h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.ktca.org/newtons/13/mummy.html

This link (near the top) tells how remains can be preserved unintentionally in peat bogs and glacial ice.

-jb

I still can't understand how these creationists continue to try to counter evolution using science.

Each time I question science I find an answer.
Each time I question religion I find unsubstantiated belief.

I find it really amazing that some people believe in creationism that strongly...
What I would really like to know (and I don't want to make fun of anybody, this is a serious question): When God created Adam and Eve, did he make the like what evolutionist see as the early humans and did the human race then evolve from that or did he create them more or less way we are now...same question considering animals etc. I mean to me the people in the bible resemble us pretty much. Noah as one of the oldest biblical humans was already able to use tools and build an arch, so this would indicate that the humans God created were already quite developed, but then again... oh yeah well, I guess you will then anyway tell me that the stuff scientists found to proove evolution are not reliable...

If this question has already been discussed don't bother, otherwise I would really be interested...

Lucinda:

>>So what your saying is that all the dinosaurs lived near coal mines, and this threw off the numbers by several million years?

I believe it has already been stated that carbon dating is not 100% down to the second accuracy - you work out how much
these factors could throw off your count, and factor them in to your +/- figures. And you check that you aren't dating
something which is growing near burning coal, or nuclear reactors.

This isn't a faulty assumption, any more than because the human eye is not perfect means that measuring distances with
rulers has a faulty assumption.<<

Coal mines are not the only source of C-13. There are only small amounts of C-13 and C-14 in any tissue. A little inaccuracy is a big deal. The measuring analogy would be imperfect if the ruler was held several feet away from the object. You are measuring an object up-close and in time. Carbon dating measures something that is in the past. This is much different than measuring length.

jbliqemp:

>>Of course they can. However, the weights of the two are very different. They do not remain together. Have you ever tried to mix oil and water? Have you ever seen the fractal distilation of crude oil?<<

So, wouldn't there naturally be less U-238 in top soil and more Pb-206? This would make things at the surface appear older than what is below it? For this reason, most rock that is measured with radiometric dating is volcanic rock. Scientists do not measure the age of sediment. Now, volcanic rock would come from lower and contain more U-238 than normal. Therefore, it would seem younger? You see, there is alot of room for error, and you cannot possibly understand all of the variables in the equation. Scientists assume that they can. This is a faulty assumption. They cannot know what has happened in the past.

>>C-13 would not decay further. C-14 does not decay to boron, it decays back to nitrogen (N-14) by release of beta particles from
the neutrons. Also, the method was tested on objects that could be independently dated.<<

I don't have time to look at the links right now, but thank you for supplying them.

>>I think that the preservative effects of the tar pits, the frozen nature of glaciers, and the extreme lack of water in the desert would do far more to preserve flesh and bone than you could possibly know. Tar prevents oxidation by sealing water, oxygen, and other contaminants outside the body. Ice does much the same, and also freezes any biological contaminants. In the desert, there isn't enough water in the dried flesh for bacteria to live off of.<<

Realize that neither of us has knowledge in this area. Any scientist that I have met would agree that there is a limit to preservation.

>>Corpses have also been found in peat bogs and encased in salt. When the removal of water and/or oxygen is rapid, flesh can be preserved for very long periods of time.<<

I see this as evidence that the body has not been there for millions of years. Indeed, the URL you posted said: "Although skeletal remains lacking soft parts are known from the period 30-12,000 years ago, there is very little carcass material of this age. A tendon on a 22,000-years-old bone of a lion from Alaska is one of the rare examples."

Realize that I do not take the dating as accurate, but this still shows that tissue cannot last millions of years.

Proper Ganda:

I still can't understand how these creationists continue to try to counter evolution using science.

>>Each time I question science I find an answer.<<

Many of my questions for science are unanswered.

Feffi:

We have fossils of animals and men that are much larger than the respective animals of today. I believe that God created humans and animals better than the humans and animals of today. I see a decay in nature that fits this rather well. Evolution does not.

So well, you are talking about size to proove your thesis. Btw. at least during the last centuries people got taller again, you can see that from the houses, clothes and other stuff that was found. But anyway what would you call the improvements in making and using better tools then for example if not evolution? Or does evolution respectivly decay in your opinion just mean the physical changes?

Another question, do you believe that people in biblical times really got a few hundred years old?

<>
I think that is joy of science. They are there and if you look hard enough you might find them this century.

