Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Information exists apart from matter and energy. It has it's own existence. It doesn't matter what medium information is stored in. You could send a message using DNA or smoke signals. The information doesn't change. So, where did the information in DNA come from? Nature cannot create it. That leaves intelligence as the only option.But information is not. DNA contains information. Information, by every observation ever made, is the result of intelligence. You might want to study up on information theory. Maybe then you might learn just how inpossible abiogenesis is.And life arising from lifeless chemicals isn't magic? LOLOL! Good one.We can tell you several possibilities. Unfortunately, none of them involve magic, so you probably won't like them. Let's try to remember who invokes and believes in magic: that would be you.Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?
Not at all. Life, in all its variations, is a chemical process.
DNA is part of the chemical process. The information is not stored as information, but in the number and pattern of one or more of 4 nucleobases. It is very much a chemical process.
Here you go. Educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me. Pretending that Evolutionary Theory is Separable from Abiogenesis | Uncommon DescentThen why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.No, they aren't. Not at all.They are one and the same.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.
The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
That's the usual breathtaking Idiocy/Ignorance.The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.
The source I quoted says 35,000 years. We know that carbon dating is accurate because it has been used to date items of a known age. However, there are no objects of known age beyond a certain date in the past. Once again, the amount of carbon 14 in the environment is variable. If the Bible is right and the Earth is only 5 or 6 thousand years old there would have been very little c14 in the environment shortly after creation, and it would have gradually increased. This, many believe, is why some objects give readings of tens of thousands of years. The dating method is accurate, but it is based on a false assumption that c14 has always been constant. There is no way to verify this.That's the usual Idiocy.The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.
C14, with a half-life of 5700 years, loses usefullness at app 50,000 years.
You can't even use that on most of the existence of H sapiens: 200,000 years.
Others are:
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
2 Modern dating methods
`
- 2.1 Uranium-lead dating method
- 2.2 Samarium-neodymium dating method
- 2.3 Potassium-argon dating method
- 2.4 Rubidium-strontium dating method
- 2.5 Uranium-thorium dating method
- 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
- 2.7 Fission track dating method
- 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
- 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
- 2.10 Other methods
If you are a 6000yr/YEC, you're hopeless, and deny at least a dozen branches of science.The source I quoted says 35,000 years. We know that carbon dating is accurate because it has been used to date items of a known age. However, there are no objects of known age beyond a certain date in the past. Once again, the amount of carbon 14 in the environment is variable. If the Bible is right and the Earth is only 5 or 6 thousand years old there would have been very little c14 in the environment shortly after creation, and it would have gradually increased. This, many believe, is why some objects give readings of tens of thousands of years. The dating method is accurate, but it is based on a false assumption that c14 has always been constant. There is no way to verify this.
Apparently you are not aware that trees can sometimes produce more than one ring per year.If you are a 6000yr/YEC, you're hopeless, and deny at least a dozen branches of science.The source I quoted says 35,000 years. We know that carbon dating is accurate because it has been used to date items of a known age. However, there are no objects of known age beyond a certain date in the past. Once again, the amount of carbon 14 in the environment is variable. If the Bible is right and the Earth is only 5 or 6 thousand years old there would have been very little c14 in the environment shortly after creation, and it would have gradually increased. This, many believe, is why some objects give readings of tens of thousands of years. The dating method is accurate, but it is based on a false assumption that c14 has always been constant. There is no way to verify this.
In any case, we have methods of dating that even Kweationists can understand.
Tree Rings anyone?
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia
As of 2013, the oldest tree-ring measurements in the Northern Hemisphere extend back 13,900 years.[2]
[......]
A fully anchored and cross-matched oak and pine chronology in central Europe extends back 12,460 years,[20] and an oak chronology goes back 7,429 years in Ireland, and 6,939 years in England.[21] The consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been supported through comparison of their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[22] Another fully anchored chronology that extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[23]
[......]
In addition, some genera of trees are more suitable than others for this type of analysis. For instance, the bristlecone pine is exceptionally long-lived and slow growing, and has been used extensively for chronologies; still-living and dead specimens of this species provide tree-ring patterns going back thousands of years, in some regions more than 10,000 years.[26] Currently, the maximum span for fully anchored chronology is a little over 11,000 years B.P.
