Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by iterationzero


That's still assuming these variations remained constant and equal through uh.. Oh I dunno, the big bang? Isn't that kind of a... Hm.. Preposterous assumption?

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by linliangtai

 

What you have there, is an example of what would falsify the theory of evolution in its current state (unless time travell was showed possible), if the claim made was scientifically backed up. This claim, however in your link is just a claim with no evidence at all backing it up..

edit on 4-4-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

This...where's the objective evidence? I find it highly suspect that they cite the Penn geological department...but if you visit the website, you don't find a single mention of the claims made in that post. This is further suspect given the large number of articles on their website

In fact, if you do a Google search, the only websites mentioning this are the CNN iReport website (which has numerous badly researched articles and is similar to a blog) and a whole bunch of "bible truth" websites

Here's a link if you're like me and rather go have a look at the original scientific source rather than some random article making claims

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by iterationzero

 

That's still assuming these variations remained constant and equal through uh.. Oh I dunno, the big bang? Isn't that kind of a... Hm.. Preposterous assumption?

You might wanna check your sources...the blog site you posted is hardly scientific

In general, the half-life of a nuclide depends solely on its nuclear properties; it is not affected by external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Originally posted by vasaga
That's still assuming these variations remained constant and equal through uh.. Oh I dunno, the big bang? Isn't that kind of a... Hm.. Preposterous assumption?

And your assumption that radiometric data aren't calibrated against things of known age is simply ignorant of how radiometric measurements are made.

Alright...

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Nope. Birds evolved from amniotes. Reptiles developed feathers. Tree or cliff dwelling species likely had feathers, as well as existing claws/fingers on the ends of their frontal limbs. Flight developed as a better version of gliding. By gliding I mean the sort that is seen in some mammals today (and some reptiles!) - my favourite example being the Aussie sugar glider. The flaps of skin allow these creatures to glide between trees - now imagine if one day they found that they had developed better control over this gliding behaviour? And imagine if they already had feathers and a hollow bone structure? Elementary, my dear Watson.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The fossil record is patchy, at best. This is because the only fossil specimens we can observe are what happens to be lying at the surface at this point in time. Geoligcal chaos over time has made sure that there will be thousands, millions, of species that will, sadly, remain lost to us. Anyone with even the most vague understanding of geological processes and paleontological methods will be aware of this. SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. But we sure as hell try, and we sure as hell do our best to fit the pieces together. And so far, paleontologists are doing a damn good job of it (as, of course, are those of us in the other fields of geological interest).

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

I don't know what the hell you're getting at here. Honestly, my knowledge of the biological sciences is sorely limited to zoological areas rather than human. The first thing that comes to mind are sea turtles, where the gender of the offspring is determined by external temperature. Given that they're such an ancient species, surely environmental factors can have an impact not just on turtles, but on humans as well. I'm still confused. Are you saying that females shouldn't exist? Well, excuse me for existing then!


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

Have you heard of RNA?

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

Of everything you posted so far, this is the one that actually made me laugh out loud. I love it, absolutely love it, when people with NO understanding of either physics or paleoecology make such wonderful claims as this! Still laughing while I write this: DISORDER WILL ALWAYS INCREASE. THAT IS THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. Hahaha, you call this world an epitome of organisation? Life arose because of the 2nd law! Imagine if this world were a barren place - it would certainly be a lot less chaotic! Complexity is the hallmark of disorder. Honestly, need I say more?

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

lolwut? So erm, didn't know it was an established fact that interspecies cross breeding was essential for speciation and diversification. My studies of paleontology always led me to believe that migratory behaviour and environmental factors were the key causes of speciation.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Time to break out the astrophysics? Yeah... nah, you're not worth it. I'll give you a simpleton's overview: the big bang started from a singularity in which all matter was condensed to a tiny, tiny, TINY little area. Matter didn't come from nothing. We know this. Derp.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Maybe there was once life on Mars, but it wasn't given the length of time and opportunity we had on Earth to transcend their microbrial forms into more complex entities. Maybe the conditions conducive to the formation and proliferation of life do not necessite it! Once again, you have no cause to dismiss evolution with such a ridiculous statement.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

The inverse square law. Decreasing strength of radio signals. Maybe we are alone here after all. Maybe everyone else is too far away. Maybe no-one else is transmitting radio waves. Nothing to do with evolution.




That's all I could be bothered dealing with. If I can refute every single point you made off the top of my head, where does that leave you? It saddens me to see the extent to which lack of scientific education and general knowledge is becoming a true detriment to society. You can believe what you want. But remember that you have a responsibility to your fellow human to hinder the spread of disinformation, not propogate it!

Use your critical thinking faculties. Learn the science, and the background knowledge. Only when you have learnt to learn can you begin to teach. And get yourself some better arguments next time. I sincerely hope that no-one was taken in by this sheer display of asinine gullibility.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by vasaga
That's still assuming these variations remained constant and equal through uh.. Oh I dunno, the big bang? Isn't that kind of a... Hm.. Preposterous assumption?