I find that whenever I have an idea about something, several clever scientists have already thought longer & harder about it and published journals. You could always consider a Msc or PhD. There are alway more research programs.

However when I think about articles in the Bible I cannot help but thinking that it was a useful manual on how to be a nice person 3000 years ago, but like the "Fortran 74 Instruction Manual" it is a little out of date.

Feffi:

>>So well, you are talking about size to proove your thesis.<<

>>Btw. at least during the last centuries people got taller again, you
can see that from the houses, clothes and other stuff that was found.<<

This is mainly a result of nutrition.

>>But anyway what would you call the improvements in making and using better tools then for example if not evolution? Or does evolution respectivly decay in your opinion just mean the physical changes?<<

The improvements in making tools is evolution. It is not biological evolution. I don't know what you mean by the last part, but if you mean is just physical change evolution, I think that you are looking at evolution much the same way as Darwin. Darwin and scientists today see difersity in life and can show how physical changes might come about. This ignores the biochemical facts that modern science is constantly uncovering. No biochemical change can be explained by evolution. The driving force is missing, and the middle steps just aren't there.

>>Another question, do you believe that people in biblical times really got a few hundred years old?<<

Yes, but that is a theological question. Someone recently proposed that the tree of life held some chemical that would allow you to live forever. I don't know if I believe this, and it cirtainly has no scientific grounding. I take it on faith. I do know that the universe shows the designs of an intelligent being. I do take the 6,000 year old earth idea and several others on faith though.

Proper Ganda:

>>I think that is joy of science.<<

Only when it is solved. Otherwise it is frusterating.

>>They are there and if you look hard enough you might find them this century.<<

Now who is showing faith?

>>I find that whenever I have an idea about something, several clever scientists have already thought longer & harder about it and published journals.<<

How about explaining the driving force of the melecular change that causes clotting or the movement of scilia (sp?)?

>>However when I think about articles in the Bible I cannot help but thinking that it was a useful manual on how to be a nice person 3000 years ago, but like the "Fortran 74 Instruction Manual" it is a little out of date.<<

What manual is better suited to life today?

Well, I think that evolution means physical and "mental" changes, but I wasn't so sure about your point of view. The way you stated your decay-theory was quite based on physical reasons...at least that's how I understood it.

Peterson

I don't have faith in science. I only trust science as long as it proves it self with evidence. It is continuing to prove it self so I continue to trust it. The bible on the other hand contradicts itself page by page.

why don't you quote some random garble that is misspelt and ask some random person if science has explained it yet.

I had a quick look in all the ancient religious texts for the answer to that scilia thing and the best I could come up with was.

'Duana Regia: il contributo arabo all'organizzazione finanziaria ad amministrativa del regno di Scilia'

As you can see both informative and accurate analysis.

aehm, could you translate that for people linguistically challenged (I try to be politically correct ) like myself? Please

'Duana Direction: the Arabic contribution to the organization financial institution to administrative of the reign of Scilia'

I doubt that it has anything to do with molecular clotting. But the point is that the bible doesn't explain this or evolution properly. However science is able to give us a pretty good theory.

I fail to see the connection between God, molecular clotting, the Bible and Scilia. Anybody want to help me out?

Well Wonko, you bring up some interesting points. For example, does the Universe have a beginning? To answer this, I would have to say 'undetermined'. And does the Universe have an ending? Well, that is a silly question considering that it hasen't ended (Please take no offense, I really am refering to the people who stand on one side or the other).

Another point I would like to make is that through the years, we humans have proved that every time we have made the statement 'That's Impossible!' Someone has proven that statement wrong. An example would be flight, it was said by many to be impossible, but is it? And going to the moon, is it impossible to go to the moon? And how about living forever and flying faster than the speed of light and all of these other ideas, are they impossible too? To these last ideas, I don't know, but I am willing to give anything a chance.

Evolution is thought to be flawed and have many holes in it's theories. But does that mean it is wrong or that it is impossible for it to have occured? How about God and the creation, how is that any more substantial than evolution? It's not, both are highly debated and loved ideas that every individual has decided in their own heart which is true. You won't catch a mainstream christian saying...'well that evolution idea may have some merit', just like you won't catch a staunch scientist saying 'God created everything just like it was said in the Bible.'. The Fringe of each will have mixtures of the theories and ideas. But the mainstream will stay divided on the ideas until one or the other is played out, and that most likely won't play out in our lifetime.

To you out there who are not willing to give the other side a chance (and I don't just mean listening to them) you should think if you are open or closed minded. It's not just the religeous people that are close minded, it's the 'All science and nothing else' people who are just as close minded as well. I am agnostic and could be swayed either way depending on the argument presented. I will listen. But if you argue 'Well it happend just because' then I want to see proof. No proof, no belief. I believe that planes can fly because I can see them do it. 150 years ago, if you told me that I could fly across the country, I might have said...'IMPOSSIBLE!!'

~Noj Trebor

Sorry I can't help. I think I took a wrong turn about 5 junctions back and things have gone from bad to worse. I was only using it as a cheeky way to drag this conversation on so far that any previous messages are too far up the thread to bother talking about.

Match Point, PG to Serve.

Jesus,

Son of the Supream Omnipotent One
or
Sudanese Nubian Adultery

???

Feffi:

>>Well, I think that evolution means physical and "mental" changes, but I wasn't so sure about your point of view. The way you stated your decay-theory was quite based on physical reasons...at least that's how I understood it.<<

The "evolutional" changes between species is physical according to science. The mental changes are a result of physical differences. The decay-theory of mine is physical in that things break down. Realise that it is easier to spring a leak than to build a boat. The biochemical processes for even "simple" tacks are extremely complex, and errors occur. The biochemical processes do not just occur.

Proper Ganda:

>>I don't have faith in science. I only trust science as long as it proves it self with evidence. It is continuing to prove it self so I
continue to trust it.<<

The neo-darwinism theory back several decades ago did not include one very important field of science - biochemistry - because it didn't exist. Back when spontanious generation was popular, the cell was believed to be simple. When it was shown otherwise, the theory was shown to be foolish. Evolution assumes that the biochemical processes are simple. Now that it is being shown otherwise, the theory will be seen as foolish.

>>why don't you quote some random garble that is misspelt and ask some random person if science has explained it yet.<<

I am sorry for that. I meant cilium. It is the mechanism that some cells use to swim. It has been shown to be very intricate and is irreducably complex meaning that no part can be taken out for it to still work at all. No evolutionary advantage would exist if it is not exactly right. Therefore, evolution has no possible direct explanation. Scientists can only try for an indirect explaination, but as more cases like the cilium arise, and they are shown to be more complex, your observation of scientific evidence for evolution must wane. Perhaps science will come up with a better explaination for the origination of life. I don't know. Let me say right now that Darwin was an extremely intelligent man with an extraordinary theory. It is being shown today using techniques that he did not have that his theory does not work. More scientists are saying today that the evidence exists, but not in their field. Soon, it will be shown that the evidence indeed does not exist.

>>I had a quick look in all the ancient religious texts for the answer to that scilia thing<<

I am a terrible speller, and I should have gotten my book to see how it was spelled. ancient religious texts?

>>But the point is that the bible doesn't explain this or evolution
properly. However science is able to give us a pretty good theory.<<

The bible doesn't explain either of these scientifically. My problem with the theory of science is that often it is passed off as a fact in textbooks, by teachers, and in the media.

Nudge

>>Well Wonko, you bring up some interesting points.<<

What postings are you referring to?

>>Another point I would like to make is that through the years, we humans have proved that every time we have made the
statement 'That's Impossible!' Someone has proven that statement wrong.<<

Whereas often this is the case, "proved" is a bit too strong.

>>Evolution is thought to be flawed and have many holes in it's theories. But does that mean it is wrong or that it is impossible
for it to have occured?<<

When viewed biochemically, I would say yes in accordance with natural selection and random mutations being the motivating factor. If science comes up with something better, I will have to re-examine it.

>>How about God and the creation, how is that any more substantial than evolution? It's not, both are highly debated and loved ideas that every individual has decided in their own heart which is true.<<

I will never say that creation has been proved beyond a doubt because it cannot be. I do believe that evolution cannot have happened after reading "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. He is a staunch scientist who does not believe in a diety. Btw, many catholics and people of other denominations believe in the possiblity of evolution.

>>To you out there who are not willing to give the other side a chance (and I don't just mean listening to them) you should think
if you are open or closed minded.<<

I have viewed the scientific evidence for evolution and the scientific evidence against evolution (not just creationist liturature). The problem with the layman's perspective is that scientific conjecture often is touted as scientific fact. When you begin to dig into the rhetoric, you see the theory lacking.