In 2004 a new radiocarbon calibration curve, INTCAL04, was internationally ratified to provide calibrated dates back to 26,000 B.P. For the period back to 12,400 B.P., the radiocarbon dates are calibrated against dendrochronological dates.[27][28]
[......]
So C14 is Verified at many points by Tree Rings.
Something even kweationists have a hard time denying.
`
Once again, you are assuming that the c14 in the environment has remained constant. If the Creation theory is correct, there would have been little or no c14 after Creation, since it is formed by cosmic rays in the upper atmousphere. It would have taken many years to form a significant amount. If I recall correctly, only a few pounds are created each year. How long do you think it would take to reach current levels?If you are a 6000yr/YEC, you're hopeless, and deny at least a dozen branches of science.The source I quoted says 35,000 years. We know that carbon dating is accurate because it has been used to date items of a known age. However, there are no objects of known age beyond a certain date in the past. Once again, the amount of carbon 14 in the environment is variable. If the Bible is right and the Earth is only 5 or 6 thousand years old there would have been very little c14 in the environment shortly after creation, and it would have gradually increased. This, many believe, is why some objects give readings of tens of thousands of years. The dating method is accurate, but it is based on a false assumption that c14 has always been constant. There is no way to verify this.
In any case, we have methods of dating that even Kweationists can understand.
Tree Rings anyone?
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia
As of 2013, the oldest tree-ring measurements in the Northern Hemisphere extend back 13,900 years.[2]
[......]
A fully anchored and cross-matched oak and pine chronology in central Europe extends back 12,460 years,[20] and an oak chronology goes back 7,429 years in Ireland, and 6,939 years in England.[21] The consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been supported through comparison of their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[22] Another fully anchored chronology that extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[23]
[......]
In addition, some genera of trees are more suitable than others for this type of analysis. For instance, the bristlecone pine is exceptionally long-lived and slow growing, and has been used extensively for chronologies; still-living and dead specimens of this species provide tree-ring patterns going back thousands of years, in some regions more than 10,000 years.[26] Currently, the maximum span for fully anchored chronology is a little over 11,000 years B.P.
In 2004 a new radiocarbon calibration curve, INTCAL04, was internationally ratified to provide calibrated dates back to 26,000 B.P. For the period back to 12,400 B.P., the radiocarbon dates are calibrated against dendrochronological dates.[27][28]
[......]
So C14 is Verified at many points by Tree Rings.
Something even kweationists have a hard time denying.
`
Apparently you are not aware that trees can sometimes produce more than one ring per year.If you are a 6000yr/YEC, you're hopeless, and deny at least a dozen branches of science.The source I quoted says 35,000 years. We know that carbon dating is accurate because it has been used to date items of a known age. However, there are no objects of known age beyond a certain date in the past. Once again, the amount of carbon 14 in the environment is variable. If the Bible is right and the Earth is only 5 or 6 thousand years old there would have been very little c14 in the environment shortly after creation, and it would have gradually increased. This, many believe, is why some objects give readings of tens of thousands of years. The dating method is accurate, but it is based on a false assumption that c14 has always been constant. There is no way to verify this.
In any case, we have methods of dating that even Kweationists can understand.
Tree Rings anyone?
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia
As of 2013, the oldest tree-ring measurements in the Northern Hemisphere extend back 13,900 years.[2]
[......]
A fully anchored and cross-matched oak and pine chronology in central Europe extends back 12,460 years,[20] and an oak chronology goes back 7,429 years in Ireland, and 6,939 years in England.[21] The consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been supported through comparison of their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[22] Another fully anchored chronology that extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[23]
[......]
In addition, some genera of trees are more suitable than others for this type of analysis. For instance, the bristlecone pine is exceptionally long-lived and slow growing, and has been used extensively for chronologies; still-living and dead specimens of this species provide tree-ring patterns going back thousands of years, in some regions more than 10,000 years.[26] Currently, the maximum span for fully anchored chronology is a little over 11,000 years B.P.
In 2004 a new radiocarbon calibration curve, INTCAL04, was internationally ratified to provide calibrated dates back to 26,000 B.P. For the period back to 12,400 B.P., the radiocarbon dates are calibrated against dendrochronological dates.[27][28]
[......]
So C14 is Verified at many points by Tree Rings.
Something even kweationists have a hard time denying.
