first genetic material

Its not my field, but some research on the web suggests that its most likely accurate.I certainly don't see any alternative that seems likely at all.What's your take on this? You have said you are not sure of its truth/accuracy, but what would you see instead?

---

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

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??

A theory is the single best explanation for a given set of data. If there are two or more competing ideas, they are more often considered to be hypotheses. When one emerges as the most likely then it is considered to be the theory.The layman's use of "theory" is very much different from that of scientists. To a layman it can mean a guess, or a wild guess. That is not the case in science. In order to reach the level of a theory there has to be multiple tests, all passed, and there has to be successful predictions.While the big bang may not be observable and repeatable, neither condition is required in science. There are a great many things we can't (or can no longer) observe, but that does not lessen their reliability. Lincoln's assassination is neither observable (from the present) nor is it repeatable, yet no one but kooks would doubt that it happened.The flat earth was more of a peasant's or cleric's idea than one held by scientists. If I remember correctly early Greeks had the round earth idea over two thousand years ago. Some of these strange ideas persisted because some interpreted the bible to favor them. The sun revolving around the earth is one example. The young earth is another. Well, yes. But "assumption" does not mean guess or wild guess. And it certainly does not mean "automatically wrong" as some creationists suggest.An assumption is something we use because it has been found to work. There's certainly no use in an assumption that's wrong!Here's an example of an assumption in science:In radiocarbon dating (one of my fields) we assume that radioactive decay has been constant because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting that assumption, and no credible evidence contradicting that assumption. The fact that radiocarbon dating then relies on an assumption is not an argument against its accuracy. In order to discredit radiocarbon dating, as creationists are always trying to do, you have to do more than point out that it relies on this assumption. You have to show that there is reason to doubt this assumption. In the meantime, with all of the data at hand supporting this assumption, science will continue to use it.Recently, creationists ponied up over a million dollars for the R.A.T.E. project, which was designed to show the radioactive constants weren't constant, and that a young earth was supported by science. They ran their own tests and those test supported what scientists had been saying all along--but these creation "scientists" wouldn't accept their own data! They had an a priori religious belief that they clung to in spite of the fact that their own research showed it to be incorrect! Here is a reference:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy IsaacAll of this goes to show that scientific assumptions are not automatically wrong, as creationists often suggest. They are useful, working tools as long as they are supported by the data. If they are contradicted by data they will be modified or discarded.I hope this brief look at how science works helps. The big bang is not my field, so I can't be more specific there, but science uses pretty much the same methods throughout so what I've related should apply.

---

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

The big bang is not on topic here but it most certainly has been observed. It was big enough to leave observable traces. The issue with the origin of life is that it may not have left any such traces. It was, pretty much by definition, on an utterly different scale.Note that an "observation" does not mean only looking at something with your unblinking eyeballs. In fact, that is one of the worst forms of observation.

Hi dpeele, As per Coyotes correction we'll go with "accurate".So, yes, I beleive it to be absolutely accurate.Why wouldn't you? Perhaps your "trouble" with it stems from a lack of understanding of it. Perhaps not, maybe you've done the research and found a better alternative. If you did, or know of another alternative that has a strong evidence basis then I, and I would expect that everyone, would be all ears. But to place unjust doubt on a theory having nothing to either back up the doubt or to present as an alternative leaves you in a very bad position.That there can be another explanation is not out of the realm of possibility, even though the evidence is so strong. However, until evidence is shown to the contrary, the theories surrounding the origin of the elements is all we currently have.However, I would suggest that before you seek out alternetive theories you get fully familiar with the current, accepted theories that way you have a basis for your rejection of them.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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.

That is interesting... what kind of traces?

You have been fed lies.But that is off-topic for this thread so I will take the response to a more appropriate thread.Give me a few moments to find one and respond. (You will have to look for the new thread.)

---

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

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 was just responding to your presentation of carbon dating into the discussion. Please direct me to the correct thread I would like for you to help me work through the misinformation I read.

I gave the example of radiocarbon dating as an example of the use of assumptions, but to follow up in detail on this thread would be off topic.Here is the new thread:http://EvC Forum: Radioactive carbon dating -->EvC Forum: Radioactive carbon datingI am glad to help, as will others posters here.

---

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

I'm also having trouble understanding why you are not reading the links that I provide.The elements are not "created" by superheated oxygen and silicon. In fact, elements aren't "created" at all, they are fused from smaller elements/atoms. If you work it backwards, from the larges elements to smallest, you get to one single element/atom, hydrogen.So, 113 elements are not the result of hot oxygen and silicon. It is the accumulated combination of elements through the proccess of fusing at high enough temps. 1 element fuses to make 2 elements - (hydrogen makes helium), 2 fuse to make 3, 3 make 4, 4 make 5, and so on. It is the result of billions of years of this process that reaches 113 elements. Then you are limited in what you know on this subject and again I suggest you read the links, properly. You see, it doesn't matter what you doubt, it has been proven, observed and recreated, your ignorance on the subject doesn't change that.Now, you can either do the research and get educated on it, which I tried to help you with, or, you can remain ignorant on the subject and "believe" whatever you want. No one cares either way. The only fabrication is in your ridiculous attempts to discredit the work done by scientist much more educated than you and I in this subject. Your ignorance is evident. I don't care that you ask questions, I care that you reject the answer for no reason what so ever. You just "feel" it's wrong, well, what the fuck do you know?You came here with little to no knowledge about any of it, then I try to steer you in the right direction and you present a position of incredulity and ignorance. I don't much care for it.If you have something substancial to show as evidence against these long standing theories I'm ready to read it, if not then what are you claiming? That you don't "get it"? Well, too bad I guess, for you.Ask questions, listen to and accept the answers. OR. Prove it wrong with counter evidence to the contrary. Don't tell me what you feel is wrong or right, because no one cares. I question your steadfast unwillingness to learn and happyness in your ignorance.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Heinlein is your philosopher? pretty shallow stuff.

You want to debate the issue, start a new thread.For that new thread, see if you can come up with a philosophical concept more realistic than this:

quote:

---

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H. sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

---

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

'Creationists lie' that seems to be 95% of your spiel to gather from your rote cut/paste responses backed only by your assertion.