I am new to discussion boards in general and have enjoyed reading through the comments. The origin of life has always fasinated me. If we are considering RNA as the substance that started the chain, where did the matter necessary to form RNA originate?
I don't have any theories... I don't have the intelligence or the vision. I guess we make the assumption that the building blocks,oxygen and silicon within the supernova, was in existence but origin can not be determined.
But does the lack of an alternative make a theory accurate? People thought the world was flat for thousands of years. I don't have the answers, but I know the big bang was not observable and is not repeatable. So aren't we left with assumptions that are believed to be true/accurate - otherwise we would not have made them??
I have read that radiocarbon dating is based on several faulty assumptions. Even if one of those are contentions are correct then the method of dating is unreliable. I would find it hard to believe that with the universe changing over billions of years that anything would remain constant. You would have to admit Can the universe evolve and remain constant at the same time?
The Big Bang and Licoln's assassination aren't really comparable. There are several documented eye witness accounts of the wound and his death.
How do you refute these questions the ID crowd have around the accuracy of carbon dating?
I really appreciate your tone in this discussion. I just have questions.
This is where I have concerns. Your belief is based on a statement that contains "a few minutes" and "is believed to". I have a hard time believing that 113 unique elements were created by superheated oxygen and silicon - proof... there they are. As far as I know scientist can not recreate an event to produce even one element.
See.. my doubt is based on claims that I feel have not been proven. I would think that no theory is better than an incorrect theory. One position is continuing to search while the other has settled on fabrication.
Darwin challenged the accepted creationist theory of his day. I am just asking questions.
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
I noticed you chose not deal with "few minutes" and "is believed to be" in your quote explaining the Big Bang. I don't accept the time frame - could have been 15.756489347 seconds or a billions years - face it...they don't know. They are not sure that this process produced the elements by their own admission - "is believed to be"
The simple question "Where did that come from?" will take you back far enough into the theory that you will have to say "I don't know how that happened or where it originated". EVs have to believe it was just there and IDs believe it was spoken into existence from nothing. Either way... you don't know.
"Evidence" is tainted by human bias and methods based on assumptions. Each side picks and chooses evidence that supports their position and if it doesn't then it is considered erroneous or irrevelant.
IDs want to prove creation; Humanists want to prove evolution.
I will go back and read the links out of respect for the time you have spent with me in discussion. I can understand your frustration, but the use of "street language" is not necessary and beneath a person of your intellect.
Like I said... it gives insight. Not really offended - more disappointed...
I am reading through the links this afternoon, and will need alot of time to absorb all the information.
However, I am interested by this statement found on Wiki dealing with the Big Bang... "At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptonsof the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe."
Unknown Reaction?? It sounds as if this unknown reaction has to take place for all this to work... or is this layman's terms as well?