`
Tree Ring Formation
Trees feature two types of growth; primary and secondary. Primary growth takes place at the tips of stems and roots and results in the tree growing taller. Secondary growth occurs in the cork cambium and vascular cambium, resulting in the trunk's diameter increasing. Trees also contain xylem which is the vascular tissue of the tree through which most minerals and water are conducted. Then there is the phloem, or outer layer of the tree. The rings of a tree are the result of new growth occurring in the vascular cambium.
To figure out a tree's age, many factors need to be considered including temperature, age of the tree, precipitation, slope, and other growth factors. Some trees can produce false, or extra rings in a year. For scientists to develop a master tree ring dating system, all of the above factors need to be taken into account.
Now, consider that if God created everything about 5,000 years ago, He would have created adult trees, because there was a garden from the beginning. Wouldn't that give a false age by counting rings?
SoApparently you are not aware that trees can sometimes produce more than one ring per year.So C14 is Verified at many points by Tree Rings.
Something even kweationists have a hard time denying.
`
Tree Ring Formation
Trees feature two types of growth; primary and secondary. Primary growth takes place at the tips of stems and roots and results in the tree growing taller. Secondary growth occurs in the cork cambium and vascular cambium, resulting in the trunk's diameter increasing. Trees also contain xylem which is the vascular tissue of the tree through which most minerals and water are conducted. Then there is the phloem, or outer layer of the tree. The rings of a tree are the result of new growth occurring in the vascular cambium.
To figure out a tree's age, many factors need to be considered including temperature, age of the tree, precipitation, slope, and other growth factors. Some trees can produce false, or extra rings in a year. For scientists to develop a master tree ring dating system, all of the above factors need to be taken into account.
Now, consider that if God created everything about 5,000 years ago, He would have created adult trees, because there was a garden from the beginning. Wouldn't that give a false age by counting rings?
I graciously accept your unconditional surrender. Have a nice day.SoApparently you are not aware that trees can sometimes produce more than one ring per year.So C14 is Verified at many points by Tree Rings.
Something even kweationists have a hard time denying.
`
Tree Ring Formation
Trees feature two types of growth; primary and secondary. Primary growth takes place at the tips of stems and roots and results in the tree growing taller. Secondary growth occurs in the cork cambium and vascular cambium, resulting in the trunk's diameter increasing. Trees also contain xylem which is the vascular tissue of the tree through which most minerals and water are conducted. Then there is the phloem, or outer layer of the tree. The rings of a tree are the result of new growth occurring in the vascular cambium.
To figure out a tree's age, many factors need to be considered including temperature, age of the tree, precipitation, slope, and other growth factors. Some trees can produce false, or extra rings in a year. For scientists to develop a master tree ring dating system, all of the above factors need to be taken into account.
Now, consider that if God created everything about 5,000 years ago, He would have created adult trees, because there was a garden from the beginning. Wouldn't that give a false age by counting rings?
1. You're a YEC nutbag/cumstain. "god/Dog creating adult trees" doesn't explain another 8000 years
2. You point to an exception, while I showed Many Different anchored chronologies of many Different trees. All consistent with C14.
3. You PLAGIARIZED your text because its from
AllansFactoryOutlet
A Guide to Dendrochronology
You crazy and Dishonest asshole, we're done.
`
So, tell us how scientists know how much c14 was in the atmosphere several thousand years ago. Keep in mind that this dating method can only date objects 35,000 years of age or less. How do scientists know how much c14 was there? The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact.The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.
Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.
No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.
No, not an assumption. The amount of carbon-14 in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains constant. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. As long as the organism is alive, it will have the same amount of carbon-14. This is also a fact. Not one single instance of a variation from this has ever been demonstrated.
After the organism dies, the amount of carbon-14 is reduced thru decay. The rate of decay is uniform and steady. No variation in the rate or uniformity has ever been demonstrated.
I graciously accept your unconditional surrender. Have a nice day.SoApparently you are not aware that trees can sometimes produce more than one ring per year.So C14 is Verified at many points by Tree Rings.
Something even kweationists have a hard time denying.
`
Tree Ring Formation
Trees feature two types of growth; primary and secondary. Primary growth takes place at the tips of stems and roots and results in the tree growing taller. Secondary growth occurs in the cork cambium and vascular cambium, resulting in the trunk's diameter increasing. Trees also contain xylem which is the vascular tissue of the tree through which most minerals and water are conducted. Then there is the phloem, or outer layer of the tree. The rings of a tree are the result of new growth occurring in the vascular cambium.
