The Origin of Life on Earth According to the Theory of Evolution

[OTHstrong]

"But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present."

present some evidence against evolution

Evolution has yet to be proven, you have to present evidence not us present evidence that it isn't true.

Present evidence that I can't bench 500 pounds, how about that

[tonymctones]

It isn't my field so I will not go in depth about dating, but I do know that scientist don't consider them 100% accurate, hence they wouldn't be accepted in a court of law,

Noah did not take the dinos in the ark because, man this is a long answere, only if you isist.
 The earth cannot be old for reasons I stated above. One being that the earth is slowing down by a few seconds every 10 years witch means it used to be faster, over the course of  10 000 years it would only be faster by 1 hour or so, if you do the math over 100 000 years the earth would've been a wreck, The sun losses weight every day how much weight would you have to put on the sun for are temp. to be higher. If thats sun has been burning up for 4 billion years it would have easily have been exponentially bigger, our earth would have been way to hot to sustain life

why would they ever need to be accepted in a court of law? how do you know they arent accepted in a court of law?
what does man is the long answer mean?
Did you know that the human body is set to a 25 hour day more so than a 24 hour day?
You are assuming that the earth slowed down at a consistent pace for all these years as well as the sun dying out at the same pace for all these years...life is supposedly 3.5 billion years old not 4.5, 4.5 is the estimated age of the earth.

Plz give me the people/sources responsible for your beliefs.

[tonymctones]

Evolution has yet to be proven, you have to present evidence not us present evidence that it isn't true.

Present evidence that I can't bench 500 pounds, how about that

please present evidence that things are as you say then?

[OTHstrong]

please present evidence that things are as you say then?

Man this is the way some people see it. The reason you are surprised is because evolution has been unopposed for so long but now their are people out their pointing their flaws, people like Ben Stein for example who is definately qualified to do so. Everything I said is possible, name one thing that I said about the earth being young that you think ios stupid, you think its stupid to think that a creature like a dinosaur live here with man, why is that stupid, why

[Necrosis]

It isn't my field so I will not go in depth about dating, but I do know that scientist don't consider them 100% accurate, hence they wouldn't be accepted in a court of law,

Noah did not take the dinos in the ark because, man this is a long answere, only if you isist.
 The earth cannot be old for reasons I stated above. One being that the earth is slowing down by a few seconds every 10 years witch means it used to be faster, over the course of  10 000 years it would only be faster by 1 hour or so, if you do the math over 100 000 years the earth would've been a wreck, The sun losses weight every day how much weight would you have to put on the sun for are temp. to be higher. If thats sun has been burning up for 4 billion years it would have easily have been exponentially bigger, our earth would have been way to hot to sustain life

"It isn't my field so I will not go in depth about dating, but I do know that scientist don't consider them 100% accurate, hence they wouldn't be accepted in a court of law"

where are you getting this non sense to? of course it would be accepted in a court of law, 100s of researchers could date a rock and if all the methods and calculations point to the same age, then its obvious that its correct. Consider the fact that every isotope has a set decay rate that has always been the same and a equally accurate half life, both based on observation and theoretics then you have a sealed deal.
, only if you isist.
"Noah did not take the dinos in the ark because, man this is a long answere
 The earth cannot be old for reasons I stated above. One being that the earth is slowing down by a few seconds every 10 years witch means it used to be faster, over the course of  10 000 years it would only be faster by 1 hour or so, if you do the math over 100 000 years the earth would've been a wreck, The sun losses weight every day how much weight would you have to put on the sun for are temp. to be higher. If thats sun has been burning up for 4 billion years it would have easily have been exponentially bigger, our earth would have been way to hot to sustain life"

man not this shit again. What website did you get this off, please quote what is not yours. Do i really need to point out the pre teen logic evoked here? Do you seriously beleive what you are saying? I cant fathom how you could question a fact supported by almost every independent scientist on this planet yet use this hogwash. Do you think anyone is trying to hide the truth, must be some massive conspiracy. You realize that all this info is public and anyone wishing to discredit this information can do so and would be rewarded handily.

ever hear of the doppler effect, redshift? well this disproves your young universe notion, and does so handily, unless we have the electromagnetic spectrum wrong, but wait every single person verifys the same thing. Another massive conspiracy.

i have quite and interest in cosmology so any insights you can give me would be appreciated.

[Necrosis]

Man this is the way some people see it. The reason you are surprised is because evolution has been unopposed for so long but now their are people out their pointing their flaws, people like Ben Stein for example who is definately qualified to do so. Everything I said is possible, name one thing that I said about the earth being young that you think ios stupid, you think its stupid to think that a creature like a dinosaur live here with man, why is that stupid, why

Ben stein is not qualified LMAO. does he have a PHD in biology, genomics, zoology? you are one funny dude. creationism lost in a court of law lmao.......

