The race issue

Yes, I do know that. That problem was identified by de Vries (1958). His work led to the calibration curves we use today. I know all about that too. That is why we use both a calibration for the atmospheric fluctuations and why we measure the C13, as well as the C14/C12 ratios. That lets us correct for isotopic fractionation.And marine life always needs to be treated differently. The C13 measurement is a large part of that.A few years ago one project had four human skeletons, but the diet appeared to be heavy in marine mammals. When we ran the C14 dates we had the stable isotopes C13 and N15 run at the same time. That let us estimate the percent of marine organisms in the diet. It was over 90%, and that reduced the calibrated age of one individual by about 500 years.So don't bother hunting around the creationist websites and finding little "gotchas" from those folks who have never done any radiocarbon dating and thinking you have a magic bullet to kill the whole method. We have a far greater interest in the accuracy of the method, and the resulting dates, than creationists ever could.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If useful information cannot be gained how do organisms better evolve to their environments?I am very ignorant when it comes to life science, but there is a lot to learn here.

Some Creationists think that all the genetic information needed was present in the first lifeforms of the specific "kinds" and then over time they have only loss information to become the different varieties within each of the kinds.So the proto-cat, say, had all the information within it that when various bits of that information is removed from it, then all the different kinds of cats that you can find have evolved from that.That was worded badly, let me try again...God makes a cat kind. It has a lot of information in the genome. Over time, some of that information gets loss due to adaption. That loss of information is what changes the original cat kind into something that looks different, although it is still within that kind. And they dont' think any amount of loss of information can change it so much that it would become a different kind.

Wow that just doesn't make alot of sense to me. I may not know much about biology, it would seem to me like the opposite would be true, that as creatures evolved they would gain more information rather than loose it.Are these "kinds" all placentals, I mean what is said about marsupials? There is a Cat kind/form among both placentals and marsupials, yet they are not even close to related to each other. Did God make special animals just for Australia? Special more pirimitive animals that would be out competed by his placental creations on the rest of the planet, whose niches would be filled up by placentals.I feel like I should say something on this topic. Its just wierd. So the common ancestor that both Humans and Gorillas have, has all the information, and we though evolved are lesser beings than our animal ancestor? When did snakes loose the ability to talk?Isn't Homo sapiens sapiens like the 3rd or 4th wave of the Homo Species to branch out and occupy the globe? I know Homo erectus made thier way all the way to China, and Indonesia, and Homo neanderthalensis was in Europe, South West Asia, and Central Asia, when our species got there. There is not enough evidence to say if we came from erectus or not (I think we did not), but we probably out competed neaderthals to extinction, are neaderthals and erectus somehow more due to the more information they had? I need to read more about this, because at face value its sounds very not plausable.

Of course, and they're obviously wrong. They haven't really ironed out all the wrinkles yet. They don't have a good definition of what a "kind" is, or where you draw the lines. (they're pretty much just making it up as they go along).But, because they always want to sound like they're all sciency, they've come up with this: Baraminology <--clicky out:

quote:

---

Creation biologists have proposed a number of possibilities for the created "kinds":

​

Humanity Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus/ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homininae with the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, A. aethiopithecus, A. boisei and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus assigned to another basic type, Australopithecinae.

​

Felidae Creationists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.

​

Canidae Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.

​

Camelidae Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."

​

Bovidae Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.

​

Equidae Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.

​

Caprinae Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.

​

Crocodilia Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.

​

Elephantidae Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
source

---

Oh no. God created man seperate from the other apes. Humans have to be their own kind (see above).But you seem to be getting the jist of it. And If you look at the message you replied to, Message 116, they guy was arguing that adam and eve had to have been black because white people have less information than black people (they lost the blackness to become white). That's because you're "assuming" evolution and seeing things with tainted glasses. If you just let the Holy Spirit guide you and read the Bible, (while ignoring everything that shows how terribly wrong it is), you can then see that it all makes perfect sense and there isn't one error in the glory of God's word