And your assumption that radiometric data aren't calibrated against things of known age is simply ignorant of how radiometric measurements are made.

Hahahaha... Right.. Which things do we "know" the age of?

reply to post by vasaga


Tons of stuff...the age of the earth for example, up to an error margin of only 200mil years, which as a percentage is a ridiculously small amount. Hell, if I had such an error margin when doing economic analysis, I'd be filthy rich

Either way, if you agree with the link you posted, you obviously haven't read enough about radiometric dating

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

If the scientific community (not just Christian scientists) observed facts and indications that creation was likely, that would be taught as a theory, too.

This was posted on page 2 I think it was.

Gregor Mendel came to mind, a man of great scientific skill as an experimenter, statistician and logician, a rival to Darwin's thoughts on agents and processes of heredity, a monk and after the publication of his treatises elected as abbot.

Undoubtedly, a man of God trying to fathom the details and limits of his lords works, one of that special breed who see no conflict between science and religion.

It seems that this quiet, contemplative man has become embroiled in a battle of ownership, between ID and Neo-Darwinism that has reached quite a fervor. This is such a shame, I have no religious beliefs personally but can really appreciate this man, who after his death was rightly given the credit he deserved.

sorry if slightly off topic, just wanted to highlight him as an example.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by vasaga
About the whole dating thing.. I suggest you read this..

Click

They're talking about day-to-day variations over a 33-day cycle. Given that radiometric dating tools are used over the span of years, the day-to-day variations would normalize out.

Of course you forgot to mention that those 33-days are connected to the sun.. So.. It would normalize out? Really? That's assuming the sun has been exactly the same since the beginning of the big bang.... Or the beginning of the earth, or whichever period of billions or millions of years you want to take. Isn't that uh.. Preposterous? =)

Not to mention, if it really is the sun, who knows what changes all the other bodies and events can have on the rate of decay.. Like.. I dunno, a supernova?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by vasaga

 

Tons of stuff...the age of the earth for example, up to an error margin of only 200mil years, which as a percentage is a ridiculously small amount. Hell, if I had such an error margin when doing economic analysis, I'd be filthy rich

Either way, if you agree with the link you posted, you obviously haven't read enough about radiometric dating

Age of the earth? Using radiometric dating? Did you completely miss the point of that question? He said they calibrated radiometric dating with things we know the age of. So, the question was, what do we know the age of? You said the earth. But didn't we use radiometric dating to determine that? Calibrating something with the same thing we used to date it? That would be circular reasoning... Or am I missing something here?

And are you really that biased that you think the article is wrong? Here's the same story, from a different source. It's not even a year old, so please.. Open your mind at least a little, and stop assuming that everything that contradicts your view of radiometric dating is naturally wrong.. This time I'll post it from a science magazine, and actually make an effort and read what is being said instead of believing everything in your bubble is true.. I don't mean to be aggressive or mean, but, I have little patience for scientific sources being dismissed by personal bias and even saying "I haven't read enough about radiometric dating" while I'm coming out with a relatively fresh article regarding that same subject........ I don't know if you can see the irony here...

Click

Originally posted by vasaga
Hahahaha... Right.. Which things do we "know" the age of?

For someone who has "truth" as their avatar, you certainly don't seem to be interested in expending any energy to find it.

Go read up radiometric dating somewhere other than a creationist propaganda site and you'll learn all about the calibration of radiometric data and how minuscule the error introduced by the 33 day solar cycle is.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by vasaga
Hahahaha... Right.. Which things do we "know" the age of?

For someone who has "truth" as their avatar, you certainly don't seem to be interested in expending any energy to find it.

Go read up radiometric dating somewhere other than a creationist propaganda site and you'll learn all about the calibration of radiometric data and how minuscule the error introduced by the 33 day solar cycle is.

Oh so you actually don't have an answer. Ok.

Sorry if this has posted twice.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

If the scientific community (not just Christian scientists) observed facts and indications that creation was likely, that would be taught as a theory, too.

This was posted on page 2 I think it was.

Gregor Mendel came to mind, a man of great scientific skill as an experimenter, statistician and logician, a rival to Darwin's thoughts on agents and processes of heredity, a monk and after the publication of his treatises elected as abbot.

Undoubtedly, a man of God trying to fathom the details and limits of his lords works, one of that special breed who see no conflict between science and religion.

It seems that this quiet, contemplative man has become embroiled in a battle of ownership, between ID and Neo-Darwinism that has reached quite a fervor. This is such a shame, I have no religious beliefs personally but can really appreciate this man, who after his death was rightly given the credit he deserved.

sorry if slightly off topic, just wanted to highlight him as an example.

Originally posted by vasaga
Not to mention, if it really is the sun, who knows what changes all the other bodies and events can have on the rate of decay.. Like.. I dunno, a supernova?

