Evolution

[Vextor]

There will never be "absolute, flawless proof" because such a thing goes against the very fundamental of scientific knowledge. Science merely tries to find an explanation for observable physical phenomena, and new discoveries will continue to change our understanding of the physical world. Thus, there are no real absolutes. I think the dispute between creationists and evolutionists come from this core misunderstanding of the epistemologies of both sides.

Also, Carbon-14 dating can be influenced by many different factors and is known to fluctuate. For that reason, it typically isn't the only method used to determine an organic material's age (only organic material can be measured with Carbon-14 dating).
It is not as simple as just measuring C-14 levels on a organic material; archaeologists would also have to consider environemtal factors that could have affected the amount of C-14 accumulated on the object while it was alive.

Furthermore, non-photosynthesizing organic material (such as animal flesh, shells, bones, etc) are not reliable sources for C-14 dating because they do not accumulate C-14 predictably. Photosynthesizing organic material (plants) constantly use up radioactive C-14 during photosynthesis, and thus their C-14 level is kept at a equilibrium while they are alive. For this reason, archaeologists will often measure C-14 from vegetable matter found arround a fossilized animal, etc. to measure their age. Thus, measuring C-14 from a fossil of a shell would be misleading, because likely the C-14 build up in a dense organic lattice such as shells would be very extreme.

For example, the age of some Neanderthal bones were determined by the remains of flowers that were buried along with the Neanderthal.

[John Layfield]

[St. Ajora]

[sybillious]

harsh, yes, but posting something that adds nada to the discussion is treading that line we call spam. if it adds nothing, then simply, don't post it...if you're foolish enough to do so, then most likely, you will be mocked.

actually, when he posted his thoughts, that invited *intentional or not* criticism or agreeal from others; whether or not the original poster liked those thoughts is irrelevant-if you can't accept or deal with criticism, don't participate in a discussion where rebuttal is highly likely, simple as that.

back on topic:

as sars said, there are no absolutes in a theory; that's why it's a THEORY-someone's idea of what could have happened, based on evidence, rather than feeling or 'faith.'

tests for certain things are always being improved or surpassed; the scientific community constantly looks for new and better ways of proving/disproving theories or finds. the fact that so many different forms of hominids have been found in the cradle of life *africa* shows that there is merit to evolution-these hominids show gradual changes and adaptations that possibly led to modern man.

creationism has so many holes; no explanations for the extinct species we have found and are still discovering today-these are never mentioned in the '7 day scheme' that is flouted in creationism constantly.

neither ideal is absolute; both have gaps, but evolution seems to do a better job of explaining changes that occured prehistorically, while creationism expects us to 'take it on faith' that their explanation of prehistoric events happened.

i may be cynical in thinking so, but i'm more likely to believe things that are proven or disproven with factual evidence, rather than something that expects me to 'believe' in something just because 'x' said it happened.
_________________
prinny...DOOD!

gotta gotta get a...SPICE WEASEL!

to paraphrase my fellow mod, parallax:
I hate my job with the passionately burning intensity of a thousand fiery suns.

[Noot]

Bishop Sai, I know what you're saying and I respect your beliefs. But I have to tell you that Evolution and Creationism do not conflict... at all. Creationism is about the "origin of all life"--how it sprung up out of nothingness. So far, science has not been able to explain this. Evolution has to deal with "change of a species over a long period of time", meaning that scientists can show how a single-celled organism grew to be more complex over a billion years, but they can't tell you what put that single-celled organism there in the first place.

You're also looking at evolution at too fast a pace. It takes millions or sometimes BILLIONS of years for these changes to occur, and it sometimes takes a cataclysmic event to speed it along (like whatever wiped out the dinosaurs and allowed mammals to take over the world).

A common misconception is that a monkey turned into a human, and that's just wrong. Humans and apes share a common ancestor from which both species branched off from, and we haven't found this ancestor but it's referred to as "the missing link". It's called that because once we know what it is we can then trace the evolution of humans and apes back from that one point.

Lastly, I want to point out that evolution is not a religion. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of knowledge. Scientists have collected millions of pieces of astrological, genetic, and geological evidence that supports this theory, so until something else comes along that challenges the idea it will remain the paradigm in which science is conducted.
_________________
~~Harmonian Tenhei Star~~

It's hard to bargle naudle zauss with all these marbles in my mouth.

[kuwaizair]

oh, don't forget Island Fauna, why don't you folk like Island fauna? tiny elephants, giant rats...wingless flys? surly god would give everyone these animals? who wouldn't need a poney sized elephant? Island fauna is used as the "omg evolution!" thing, you take some animal and cram it onto an island, over time the'll adapt....unless its just adaptaion not evolution. Normal sized animals will shrink, now we find our monster island and see tiny versions of know beasties? how they be? I guess they were plastic dolls and broght to life with magic huh? we have so many beloved isolated animal species, in well known places.

i can't add anything meaning full anymore. I guess I'll give up the fight. My typing reads like a 6 year old's word usage.

still yes the bible says nothing about god killing dinosaurs. unless dinosaur=sinfull people and they washed in the flood.
there, proof right?
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27

[Sage]

Offtopic: The Bible says nothing about extinction, but then again, it also doesn't say that dinosaurs were parked outside Rome. The writers of the Bible had something better to write about than what happened to all the animal species. And...

[Vextor]

As far as the current hypotheses goes for a possible scientifc causes of life, the below link should help understand currently debated ideas. Note that none of these are even theories, but some of them have generated a lot of data (albeit inconclusive).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life