It's not that cut and dry. Some information in the genome is deleted, some genes are recessive (meaning certain traits will show up later down the line), others are gained by mutations which later become fixed in subsequent populations, etc, etc. When it comes to how things evolve, there isn't any one reason. Obviously not. Marsupials mainly became isolated. Some still remain in places like North America (possums are marsupials) and also placental mammals like raccoons (closely related to marsupials). Is that a joke? Are you being facetious?Isn't Homo sapiens sapiens like the 3rd or 4th wave of the Homo Species to branch out and occupy the globe?[/qs]Pretty much. There are other subdivisions that formed from isolation, but Homo Sapiens weren't the only game in town. Actually humans and neanderthals assimilated. They weren't so much out-competed as they were bred out of existence. There's an excellent chance that you have neanderthals in your family tree, as do I.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Well of course not, but I am a spatial based scientist, I do maps, charts, and algorithms that measure and calculate distance (spatial) and time (temporal), and their relationships. I find this topic very interesting, but I know almost nothing about biology. But I would rather get the layman’s terms and general idea about how it works. I know I was being general, but who wants to post and read all technical information all the time? I think that is Opossum, Possums live in Australia. I think the Virginia Opossum is the only one in North America. Are you sure Raccoons are related to marsupials? Sorry I couldn’t resist. That is only partially true. Only humans outside of Sub-Saharan Africa and Neanderthals bred. Non-African Modern humans have between 1% - 4% Neanderthal DNA. So back to the Adam and Eve were black and had more information thing. That would mean since Adam and Eve were Black and of African ancestery that they did not have Neanderthal DNA, and therefore would have LESS information than the Humans who bred with the Neanderthals in Southwest and Central Asia, and in Europe. Its fine to say that Adam and Eve were Black, but you really can’t say they have more information, because they were not an Older Kind (or whatever) of Human like Neanderthals were, also since they did not breed with Neanderthals, their offspring did not gain the genetic material that the other variations of Humans did who left the African Continent and bred with Homo neanderthalensis did.They can be black or have more genetic information, but they cannot have both.Wow that theory was pretty easy. So was there an Adam and Eve for every set of Homo that God created? 12 according to the site you linked. All they really did is take the genus Homo and make it its own kind. Which is fine but to say its different than other primates who we share 90+% of the genetic code with is a bit silly don’t you think, it seems quite obvious. I am sorry but that is a false statement. Evolution was never assumed, it was what people came up with when faced with the evidence that they had at hand. Sure they made some errors, but in the beginning they had less evidence than we do today, and less methods of determining value to apply to the evidence. Look I am a Christian myself, but a Roman Catholic one so I get to ignore all that Sola scriptura bullshit, and use my own logic a bit. I am sure God’s word has no errors, but the bible wasn’t written by God, nor my any less that hundreds of people of the course of hundreds of years. I mean this would be a bit easier on us faithful if Jesus maybe wrote one of the books, I know he could read the Torah, so he must have been somewhat literate. Heck I would be happy if Jesus just proofread the new testament and took all the errors and contradictions out of it. Oh well that is another topic.I wonder what these sciency creationists would have said before the human genome was mapped and we know what we know now. I wonder what they would have said about the Chinese idea that Chinese people were a different race because they evolved from Peking Man (Homo erectus) and did not come out of Africa as Homo sapiens. That was a very popular notion in China for a long long time, that they, the Chinese, where a different species of Man, from a different ancestor. I only bring this up because there are a lot of people who are not from our way of thinking, and this Chinese example was the best one I could think of. Isn’t rather pretentious to say our God created us, when there is half a planet of people of other faiths out there? Who created them? Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

I don't know if they even get into how the original kinds came about. Well then, according to them, you are not a true christian... What makes you so sure? Sounds neat.... got a link? Pretentious!? I don't think you can get much more pretentious than a Biblical Literalist Young Earth Creations.

---

By the way, I see you did a General Reply.If you use the other reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.Also, if you have your email notifications set up in your profile, then when someone replies to your specific message then you will get an email saying thye did. It doesn't happen with the general reply. People can easily miss stuff that way.Also:

---

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

---

Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

---

type: [url=insert your url here]this message is linked to an url[/url]
and it becomes:
this message is linked to an url

Yeah its very weird and yet interesting at the same time. Like I care what Philistines think about me God is perfect. here is a linkOf course they are not correct IMHO, as it seems there is better evidence to support the idea that they, like us, evolved from Homo sapiens who came from Africa. I guess the Chinese really just want to be their own people really bad. Yeah I screwed all that up, thanks for the clarification and the explanation. It has been a year since I posted here (I lost my password), and I forgot all the rules around here. I honestly thought Gen Reply meant GENERATE Reply. Are you a Moderator?