Feel free to cite a source for that.

And are you really that biased that you think the article is wrong? Here's the same story, from a different source. It's not even a year old, so please.. Open your mind at least a little, and stop assuming that everything that contradicts your view of radiometric dating is naturally wrong.. This time I'll post it from a science magazine, and actually make an effort and read what is being said instead of believing everything in your bubble is true.. I don't mean to be aggressive or mean, but, I have little patience for scientific sources being dismissed by personal bias and even saying "I haven't read enough about radiometric dating" while I'm coming out with a relatively fresh article regarding that same subject........ I don't know if you can see the irony here...

I'm not suggesting the article is wrong at all. I'm saying that you're reading an interpretation into the article that isn't actually there. Did you go back and read the original article from Purdue that was the basis for the Stanford Report article that was the basis for he Symmetry Breaking article that was the basis for the io9 blog entry? Guess not. If you had, you'd have seen this:

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said.

There's a difference between having a closed mind and doing a little critical thinking/critical reading/research on your sources.

Originally posted by vasaga


Age of the earth? Using radiometric dating? Did you completely miss the point of that question? He said they calibrated radiometric dating with things we know the age of. So, the question was, what do we know the age of? You said the earth. But didn't we use radiometric dating to determine that? Calibrating something with the same thing we used to date it? That would be circular reasoning... Or am I missing something here?

You are missing something there. Just step back and reflect, use your reasoning skills. Might I suggest looking up the word "calibrate" in the dictionary. I've always found dictionary.com to be of great assistance. I hope your next post revisits the nature of such an absurd response.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by vasaga
Not to mention, if it really is the sun, who knows what changes all the other bodies and events can have on the rate of decay.. Like.. I dunno, a supernova?

Feel free to cite a source for that.

When I state something, you suddenly want sources, but when I ask you something, you want me to go look it up myself. Don't be so darn hypocritical.

Also, the bias thing was not towards you, but it says a lot if you felt like I was addressing you...

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by vasaga


Age of the earth? Using radiometric dating? Did you completely miss the point of that question? He said they calibrated radiometric dating with things we know the age of. So, the question was, what do we know the age of? You said the earth. But didn't we use radiometric dating to determine that? Calibrating something with the same thing we used to date it? That would be circular reasoning... Or am I missing something here?

You are missing something there. Just step back and reflect, use your reasoning skills. Might I suggest looking up the word "calibrate" in the dictionary. I've always found dictionary.com to be of great assistance. I hope your next post revisits the nature of such an absurd response.

Pronunciation:/ˈkalɪbreɪt/
verb
[with object]
mark (a gauge or instrument) with a standard scale of readings.
correlate the readings of (an instrument) with those of a standard in order to check the instrument's accuracy.
adjust (experimental results) to take external factors into account or to allow comparison with other data.
carefully assess, set , or adjust (something abstract):
the regulators cannot properly calibrate the risks involved
(as adjective calibrated)
their carefully calibrated economic policies

Source: Click

Your point?

Originally posted by vasaga
When I state something, you suddenly want sources, but when I ask you something, you want me to go look it up myself. Don't be so darn hypocritical.

One key difference – information for how radiometric dating techniques are calibrated is readily available. For radiocarbon dating, for example, data from a variety of areas including dendrochronology, ice core samples, recorded history, etc. is used to generate a calibration curve. In fact, the calibration curves are published by research teams as new data is obtained from various environments. You just didn’t even bother trying to look it up.

I did try and find some info before replying on whether or not supernovae emissions would have an effect on terrestrial radioisotope decay rates and couldn’t find anything that was readily available. So if you’re going to assert that it is and the information isn’t readily available, some kind of citation would be nice.

An aside: what I did find was that scientists can observe the decay rates for radioisotopes in supernovae that existed hundreds of thousands, or millions, or tens of millions of years ago and they are consistent with those observed terrestrially today. Interesting, no?

Also, the bias thing was not towards you, but it says a lot if you felt like I was addressing you...

Ugh, playing intarwebz psychologist…

I was up past my bedtime and didn’t see that you were replying to two different posts in the same post. Nothing more.

reply to post by vasaga

So, the question was, what do we know the age of?

You obviously skipped the last links I posted

We know the DECAY RATE of radioactive isotopes...and like the articles I linked prove, that isn't influenced by outside influences like the sun, gravity, or other stuff.

You might wanna read up on it before making ridiculous claims

reply to post by iterationzero


Fine.

reply to post by MrXYZ


My god you really are blind. Never mind. Stay inside your biased bubble.

reply to post by vasaga


So you don't have a source that describes the effects of supernovae on terrestrial radioisotope decay rates?

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Fine.

reply to post by MrXYZ

 

My god you really are blind. Never mind. Stay inside your biased bubble.

In other words, you can't refute the info I gave...and therefore ignore that information because it goes against yoru irrational belief