Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: cooperton

A site like neogeology really? You have some strong conformation bias there.

See here is how it works.

You have some evidence that contradicts a long held scientific finding.

You have been over it with a fine tooth comb. Because you can't quite understand it.

You thus put it out to a peer review, because you stand by your findings.

This is how change occurs in science.

I've a published papers. I have one from my PhD, which shows evidence of a bridging chlorine radical in a certain reaction. It contradicted the knowledge at the time. Yet it got published.

So no, you are speaking in the manner of a typical creationist. The data you are showing is not published because it did not follow the correct scientific method. That would be the most likely answer. Given the sites publicizing it (creationist sites) that kind of implies a lot.

Again you ignore the comments I made on C14 dating. That says a lot about you.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Prove that dinosaurs are not millions of years in the past. Because you have yet to do so, beyond a debatable paper.

I have shown evidence that dinosaurs are carbon-dated to 4,000-40,000 years old. IF this is not true, there should be evidence of dinosaur remains being carbon dated as 75k+, which would mean it is way older than the C-14 dating range. I have yet to find a C-14 date for dinosaur remains that doesn't fall in the range of 4,000-40,000 years old.

They already addressed this claim in detail. It's BS. End of story. You didn't provide any scientific research that verifies this claim, and they already broke down the Shellac coating claim. I really don't get the blatant dishonesty. You basically pretended none of that was posted and repeated your false premise. You guys really have to do better than flat out ignore everything that conflicts. Phantom was kind enough to spend her time explaining it to you and you just slap her in the fact by ignoring it. If you really are trying to convince people of YEC, then you are failing miserably because this just makes you all look bad.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Do you understand how carbon dating works? In that 50K years is about as old as one can date. Because of the half life of C14.

Coupled with this, the fact that most fossils have had all the Carbon replaced due to Permineralization. Hence no carbon will be there to date. Unless you date things found incident with the fossil.

Thus if you had a carbon containing sample for a dinosaur, which would be around 65 million years ago (give or take a few 100k years). There will be no Carbon.

So what happens when one carbon dates dinosaurs? When one has something containing carbon, rather than minerals? When one treats the samples in the appropriate manner (given the age, and condition)?

Yep no Carbon 14 is detected.

Yet Creationists look at these poorly handled samples, and point out that "AH HA its proof the buggers lived much closer to now, and thus God"

Nope, it is wrong.

Carbon 14 is useless for dating a fossil. What you can do is something called isochron dating. This determines when the minerals were formed in to crystals and is used to date things such as lunar rocks.this method relies on figuring out the conversion of radioactive isotopes to non radiogenic isotopes. This method not only allows you to date crystalization but also tells you the original content of the minerals. If an idiot tried to do carbon 14 testing on dinosaur fossils where no c14 would be present is an idiot.

Yet i see people arguing c14 dating inaccuracies when the process cant even be used. That like arguing helicopters cant fly because they have no wings. Using Bernoulli principle i can prove they cant however using that is not how a helicopter gains lift. Same here using c14 will give you the wrong answer.

a reply to: dragonridr

I blame the TV shows like NCIS and CSI. Coupled with the media. People think they get science.

The only way we date stuff is Carbon dating right? You know no other isotopes ..... not that that annoys me or anything Mot of them don't know what Carbon 14 is, or 13 or 12 or the ratios of it I do a lot of work with C13 Only a chemist gets that.

You also get muppets believing you could use Mass Spec to identify a Ceramic (good luck cleaning the chamber after making that fly)

a reply to: Noinden

If this is the best argument evolution deniers can come up with then thsts kind of sad. Without evolution a lot would need to be explained like why does a python have vestigial legs? Did the creator screw up and just had some extra parts left over?

a reply to: dragonridr

I don't know, my faith has no creator Creationists come from a conformation bias coupled with circular argument.

God did it, therefore god

a reply to: dragonridr

Yahweh: "but I kicked the little serpent out of Eden - guess I forget to shrink his legs, my omniscience failed that day"

originally posted by: Barcs

They already addressed this claim in detail. .

They assumed it was too contaminated because the results don't agree with their religion. This is not a resolution, it is a means of escaping any uncomfortable evidence against the theory of mutant ancestors. I can tell none of you are real scientists because none of you are curious about empirical evidence. Instead you blindly dismiss anything that disagrees with your dogma - isn't that ironic?

a reply to: cooperton

Prove that it is a religion. No go on.

Similarly you have yet to disprove evolution (guess what you are a mutant from your parents base line )

So the only Dogma I see here is your own Creationist biases.

Lastly prove we are not "real scientists". You claim a science education, yet seem as uniformed as any other layperson. Though I feel that is your biases from your religion guiding you, as opposed to your logic and common sense.

Again remember I say this as a deeply spiritual individual.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

They already addressed this claim in detail. .

They assumed it was too contaminated because the results don't agree with their religion. This is not a resolution, it is a means of escaping any uncomfortable evidence against the theory of mutant ancestors. I can tell none of you are real scientists because none of you are curious about empirical evidence. Instead you blindly dismiss anything that disagrees with your dogma - isn't that ironic?

No it's because creationists bastardize the scientific method. It's like how Steve Austin tried to claim the Mt Saint Helen's ash dated to 350,000 years ago, but upon closer analysis, he totally screwed up the dating method. You see, he wasn't looking for honest results he was looking for his predetermined results. Anything less than that would not have been accepted or "published" by AIG.

This is the opposite of how science actually works. Nothing was escaped. Information was given to you and you ignored it. Carbon doesn't exist in fossilized rock, so if there was some there, it was a result of contamination. This is basic logic, especially since many of them have already been dated and coated with preservatives

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Lastly prove we are not "real scientists".

Real scientists address empirical evidence. There is soft tissue found in dinosaur bones, and preliminary C-14 testing shows these are less than 40,000 years old. Any real scientist would be ecstatic for new findings, but you are all dwelling on the old theoretical dogma which is disallowing you to pioneer new frontiers of understanding. So what if a creationist was the first to explore C-14 dating in dinosaurs? What else would you expect? The current scientific priesthood would never consider the possibility of a younger history of earth, just like a religious priest would never have pioneered the theory of evolution in the mid-1800's.

You blindly dismiss the data rather than enthusiastically exploring its implications - this is a textbook anti-science mentality.

a reply to: cooperton

Real scientists address empirical evidence.

Your empirical evidence is a fake. It's a fraud. But here's how you can redeem yourself.
Send the same samples to another independent lab - but this time with the correct timeline and history. It can be a laboratory of your choice - but a lab that is recognized in the field of HPLC/mass spec.
If you want to carry this out, I will setup the schedule and pay for it.

I will contact Dr. Cherkinsky at the University of Georgia so that we can confirm that the samples submitted to the new lab are the same samples that were submitted to University of Georgia. I will also contact the University of Arizona to confirm the same.

So now the ball is in your court. Put up or shut up.

Evolutionists who claim to be scientists are funny because there is no science to back evolution...

All evolution can claim to be is a faith based belief backed only by the latest conjecture put forth from delusional minds which believe they have proof of something they can't actually prove...

It is also humorous to me that the majority of evolutionists do not allow for there to be a God or a creator if that is an easier definition for your mind to fathom...

I truly believe the theory of evolution is little more than an argument against nèeding a creator to have kickstarting everything...

The theory of evolution has to keep evolving to keep the faith...It's a real struggle for these evolutionists...

Why do Evolutionists compare creation and evolution?
They are two entirely different things...While creation can exist without evolution...Evolution can't exist without creation... It always needs something to work with and therefore is in no way shape or form responsible for creation...However if evolution actually does exist... Creation has therefore allowed for it to exist and would all be thanks to the Creator aka God or any of the other insulting names you brainiacs can muster for him...

Scientists have ZERO evidence for actual evolution they can't even force it to occur they have never witnessed it transpire... Yet evolutionists have such faith that they actually believe it's proven or factual...Yet it's not...It's merely the best guess they can muster...

Here's a clue for you...
dogs and cats can't mate...
Humans and monkeys can't mate...
Lizards and fish can't mate...
And a chicken egg can't come from thin air so the chicken came first... And it didn't even come from a different bird because only a mature female hen has the ingredients to form the shell of a chicken egg...

If you ask me there are such things as mutations adaptation hybridization and these have been wrongly deemed as examples of evolution... Yet these do not bear witness to the birth of any new species either...
Now changes which can be seen as advancements and degradation do occur throughout all species but they are bound to those species they don't result in New species..Its just like the rules put into check by the creator which do not allow for dogs to mate with fish...
Cats to mate with rabbits...
Frogs to mate with flowers...

