Evolutionary Theory

[RWNJ]

And life arising from lifeless chemicals isn't magic? LOLOL! Good one.

Not at all. Life, in all its variations, is a chemical process.

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.

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.

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.

What information is separate from matter and energy?

If you fail to understand such a simple concept, then I can't explain it to you. You can't fix stupid.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not at all. Life, in all its variations, is a chemical process.

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.

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.

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.

What information is separate from matter and energy?

If you fail to understand such a simple concept, then I can't explain it to you. You can't fix stupid.

You can't explain it anyway. There is no magic information in DNA. The information is stored by specific patterns of 4 nucleobases. There is no other stored information. That is it. That is what forms the double helix of the DNA.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not at all. Life, in all its variations, is a chemical process.

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.

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.

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.

What information is separate from matter and energy?

If you fail to understand such a simple concept, then I can't explain it to you. You can't fix stupid.

"If you fail to understand such a simple concept, then I can't explain it to you."

Riiiiiiight... you would so, totally, like, explain it all, but you just don't feel like it.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

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.

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.

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.

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax."

Riiight... the entire scientific community, who agrees with every word he said and also accepts the current, accepted climate theories, has all lined up just to fool everyone on the planet. But where they have failed is the contingent of america that lives within 20 miles of a trailer park, because those people are so smart.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax."

Riiight... the entire scientific community, who agrees with every word he said and also accepts the current, accepted climate theories, has all lined up just to fool everyone on the planet. But where they have failed is the contingent of america that lives within 20 miles of a trailer park, because those people are so smart.

I see... So what you're saying is you want it both ways...

The CO2 level is fixed and therefore reliable for all carbon dating and that the increasing CO2 levels worldwide are responsible for global warming.

Does that about sum it up?

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax."

Riiight... the entire scientific community, who agrees with every word he said and also accepts the current, accepted climate theories, has all lined up just to fool everyone on the planet. But where they have failed is the contingent of america that lives within 20 miles of a trailer park, because those people are so smart.

I see... So what you're saying is you want it both ways...

The CO2 level is fixed and therefore reliable for all carbon dating and that the increasing CO2 levels worldwide are responsible for global warming.

Does that about sum it up?

*****ROFLMAO*****

No, it doesn't sum it up, and it seems like you have no idea what you are talking about. But I will pass your memo on to the world's scientists. imagine how embarrassed they will be when they learn a blog-educated know-nothing with no education or experience in their fields has outsmarted them all!

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

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.

What information is separate from matter and energy?

If you fail to understand such a simple concept, then I can't explain it to you. You can't fix stupid.

"If you fail to understand such a simple concept, then I can't explain it to you."

Riiiiiiight... you would so, totally, like, explain it all, but you just don't feel like it.

Yep, you nailed it. He claims the info stored in DNA is neither matter nor energy. But it is such a simple concept. lol

 

[WinterBorn]

No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.

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.

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Reading must be becoming a lost art. No one is discussing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are discussing the amount of carbon-14 in atmospheric CO2. If you can't keep up with the basic concepts of the conversation, maybe its best you sit back and let the grownups talk.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax."

Riiight... the entire scientific community, who agrees with every word he said and also accepts the current, accepted climate theories, has all lined up just to fool everyone on the planet. But where they have failed is the contingent of america that lives within 20 miles of a trailer park, because those people are so smart.

I see... So what you're saying is you want it both ways...

The CO2 level is fixed and therefore reliable for all carbon dating and that the increasing CO2 levels worldwide are responsible for global warming.

Does that about sum it up?

*****ROFLMAO*****

If you could point out where I said the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is constant, you might have a point.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Reading must be becoming a lost art. No one is discussing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are discussing the amount of carbon-14 in atmospheric CO2. If you can't keep up with the basic concepts of the conversation, maybe its best you sit back and let the grownups talk.

The more C12 in the atmosphere the more likely that C14 will be created and vice a versa. Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption. Especially if a nova or two happens in the immediate galactic region that the earth lies in.

If both atmospheric CO2 and cosmic ray action increases dramatically at the same time what happens to you basic concept?

*****CHUCKLE******

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Reading must be becoming a lost art. No one is discussing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are discussing the amount of carbon-14 in atmospheric CO2. If you can't keep up with the basic concepts of the conversation, maybe its best you sit back and let the grownups talk.

The more C12 in the atmosphere the more likely that C14 will be created and vice a versa. Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption. Especially if a nova or two happens in the immediate galactic region that the earth lies in.

If both atmospheric CO2 and cosmic ray action increases dramatically at the same time what happens to you basic concept?

*****CHUCKLE******

Has there been ANY demonstrable variation in the C14 in atmospheric CO2?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Has there been a nova or super nova in near earth vicinity lately where it can be tested?