Biochemical processes might not be included in past evolutionary models, nosretep, but that doesn't mean that they aren't included in current ones. Some scientists might feel that their work is a bit daunting, that they'll never find their little evolutionary links. So what? We don't have to know every peice of the puzzle to fathom the greater part of the picture.

We've provided evidence that C-14 dating is reliable for giving estimates of an object's age up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. The accuracy of this has been determined (by scientific method, numerous times) to be within 10% of the actual age, reliably. We have reason to believe that other radioactive isotopes decay in similar manners, through our observation and understanding of those isotopes.

Lead and Uranium segregate. This doesn't mean that the lead floats on top and uranium sinks. The earth has in it's crust veins of gold, where there is no silver or iron; veins of bauxite, where there is no coal; and large deposits of rock salt, where there is no oil. Is it such a stretch that their could have been veins of uranium, where there was no lead? Sure, there's lead in those veins now, but never, in the geologist's experience, have two substances so disparate been mixed together so homogenously.

>>The problem with the layman's perspective is that scientific conjecture often is touted as scientific fact. When you begin to dig into the rhetoric, you see the theory lacking.<<

That's why evolution is a theory. Never has the _theory_ turned away proper scientific evidence to the contrary; rather, the theory is adapted to fit the evidence. Creationism is not a theory. It is a belief.

-jb

BTW: I asked someone about the number 10^-50 being impossible.
They said:

My source is the book: "In The Minds of Men; Darwin and the New World Order" by Ian T Taylor, Published in 1984. Here is his footnote: "Emile Borel (1962) <"Probabilities and Life" Translated by Maurice Baudin. Reprint, New York, Dover Publications> was one of the worlds foremost experts on mathematical probability. In chapter 3 he explores those circumstances in which remote theoretical probability becomes a practical impossibility and he attaches numerical values to these transitions. "Probabilities that are negligible on the Cosmic Scale. A Phenomenon with a probability of 10^-50 will never occur, or at least never be observed." (p. 28). This probability value may be expressed as one chance in one followed by 50 zeros."

jbliqemp:

>>Biochemical processes might not be included in past evolutionary models, nosretep, but that doesn't mean that they aren't
included in current ones.<<

You obviously have not looked at the theory. Nowhere do I see any biochemical link.

>>We don't have to know every peice of the puzzle to fathom the greater part of the picture.<<

But if the pieces are proven to not fit how you once belived, you no longer have a picture. If science cannot show how any major biological system could have evolved, the theory must be rejected as un-scientific.

>>We've provided evidence that C-14 dating is reliable for giving estimates of an object's age up to 50,000 to 60,000 years.<<

According to the half-life, the C-14/C-13 ratio can be measured. The obvious problems are that you are assuming

C-13 was not in the organism at death
C-14 levels are relatively constant

I believe that these are invalid assumptions.

>>Lead and Uranium segregate.<<

I see.

>>That's why evolution is a theory.<<

It cannot be a scientific theory though because it cannot be tested using scientific means of direct observation. It is a theory that is used by scientists in an attempt to explain how life came to exist with out a designer.

>>You obviously have not looked at the theory. Nowhere do I see any biochemical link.<<

Oh? You insult me and my biology teachers. Biochemistry is paramount to evolutionary theory. Right down to the phospholipids on the walls of my cells that are currently failing to keep a virus from multiplying inside the cells.

Just because something with a probablity of less that 1/10^50 is lacking possibility, doesn't mean that it won't happen. If I guess right, there's that many atoms in the solar system. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Carbon make up a greater part of the Earth's share, and that's primarily in the crust. They bond with each other, forming simple and complex molecules. What are the chances? What are the chances that some of those molecules would attract each other, and others repel? What are the chances that a pollemer could form? What are the chances that all of those molecules in the environment of primordeal Earth wouldn't do something?

>>According to the half-life, the C-14/C-13 ratio can be measured. The obvious problems are that you are assuming

C-13 was not in the organism at death
C-14 levels are relatively constant<<

C-13 is stable. It does not decay. The amount that was originally in the organism will still be there after long periods of time.

C-14 is not stable. It decays by releasing a beta particle from a neutron (changing that neutron to a proton) and becoming N-14, which is a stable gas. Did you read the link I provided on this? No, you told me as much. Here it is again.

