Just Because You "prove" Evolution Wrong Does Not Mean That Creationism...

» Home » Science

Just Because You "prove" Evolution Wrong Does Not Mean That Creationism Is Right.

Don't get me wrong... I'm an evolutionist. I don't think it is possible, at this point in time and scientific knowledge, to disprove evolution. What I'm getting at is this: Creationists try to prove creation by disproving evolution. I don't believe it works that way, because it is not one-or-another. Weird as it seems, there are other theories on how life came to be. Disproving one, in no-way-shape-or-form, proves another. At least that is my thought on it.

minimac

15 Apr 2009 16:41

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

That is a very good point.

Cemetary

19 Nov 2009 18:05

Add a Comment

You are right but it is up to what people think to decide what they think it is right or wrong eventually we will all find out who is right and who is wrong

shipp

20 Apr 2009 19:30

Add a Comment

The method of proving one theory by disproving another makes no sense anyway. No matter how many scientific theories you disprove, that will never count as evidence for your own (not that creationism/Intelligent Design counts as a scientific theory anyhow).

Hizashi

15 Apr 2009 23:35

1 Comment

That is exactly what I mean!

minimac

15 Apr 2009 23:46

Comment

That's a reasonable logical point. Blowing evolution out of the water does not in any way prove that some magical being created everything.

Grenache

15 Apr 2009 21:56

Add a Comment

That is absolutely true, even though, as you say, the creationists haven't done a darn thing to "prove" evolution wrong. What they propose is a false dichotomy, that there are only two alternatives and if one is wrong, the other has to be right. Unfortunately for them, that's a logical fallacy and the correctness or incorrectness of any idea has no bearing whatsoever on the correctness of incorrectness of any other. If they want creationism or Intelligent Design to be seen as valid ideas, they need to back them up.

They have done absolutely nothing, nor do they even make an attempt to do so.

Cephus

15 Apr 2009 18:36

14 Comments

I never thought I would see the day. Where mutation, reproduction, growing, and adaptation would all be forms of evolution. There are way too many versions of evolution and definitions. Granted there are many types of religious beliefs and I know more there than I do evolution.

I can love science to a degree, it forfeits information, not history. That's what makes it hard to find evolution so profitable. Based on the information we can only theorize that evolution is back then as result of steps now. We should not say that evolution back then is why we are now. Because we then are working backwards - and that is not allowed in science. Because you have to have trial and error. Or studying the with constants and variables (on the shorthand definition)

It is dangerous to say things back then are a fact and that is why the world exists today. Since we cannot test variables from that time.

If I say that about science. That has nothing to do with religion.

But for everyone, we can all agree that both science and religion has had their ups and downs. Am I right?

Science does many things for people. And some science is crazy, like people having a product on the shelf and recalling it due to health issues. It happens.

Or religion offering morals that a common identity agrees on, offering a healthy social community. That happened and gave us the U.S. constitution. But hey, I know people are readily going to criticize religion and is aware of the crusades.

gottfried

15 Apr 2009 20:57

Comment

I can love science to a degree, it forfeits information, not history. That's what makes it hard to find evolution so profitable. Based on the information we can only theorize that evolution is back then as result of steps now. We should not say that evolution back then is why we are now. Because we then are working backwards - and that is not allowed in science. Because you have to have trial and error. Or studying the with constants and variables (on the shorthand definition)

It is dangerous to say things back then are a fact and that is why the world exists today. Since we cannot test variables from that time.

If I say that about science. That has nothing to do with religion.

But for everyone, we can all agree that both science and religion has had their ups and downs. Am I right?

Science does many things for people. And some science is crazy, like people having a product on the shelf and recalling it due to health issues. It happens.

Or religion offering morals that a common identity agrees on, offering a healthy social community. That happened and gave us the U.S. constitution. But hey, I know people are readily going to criticize religion and is aware of the crusades.

Comment

It is dangerous to say things back then are a fact and that is why the world exists today. Since we cannot test variables from that time.

If I say that about science. That has nothing to do with religion.

But for everyone, we can all agree that both science and religion has had their ups and downs. Am I right?

Science does many things for people. And some science is crazy, like people having a product on the shelf and recalling it due to health issues. It happens.