To figure out a tree's age, many factors need to be considered including temperature, age of the tree, precipitation, slope, and other growth factors. Some trees can produce false, or extra rings in a year. For scientists to develop a master tree ring dating system, all of the above factors need to be taken into account.
Now, consider that if God created everything about 5,000 years ago, He would have created adult trees, because there was a garden from the beginning. Wouldn't that give a false age by counting rings?
1. You're a YEC nutbag/cumstain. "god/Dog creating adult trees" doesn't explain another 8000 years
2. You point to an exception, while I showed Many Different anchored chronologies of many Different trees. All consistent with C14.
3. You PLAGIARIZED your text because its from
AllansFactoryOutlet
A Guide to Dendrochronology
You crazy and Dishonest asshole, we're done.
`
Information exists apart from matter and energy. It has it's own existence. It doesn't matter what medium information is stored in. You could send a message using DNA or smoke signals. The information doesn't change. So, where did the information in DNA come from? Nature cannot create it. That leaves intelligence as the only option.But information is not. DNA contains information. Information, by every observation ever made, is the result of intelligence. You might want to study up on information theory. Maybe then you might learn just how inpossible abiogenesis is.And life arising from lifeless chemicals isn't magic? LOLOL! Good one.We can tell you several possibilities. Unfortunately, none of them involve magic, so you probably won't like them. Let's try to remember who invokes and believes in magic: that would be you.
Not at all. Life, in all its variations, is a chemical process.
DNA is part of the chemical process. The information is not stored as information, but in the number and pattern of one or more of 4 nucleobases. It is very much a chemical process.
The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.
No, abiogenesis does not deny the existence of a creator. You are either not beong honest, or you are so steeped in your dogma that you can't see what you are doing. It does not deny the e istence of a creator, it is just at odds withyour favored creation myth. There is a difference.They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.No, they aren't. Not at all.They are one and the same.The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.
Can you tell us the steps involved in magically evolving the first working cell?
Funny, I thought the discussion was the Theory of Evolution. That is about how species became so diverse. It does not address the first cellular life.
Because we started devoting more energy to our brains and their development. Even the strongest Neanderthals, for instance, were conquered by a species with superior cooperation and weapon skills.The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.
Then why did you de evolve from a strong hairy monkey?
"The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact."So, tell us how scientists know how much c14 was in the atmosphere several thousand years ago. Keep in mind that this dating method can only date objects 35,000 years of age or less. How do scientists know how much c14 was there? The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact.The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!Anyone that doubts the age of things needs to read up on half-lifes of various elements and how they are used to date things.
Leave magic and voodoo for gatherings with other magic worshippers.
No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.
No, not an assumption. The amount of carbon-14 in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains constant. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. As long as the organism is alive, it will have the same amount of carbon-14. This is also a fact. Not one single instance of a variation from this has ever been demonstrated.
After the organism dies, the amount of carbon-14 is reduced thru decay. The rate of decay is uniform and steady. No variation in the rate or uniformity has ever been demonstrated.
Because we started devoting more energy to our brains and their development. Even the strongest Neanderthals, for instance, were conquered by a species with superior cooperation and weapon skills.The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.
Then why did you de evolve from a strong hairy monkey?
Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.Because we started devoting more energy to our brains and their development. Even the strongest Neanderthals, for instance, were conquered by a species with superior cooperation and weapon skills.The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.
Then why did you de evolve from a strong hairy monkey?
You act like it developed overnight, it don't make no sense, in the animal kingdom the strongest gets the girls .
"The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact."So, tell us how scientists know how much c14 was in the atmosphere several thousand years ago. Keep in mind that this dating method can only date objects 35,000 years of age or less. How do scientists know how much c14 was there? The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact.The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.You mean the half lives that are based on nothing but assumptions? LOL!
No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.
No, not an assumption. The amount of carbon-14 in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains constant. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. As long as the organism is alive, it will have the same amount of carbon-14. This is also a fact. Not one single instance of a variation from this has ever been demonstrated.
After the organism dies, the amount of carbon-14 is reduced thru decay. The rate of decay is uniform and steady. No variation in the rate or uniformity has ever been demonstrated.
You, of course, know nothing about C14 and just made that up on the spot.