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

The link explains the process quite clearly.

Since we know that the amount of C-14 in organic matter when it is formed is relatively stable, we can find the age of the matter by analysing it for current content of C-14, which is less than the original content. Scientists have confirmed the reliability of C-14 dating on material that has been independently dated.

Evolutionary theory must fit the facts available. It can be altered to fit new facts and findings. Creationism cannot, and never will. Creationist can only bandy words about, making it seem as though it *could* have happened that way in their model.

-jb

Oh my never have I red such a long and involving discussion. Well here are some points of mine. Also I'm not really clear as to who believs what but you'll find out what I believe.

(I know this conversation was ages ago so I hope some of you are still around)

To Nudge, my first and most fun bit:
You said
>>You won't catch a mainstream christian saying...'well that evolution idea may have some merit', just like you won't catch a staunch scientist saying 'God created everything just like it was said in the Bible.'.<<

Our survey said >

I am (that's me) a Christian, confirmed (different name though) and have a strong love of and belief in God, Jesus and the Bible.

I beleive evolution occoured. Come on it's increadibly clear and beautiful and just look at the evidence. Sure it could be refined in the light of new discoveries, but on the whole it's fact. We evolved from apes.

Now for the Christian bit:
Yep Genisis, yes creation, yes A and E. Well, for a start Moses wrote this from dialogue with God. So it is difficult to say it's wrong but it's not the same as the rest of the Bible. The first 11 chapters are in a much more picture language, not as science fact. Also the creation stages sort of follow the evolution stages, with light then planet then land then animals then us (it's the plants that are out of order). So this is looking good. But say God had sat Moses down and said
{just get jist of next paragraph}

"Hay Moses, well in the begining the whole universe was compressed into something smaller than your eye, and then it all exploded first with energy to hot to form matter, then it condensed into quarks, leptons and the like.. ...the dinosaurs were huge, whopping things.... .... and so you've got the primates living in Africa, which is a huge continent you havent been to yet.... ....and so the humans got more like you are today and started walking on two legs.

Don't you think Moses migh just have suffered from heart/brain falieur?

OK so he gaeve the outlin in a way the people of the time could cope with. This doesn';t mean that today we must still have 100% belief in it as fact with 6 days et al. I mean look at the earth sun thing, we were able to cope with not being the center of the Universe.

Anyone (Chriatian) unaccepting to alow evolution a slight look in is closed.



Also nosretep,
You seem to go along the 'if you really look into evolution then there are holes' line. (if this isn't you thoughts then sorry but for whoevers it is --&gt
So.
You don't have to research deeply, just look for yourself at a primate. Look at the film where Attenborough sits with them and you will see yorself in their faces. Doing the whole 'I've researched deeply and no better than you' is pointless, so maybe you do know more about it then me. The thing is that people are allways writing to and fore on argumens and if you happen to have an inclined thought one way then you'll tend to notice only those that go along with you.

For get the scientiffic papersa and go to somewhere in some limestone and find some fossilised fish/seaerchins for yourself and marvel at where we have come from. God didn't plant the fossis sop that we would find them and draw deliberatly wrong conculsions, that's a God of tricks.


The desing in evolution, its beauty and impossibility is where God lies, at every small step. Adam and Eve is a point in evolution where God revieals himself to us and gives us the life and separeates us from the animals, makes us special.


Hope that makes some sence, it's what I believe, and so please challenge me on it.

This is my last attempt to clarify the point we are talking about.

Let's use our imagination and get beamed back in time where no life existed. No cells, no humans, no gods. No life. (Life? Don't ask me about life!) I don't know how it looked like then - void? suns? plantes? Probably not very inviting.

Ok?

Now we move on in time until the first living beeing came into existence. This is a very important event in time: no life before, and life afterwards.

I name it CREATION DAY.

And I name the first living beeing PRIMUS.

We don't know when or what exactly happened. Who PRIMUS was. Maybe a god? Or a very simple cell, not really a cell but pure DNA? Or boiling enery inside a sun? To be honest, we don't know anything at all.

But, and that's pure logic, we do know one thing, PRIMUS had no creator, as it was the first living beeing at CREATION DAY.


Thank you for so far following me, it's now up to you to make up your mind of what you believe:

- PRIMUS was a god, and created other gods and/or mankind

or

- PRIMUS was DNA which evolved to mankind

or

- something else