Comment

Gottfried, there aren’t different versions of evolution. There’s only one. Mutations are a form of adaptation which constitutes as a mechanism of evolution. Reproduction and growth are biological processes in general. They’re not just significant in evolutionary theory. Here’s the thing. When scientific theories run into one another, or appear to blend, that’s not a bad thing. It means the theories are capable of coping and helping explain the phenomena of the others. Another thing is, science can work backwards. It does so all the time. Where you got the idea that it can’t I have no clue. Just because something occurred in the past doesn’t mean science can’t figure it out. Evolution is present throughout the fossil record for example. That shows that evolution has occurred for millions of years. Science is not limited to the present. Multiple scientific theories deal with the past, some of which are of the most prominent and well supported scientific theories that exist (evolution and the Big Bang). The only thing you require to deal with a past event is a link to the past itself. The fossil record is evolution’s link. You’re not too familiar with science in general. That’s kind of obvious. Whether it’s because you’ve read sites which contain bad science or simply haven’t been introduced to it much, the scientific realm doesn’t seem like your cup of tea. Like I said already on another post of mine to you, I think of you as having more common sense than most religious people who don’t know jack about science because, unlike them, you’re willing to learn things you don’t already know and are open to explanations.

Comment

The E=MCsquared deal would make sense for the big bang if it was an expansion of energy.

the likelihood of the first created protoplasm (or whatever) being created is rare, especially being piled on top of sustaining itself, especially when given the need to reproduce (hypothetically- unless other plasms were created along with it)

And that is difficult because it is hard enough to get that one plasm. 
Sigh. i really am trying to wrap my mind on evolution. I did try and give it a chance. We may define things differently. And I would not rest on things such as mutation and call that evolution. i argued with my teacher that it was adaptation. Oh well.

And wasn't the universe expanding still? Because things we measured seemed to be growing farther and farther away? Therefore more energy and more matter?

Would the sun which is slowly running out of energy be aiding the expansion and more energy of the universe? This would make sense in a practical idea since the sun supports life here on earth. But I wouldn't count on it since I don't know that answer.

To break a theory, you must break the premise on which the conclusion is set. Even for religion. Even for Science. And you were right. They are their own category. But they collide somewhere on details.

Comment

“the likelihood of the first created protoplasm (or whatever) being created is rare, especially being piled on top of sustaining itself, especially when given the need to reproduce (hypothetically- unless other plasms were created along with it)”

Are you talking about the first self-replicating organic substance? What you’re referring to when you mention the likelihood of life forming is called the “calculation of odds” argument. It’s also been used by creationists many times before. There’s a few things that the calculation of odds argument ignores though. The most important thing the argument ignores is that biochemistry is not random. When using the calculation of odds argument assumes that proteins, amino acids, and other substances act upon one another in random ways. This isn’t true. If you have a particular type of protein and you allow it to interact with another particular type of protein, the result will always be the same so long as the types of proteins remains the same. They won’t interact in random ways each time unless something is added or taken away. Another major thing the calculation of odds argument ignores is that there would have been innumerable occurrences of innumerable different type of substances would have all been taking place at once. It’s not like just one amino acid would be acting upon another one and that’d be all there is on Earth at that given time. There’d would have been an uncountable amount of proteins and amino acids acting upon one another all at once all the time. The calculation of odds is pretty much useless as an argument against the formation of life. Although, the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution anyway. I think I’ve already told you that before.

“Sigh. i really am trying to wrap my mind on evolution. I did try and give it a chance. We may define things differently. And I would not rest on things such as mutation and call that evolution. i argued with my teacher that it was adaptation. Oh well.”

I try to explain evolution as good as I can to those who ask. Mutations can be a result of evolution. This isn’t to say all mutations are though. Evolution is basically adaptation if you want to put it bluntly. Mutations however might not always be adaptations, since they’re not always caused by evolution.

“And wasn't the universe expanding still? Because things we measured seemed to be growing farther and farther away? Therefore more energy and more matter?”

The universe is expanding now at an increasing rate. At first, scientists actually hypothesized that it would be contracting due to the attractive force of gravity pulling everything together. But that hypothesis turned out to be wrong after they measured far away objects and saw that they were moving further away from us. This doesn’t mean there’s more matter or energy than before though, just that more space is becoming existent between it all.