[tonymctones]

Man this is the way some people see it. The reason you are surprised is because evolution has been unopposed for so long but now their are people out their pointing their flaws, people like Ben Stein for example who is definately qualified to do so. Everything I said is possible, name one thing that I said about the earth being young that you think ios stupid, you think its stupid to think that a creature like a dinosaur live here with man, why is that stupid, why

LOL there are many aspects of evolution that i dont exactly agree with and ppl have been opposing evolution since its conception. what degree does ben stein hold or what point of authority does he hold that qualifies him to give advice or new evidence on evolution? Well dating methods the very same dating methods used in many other fields and accepted in many other fields show the earth being much older. Again like you said its not your place to prove evolution wrong its ours to prove it right, the same for you . Prove your stance right, dinosaurs lived with humans prove it, the earth is younger than thought, prove it. Man and every animal every created were created as they were now, prove it.

[OTHstrong]

If you can't accept other peoples believes why bother asking, I don't stand alone in what I believe and since I don't have a Phd then I am automatically wrong... A kinder garden kid would understand the under different types of presure decaying can be speed up or slowed down this is common sense you don't need a degree to figure this out and since we don't know what type of natural disasters have occured then we can't really know the age of a remain. Evolution is not real if this bothers you then find a way to prove it, maybe I can't [prove everything i say but neither can you so all we have at the end is faith.

[tonymctones]

If you can't accept other peoples believes why bother asking, I don't stand alone in what I believe and since I don't have a Phd then I am automatically wrong... A kinder garden kid would understand the under different types of presure decaying can be speed up or slowed down this is common sense you don't need a degree to figure this out and since we don't know what type of natural disasters have occured then we can't really know the age of a remain. Evolution is not real if this bothers you then find a way to prove it, maybe I can't [prove everything i say but neither can you so all we have at the end is faith.

I never said you are wrong b/c you dont have a phd, you said ben stein is qualified, so i would like to know his qualifications.

you cant prove anything you say...every scientific finding related to biology has lended itself to evolution. what you do is pick and choose at certain aspects of evolution and claim it to be false. Why is it that the vast vast majority of the scientific community agree with dating methods and their accuracy? I thought it wasnt your field, but a kindergardener can understand it but you cant explain it? so pls explain in detail why dating methods are false. So what your saying is that all the dating methods are wrong do to enviromental disasters...every single one that says a fossil or the earth is older than say 10000 years old? I could understand a small percentage but all of them really? Again you cant prove anything you say, again scientific findings point to evolution as being real.

[Necrosis]

If you can't accept other peoples believes why bother asking, I don't stand alone in what I believe and since I don't have a Phd then I am automatically wrong... A kinder garden kid would understand the under different types of presure decaying can be speed up or slowed down this is common sense you don't need a degree to figure this out and since we don't know what type of natural disasters have occured then we can't really know the age of a remain. Evolution is not real if this bothers you then find a way to prove it, maybe I can't [prove everything i say but neither can you so all we have at the end is faith.

ive already corrected you, pressure has no bearing on half life.

no one has to accept anyones beleif without proof, so far you have provided none and your objections are infantile, obviously pointing to the fact that you know nothing of evolution. explain some of the issues with genomics, the correlation of the genome and the nested hierarchies we use to catagorize species. do you have any insight.

ben stein has no qualification and knows nothing of evolution in the slightest, he has not studied it nor has he been involved in any of the previous or past findings.

[OTHstrong]

ive already corrected you, pressure has no bearing on half life.

no one has to accept anyones beleif without proof, so far you have provided none and your objections are infantile, obviously pointing to the fact that you know nothing of evolution. explain some of the issues with genomics, the correlation of the genome and the nested hierarchies we use to catagorize species. do you have any insight.

ben stein has no qualification and knows nothing of evolution in the slightest, he has not studied it nor has he been involved in any of the previous or past findings.

ive already corrected you, pressure has no bearing on half life.

no one has to accept anyones beleif without proof, so far you have provided none and your objections are infantile, obviously pointing to the fact that you know nothing of evolution. explain some of the issues with genomics, the correlation of the genome and the nested hierarchies we use to catagorize species. do you have any insight.

ben stein has no qualification and knows nothing of evolution in the slightest, he has not studied it nor has he been involved in any of the previous or past findings.

You win

[Hustle Man]

"But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present."

present some evidence against evolution

Well I think you skipped a very important part in this puzzle as in how it all works together before your theory takes place.

