more optimal for the task during each stage. Typical evolution-inducing factors such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift can explain these.

    Sexual reproduction --> vs asexual repro: sexual reproduction allows more variation within a species, thus increasing its resilience to changing environmental conditions. Also, it prevents gene fixation. Species that reproduce sexually have a huge selective advantage over asexual species (note that there are certain exceptions). Sexual repro originated w/ baterial mating in which 2 bacteria exchange genetic material, usually in the form of plasmids which are actively or passively transported in the cell.

    Mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift are the main driving factors of evolution. Considering the complexity of DNA and the number of possible permutations of both gene and regulatory sequences, these factors are sufficient to explain the numerous traits displayed by organisms.

  14. #29
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SoCal, Jersey
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,587
    I heard an interesting theory a few weeks ago for the spontaneous creation of the earth. TBN, presented a scientist, who had lost his post at a national lab because he had (he says) fought to post his theories and proofs about creation science on their bulletin boards, argues that the proof is that granite was spontaneously created. Very generally, he used measurement of the radioactive decay rate of granite, the traces left suggest that it decayed instantly. Can anyone shed any light on this theory?
    "I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center." - Dwight D. Eisenhower



  15. #30
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397
    tau_neutrino

    I am no scientist, biologist, or chemist but let me do my best here...

    E coli can show changes in a petri dish. I have no knowledge here but I will say this, it is E coli at the start of the experiment and it is E coli at the end. No proof of evolution. Also, how could you be sure that every single E coli at the beginning were all identical.

    DNA is an extremely long, complex and organic. How did it arise from inert materials? How would it support itself even if it happened to occur? It cannot feed itself or replicate itself without other very complex systems evolving simultaneously. Viruses require a host for survival.

    Metamophosis does indeed impart advantages at each stage but how does a worm change into a butterfly, a seemingly different species. How many worms died before it got the process right. The process would have had to been perfect from the outset or you would just have a lot of dead worms. It is not like they could try again if they got it wrong.

    Sexual reproduction in humans is a far cry from bacteria exchanging genetic material. It would have required simultaneous, instantaneous, and perfect evolution. Quite impossible.

    And how about that eyeball. Until it is working perfectly evolution says it is a useless thing that should disappear since it has no function. Again, instantaneous, full function is required.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •