Evolution: Are you being brainwashed?

[Squall7]

Are you being brainwashed?

Are you a friend of Dr. Dino? How is Kent Hovind doing these days, still in trouble with the law? Or are you a Young Earth believer? How about an Intelligent Design follower?

Introduction: In schools today they teach you how everything began and that was due to this theroy known as evolution. This theory is taught to students and through many "facts" these students are told, they come to beleive it. BUT is everything that you are told true? That is up for you to decide...

The "theory" of evolution stands more true than any answers that we (as a species) has come up with so far.

What is evolution?
Evolution is the beleif that we all came from a common ancestor, but there are many different types of evolution and they are:

That's incorrect, Evolution is actually:

evolution is the change from generation to generation in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits. These traits are encoded on genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Minor random changes in these genes produce new or altered traits, resulting in differences between organisms. Evolution occurs when these different traits become more common or rare in a population, either at random in genetic drift, or based on how helpful traits are for reproduction in natural selection.

Couldn't one also argue that if we believed in the Bible, that the common ancestor would be Adam and Eve?

Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space, and matter from nothing called the big bang

Or the sister theory, the big crunch, which explains that the "nothing" that the universe was created from was the implosion of the previous one.

Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from the hydrogen supposedly produced in the big bang

Chemical evolution has two meanings and uses. The first refers to the theories of evolution of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and through nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovas.

The second use of chemical evolution or chemosynthesis is as a hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed or evolved from non-life (see abiogenesis).

Or, with the viscosity of the explosion, one could assume that more than hydrogen was created at the moment of the big bang. Hydrogen has the same basic composition (albeit in smaller numbers) with every element on the periodic table. Is it not conceivable that in the singularity that was the big bang, some of the energy, and matter actually clung to itself. Saying that hydrogen was the only thing that could have been produced is misleading, a basic straw-man arguement.

Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of starts and planets from dust clouds

Gravity versus gravitation
In scientific terminology gravitation and gravity are distinct. Gravitation is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. Although these terms are used interchangeably in everyday use, in theories other than Newton's, gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity. For example in general relativity, gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which causes inertially moving object to tend to accelerate towards each other.

Organic Evolution: The origin of life from non living matter due to spontanious generation

You equate evolution to explain something outside it's area. It's not about the origins of something, but about the progression.

The origin of life from self-catalytic chemical reactions is not a part of biological evolution, but rather of pre-evolutionary abiogenesis. However, disputes over what defines life make the point at which such increasingly complex sets of reactions became true organisms unclear.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Macro Evolution: One kind of animal changes into another kind (ex: a microorganism to a bird)

The reason many people cannot get their heads around the concept of change over extreme amounts of time, is because that bible teaches that the earth is too young for these kind of scientific "theories" to be correct. Also, one has to understand the changing conditions throughout time to be able to accomodate for 'evolution'. Take for example, the changing conditions a horse would have to evolve through:

The horse-
One of the few animals for which we have a fairly complete evolutionary record is the horse, as all the main stages of horse evolution have been preserved in fossil form. Over 60 million years the horse evolved from a dog-sized rainforest-dwelling creature, into an animal adapted to plains-dwelling and standing up to 2 metres high.

In the process it traded-in its multi-toed feet, adapted for walking across the forest floor, for single-toed hooves, suited for running over open country.

Source: BBC

Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

Hmm, this clearly contradicts what you have said above...

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.

The first 5 of these have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting them. If you think there is, go ahead and try to prove me wrong

Ok, now I'm convinced this is Kent Hovind. Interesting how you ill-define terms and then challenge people to find flaws with YOUR logic.

Now for the discussion topics...

Here are things you might be told...

Lets start with the carbon dating method:
There are many problems with dating with carbon 14. First off, there isn't a high percentage of C-14 in rocks.

If there is little carbon-14 to begin with, a half-life that long means that very few of the atoms will decay while their detection is attempted (4 atoms/s) /mol just after death, hence e.g. 1 (atom/s)/mol after 10,000 years). Sensitivity has since been greatly increased by the use of accelerator-based mass-spectrometric (AMS) techniques, where all the 14C atoms can be counted directly, rather than only those decaying during the counting interval allotted for each analysis. The AMS technique allows one to date samples containing only a few milligrams of carbon.

Second It assumes 3 things:
1. The only decay of C-14 is from time <-Bad
2. All the C-14 that is measured is from the rock
3. The rate of decay is constant

Three doesn't really constitutes as "many". If a person has 3 apples, you don't usually say he has "many apples".
1. Actually, the decay is consided to be random:

On the premise that radioactive decay is truly random (rather than merely chaotic), it has been used in hardware random-number generators and is a valuable tool in estimating the absolute ages of geological materials and young organic matter.

Also, if anything else was a factor, wouldn't it have meant that the standard deviation of different C-14 particles would be greater...?
Also again, there are methods that calibrate the carbon-dating method to give us more accurate results:

Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to be twice as high as modern levels.[2] These discoveries improved the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past. [3]

2. I'd love to see some proof that C-14 is only taken from "rock".

Additional error is likely to arise from the nature and collection of the sample itself, e.g., a tree may accumulate carbon over a significant period of time. Such old wood, turned into an artifact some time after the death of the tree, will reflect the date of the carbon in the wood.

3. Erm, depends on what you mean by constant. If you're talking half-life, then yes, it's constant, because after a particular number of years, it halves it's value.

Half-life
A more intuitive characteristic of exponential decay for many people is the time required for the decaying quantity to fall to one half of its initial value. This time is called the half-life, and often denoted by the symbol t1 / 2. The half-life can be written in terms of the decay constant, or the mean lifetime, as:


When this expression is inserted for τ in the exponential equation above, and ln2 is absorbed into the base, this equation becomes:


Thus, the amount of material left is 2 − 1 = 1 / 2 raised to the (whole or fractional) number of half-lives that have passed. Thus, after 3 half-lives there will be 1 / 23 = 1 / 8 of the original material left.

Third, it's half life is only 5,730 years so... (bear with me here)
Lets say the earth is 6.4 billion years old, if you used C-14 dating to date a rock that old it would have gone through 1,116,928 half lives. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, there would be no C-14 left, but there is still some C-14 left! C-14 is not detectable after only 17 half lives! That means no rock with C-14 could be older than 97,410 years!

That's assuming that the C-14 was only created at the moment the earth was created. If it was created by other means, then it's perfectly possible. Also, you're not taking into account any other material's half life.

All radionuclides have a particular half-life, some of which a very long, while other are extremely short. For example, uranium-238 has such a long half life, 4.5x109 years, that only a small fraction has decayed since the earth was formed. In contrast, carbon-11 has a half-life of only 20 minutes.

Going on with dating methods
There are about 160 Geophysical Clocks (methods of dating rocks/earth)
Over 90% give an earth that would give a date less than 1 million years! Oddly, scientists don't use these methods...
One method that isn't used is using detecting the hydrogen from Radioactive decay which is much more accurate, but isn't used due to the low dates it produces

Are you talking about alpha radiation?

At any rate, the most important and widely-used radioactive dating methods use nuclei that decay by the alpha or beta process.

Or did you mean something else?

I've been sitting for 2 hours thinking so I'm going to post this now and add more on later. Any Questions Please Post

Are you actually Evangelical Christian or is it that you cannot be bothered to research this stuff?

Oh, and come to my website: Last Level Games

Err, this is against the rules.

Also, for someone claiming they're so knowledgable at these concept, you sure have a lot of spelling mistakes...

 

[kiraownsurmom]

wasnt evolution like:fish-monkey-neanderthal-cave man-'advanced' form of cave man(up right,fire,blah)-you an me...?

 

[A RAND0M TAC0]

Excellent post Squall7, he got stuffed :thumbsup:

 

[Brawny]

Okay, to coolsmile and Squall, there are things wrong with both posts.

The "theory" of evolution stands more true than any answers that we (as a species) has come up with so far.

Um.....how about "intelligent design" I'll just say, if you walk into a woods and see a watch, do you think, maybe molecules randomly mutated into a watch, or did someome leave it there. Just a question.

First, c-14 is only living things. Rocks aren't living.

Second, coolsmile was correct about micro/macro evolution. Are you sure you have it correct Squall?

Hmm, this clearly contradicts what you have said above...

Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)

Actually, He was correct and your wikipedia quote agrees with him mainly the AT part. Remember Darwin and the finches?

The Bible doesn't teach directly 6000 years. I myself am a 6 billion kind of guy. (make a new thread for it coolsmile)

And to Mitch, if you don't like these threads, get i0n to put it in the rules or just don't open them. (unless you have to mod them, then I laugh cuz Squall likes to post reeeeaaaallllyyyyy long posts.

 

[DeathsHand]

There is no good evidence that god exists and deffinetly no scientific evidence. I will take science anyday because heres a newsflash: SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACTS.

awesome, I knew someone had to say it

 

[Brawny]

There is no good evidence that god exists and deffinetly no scientific evidence. I will take science anyday because heres a newsflash: SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACTS.

Newsflash, deffinetly is spelled definitely and anyday is two words. Get firefox 2.0.2. Just look at the intricacies of an atom/cell/you even and the size of universe. How can you say that it is all just random? Also, the lowest living thing that emerged from the big bang would have to be able to reproduce. Even basic asexual reproduction takes some pretty tricky DNA. without this though, couldn't reproduce and randomly mutate, which actually DOES happen.