“Would the sun which is slowly running out of energy be aiding the expansion and more energy of the universe? This would make sense in a practical idea since the sun supports life here on earth. But I wouldn't count on it since I don't know that answer.”

The deterioration of the Sun wouldn’t effect the expansion of the universe. To the universe, our Sun is almost insignificant. It'd be like one ant to New York City. The expansion of the universe is thought to be driven by Dark Energy (a form of negative energy that acts like an anti-gravitational force that expands space). Unlike gravity that gets stronger the more mass is added, Dark Energy appears to get stronger the more space there is between things.

Comment

A great way to debate against evolutionism is to use philosophy. Or modern philosophy which debuted in the 1400-1600's. But you can get many things from Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, etc.
Just because there are so many things that are all about 'rationalism' and 'logic' that can equate to our creation.

Another thing is, when you prove something in Evolution, you don't disprove the Bible. Which is equivalent to what you are saying. In some cases it does happen. The Bible may disagree with a Evolutionary timeline but these are two way different areas from each other. Hizashi even mentioned this.

Just because we prove Evolution wrong, (and since Evolution is mostly in a different subject than religion) it probably won't make sense that religion is opposite.

The main idea is that Evolutionism has no God, and Creationism does. And when Darwin failed by lack of fossil records and periodic evolution, and a complex micro world existed, his theory was crashed.

So evolutionists needed to change there stance. It wasn't based on forms changing species, but cells changing DNA.

And the church reacted badly at everything, not just evolution. The church has a rotten history. Some people say, "Oh when evolution came out, the church was afraid it would threaten their control over people."

The church didn't teach the doctrine the claimed to teach.
And the church was threatened every time someone claimed something outside the power of its dominion. (I mean the Roman Catholic Church- as the major body)

gottfried

15 Apr 2009 20:44

21 Comments

You are partially right... you cannot prove evolution right by proving the bible wrong. But evolution isn't about there being no god...

minimac

15 Apr 2009 21:05

Comment

Gottfried, Gottfried. You’ve got a lot to learn concerning evolution. I really wish you wouldn’t speak on the subject unless you were absolutely sure what you’re saying is correct, because I think of you as being smarter than most of the religious people on this site considering the fact that you're willing to learn about evolution instead of discrediting it. The first part of your post is okay I suppose. But the second part is all messed up. Firstly, the main idea behind evolution is not that it has no god. All science is religiously neutral. By just involving a god within the criteria of the theory, whether you’re saying it is for or against one, you’ve strayed away from what the theory is all about. The proper way to phrase it would be that evolution requires no god to operate, instead of implying that evolution rejects a god entirely. Secondly, Darwin didn’t fail at anything concerning evolution. Science also didn’t get rid of anything Darwin proposed about evolution either. The only thing that occurred is that evidence was added to the mix. Almost everything Darwin postulated is still regarded within evolutionary theory. The theory has just gathered a lot more evidence in its support since Darwin’s age (which is why it is no longer called “Darwinism” by any scientifically educated person).

Comment

No. I was saying that there is often no God in evolution. And I know many people have used evolution as there tool just to attack people who believed in God. (In spins both ways. So people who believe in God attack science just because they have to defend their belief.

And darwin had a good idea. It was unfortunately based on physical characteristics. This would be the Phenotype of a gene, right? I don't know about that. But it is irrelevant because Darwin didn't know about a micro world.

And lack of fossil records. there are more lame creatures than there are creatures that have a fossil record in between stages of two known forms. Its possible to get a frame or skeletal structure that has grown correctly.

Darwin was basing evolution merely off of environmentally visible features. Stuff I don't need a microscope. Just because evolution is filled with much more vocabulary doesn't mean that it has more credibility. And I am going to have to defend my beliefs. I don't see religion as possible. Mutations are often mess ups in cells. Ugh! I forgot who said it! He said that, "though evolution is always changing, that does not mean we always change for the better." Something along those lines. There are many issues with radio carbon dating and many other forms of dating isotopes etc. Even FBI uses daring techniques but slightly differently. And this I find questionable in the scientific field. I don't know if the earth is 4.5 Billion years. I can accept dinosaurs. But I doubt that they were that long ago. It's ok if your an actual evolutionist, and I expect you to correct me. Since it is good to differentiate between tomeone who doesn't want to believe in God using science for a cover vs someone with an actual interest. so since this is your forte, you can set me straight, by all means. but this is stuff I found out.

