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.
I am sorry that I cant remember its name this is research that I did a couple of years ago, but my point was that evolution can not explain many animal species that ID can explain, in fact ID can explain them all so why don't you at leased see it as a possible explanation for the start of the universe/planet/humans.
But I was able to offer a plausible hypothesis on how this species could have evolved.
We even duplicated and observed another species evolve a similar trait by introducing it to similar environmental conditions in laboratory conditions.
Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients.
So not only do we have an example of evolution we have an example of observed evolution.
I am sorry that I cant remember its name this is research that I did a couple of years ago, but my point was that evolution can not explain many animal species that ID can explain, in fact ID can explain them all so why don't you at leased see it as a possible explanation for the start of the universe/planet/humans.
If science was a matter of taking whatever answers our questions as fact, then you would be right. However, just because your ID theory would answer everything in one blow does not mean it is accurate.
When you are cut, you understand how your wound is healed. You understand that blood clots and cells multiply to fill in your wound. There was a point in time when mankind did not understand why our wounds would heal themselves. The easiest conclusion is to say that God does it with his own miracles. However, we have discovered that our bodies are capable of healing themselves.
My point is that you can not simply accept an answer that would fill in all gaps if there's nothing to support your idea.
I would vary much like the you to educate me on these other types of Radio Isotope dating, other than carbon-14.
But first I do not believe any of you understood my point on C14, my hole point was that many of the fossils that are dated with other dating methods other than c14 and were found to be millions of years old also were found to have C14 contained in them. If they did find the C14 then that would contradict the other dating method, however I am unable to full present this information as I do not fully understand the other dating technics.
to NoNameC68,
To go along with your metaphor, it is, in an essence, a still a miracle today that our wounds heal, it was a gift from God in the first place that he created in us the ability for them to heal! this is like if God were to give you a cotton candy machine that was able to produce cotton candy out of elements in the air, when you first received it you were overjoyed constantly because it was a "miracle" that it just seemed to whip out the cotton candy and you did not understand how! but after a time you figured out that it was using the air to produce it, so you said that it was YOUR cotton candy machine and because you understood it it was no longer a miracle that God gave it to as a blessing. do you see the error in your thinking in that line of reasoning?
to Magagraywolf,
But I was able to offer a plausible hypothesis on how this species could have evolved.
How does creation..excuse me ID, offer an explanation for the nylonase? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
We even duplicated and observed another species evolve a similar trait by introducing it to similar environmental conditions in laboratory conditions.
Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients.
So not only do we have an example of evolution we have an example of observed evolution.
I need you to see that this trait that they developed to sustain themselves off of new thing was Macro evolution which I believe, as I said before, is a proven fact. This adaptation however does not give proof for evolution in its entirety, because if you were to do this over and over again with the new things and lots of time the creator would not grow more complex, it would simply adapt. If anything this supports an Intelligent Designer because of the creatures remarkable resilience and ability to adapt to new environment!
I hope that this can explain somethings but I do NOT have all the answers, I can simply do what I am able to.
I need you to see that this trait that they developed to sustain themselves off of new thing was Macro evolution which I believe, as I said before, is a proven fact.
macroevolution is just microevolution happening for a very long time. That's it. For the love of God buy a science book. I can recommend a phenomenal AP Biology book that I used to have. You can even buy it online: McGraw-Hill Educational Materials
To go along with your metaphor, it is, in an essence, a still a miracle today that our wounds heal, it was a gift from God in the first place that he created in us the ability for them to heal
lies no our body heals using it's own natural processes no god needed foo'
To go along with your metaphor, it is, in an essence, a still a miracle today that our wounds heal, it was a gift from God in the first place that he created in us the ability for them to heal! this is like if God were to give you a cotton candy machine that was able to produce cotton candy out of elements in the air, when you first received it you were overjoyed constantly because it was a "miracle" that it just seemed to whip out the cotton candy and you did not understand how! but after a time you figured out that it was using the air to produce it, so you said that it was YOUR cotton candy machine and because you understood it it was no longer a miracle that God gave it to as a blessing. do you see the error in your thinking in that line of reasoning?
Not at all. That only proves that we are on the same page.
Lack of evidence is not evidence in God. The missing holes in evolution does not prove intelligent design.
Understand, when I say missing holes, I mean holes that are being filled with scientific data every day.
Let me also add that I don't care if you use God to fill in what you do not know, but do not put down what is proven in the name of God. If you said God was behind evolution, then I wouldn't argue with you. However, I debate because evolution as a whole does exist.
Your comments are not helping in the progression of the debate. Please don't comment unless you have something that can actually used in the progression of the debate.
Your comments are not helping in the progression of the debate. Please don't comment unless you have something that can actually used in the progression of the debate.
yes they are stop not accepting facts and you seem to actually ignore other comments that prove you wrong EVEN more...i wonder why
Dude, evolution has pretty much been proven. I don't know what your beef is with it, but it annoys everyone!
Evolution is not a fact it is a theory and the fact that I have "beef" with it is because I do not believe that any of the facts that supposedly "rove" evolution are scientifically inaccurate.
I need you to see that this trait that they developed to sustain themselves off of new thing was Macro evolution which I believe, as I said before, is a proven fact.
You do realize even other ID advocate actually say the exact opposite. So I can only assume you've once again pulled the idea that only macro evolution happens out of your own @$$.
Your comments are not helping in the progression of the debate. Please don't comment unless you have something that can actually used in the progression of the debate.
as he said macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time. which I have already pointed out to you just stating it in reverse.
Your comments are not helping in the progression of the debate.
I've become painfully aware of that. You see, the reason they aren't helping is that they are educational and factually correct and they contradict your fundamentally wrong opinion of the world. You do not want to understand facts, you just want to argue with them because they negate your dogma. Well I hate to break it to you but facts are facts. By their nature you can't argue with them because they are not debatable points. They are truths. Any debate against a truth would be a falsehood.
Your comments are not helping in the progression of the debate. Please don't comment unless you have something that can actually used in the progression of the debate.
also everyones links are just proving you wrong and you just dismiss them as useless
No, it's both. You see, in science, a theory is a set of facts and laws which accurately explain a particular situation. A scientific theory IS a fact. And you know what Intelligent Design / Creationism is? It's what we, in the scientific community, call a null hypothesis.
