1. It is ridiculous to attempt to prove science with religion, or
prove
religion with science. They are two different things. Science attempts to
describe physical or chemical things or functions through the use of
repeatable, verifiable experiments and observations. Religion attempts to
address how humans should act, based on faith. Since faith cannot be
subjected to repeatable, verifiable experiments, and science cannot be based
on faith, religion and science cannot be used to prove or disprove the
other. Pseudoscientific attempts to confuse the two areas of study are a
disservice to both.
Raymond,
I'm assuming it's me you are addressing! Although I may disagree with you on your
definition of religion, I'll not discuss that here. I have deliberately not brought
religion into this because I want to keep this on a scientific level. If you don't
mind, let's try to just discuss the science. I'd be *very* happy to communicate
with you privately if you want to discuss your perceived conflict between faith and
science.
Now you say, "Science attempts to describe physical or chemical things or functions
through the use of repeatable, verifiable experiments and observations."
I agree with you 100%! That is why I object to the evolution "believing"
scientist promoting speculation as "fact", things they were not there to verify,
measure, observe, etc.
Please, let's not get into insults and namecalling. I don't believe I "used
religion to prove science"? There was no "pseudoscience". If you have a
real objection to my "science", please address it on that level.
2. There appears to be some misunderstanding about carbon dating. It
is
independent of catastrophic atmospheric events, etc.. A living organism
(tree, human, frog, whatever) maintains a certain ratio of carbon 14 to
carbon 12. When that organism dies, the carbon 14 radioactively decays to
carbon 12 at a well-documented rate, producing a change in the ratio between
them. After a period of 40,000 years, the ratio is so low that some other
method must be used to determine age.
In most experiments, you need to have a starting baseline to compare to. You state
"After a period of 40,000 years", but we don't really even know if there WAS
40,000 years, let alone someone there to take a measurement.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up
by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a
piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary
carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets
cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to Nitrogen, they are
still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as
in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay
are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time
goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a clock which
starts ticking the moment something dies.
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constantfor example, it was
higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot
of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time
appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of
atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. This would make things carbon-dated from
that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of
historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be
estimated, and so partial calibration of the clock is possible. Accordingly, carbon
dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with
such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of
frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Therefore, the assumption that must be made is how much Carbon 14 was in the atmosphere.
That is why catastrophic events can change the amount of digested 14C and change the
dating readings.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.
Please let me know where we disagree on these statements.
4. According to Orin, there is a thought in the community of
geneticists
that each mutation happens on average once every 20 transmissions
(father-son event). This is an average. A mutation might occur after
just 1 transmission, or after 40. However, the probability that a mutation
would occur after only 1 transmission for 20 transmissions in a row is so
EXTREMELY small that, for all practical considerations could be considered
impossible. Therefore, the idea that we all had a common ancestor only 600,
or even only 6000 years ago, is statistically HIGHLY unlikely.
I think the answer to that question remains to be seen through further research. I suspect
that there is a lot of speculation involved in setting the mutation rate. Again, that goes
back to individual scientist's biases as well as peer pressure. I suspect it is very
difficult to accurately verify and historically document 40 generations!
Take care,
Jon
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at
Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Meet Singles
http://corp.mail.com/lavalife