And a religious belief is the flood. Which is found in almost every religion. That is the religious idea of why fossils were on mountain tops. That is much different than accepting fossils to embed in rock that collided millions of years and carried fossils up into the mountains. Even the great trench that rounds the earth was considered to have a water cavity that burst open. Which is consistent with many flood possibilities.

Science doesn't have to be all objective or non religion related. but there are steps other than evolution.

The problem with my steps is, we can debate up and down all day on the validity of the dating, and that cellular changes are actually evolutionary. The meaning of evolution is defined to the smallest change nowadays. In philosophy, you can read one perception that all things undergo, to the next perception. That is a change yet not evolutionary. I will accept evolution as a term than results in one being into another being. After all its clearly distinguished in things like periodic evolution (a chicken hatches an egg and a lizard comes out) or things like pokemon (haha). I miss that phenomenon! back to the point... I would say, in a philosophical sense, time is change. The essence of time results in change. Destiny is a fulfilling and unraveling of your character. Mind you, I have grown fond of philosophy and means of logic. As long as it is logic, it counts. And i am pretty sure nothing I said was too rash. And philosophy is slightly different from religion. It is a humanity.

The main things that don't have me convinced in evolution:
*The time period is questionable. Just because it is widely accepted doesn't mean we have any record on it. Dating techniques are not as full proof as we hope.
*Lack of fossil records
*Fossils embedded in mountains
*A very vague fluid description of evolution (Evolution is change) 
this I found to be the most moderate definition. It doesn't mean it stands in the field of biology. Because many evolutionists seem to be more so archeologists that are interested in fossils.

The only question I had was maintained by the natural selection and how that was evolution that was affected by its environment during conception.

Another problem is that we are all conditioned by our environment. that causes us to think a certain way. Philosophically, you can think for yourself. And upon reflection, a feature that we can act upon, you can make your moves, and not be dictated by your environment.

It doesn't prove religion. Carbon dating has nothing to do with religion as well as other dating methods.

The flood might, as it is myth-like in religion.

Ever heard of the black moth and the white moth during the industrial era the U.S. underwent? And with the smoke and soot, and pollution. the Black moth blends in, therefor making the white moth vulnerable. That is natural selection. It is a way to make 'chance/random' sound better.

This is what I learned about evolutionism. ;-)
Gimme all you got!

Comment

I always give it all I’ve got.

“No. I was saying that there is often no God in evolution. And I know many people have used evolution as there tool just to attack people who believed in God. (In spins both ways. So people who believe in God attack science just because they have to defend their belief.”

I’ll agree with you on this one. I’ve seen it happen both ways before. Both ways are, in fact, wrong though, because evolution doesn’t concern a god no matter what way you look at it.

“And darwin had a good idea. It was unfortunately based on physical characteristics. This would be the Phenotype of a gene, right? I don't know about that. But it is irrelevant because Darwin didn't know about a micro world.”

I’m really not sure what you’re talking about on this one. Darwin’s ideas were unfortunately based on physical characteristics? What? I don’t know why the word “unfortunately” was in that sentence. It wasn’t unfortunate at all. True, Darwin’s knowledge of genetics wasn’t as keen as today’s scientists, but that’s the irrelevant part. Like I said before, the reason evolutionary theory isn’t referred to as “Darwinism” any longer by educated people is because the theory doesn’t solely rest on Darwin’s ideas alone anymore. Darwin didn’t invent every mechanism of evolution and gather every bit of evidence for it, but this doesn’t mean he failed at anything. He actually succeeded in forming one of the most well supported and factually based theories in all of science. He’s the father of evolutionary theory. Sure, others also helped make evolutionary theory what it is today, but how that means Darwin failed at something is beyond me.

“And lack of fossil records. there are more lame creatures than there are creatures that have a fossil record in between stages of two known forms. Its possible to get a frame or skeletal structure that has grown correctly.”