Maybe two thousand years ago but then again maybe not.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Reading must be becoming a lost art. No one is discussing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are discussing the amount of carbon-14 in atmospheric CO2. If you can't keep up with the basic concepts of the conversation, maybe its best you sit back and let the grownups talk.

The more C12 in the atmosphere the more likely that C14 will be created and vice a versa. Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption. Especially if a nova or two happens in the immediate galactic region that the earth lies in.

If both atmospheric CO2 and cosmic ray action increases dramatically at the same time what happens to you basic concept?

*****CHUCKLE******

"Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption."

Okay, let's be clear. So, you are asserting that the creation rate of C14 may be so variable (not is, but rather, may be) that all of our dating methods (well, not all, just one, exactly one, guess we'll get to all the others later) may be wrong?

Do I have that right?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Reading must be becoming a lost art. No one is discussing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are discussing the amount of carbon-14 in atmospheric CO2. If you can't keep up with the basic concepts of the conversation, maybe its best you sit back and let the grownups talk.

The more C12 in the atmosphere the more likely that C14 will be created and vice a versa. Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption. Especially if a nova or two happens in the immediate galactic region that the earth lies in.

If both atmospheric CO2 and cosmic ray action increases dramatically at the same time what happens to you basic concept?

*****CHUCKLE******

"Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption."

Okay, let's be clear. So, you are asserting that the creation rate of C14 may be so variable (not is, but rather, may be) that all of our dating methods (well, not all, just one, exactly one, guess we'll get to all the others later) may be wrong?

Do I have that right?

Are you assuming that science is always right about how things work?

*****SMILE*****

 

[WinterBorn]

The chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Reading must be becoming a lost art. No one is discussing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are discussing the amount of carbon-14 in atmospheric CO2. If you can't keep up with the basic concepts of the conversation, maybe its best you sit back and let the grownups talk.

The more C12 in the atmosphere the more likely that C14 will be created and vice a versa. Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption. Especially if a nova or two happens in the immediate galactic region that the earth lies in.

If both atmospheric CO2 and cosmic ray action increases dramatically at the same time what happens to you basic concept?

*****CHUCKLE******

"Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption."

Okay, let's be clear. So, you are asserting that the creation rate of C14 may be so variable (not is, but rather, may be) that all of our dating methods (well, not all, just one, exactly one, guess we'll get to all the others later) may be wrong?

Do I have that right?

View attachment 149789

Are you assuming that science is always right about how things work?

*****SMILE*****

I don't think any proponent of science thinks it is always right. In fact, once a hypothesis is formed, all experimentation is done to prove it wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Reading must be becoming a lost art. No one is discussing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are discussing the amount of carbon-14 in atmospheric CO2. If you can't keep up with the basic concepts of the conversation, maybe its best you sit back and let the grownups talk.

The more C12 in the atmosphere the more likely that C14 will be created and vice a versa. Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption. Especially if a nova or two happens in the immediate galactic region that the earth lies in.

If both atmospheric CO2 and cosmic ray action increases dramatically at the same time what happens to you basic concept?

*****CHUCKLE******

"Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption."

Okay, let's be clear. So, you are asserting that the creation rate of C14 may be so variable (not is, but rather, may be) that all of our dating methods (well, not all, just one, exactly one, guess we'll get to all the others later) may be wrong?

Do I have that right?

View attachment 149789

Are you assuming that science is always right about how things work?

*****SMILE*****

No. BTW, trying to find a single sentence in the midst of your middle-school diorama is more work than it is worth.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

By the way if the earth's magnetic field decreased in intensity or the ozone layer becomes depleted there would be an increase in C14 also. Both of which occur over time as variables in the earth's orbit and other factors occur...

A large meteor impact would cause both to happen for a time.

*****SMILE*****

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

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 chemistry of atmospheric CO2 is constant. And that effects the chemistry of living organisms.

But if you want to ignore fossil evidence and solid chemistry for a "But it could have been different a long time ago!", feel free.

View attachment 149717

If that's the case then global warming caused by increased CO2 levels is a hoax.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Reading must be becoming a lost art. No one is discussing the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are discussing the amount of carbon-14 in atmospheric CO2. If you can't keep up with the basic concepts of the conversation, maybe its best you sit back and let the grownups talk.

The more C12 in the atmosphere the more likely that C14 will be created and vice a versa. Just as assuming that cosmic ray action that creates C14 will always be constant is a false assumption. Especially if a nova or two happens in the immediate galactic region that the earth lies in.

If both atmospheric CO2 and cosmic ray action increases dramatically at the same time what happens to you basic concept?

*****CHUCKLE******

We have climate data for the range of time that carbon dating is used

 

[MarkDuffy]

By the way, C-14 in the atmosphere does not come from CO2. It comes from Nitrogen absorbing a neutron.

Radiocarbon Dating and Bomb Carbon - Beta Analytic

So let's say CO2 doubles, Nitrogen is unchanged and the creation rate of C-14 is the same.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide,

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia