-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
By the way, Lurker, you really don't have to get snarky. You are doing just fine. If you want a challenging conversation, I am up to it, but I deal with snarkiness all day long from the inmates and I don't have that much investment in our conversation, since I am not trying to convert you, only to rehone myself on the subject after a long break.
C
The RNA is an amazing chemical. The amino acids are lined up in triplets and the triplets are grouped into fours. The RNA produces twenty different amino acids. All life utilizes the same twenty amino acids. The evolutionary theory is that the more common the amino acid, the more ancient. They believe that ancient life had short strands of nucleic acids which then, through some unknown catalytic process joined together to form longer and longer RNA. This RNA reverse engineered the DNA which is now the means by which the cell accomplishes information storage, information transfer, precise replication and, according to evolutionists, mutational potential.
It is interesting to read and hear how evolutionists speak of this process. The complexity of the end result (DNA) and the almost innumerable difficulties of chance occurance are answered by the expression, "it must of..."
It is interesting to read and hear how evolutionists speak of this process. The complexity of the end result (DNA) and the almost innumerable difficulties of chance occurance are answered by the expression, "it must of..."
Ok, here’s a few:
Further support for a Cretaceous age for the feathered-dinosaur beds of Liaoning,China:New 40Ar÷39Ar dating of the Yixian and Tuchengzi Formations
The Ischigualasto Tetrapod Assemblage (Late Triassic, Argentina) and 40Ar/39Ar Dating of Dinosaur Origins
40Ar/39Ar dating of Lujiatun Bed (Jehol Group) in Liaoning, northeastern China
Gondwanaland from 650–500 Ma assembly through 320 Ma merger in Pangea to 185–100 Ma breakup: supercontinental tectonics via stratigraphy and radiometric dating
The quotation I provided previously wasn’t technical, but it was an accurate overview of how scientists use both absolute and relative dating techniques.
It’s not problematic at all for a gas to become trapped inside a solid, furthermore weathering and re-heating leave evidence behind which scientists can and do identify and account for.
Of course the key word is “non-radiometric”, that is the entire point as this is one example of a radiometric dating technique agreeing with multiple non-radiometric dating techniques out to 50,000 years b.p.. If C-14 wasn’t reliable these results would not agree. Furthermore, I have twice now provided you with examples of various radiometric dating techniques that do agree with each other, and since each isotope has a different decay rate we can once again say that if these different techniques were not reliable they would not agree with each other, yet they consistently do.
Even if I grant this, it is undeniable that samples are dated using multiple dating techniques and that those various techniques overwhelmingly agree. This is a strong indication that the dating techniques actually work.
Lurker
Further support for a Cretaceous age for the feathered-dinosaur beds of Liaoning,China:New 40Ar÷39Ar dating of the Yixian and Tuchengzi Formations
The Ischigualasto Tetrapod Assemblage (Late Triassic, Argentina) and 40Ar/39Ar Dating of Dinosaur Origins
40Ar/39Ar dating of Lujiatun Bed (Jehol Group) in Liaoning, northeastern China
Gondwanaland from 650–500 Ma assembly through 320 Ma merger in Pangea to 185–100 Ma breakup: supercontinental tectonics via stratigraphy and radiometric dating
The quotation I provided previously wasn’t technical, but it was an accurate overview of how scientists use both absolute and relative dating techniques.
“Argon-argon (or 40Ar/39Ar) dating is a radiometric dating method invented to supersede potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating in accuracy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon%E2%80%93argon_dating
Not really, since the probability of any single atom of a given isotope decaying during a set period of time is always the same. This probability is determined by the nuclear forces of the atom itself and thus is unaffected by terrestrial conditions such as chemical reactions, temperature, or pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon%E2%80%93argon_dating
It’s not problematic at all for a gas to become trapped inside a solid, furthermore weathering and re-heating leave evidence behind which scientists can and do identify and account for.
Of course the key word is “non-radiometric”, that is the entire point as this is one example of a radiometric dating technique agreeing with multiple non-radiometric dating techniques out to 50,000 years b.p.. If C-14 wasn’t reliable these results would not agree. Furthermore, I have twice now provided you with examples of various radiometric dating techniques that do agree with each other, and since each isotope has a different decay rate we can once again say that if these different techniques were not reliable they would not agree with each other, yet they consistently do.
Even if I grant this, it is undeniable that samples are dated using multiple dating techniques and that those various techniques overwhelmingly agree. This is a strong indication that the dating techniques actually work.
Lurker
C
I have been observing this for many years. When I was younger, the evolutionists were on top of the world. They could make all sorts of crazy claims (remember the old embryo illustration?). But over the years they have closed rank. As the opposition has become better prepared, this appeal to orthodoxy has increased. Those who would question are shunned. Try telling a non-theistic evolutionist that you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You will see how that step from orthodoxy would come back to haunt you.
C
The DNA is a complex bio-computer, which responds to the needs of the cell. It's double helix structure is uniquely equipted to preserve the genetic coding while allowing for transmission of the pattern. the DNA is like a twisted ladder. When a particular amino acid is needed, the DNA "unzips" breaking at the rungs to form a template. The surrounding enzymes then match up the amino acids that fit the template and connect them into a near mirror of the strand of DNA. This "mirror" differs from DNA in that it's base sugar is different, one of the amino acid used as a template is different, and it is a single strand rather than the double strand. This "unzipping" and transmission allows the DNA to perminently protect the template.
There are no life forms that do not use this comples molecule as the basis of their metabolism.
There are no life forms that do not use this comples molecule as the basis of their metabolism.
C
At one time, macroevolution was defended on the basis of time--it could happen given enough time. Now creation is attacked on the basis of time--how can creation be true when the earth is so old. From a strickly biological point of view, the more we learn, the more complex our biology is found to be, the more difficult to reconcile the present complexity with the presumed simplicity of the past life forms.
A
There are various creation models. Not all Christians hold to a 24 hour interpretation for the Hebrew word 'yom' as 6 literal days with sunrises and sunsets.
There is plenty of time available for Old Earth creation and progressive creation models, for example.
Plus, young earth creationists do argue there is enough time for their interpretation also though they often argue for an 'appearance of age' (though I am seeing less of this argument lately from my YEC brothers and sisters in Christ).
There is plenty of time available for Old Earth creation and progressive creation models, for example.
Plus, young earth creationists do argue there is enough time for their interpretation also though they often argue for an 'appearance of age' (though I am seeing less of this argument lately from my YEC brothers and sisters in Christ).