Darwin Theory of Evolution has been proven scientifically

[Toronto]

Who did the insertion and deletion? What do you think?

In evolutionary studies, indel is used to mean an insertion or a deletion and indels simply refers to the mutation class that includes both insertions, deletions, and the combination thereof,including insertion and deletion events that may be separated by many years.

Science is not a belief, faith or 'what I think', Science needs to go through a process of observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, and conclusion. This is the scientific method and it is not often referenced by the creationists because of how detrimental it would be if applied to their own hideous idea of 'ID'.

If your reasoning or rather your belief is that of a ID being responsible, can you provide conclusive scientific proof?

 

[vamjok]

Who did the insertion and deletion? What do you think?

u never have any official education on the topic - genome right?
typical useless stupid fuck

 

[Toronto]

Evolutionary theory is a tested, evidence-based explanation for facts, not some kind of unprovable religion ideology or doctrines.

 

[Toronto]

Dear scbccb,

You'd be better of looking into the actual subject because it interests you. Then you form the conclusion.

 

[Toronto]

This report was dated 2005. Read this.. http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-similarities-common-ancestry/

That is another creationist website with a strong religion biasedness and circular arguments. It would be more credible and convincing for you to cite a credible scientific or secular website making similar claims.

 

[Crane]

u never have any official education on the topic - genome right?
typical useless stupid fuck

Assuming that people have no official education ?

If a Stanford pHd can become a taxi driver, be mentally prepared for the worst. No one will want to employ a locally-trained researcher that has no market value.

 

[Fook Seng]

The most effective refute against evolution is the fact that the earth and human, did not really exist for that long of a period. Scientists have actually acknowledge that the age of the earth, it relatively closer to the biblical time-frame of thousands of years.

Read this to understand the limitations of carbon dating. In summary, its practical upper limit is only 50,000 years.

Where is the reference that says that scientists have acknowledged that the ages of the earth and humans are closer to biblical time-frame of only thousands of years?

Scientists today are still very much dependent on carbon dating for dating up to 60,000 years. Despite the limitations you mentioned with this method of dating, calibration has achieved accuracy of plus minus 16 years for dating up to 6,000 years, plus minus 163 years for up to 26,000 years and fully usable up to 60,000 years. Carbon dating still remains the key method for dating of this range.

Beyond that decay of uranium to lead, argon and potassium is able to date the age of rocks and the earth itself up to 4 to 5 billion years.

Further, measurement of microwave cosmic background radiation can date the age of the universe from 13 to 14 billion years. Such dimensions of time are several orders higher than what are derivable from the Bible.

 

[Toronto]

Assuming that people have no official education ?

If a Stanford pHd can become a taxi driver, be mentally prepared for the worst. No one will want to employ a locally-trained researcher that has no market value.

Somehow God informed me than Crane is likely another Conqueror clone. Or it could be wrong, God is teasing me

 

[Toronto]

Read this to understand the limitations of carbon dating. In summary, its practical upper limit is only 50,000 years.
http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/course...rseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

You're right in this case. Radiocarbon dating does have it's limitations - it's not useful for very recent samples, or samples older than around 60,000 years.

 

[Toronto]

This report was dated 2005. Read this.. http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-similarities-common-ancestry/

Do a Google and there are tons of article to explain why evolution is simply impossible when you consider the intelligent design in all things living. The most effective refute against evolution is the fact that the earth and human, did not really exist for that long of a period. Scientists have actually acknowledge that the age of the earth, it relatively closer to the biblical time-frame of thousands of years.

Basically, these creationist Scientists are known for fraudulent deliberate misinformation and very bad science, ignoring the other thousand methods of radiometric dating (for some obvious reasons of matching Genesis account of creation) and claim that C-14 dating doesn't tell us the age of the Earth.

Well, The half-life of C-14 is only about 5,400 years. Lead deposites are actually used to date the age of the Earth.

On several occasions, creationist scientists have wildly misused C14 dating on artifacts (using it on million-year-old samples), and then concluded that since their results weren't accurate, the whole method must be flawed.

 

[Crane]

Hey Toronto pundek,

Why not try writing your own hypothesis instead of cut-and-paste ? I know for a fact that you love to drink Kingfisher beer and visit desker road whores.

 

[Toronto]

Science is very much a "right tools for the right job" profession, yet the creationist Scientists and advocates have been trying to use the wrong tools... they can't use a can opener to solve differential equations, therefore they've concluded that the can opener must also be bad at opening cans.

 

[Crane]

Science is very much a "right tools for the right job" profession, yet the creationist Scientists and advocates have been trying to use the wrong tools... they can't use a can opener to solve differential equations, therefore they've concluded that the can opener must also be bad at opening cans.

Wah .... differential equations. No bad, got some improvement.
"Using can openers to solve differential equations" ..... hmm ..... pretty creative

The metaphors that you use are still quite out-of-this-world. Can improve further.

 

[Toronto]

Some reliable websites on carbon dating:

1. http://www.c14dating.com/

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

3. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html#reliability

 

[Crane]

Some reliable websites on carbon dating:

1. http://www.c14dating.com/

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

3. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html#reliability

Yawn. Don't you have a life ? A career ?

 

[Lordshiva]

Somehow God informed me than Crane is likely another Conqueror clone. Or it could be wrong, God is teasing me

He don't even dare to use his real nick to stir shit what a loser with no balls

 

[Kinana]

He don't even dare to use his real nick to stir shit what a loser with no balls

what is your real nick?

 

[Lordshiva]

what is your real nick?

Ask your god I thought he knows everything ? Hehehehe.

 

[Kinana]

Ask your god I thought he knows everything ? Hehehehe.

Ahahahahaha........... exposed!

cheers

 

[Lordshiva]

Yawn. Don't you have a life ? A career ?

Zzzzzzz.... Why don't you ask yourself that question since you also log in Sammyboy to stir shit