This is a typical creationist argument. I’m guessing you picked it up somewhere online. What you’re referring to are transitional fossils (which are fossils that show a change from one organism to another). There are many gaps throughout the fossil record. No one argues against that. The thing is, fossilization isn’t exactly what one would call common. Not all organisms become fossilized. Also, you have to consider the fact that there probably exists billions of fossils we have yet to find. Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that transitional fossils are being found every day. The number of known transitions has multiplied numerous times over the years. First the creationists claimed there was no such thing as a transitional fossil. Once they found out there was, they claimed there wasn’t a lot of transitional fossils. Once they found out there were, they claimed there wasn’t enough transitional fossils in existence to support evolutionary theory. The problem is, no creationist has ever specified what “enough” actually means. Furthermore, evolution doesn’t require millions of transitional fossils in its support. It only takes one transitional fossil to show that evolution’s prediction of common ancestry has occurred at least once. The rest simply back up the prediction even more and show it has occurred many more times.

“Mutations are often mess ups in cells. Ugh! I forgot who said it! He said that, "though evolution is always changing, that does not mean we always change for the better." Something along those lines.”

Mutations aren’t always harmful. The quote you used was indeed correct though. Evolution is not always progressive. It’s possible for a complex organism to evolve to become less complex. It’d be kind of like a devolution, though that’s not the proper term to use really because it’s still just evolution.

“There are many issues with radio carbon dating and many other forms of dating isotopes etc.”

No. There are no issues with radiocarbon dating. There are limitations to any radiometric dating technique, but those limitations are well known and aren‘t considered to be a problem unless someone doesn‘t know them while using a dating method. Radiometric dating has been demonstrated to have  consistent results. The only way radiocarbon dating will give inaccurate results is when it’s used improperly.

“And this I find questionable in the scientific field. I don't know if the earth is 4.5 Billion years. I can accept dinosaurs. But I doubt that they were that long ago.”

Carbon-14 dating has a limitation of about 50,000 years. This means that it’s not accurate when trying to date something older than 50,000 years. Attempting to use radiocarbon dating to date something older than that age will result in bad measurements. However, there are other radiometric dating methods that can measure on time scales much larger than 50,000 years. For example, Potassium-Argon dating is capable of measuring rocks as old as 1.3 billion years. And other dating methods such as Uranium-Lead dating can go back even further. If you’d like me to explain how the dating methods work, I will.

Comment

“It's OK if your an actual evolutionist, and I expect you to correct me. Since it is good to differentiate between tomeone who doesn't want to believe in God using science for a cover vs someone with an actual interest. so since this is your forte, you can set me straight, by all means. but this is stuff I found out.”

I’m not an atheist if that’s what you’re thinking. When I talk about science, I stick strictly to the subject. I don’t stray over to ideas concerning whatever god or anything like that (unless someone else drags me there). I only use science when dealing with science. Nothing else.

“And a religious belief is the flood. Which is found in almost every religion. That is the religious idea of why fossils were on mountain tops.”

Well, from a scientific standpoint, there’s no evidence of any global flood within the past few thousand years or so. The creationists have no backing for that claim (keep in mind that when I refer to creationists I mean those people who take Genesis to be literal in every sense). Fossils wouldn’t be deposited the way we find them from a catastrophic occurrence like a flood. It just wouldn’t happen that way.

“That is much different than accepting fossils to embed in rock that collided millions of years and carried fossils up into the mountains.”

I agree. It’s a much different idea. But, like I said, there’s no evidence of a global flood happening. Plus, the fossils that have been found on mountaintops are normally those of marine life. Since mountains form by the uplift of land as two sides push against one another, that easily explains why marine fossils would appear on mountains. A few simple concepts of geology can solve that question, rather than having to rely on a global flood that possesses no evidence of its occurrence.

“Even the great trench that rounds the earth was considered to have a water cavity that burst open. Which is consistent with many flood possibilities.”

I’m not sure what you’re referring to on this one.

“Science doesn't have to be all objective or non religion related. but there are steps other than evolution.”

Sorry to say, but to be fair science does have to be all objective and non-religious. Religion is irrelevant to science completely. I mean entirely. Not even a little religion can be put into a scientific concept without contaminating it (that includes theistic or atheistic ideas). You are right on the second part though. There are alternatives to evolution in the scientific realm. It’s just that evolution seemingly has all the others beat. Pretty badly if you ask me.

“The problem with my steps is, we can debate up and down all day on the validity of the dating, and that cellular changes are actually evolutionary. The meaning of evolution is defined to the smallest change nowadays. In philosophy, you can read one perception that all things undergo, to the next perception….I would say, in a philosophical sense, time is change. The essence of time results in change. Destiny is a fulfilling and unraveling of your character. Mind you, I have grown fond of philosophy and means of logic. As long as it is logic, it counts. And i am pretty sure nothing I said was too rash. And philosophy is slightly different from religion. It is a humanity.”

