Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would happen if the ToE were disproven? (A suspense/thriller novel project)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 39 (527321)
09-30-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by swalker2001
09-30-2009 9:22 AM


Re: The Death Of Evolution
There's Terry Pratchett's Strata. The premise of the book is that we have learned that the fossil record is all a big fake produced by aliens who laid it down using strata machines to give us the false impression of having a long evolutionary history.
The book starts a long time after this discovery is made, so it's just taken as a given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by swalker2001, posted 09-30-2009 9:22 AM swalker2001 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by swalker2001, posted 09-30-2009 8:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
swalker2001
Junior Member (Idle past 5290 days)
Posts: 12
From: Dallas, TX USA
Joined: 09-28-2009


Message 32 of 39 (527325)
09-30-2009 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
09-30-2009 7:00 PM


Re: The Death Of Evolution
Thanks, Doc. I plan to try and read all of these that people tell me about to stimulate my brain cells and also to try and avoid too much similarity.
I had an incredibly difficult time finding much on the subject...I didn't find this and I didn't find Cryptozoic...but I knew there had to be something out there at least roughly along the same lines.

Steve Walker
Engineer, Author, Social Media Specialist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2009 7:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 39 (527421)
10-01-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by swalker2001
09-29-2009 9:41 AM


How about this scenario. The radiocarbon clock that is used to measure the age of fossils, was proved to be incorrect. And all the ages of their oldes human bones were only several thousands of years old.
this would put a huge dent in the ToE. It would mean that either life evolved very quickly and not slowly over millions of years, or it didnt evolve at all but rather was created.
In 1969 a conference on radiocarbon chronology and other related methods of dating was held in Uppsala, Sweden where they discused the many 'real' flaws that might invalidate dates.
The most serious fault in radiocarbon-dating theory is in the assumption that the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is now. That level depends, in the first instance, on the rate at which it is produced by cosmic rays. They know that cosmic rays vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic storms on the sun can increase the cosmic rays a thousandfold for a few hours. The earth’s magnetic field has been both stronger and weaker in past millenniums. And further to that, scientists have been exploding off nuclear bombs all over the world which has caused the worldwide level of carbon 14 to increase substantially.
Perhaps your story can revolve around a huge coverup of the findings of that 'real life' convention and how some insider decided to spill the beans and let the whole world know that the dating methods were all wrong becasue the actual level of carbon 14 was something completely different to what it actually was. This results in thousands of test laboritories working furiously to redate everything and the results are that their human bones are in the range of 6,000 years old.
If you can prove that a fossil is not millions of years old but closer to thousands of years, then you just might have a believable story on your hands.
swalker2001 writes:
But I am here to solicit help in getting exactly what you mention...a discovery that basically renders ToE useless, but still explains the "apparent" success of it.
the funniest part of your question is that they've already discovered what rendered ToE useless!
DNA & genetics
Animals reproduce according to their DNA. The DNA molecule is thought to play the major part in the transmission of hereditary characteristics from parent to offspring. Thats why humans always have 10 fingers and 2 arms and 2 legs etc. If the ToE was true, then why should the DNA reproduce exactly after its parent...it shouldnt be bound by coded replication because the ToE says that one species can become another species after some time.
Yet DNA says otherwise.
And then there is Noahs Ark.... I would be interested to know what evolutionsist would think if the ark was found.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by swalker2001, posted 09-29-2009 9:41 AM swalker2001 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by tuffers, posted 10-01-2009 12:33 PM Peg has replied
 Message 35 by bluescat48, posted 10-01-2009 6:56 PM Peg has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5275 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 34 of 39 (527458)
10-01-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
10-01-2009 9:49 AM


Have you counted your fingers?
Peg
It is not true that all humans always have 10 fingers, etc.
It is relatively common for people to be born with 6 fingers/toes on each hand/foot, for example.
You are obviously not aware of mutations in DNA replication which form an absolutely fundamental part of the ToE.
But, yes, it would be interesting IF Noah's Ark were ever found. Can you hurry up and find it please, the suspense is killing me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 10-01-2009 9:49 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Peg, posted 10-01-2009 9:07 PM tuffers has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 35 of 39 (527584)
10-01-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
10-01-2009 9:49 AM


And then there is Noahs Ark.... I would be interested to know what evolutionsist would think if the ark was found.
So how does one go about dating the ark to make sure it is from the time period that it is supposed to have been built, and not some boat made a thousand years ago. You claim that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, but that age of the ark would be in the perfect range of such dating, ~1 half life. Also finding such a boat would have no effect on the validity of evolution or whether or not he so called flood was local or universal. Also radiocarbon dating can only be used for fossils that 1) contain carbon & 2) are less than ~50000 years old. Considering much of the fossil record is much older than that, your point is moot.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 10-01-2009 9:49 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 10-01-2009 9:41 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 36 of 39 (527608)
10-01-2009 7:37 PM


It's about someone trying to write a book
Messages should be aimed at contributing ideas toward the book creations.
Outside of the above considerations, they should not be debating things creation/evolution.
Adminnemooseus

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 37 of 39 (527619)
10-01-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by tuffers
10-01-2009 12:33 PM


Re: Have you counted your fingers?
tuffers writes:
It is relatively common for people to be born with 6 fingers/toes on each hand/foot, for example.
if it were relatively common, it wouldnt be considered an abnormality.
mutations have already been shown not to produce new species, they produce abnomalities and thats all.
I'd love it if someone found the ark...who knows, maybe global warming will help it to be uncovered

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by tuffers, posted 10-01-2009 12:33 PM tuffers has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 38 of 39 (527623)
10-01-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluescat48
10-01-2009 6:56 PM


bluescat48 writes:
Also finding such a boat would have no effect on the validity of evolution or whether or not he so called flood was local or universal.
actually i think it would add greatly to the validity of a worldwide flood for the reason fossils are only formed when they are burried suddenly in wet conditions
bluescat48 writes:
Also radiocarbon dating can only be used for fossils that 1) contain carbon & 2) are less than ~50000 years old. Considering much of the fossil record is much older than that, your point is moot.
Ah, but not if they have the levels of C14 wrong. The levels we have now could be much highter then the levels thousands of years ago...What if someone was able to prove that the C14 levels in earths primitive atmosphere was much less then it is today? Then it would make the fossils age much younger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluescat48, posted 10-01-2009 6:56 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 39 of 39 (527625)
10-01-2009 10:10 PM


Topic!
Get back on the topic.
Deal with the challenge of creating an interesting self consistent story. Godditit would be just about as uninteresting as an SF story as it is a science text.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024