Carbon 14 is not that complex really. When cosmic rays bombard earth's atmosphere, they produce neutrons. These neutrons then collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, changing them into radioactive carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 is then absorbed by plants during photosynthesis. When the animals eat the plants the carbon-14 is then absorbed into there bodies, and when other animals eat that animal it is absorbed into them also. All of us have the same amount of carbon-14 in us currently and the carbon-14 slowly leaks out by turning into nitogen-14 and escaping but we, by eating, continually re-absorb it at the same rate. When an animal or plant dies the carbon still leaks out in this way but it is no longer being brought back into the body and me can measure the rate at which it leaves (the basis for carbon-14 dating) the problem with this is that all the carbon will leave any dead organism in about 11,460 years. So if we are finding this carbon in dinosaur ones and fossils these fossils can be no older than about 11,460 or else they would no longer contain carbon-14! This is why I believe that it is impossible for the millions of years necessary for the evolutionary process.
This is simply not true the magnetic field is slowly decaying
FALSE!
You need to see that the evidences that I am giving to you I believe to be facts and the evidences you present opposing mine, you see to be facts. one of us has to be wrong, and we both believe that we are right! so you cant just expect that that the other will accept everything that we are saying, what we can both hope is that we both walk away with something new to be researched and something new that we have learned.
The best I can hope for is you drop your religious pretense and start listening to common sense. Of course you think you're right. However, there is a GREAT probability that you are WRONG because you have roughly 5-6 people telling you the same thing. I'm washing my hands with this, you've done nothing but irritate me with ignorance and religious allusions.
You need to see that the evidences that I am giving to you I believe to be facts and the evidences you present opposing mine, you see to be facts. one of us has to be wrong, and we both believe that we are right! so you cant just expect that that the other will accept everything that we are saying, what we can both hope is that we both walk away with something new to be researched and something new that we have learned.
Facts have evidence behind them, a fact is not something you can believe in. Also one side has given facts, the other has given random thoughts with nothing to back them up. I'll let you decide which is which.
The best I can hope for is you drop your religious pretense and start listening to common sense. Of course you think you're right. However, there is a GREAT probability that you are WRONG because you have roughly 5-6 people telling you the same thing. I'm washing my hands with this, you've done nothing but irritate me with ignorance and religious allusions.
I would like you to notice that I have not mentioned anything religious at all, this is all an assumption. ;P
Here is one link I found supporting the magnetic field decay <http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field-young/>
But I do have one issue with links, you can find internet pages that say outrageous thing like that the Holocaust never happened. You simply cant believe everything that you find on the internet. But please don't take that as me calling you ignorant or that I'm saying you believe everything that you read, that was not the intention of my message!
what we can both hope is that we both walk away with something new to be researched and something new that we have learned.
I've actually already researched every subject you have brought up extensively my friend. You have yet to provide anything with merit and so it is quite obvious that only one of us needs to do some more research and learn something here.
I have already heard every debate against evolution and general science that any religious group has tried to make and I've already done the research they ask and I've already proven it wrong multiple times with multiple lines of evidence. You are quite mistaken if you think you are presenting anything new at all.
I would like you to notice that I have not mentioned anything religious at all, this is all an assumption.
No, you have not mentioned religion. You said that you are a creationist and you believe in intelligent design. Let's look those up shall we?
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God.
- Both from Wiki. I know it's not a perfect source, but it's quick and accurate enough for our purpose here.
So, you see Alexander, both of the things you claim to believe have their basis in religion, and are ONLY taught as a method of promoting religion. So although you didn't specifically mention YOUR religion, you did mention some things that give away your religious leanings. Ergo, although it may be an assumption, it is one made based on your own expression of your beliefs.
Creationist websites are not credible sources of information my friend. This is akin to one of those sites you mentioned claiming the holocaust isn't real. They have been shown time and again to blatantly lie, quote mine, and intentionally mislead their audience.
For the purpose of legitimacy please only cite accredited scholastic sites or peer reviewed studies on the subjects of science as these are the only places you are likely to find anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.
MrWalker82! I do take issue with many of the thing that you just said first of being that Intelligent design is a religious view, where as it is not it is a scientific view although many people who believe in it also believe in religious thing. Also you mentioned that Creationist Websites are not a good source of information! Well I am shocked, do you mean to tell me that scientists who follow the conclusive finding of ID are not scientists and can not present accurate information on their findings. And I do think that you are quite arrogant in saying that you have researched EVERYTHING presented against evolution and found THEM ALL wrong. This is impossible. And I have a question specifically for you as I can conclude that you are a devoted evolutionist, where did matter come from? and please don't just say the Big Bang because even in the Big Bang theory There was already matter there to explode, I'm asking where that matter came from. how can we get something from nothing.
do you mean to tell me that scientists who follow the conclusive finding of ID are not scientists and can not present accurate information on their findings
i assume you mean a creationist scientist? Yeah, there arent a lot of those.