Evolution, in a broad sense, can be defined simply as change. That’s true. Evolutionary theory, however, refers specifically to biological changes in the traits of a population of organisms over time. Basically put, evolutionary theory only concerns the change in genes of organism's population. It doesn’t directly concern the growth of the individual organism. It only directly addresses the change in that organism’s population.

“*The time period is questionable. Just because it is widely accepted doesn't mean we have any record on it. Dating techniques are not as full proof as we hope.”

Dating techniques are not perfect. No one claims they are. But they have been shown to be consistently accurate each time used, provided the user knows the limitations of the dating method. For all causes and purposes, radiometric dating methods are reliable in the hands of a knowledgeable person. I could go on to ask you how they’re unreliable. My guess is that you probably won’t be able to answer that question because you really don’t know and are only repeating what you’ve read/heard from another source. I’m not attacking you on this one. It just irks me when people lay out false truths for others to spread around.

“*Lack of fossil records”

There’s no lack of anything. Don’t make me start listing transitional fossils. I’ve actually provided a link to a small list before on my debate entitled “Transitional Fossils Do Exist Within The Fossil Record”.

“*Fossils embedded in mountains”

Well, you can believe that through tectonic activity the marine fossils weren’t deposited on the mountain yet rose with the land as it formed or you can believe that a global flood to which there’s no evidence for occurred and did so. I could explain why such a flood couldn’t have occurred if you’d like.

“*A very vague fluid description of evolution (Evolution is change)”

Evolutionary theory specifically refers to changes in a population of organism’s genes over time. The definition of evolution can be used in broader ways, but biological evolution refers specifically to the way I mentioned. Nothing vague about it.

Comment

“Another problem is that we are all conditioned by our environment. that causes us to think a certain way. Philosophically, you can think for yourself. And upon reflection, a feature that we can act upon, you can make your moves, and not be dictated by your environment.”

That’s not really a problem. It just means that people are capable of drastically influencing their environment now.

“Ever heard of the black moth and the white moth during the industrial era the U.S. underwent? And with the smoke and soot, and pollution. the Black moth blends in, therefor making the white moth vulnerable. That is natural selection. It is a way to make 'chance/random' sound better”

Evolution isn’t random per se. Genetic drift is random in a sense, but not natural selection. Think of it this way. All organisms try to survive, both as individuals and as a population. Natural selection is a method all organisms use to help them survive. It’s not an entity. It’s a biological mechanism of the organism, just like any other biological process organisms experience (mutations, digestion, reproduction, cell division, ect). Natural selection “chooses” to keep or get rid of certain traits just like how your digestive track “chooses” to get keep or get rid of certain products. Now, you wouldn’t try to sit there and argue with me about whether or not the biological process of digestion takes place would you? That’d be crazy right? Well, it sounds crazy to me, and others, when someone tries to do the same thing with evolution. The process of evolution is every bit as factual as any other biological process. Like the digestive process “choosing” what things to keep and get rid of, natural selection “chooses” which traits to keep and which to dispose of. Neither the digestive process nor evolution are perfect though. So either are capable of making mistakes. But both occur as biological processes to suit the survival of the organism and its species (the digestive track would suit the survival of the individual organisms while natural selection would suit the survival of the population of organisms). I hope that analogy helps you understand it better.

Comment

I did some studying on radiocarbon dating. I am pulling an all nighter. As you know, as anyone should in the scientific field, That tests are provided with constants and variables. And it has come to my conclusion that Carbon dating is one of the more reliable forms. Yet all dating has issues in the half lives. It is difficult to date rock and fossil with carbon dating and you would use Potassium.

Most of the earth's atmosphere is made up of 78%Nitrogen, and 21% Oxygen, .6% Carbon Dioxide, and the rest is.... junk.
there is Nitrogen14 that reacts to sunlight. (I think chemistry is so cool but requires a butt load of studying. Ugh...) Eventually these chemicals break down back into Carbon. At the rate of the break down, there is a on average 32% increase.