But by all means evolutionists keep bowing down to your god show with all your conviction how strong your faith is... But come with real proof...And bring pictures or it didn't happen...

If you find yourself asking...
"well what is the evidence for creation?"
I can only offer up the universe and everything in it...
Creation is a real thing which transpires regularly and is observable and verifiable no leap of faith required...
Every time a new star is born a baby is born a puppy is born a flower grows etc that is creation... you know something derived from something else...

That's another big hint for you how everything mimics that which started it...
And also how if evolution is real it would only be What?
Well it could only be then called creation...
Funny how that plays out huh?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Wow that was a convoluted mess. Evolution was never meant to explain how life began,theres even evolutionists that believe in god. But admitting that is counter productive to your argument isnt it? As for the rest of your diatribe shows just howlittle you understand evolution has indeed been been observed. And i dont even know where you were going with cats and dogs not breeding that tells me you dont understand species or genetics.

I keep seeing people using false information in here to support their attacks on evolution. You dont ever use c14 to date fossils as i pointed out earlier and people choose to ignore. And soft tissue on dinosaur bones has been explained by the women that discovered it was there her name Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University. She found out that sot tissue can survive with iron it replaces the proteins in the cells very similar to formaldehyde by cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay. Same reason we can find 2000 year old people in bogs that look like they died yesterday.

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm not attacking evolution I was just offering up the truth of the matter...
If you want to bring up genetics you simply verify my claims because genetic coding are those laws which make for the reason why dogs can't mate with cats...Frogs can't mate with flowers... horses can't mate with giraffe... Yet they supposedly evolved from horses...
You are also mistaken on your claim of evolution being observed... The closet claim which could be made would be due to hybridization I assure you...Once again only possible because of genetic coding...

Let's see your evidence which shows genetic coding being overcome....

You know your proof for evolution being observed...

Furthermore bringing up genetics therefore also verifies the OP along with my ramblings as you see them about dogs mating with cats... It all boils down to code and exactly what the OP was talking about... You know...
irreducable complexity...
Thanks for playing...

I'm not surprised you didn't understand what I was getting at though...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: dragonridr

I'm not attacking evolution I was just offering up the truth of the matter...
If you want to bring up genetics you simply verify my claims because genetic coding are those laws which make for the reason why dogs can't mate with cats...Frogs can't mate with flowers... horses can't mate with giraffe... Yet they supposedly evolved from horses...
You are also mistaken on your claim of evolution being observed... The closet claim which could be made would be due to hybridization I assure you...Once again only possible because of genetic coding...

Let's see your evidence which shows genetic coding being overcome....

You know your proof for evolution being observed...

Furthermore bringing up genetics therefore also verifies the OP along with my ramblings as you see them about dogs mating with cats... It all boils down to code and exactly what the OP was talking about... You know...
irreducable complexity...
Thanks for playing...

I'm not surprised you didn't understand what I was getting at though...

Do you realize the definition of a species is its inability to breed with any other species. As far as giraffes and horses nature proved you wrong.

a reply to: dragonridr

That's just a okapi it's not a cross breed of a horse zebra and giraffe...

Nor can it breed with any of them...

Nature nor you has proven me wrong...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: dragonridr

That's just a okapi it's not a cross breed of a horse zebra and giraffe...

Nor can it breed with any of them...

Nature nor you has proven me wrong...

No nature created an animal that adapted from a giraffe in order to survive in dense brush. This adaptation gave it many horse like traits. Genetically it is a cross breed since it has similar DNA to all three. As for your point about giraffe and horses they really arent related horses are more related to a rhino and giraffe a deer.so in your stupidity you dont even know that giraffes hv nothing to do with horses. If you go back far enough a horses ancestor was a small dog.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

There are over 500 recognized journals and over 100,000 research articles which discuss the evidence for evolution.
Why don't you tell us (and them) why they're all wrong?

a reply to: dragonridr

It's the theory of evolution that once stated giraffes evolved from horse's... That was never my belief...So the misunderstanding shows your stupidity not mine...

Your DNA is similar to a banana does that mean it's your ancestor?