Well, we've now split off into about 4 different topics... how crazy creationists are, what makes a christian, god's perfection, and independent chinese evolution. They like to keep things focused and on one particular topic per thread so I'll just let that other stuff die off.The Chinese stuff could be on topic (The Race Issue), but we don't really have anything to argue about wrt to that one.Thanks for the link though, its interesting.I'm not a moderator. There's only, like, 3 moderators now. There used to be a lot more, but I never became one. I'm probably too mean and tend to just tell people to fuck off, and then I get suspended for a day... but I promised Percy (the creator of this site, aka Admin) that I wouldn't do that any more.

I would kind of like to discuss the Chinese stuff, but maybe I should propose a new topic, though I have not done so before, and the managment seems a bit ornrey about that.

You should propose a new topic....New topics should be focused. Assertions should be supported. Make an argument in your own words as opposed to lengthy copy-n-pastes. Link to that article.You should summarize the argument. State your position on it. Provide the support. And let it rip!I'll participate if it get promoted. its pretty interesting at least.

"Yes, I do know that. That problem was identified by de Vries (1958). His work led to the calibration curves we use today."Levels of C-14 can be greatly effected by any condition.

quote:

---

"1. The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere -- that it is being broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced. However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating. If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old..."

​

2. ... It is also true that cosmic rays would have been deflected away from the earth most effectively by the earth's magnetic field if, as we have argued, this was much stronger in the past. With fewer cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, there would have been less production of carbon-14 then than now."

---

Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True (Sylvia Baker, 1986)

quote:

---

"roughly half of the dates produced by this method are rejected by archeologists as being either too far off or impossible."

---

"Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" (Robert E. Lee) Anthropological Journal of Canada Vol. 19, #3, 1981The Carbon 'timescale' was only known for about 16,000 years. This means, that after that period, data was extrapolated. But recent discoveries in the polar ice cores tell us that the data is not accurate:

quote:

---

"Marking time with carbon 14 requires an accurate record of atmospheric radiocarbon through time. Archaeologists, for example, use the radiocarbon time scale to date artifacts, but dates were only accurate as far back as 16,000 years. The information contained in the stalagmite effectively triples the calibration period.

​

University of Arizona physicist J. Warren Beck and his colleagues also discovered that atmospheric carbon 14 levels soared dramatically between 45,000 and 33,000 years ago. Beck says even more interesting was a dramatic spike in radiocarbon levels during a millennium that began 44,300 years ago, nearly twice as high as the "bomb pulse" produced during nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 60s.

---

Agen338 : Olympus Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Di IndonesiaAnd speaking of the magnetic field, at a decay rate of 5% every 100 years, 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today. Evolutionists claim the last pole reversal was around 750,000 years ago (which is obviously untrue). But the earth would have been too hot at 10,000.

quote:

---

"A decade ago, Prvot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA).3,4,5 Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prvot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about 3 a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool.6 Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,

​

most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’"

---

Journal of Creation, August 1995

You are making a fundamental mistake here. The research by de Vries (1958) showed the need for calibration curves. Those curves account for the variations in the earth's magnetic field and differing levels of cosmic rays. This makes your point (2) moot.Your point (1) is something that I would like to see evidence for. I suspect it is typical creationist nonsense. (And you don't date fossils with Carbon 14 dating anyway). I have this publication, and have emailed Robert E. Lee on this quotation. It was referring to a specific section of Canada and to local conditions. The problems have since been identified and worked out.Sorry, creationists. This does not support your efforts to discredit the Carbon 14 method. That's why we use a calibration curve! It allows us to account for these fluctuations and produce accurate dates. Off topic nonsense. Since this is off topic I will rebut with a link: rebuttal. This is all old data. What's the latest finding on this?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.