And I do think that you are quite arrogant in saying that you have researched EVERYTHING presented against evolution and found THEM ALL wrong. This is impossible.
the irony of what you just said....
I'm asking where that matter came from. how can we get something from nothing.
And I have a question specifically for you as I can conclude that you are a devoted evolutionist, where did matter come from? and please don't just say the Big Bang because even in the Big Bang theory There was already matter there to explode, I'm asking where that matter came from. how can we get something from nothing.
That isn't evidence that there is a God or intelligent creator.
God has always existed before concepts of time came into existence. Replace God with matter and you come up with the same idea.
Simply put, just because we don't know for sure where matter comes from or how the universe is created does not mean God is automatically an answer. The reason creationism is not considered scientifically possible is because there must be evidence of God before we can suggest that God created the universe. When we are able to prove, without a doubt, that God exists, we will be able to consider creationism as a possibility.
As for evolution, it's a fact. People are evolving this day and if I'm not mistaken, many members have presenting links supporting this notion.
And I do think that you are quite arrogant in saying that you have researched EVERYTHING presented against evolution and found THEM ALL wrong. This is impossible.
I'm sure he has researched evolution to the extent where you can trust he has a good understanding on what evolution is, how it works, and why many theories disproving evolution are false. Remember, anyone who studies evolution will undoubtedly have to trudge through anti-evolution talk because it is such a heated topic.
Simply put, it is possible that MrWalker has done his research against every argument presented in this thread.
Even if what you said is true and MrWalker did not research every point against evolution, it does not mean his argument is flawed. If you ask "Did you hear Porter's anti-evolution theory?" and he says, "no", that does not mean his argument is invalid. The only way to prove his point is invalid is for you to present Porter's anti-evolution theory WITH credible sources and have him fail to back his own argument up. So far, I have not seen this. Using your logic, you do not understand evolution 100 percent, which means you can not possibly disprove it. This is a flawed assumption and we should all avoid this ideology.
Lastly, evolution and the creation of the universe are two completely different things. Even if we knew that God created the universe, it would not disprove evolution. If God created the universe, it is clear that evolution STILL happens.
Simply put, it is possible that MrWalker has done his research against every argument presented in this thread. Even if what you said is true and MrWalker did not research every point against evolution, it does not mean his argument is flawed. If you ask "Did you hear Porter's anti-evolution theory?" and he says, "no", that does not mean his argument is invalid. The only way to prove his point is invalid is for you to present Porter's anti-evolution theory WITH credible sources and have him fail to back his own argument up. So far, I have not seen this. Using your logic, you do not understand evolution 100 percent, which means you can not possibly disprove it. This is a flawed assumption and we should all avoid this ideology.
I totally see your point it is a good one and I do agree that he probably has researched all of the arguments brought up here.
Lastly, evolution and the creation of the universe are two completely different things. Even if we knew that God created the universe, it would not disprove evolution. If God created the universe, it is clear that evolution STILL happens.God has always existed before concepts of time came into existence. Replace God with matter and you come up with the same idea.
Simply put, just because we don't know for sure where matter comes from or how the universe is created does not mean God is automatically an answer. The reason creationism is not considered scientifically possible is because there must be evidence of God before we can suggest that God created the universe. When we are able to prove, without a doubt, that God exists, we will be able to consider creationism as a possibility.
As for evolution, it's a fact. People are evolving this day and if I'm not mistaken, many members have presenting links supporting this notion.
So, first of all I'm not saying that if evolutions is not true then only possible answer is ID I'm just saying it is one of the other semi-popular theories, and it is the one that I support.
Secondly, we need to establish what kind of evolution you are talking about. Are you talking about macro evolution (natural selection) or micro evolution. I do completely believe that Natural selection is a proven fact, the strong survive and the weak die. What I do not agree with is micro evolution, it is not proven that one the genetic structure of an animal can gradually become more complex! in fact the exact opposite is true, through time and selective breeding the genetic structures become much less complex. like poodles, they are the result of genetic breeding and simplification, we have come up with a degenerate mutant that can not survive on its own without human health.
Are you talking about macro evolution (natural selection) or micro evolution.
Poodles, they exist due to selective breeding. They would not exist if it was not for humans. However, if you look at species such as wolves and other breeds of canine, you will find that they do not need humans to survive. The thing is, even with evolution, it is possible for a species to go extinct due to failure to adapt and to evolve fast enough.
I could be wrong, but there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. I suppose the confusion is how a species changes. We know animals have different number of chromosomes and therefore they can not breed. So how does a creature evolve into monkeys and humans with different numbers of chromosomes? Is this what confuses you?