To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, our planet would have to pass through a number of stages correct?
The atmophere needs to be a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.
There needs to be a means of constructing the building blocks of life, e.g. simple molecules.
The simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules, i.e. (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.)
A biological system such as energy conversion must be in place.
And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.

So to explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means you must have a reasonable explanation for each of these stages. Do you?

My daughter (the wiz kid) chimed in and told me to ask you this:
Consider the ozone layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. She says without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. She also said but if you have oxygen, it will prevent life from starting. Simply put, an atmosphere with oxygen means no amino acids which means no life possible! Atmosphere without oxygen means no ozone layer which means no life possible!" She says now explain how life evolved with this scenario?

Is this true, I don't know I am just dad?

HM

Tried to keep this short.

[OTHstrong]

He isn't going to listen to you Hustle Man because he only listens to people with a PHD. Anyone that studies evolution will freely admit that there is no explanation for certain evolutionary processess, but he just doesn't get it. He thinks that the half life of a remain decays at the same rate no what kind of presure its under. Tell me then Mr. smokepole does the half life decay at the same rate frozen under ice?

[buffdnet]

please re read the definition as you clearly do not understand it.

and I contend you only read enough of the definition to dispute me
and display some of your status quo.

[Deicide]

If modern scientific dating methods were flawed, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have never happened; put it that way. If you don't get what I am implying...then...oh well...

[Hustle Man]

I see Diecide and the Pole-smoker only want to cause hate and discontent on the religious board.

I say ignore these infidels! Let them deal with God in their own time, which is coming soon! Surely they will be the ones asking for a drop of water from our finger tips to cool their tongues!

So let it be written, so let it be done!

HM

[OTHstrong]

I see Diecide and the Pole-smoker only want to cause hate and discontent or the religious boards.

I say ignore these infidels! Let them deal with God in their own time, which is coming soon! Surely they will be the ones asking for a drop of water from our finger tips to cool their tongues!

So let it be written, so let it be done!

HM

Ya I know its hard to take these 2 guys serious because if its not name calling then its sarcasm, I don't mind MCtones. i think he is actually looking into things. I was looking through at least a dozen websites that talk abpout dating methods being completely inaccurate and they even referenced 100's of people with PHd that believe this, so its obviously a valid argument. I just read an article about dinosaur bone being carbon dated without knowing they were dinosaur bones, and the ages vary between 14000 - 40000, then they will say it doesn't apply because they can only date back til 70k years. see they attached thier own rules to things. Another article I read from only 2005 in china showing how they found a small baby dino. in the stomach of a mammal. But I thought mammals and Dinos didn't live together. Another in the National geographic saying that a freshly killed seal carbon dated to be 20 000 years old, so long for their dating methods.

[buffdnet]

I see Diecide and the Pole-smoker only want to cause hate and discontent on the religious board.

I believe
the hate and discontent is proof of God is working within them.
have faith the mods will censor as needed, otherwise let God do his thing

and thanks goes to the person who pmed me. how right you are
God bless

[Necrosis]

what sarcasm or name calling? i merely stated that you where ignorant with respect to science and truth. you then claimed an axiom was faith, which is the farthest thing from and axiom. it is external truth, not your beleifs, something that is taken as truth such as reality exists. arguments are based on them, faith is not one.

HM, you called me polesmoker? lol, then precedded to drivle off some non sense about what would have had to happen. You guys cant even discuss the facts you distort and use fallacy after fallacy, clearly intelligence and beleif correlate, oh wait they do.

ONEtime, post the links to your articles, hope they are peer reviewed. if you want to be a grown up then present your evidence, otherwise you guys are wasting my time has nothing i have said has sunk in.

also may i point out the fact that you have not offered a single bit of evidence for your beleifs, how hypocritical.



 

[Hustle Man]

HM, you called me polesmoker? lol, then precedded to drivle off some non sense about what would have had to happen. You guys cant even discuss the facts you distort and use fallacy after fallacy, clearly intelligence and beleif correlate, oh wait they do.

also may i point out the fact that you have not offered a single bit of evidence for your beleifs, how hypocritical.

That's right I called you "polesmoker" not very nice is it. Is what I drivled off untrue or unreasonable? I distorted nothing I merely asked a question that you chose to avoid answering.

One more thing I am a different kind of Christian, I am a present day "Simon Peter" I don't take crap from anyone especially those that speak against my Lord; I will fire back! You and your boy Diecide need to be careful how you talk to my people, show them respect and I will return the favor.

Now, pay attention! The question that was asked of me by your partner in crime (Diecide) I answered to the best of my ability with some help. If my daughter and I were incorrect then show us otherwise, if not then accept it!