 

[ARav989]

Ugh... this arguement can go on forever. There is no right or wrong answer. This sort of debate is based on your own beliefs. Whether it be about God or the theories on evolution its all based on opinions. For example an Atheist may have his/her views that God clearly cannot exist but on the other hand a Christian, like myself, would debate that he does. Regardless, you bring up valid points.

 

[Brawny]

I really like debates like this. Ha ha, the Christianity thread went like 5 pages of Squall and some other guy debating so that everyone else was afraid to post. It's more interesting to me the differences between one religion (esp denoms of Christianity) and debating, like 6000 years people.

 

[~Marisa~]

Ugh... this arguement can go on forever. There is no right or wrong answer. This sort of debate is based on your own beliefs. Whether it be about God or the theories on evolution its all based on opinions. For example an Atheist may have his/her views that God clearly cannot exist but on the other hand a Christian, like myself, would debate that he does. Regardless, you bring up valid points.

I agree 100%, it's a pointless subject to argue about.

 

[GOD]

My Children

Stop Fighting :frown2:

Just be Happy

 

[coolsmile]

@squall7
Ahh, finally, I knew there would be at least 1 knowledgeable person...

First off, NEVER get your data from wikipedia, it can easily be edited and can be false, that is one of the worst sorces you can get data from.

Second, can you show me the actual fossil records on the horses. Just so you know, there is no fossil records of the stage where a reptile becomes a bird... and I'm not sure that there is one on those horses.

You equate evolution to explain something outside it's area. It's not about the origins of something, but about the progression.

But with progression, you would be explaining Micro Evolution. Natural Selection doesn't change a species...

Going on with natural selection: It does't change a species, it changes characteristics of species

I'm a non-denominational christian

When did I claim that I'm so knowledgeable on the subject?

That's assuming that the C-14 was only created at the moment the earth was created. If it was created by other means, then it's perfectly possible. Also, you're not taking into account any other material's half life.

Then how is it possible to accurately get the age of a rock? It isn't...

U234 has a half life longer than the age of the earth? How do you know the half life then if you don't know the age of the earth.

Alpha Radiation? Yes

[qoute]This is against the rules[/quote] A lot of what people are posting are against the rules. It's just a big argument about does God exists, I beleive it, but what I'm trying to accomplish has nothing to do with religon...

Are you sure that those horses are evolved or that they are just different variation of eachother, and by natural selection get rid of the others.

Take the early humans for example. Lucy the australopithecus for example, s/he was more like an ape then a human. s/he didn't have the locking mechanism in the knees humans do and the never found her/his feet, showing that we don't know that s/he was bipedal. Lucy had long arms and short legs like apes. The early humans are bogus...

@DeathHand
Then evolution isn't science, there are no facts in evolution, it's just evidence...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to the horses, this has been proved incorrect many years ago. Othniel Marsh made this Horse Evolution up by gathereing fossils of animals from all over the world and arranged them in order in the way that he thought that the horse evolved. He didn't find those fossils to form one of those horses in one place, but in many different places...

And that "small horse" that is 4 toed isn't a horse, but it is alive in Turkey, it is carnivorous also... It's not even a horse :mad2:

Have a nice day...

Anything else? :sleep:

 

[Byuakuya]

when you can prove to me if the chicken came first or the egg came first i will patiently listen

until then

its all bullocks

except for the bit about GOD
GOD is real
:yesnod:

the egg came first. dinosaurs were laying eggs long before birds even walked the earth.
and as for the evolution matter, i am completely in belief. and i also believe that earth may not be the only host for life. i think that there are other planets that are also hosts to living things but we have not discovered them yet. you may call these beings aliens as they are not from earth.

 

[thewiirules123]

Ok heres the deal. Of course, evoulution could be wrong becasue it is a theory. However, there is so much fact in evolution and so many discoveries to even further proof of evolution. So to sum it up evolution is Based on FACT and The SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS says it's true so right now Evolution is the most solid theory. Now the bible...well...um...no scientific evidence, not based on fact and some of the things not in the realm of possibilty; Now it's up to you which one you want to believe in.

 

[coolsmile]

Ok heres the deal. Of course, evoulution could be wrong becasue it is a theory. However, there is so much fact in evolution and so many discoveries to even further proof of evolution. So to sum it up evolution is Based on FACT and The SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS says it's true so right now Evolution is the most solid theory. Now the bible...well...um...no scientific evidence, not based on fact and some of the things not in the realm of possibilty; Now it's up to you which one you want to believe in.

THERE IS NOT 1 FACT IN EVOLUTION!!!

 

[wezeles]

evolution is a theory, creationism is a theory, big bang theory... now when anyone gets a time machine goes back and time and proves it... sorry kids theory isnt proof.. its opinion.. and just like assholes... you know the rest... its not an argument anyone should have cause really your all to ignorant to even discuss it let alone have an opinion on it... now untill you meet god,build a time machine, or pay me a million dollars for every word you say... just drop it..its a waste of your own breath