And Willard Libby proposed that if you created your own world, and sun, and spinning dimensions equal to our world, it would take 30,000 years for that earth to reach its equilibrium.

And this earth we live in has not reached its equilibrium or balanced maintained amount.

By the man who proposed this C14 dating technique, He killed it with his own propositions! I am still busy. I am looking for names of people. I have yet to look at Carl Swisher and then some.

Potassium and Uranium have similar issues so long as you have reacting formations. When uranium decomposes or returns to its normal state (since it decomposes slowly) it eventually returns to lead. Same as Nitrogen returning to carbon by the sunlight wearing off. So if you judge by Uranium, you can count something to be young. (where did I write that in my notes...) So you count the lead instead. Which is not a good idea because you are not taking into account that most rocks already have lead in them as a natural substance. Unless you are daring enough to say all lead came from Uranium. Wouldn't that kill life back then!?

Same problem with Salt Potassium because water drains away from most of the rocks making them look old and when you date them. since Potassium is greatly affected by water, it is genuinely going to give a different date. Something with more isotopes is still much more fresh and we should test living things, plants, and molten rock. But when things die, they lose isotopes, even in C14. and that already makes the decay look way old. One half life equals like 5730 years... and you chemically react to see how many isotopes to see how many half lifes may remain or have been expended.

C14 is a tad touchy though since we can consume it, and proposed by one scientist that it may fluctuate due to the magnetic field changing etc. but If that happened then C14 is no longer a constant and then no longer a viable source of measurement.

The geiger measurement tool calculates in alive animals that we get 8x more clicks a minute than a dead animal. more isotopes to the living I suppose?

I will be bac later. Ack. i gotta rest. but I am flustered trying to learn as much I can with the atom and periodic table of elements and chemical conditions. This is way too much to learn.

And thanks by the way. For typing the stuff. It is my duty to learn what you are teaching. You can only debate it from there. Who knows. Maybe you could win me over? Next person to take a look at is Martin D. Kamen + S. Ruben for the making of artificial C14. 
I should be writing a paper for politics class...
I have been writing papers on dating methods. I had a interest in alchemy but thought it was beyond me. Maybe I should become a scientist?

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

44 minutes ago

I agree. I am not much of a singer, but I did a pretty good job on singing Jackson with my buddy last week at the bar. Karaoke... read more...

52 minutes ago

There are lots of bad habits out there. Are we going to disallow everyone who has any habit that is dangerous? Sky diving,... read more...

1 hour ago

What is the matter with you. Another words who ever is the most intimidating decides what you will do. You sound spineless... read more...

1 hour ago

The US twice overthrew democratically elected governments in Haiti, and the clown says the US isn't occupying the country.... read more...

1 hour ago

Not supporting Israel is like the western world biting the hand that feeds it ludicrous capitalistic propoganda and religious... read more...

Related Debates

	The Introduction Of Nuclear Energy In Melbourne For Domestic Use Is Affect The Population
	Humans Will Not Evolve Any Further.
	Evolution Is Racist
	Man Is Better Than Machine
	There Should Be An Upper And Lower Limit To The Number Of Hairs On Someones Feet
	Morality Came Before Religion
	You Cannot Argue Evolution With Creationism (and Vice-versa) Because They Are Two Completely Different...
	Everyone Should Read This Interview With John Bahcall.
	If They Stopped Teaching Evolution, Nothing Would Change
	Scientists Have Created A Pill To Erase Bad Memories And Trauma. Chemical Brainwashing. This Is Not Just...

New Debates

	Every Once In A While Everyone Should Have A Singsong With Youtube Kareoke And Go Crazy! :D
	Should The Drink Drive Limit Be Zero!?
	Perhaps It Is Wise For The US And UK To Distance Themselves From Israel
	Child Protective Services In Germany Is Abusing Families, Children And Their Government-given Authority...
	If America Turns On Israel We Will Lose God's Protection. Obama And Biden's Stance On Building In Jerusalem...
	You Definitely Can Not Trust Anyone Or Anything Anyone Says On A Debate Site Unless They Have Concrete...
	There Are Not Many Straight Men Left In The World...; )
	Percentages (for And Against) Seldom If Ever Reflect The Truth About Anything, General Elections For...
	Only Morons Think Bands Of The Past And Present Weren't Influenced By The Beatles
	That Smokers Should Be Denied Access To Medicare