HM (Christian Soldier)

[OTHstrong]

what sarcasm or name calling? i merely stated that you where ignorant with respect to science and truth. you then claimed an axiom was faith, which is the farthest thing from and axiom. it is external truth, not your beleifs, something that is taken as truth such as reality exists. arguments are based on them, faith is not one.

HM, you called me polesmoker? lol, then precedded to drivle off some non sense about what would have had to happen. You guys cant even discuss the facts you distort and use fallacy after fallacy, clearly intelligence and beleif correlate, oh wait they do.

ONEtime, post the links to your articles, hope they are peer reviewed. if you want to be a grown up then present your evidence, otherwise you guys are wasting my time has nothing i have said has sunk in.

also may i point out the fact that you have not offered a single bit of evidence for your beleifs, how hypocritical.



 

First of all you did mock and you said "lmao" and you think we are funny, how is that for debating intellegently. Do you actually think for one second I would be stupid enough to make something like this (the articles I read) up. I'm through with handing you type of guys information on a silver platter. Google it yourself, "flawed dating methods" you will see for yourself that there are lots of websites and people who have PHd backing me up on flawed dating methods. This isn't new, its old news but maybe your to stuborn to realize that they been challanged effectively. Personally I don't care if you believe in evolution, but to me its like believing in santa clause.

BTW without dateing methods your evolution fantasy falls apart... Here is a challange, come up with some sort of evidance without using any dates that will help evolution, it can't be done because the whole foundation of evolution is based on false dating methods.

[tonymctones]

Do you actually think for one second I would be stupid enough to make something like this (the articles I read) up. I'm through with handing you type of guys information on a silver platter. Google it yourself, "flawed dating methods" you will see for yourself that there are lots of websites and people who have PHd backing me up on flawed dating methods. This isn't new, its old news but maybe your to stuborn to realize that they been challanged effectively. Personally I don't care if you believe in evolution, but to me its like believing in santa clause.

BTW without dateing methods your evolution fantasy falls apart... Here is a challange, come up with some sort of evidance without using any dates that will help evolution, it can't be done because the whole foundation of evolution is based on false dating methods.

you havent provided any references as of yet plz give me name. You can find somebody to argue any point that doesnt make it right. Please post a link for me i have researched a tad bit of some of your stuff and again it seems like your picking and choosing certain things not taking into account the entire idea so please give me a link that shows me what you feel is correct.

Again do you feel that every single finding that is over say 10,000 years old is false? Like i said there will always be a few that are off as with anything but that doesnt mean you can discount all of them.

[OTHstrong]

you havent provided any references as of yet plz give me name. You can find somebody to argue any point that doesnt make it right. Please post a link for me i have researched a tad bit of some of your stuff and again it seems like your picking and choosing certain things not taking into account the entire idea so please give me a link that shows me what you feel is correct.

Again do you feel that every single finding that is over say 10,000 years old is false? Like i said there will always be a few that are off as with anything but that doesnt mean you can discount all of them.

I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to say. So let me try this for the last time. If you take the process of aging of a bone over the course of 50 000 years under an environment with absolutely no preasure, minimum winds no sunlight and no water, when you  carbon date it, for example, it will show 50 000 years correct, OK we are on the same page so far. Now take that exact same bone and put it under the most extreme conditions on this planet, we are talking the worst of the worst, obvisouly it will age a thousand time quicker, this is common sense. All I am saying is something can read 10 000 after only 500 years under the roughest conditions. We thought petrification takes thousands of years until someone found a petrified cowboy boot that said made in the USA. You want sources, are you lazy? look it up yourself, tons of information on the subject that methods of dating are not reliable.

[tonymctones]

I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to say. So let me try this for the last time. If you take the process of aging of a bone over the course of 50 000 years under an environment with absolutely no preasure, minimum winds no sunlight and no water, when you  carbon date it, for example, it will show 50 000 years correct, OK we are on the same page so far. Now take that exact same bone and put it under the most extreme conditions on this planet, we are talking the worst of the worst, obvisouly it will age a thousand time quicker, this is common sense. All I am saying is something can read 10 000 after only 500 years under the roughest conditions. We thought petrification takes thousands of years until someone found a petrified cowboy boot that said made in the USA. You want sources, are you lazy? look it up yourself, tons of information on the subject that methods of dating are not reliable.

come on onetime you just said you were looking at references, so please list them here for us whats the harm? I dont see how your point i could see if you were saying extreme conditions might make it seem younger but not older so plz post a link.

[OTHstrong]

come on onetime you just said you were looking at references, so please list them here for us whats the harm? I dont see how your point i could see if you were saying extreme conditions might make it seem younger but not older so plz post a link.

I will Pm you tomarrow with a few websites so you can check thier opinions out OK.