Creation vs Evolution

Or it could be off by 300 years for every 1 year and then we got a 30000% margin of error (I am extragerrating this of course, but you are making it look MUCH better than it is). Carbon dating sucks ultimately.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Or it could be off by 300 years for every 1 year and then we got a 30000% margin of error (I am extragerrating this of course, but you are making it look MUCH better than it is). Carbon dating sucks ultimately.

No it works quite well.

Plus they use it many times on samples expected to be from the same time period just to be sure.

Plus there are other dating methods that can be used to recheck.

I actually do think that carbon dating is useful, however, I think to much is attached to it. It is not as effective for dating as some would suggest. It gives us an idea, but too often it is used as authorative dating technique and that is scientifically wrong to do.

It's not perfect of course but it is pretty athorotative.

It has an accuracy of something like 50 in 5500 years which is pretty good.

I believe this thread should be titled "Creation and Evolution."

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, if you watched the first one you might understand that the fossil record isn't as indicative of evolution as some would lead you to believe. And carbon dating is suspect when living snails are considered 300 years old.

I find that more probable than considering books which contradict history, contradict logic, and contradict modern reality- "fact"

What I've found troublesome about radiocarbon dating is that, unless I am mistaken (as I am prone to be, considering that my love of dinosaurs is in anatomy and physiology rather than history), it is based on the assumptions of scientists of the level of carbon-14 in the organism's system.

Radiocarbon dating is only used to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to 45,000 years. For ages and materials outsied of this, radiometric dating is used.

Another term for "Creation vs Evolution" would be "God vs Satan"

Evolution, as scientific as you may think it is, is just a theory. Living matter can not evolve from non-living matter as this theory proclaims. A big bang could not have caused life to occur. That would mean that supernovas would definitely create living organisms.

Man did not evolve from monkeys (if we did, there would be no monkeys left) monkeys did not evolve from sea creatures (oh wait, i think thats how sea monkeys came to be).

Damn... gotta leave the office now. I'll continue this later....

Originally posted by Up In Flames
Another term for "Creation vs Evolution" would be "God vs Satan"

Evolution, as scientific as you may think it is, is just a theory. Living matter can not evolve from non-living matter as this theory proclaims. A big bang could not have caused life to occur. That would mean that supernovas would definitely create living organisms.

Man did not evolve from monkeys (if we did, there would be no monkeys left) monkeys did not evolve from sea creatures (oh wait, i think thats how sea monkeys came to be).

Damn... gotta leave the office now. I'll continue this later....

That is incorrect. You can make a connection between god and creation if you are talking about Christianity, but there is no such connection between evolution and Satan. Not once in the bible does it say that "evolution" is evil: mainly because, it never mentions the word evolution.

You are correct about man never evolving from monkeys, but evolution does not make such a silly claim. Both humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor who is extinct.

Originally posted by Up In Flames
Another term for "Creation vs Evolution" would be "God vs Satan"

Evolution, as scientific as you may think it is, is just a theory. Living matter can not evolve from non-living matter as this theory proclaims. A big bang could not have caused life to occur. That would mean that supernovas would definitely create living organisms.

Man did not evolve from monkeys (if we did, there would be no monkeys left) monkeys did not evolve from sea creatures (oh wait, i think thats how sea monkeys came to be).

Damn... gotta leave the office now. I'll continue this later....

[list=1][*]Relativity is "just a theory," but you do not question whether or not gravity exists.

[*]You are conflating three separate scientific theories, i.e. Abiogenesis, Big Bang, and Evolution.

[*]Evolution does not claim that humans evolved from monkeys, but that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor.[/list]

🙄

1) Relativity does not equal gravity.
2) One might logically argue that abiogenesis and evolution are very closely related theories.

Originally posted by Nellinator
1) Relativity does not equal gravity.
2) One might logically argue that abiogenesis and evolution are very closely related theories.

[list=1][*]General Relativity is currently the most successful gravitational theory, being almost universally accepted and well confirmed by observations.

[*]One who would argue that "Abiogenesis and Evolution are very closely related theories" would be ignorant of the scientific method as Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not a theory.[/list]

Originally posted by Nellinator
1) Relativity does not equal gravity.
2) One might logically argue that abiogenesis and evolution are very closely related theories.

But Relativity explains gravity. So what is your point, or are you just correcting people?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]General Relativity is currently the most successful gravitational theory, being almost universally accepted and well confirmed by observations.

[*]One who would argue that "Abiogenesis and Evolution are very closely related theories" would be ignorant of the scientific method as Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not a theory.[/list]

Someone called?

Nellinator, if you can't distiguish between a hyopthesis and a Theory, or feel that the distiction between the two is nitpicking, you have no scientific credibility whatsoever.

I can tell and know the difference. The point is that it wasn't important to the point.

Its damn essential to the point, so clearly you don't understand.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its damn essential to the point, so clearly you don't understand.

Not at all, they are very seperate entities. One concerns the origin of life and is very speculative. The other concerns how life changes and is exceedingly factual.

They are not closely related, only to someone who hass gross misconceptions about the nature of science and the Theories and hypotheses involved.

Apparently you forget that science attempts to be restrained. Theories stand alone. Period. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean there is a flaw in someone elses arguement.