According to science, how does a new species develop?

[james bond]

It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.

Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. How old do you believe it is?

Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old? Science text books change every year. So who's to say these guys are right now?

Actually I do know how how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? I also know where the 6,000 yeas old number came from, and how Lord Kelvin and Darwin arrived at their numbers. I doubt you care, you only wish to attack science and ignore the fact that Lord Kelvin and Darwin estimated the minimum age of the earth. Science text books change every year.because science is progressing and not stagnant.

I also note you failed to answer my question.

Such a snotty attitude. Is it because you know science? I didn't hear any answers of how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old, so it's not something you can readily explain. A scientist could, but not an internet atheist like @FortFunIndiana. And just who are "they" anyway? Who came up with 4.5 B years old? Hint: It's not Billy Nye nor Degrasse.

My answer to your question at one time was the same as what science stated as 4.5 B yrs old for the Earth and 13.7 B years for the universe because I learned about evolution myself through reading. The ToE didn't really apply to what I was learning anyway. It only mattered if you took biology, geology, paleontolgy and zoology in college. Around the 80s, no one thought evolution had to do with atheism. Who gave a flying f*ck about those weirdos anyway? Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa.

I talked with older adults and they were taught that the universe was eternal. And sure enough I found the steady state theory. I should have included that one after 6,000 years. I guess the earth was eternal, too. Then I became Christian in 2012 and started reading about creation science and the Bible. Around 2008, and especially 2011, I was already criticizing evolution as there really wasn't any definitive transitional fossils and I could not think of any example of macroevolution. The only thing ToE had going for it was natural selection, so I believed that and just bought the old earth and universe. Yet, the radiometric dating bothered me in that they got different ages for similar items. It didn't make sense to me to discard ones that didn't fit the timeline. Afterwards, the general or soft science articles in the news kept repeating the earth was 4.5 B yrs old and universe was 13.7 B yrs old, so much that it started to bother me. If we all knew it was so old and it was fact, then why keep telling us? Today, the media likes to point out how asteroids will be whizzing by so "close" to the earth and they'll usually give the 4.5 B yrs old earth in those articles. What are they trying to sell us? Asteroids aren't any threat at all. The only thing I can think of is they want us to be leery of the disaster and give us a reason to nuke some large meteor or possible asteroid in far space. But I digress.

Eventually, I started to read and listen to what creation scientists were saying. They had many prominent scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, father of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Wegener, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal and Johannes Gutenberg and so on. Thus, I ended up comparing both and thought the creation science was more likely. It does not mean intelligent design, although there is intelligence behind the design, but a young earth, a 6,000 yr old Earth.

That's another stupid thing today's atheist scientists can't get over. They cannot admit to something they discover has a design, especially intelligence behind the design. That's just stupid. It's not the same as an ID argument.

 

[alang1216]

It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.

Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. How old do you believe it is?

Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old? Science text books change every year. So who's to say these guys are right now?

Actually I do know how how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? I also know where the 6,000 yeas old number came from, and how Lord Kelvin and Darwin arrived at their numbers. I doubt you care, you only wish to attack science and ignore the fact that Lord Kelvin and Darwin estimated the minimum age of the earth. Science text books change every year.because science is progressing and not stagnant.

I also note you failed to answer my question.

Such a snotty attitude. Is it because you know science? I didn't hear any answers of how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old, so it's not something you can readily explain. A scientist could, but not an internet atheist like @FortFunIndiana. And just who are "they" anyway? Who came up with 4.5 B years old? Hint: It's not Billy Nye nor Degrasse.

My answer to your question at one time was the same as what science stated as 4.5 B yrs old for the Earth and 13.7 B years for the universe because I learned about evolution myself through reading. The ToE didn't really apply to what I was learning anyway. It only mattered if you took biology, geology, paleontolgy and zoology in college. Around the 80s, no one thought evolution had to do with atheism. Who gave a flying f*ck about those weirdos anyway? Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa.

I talked with older adults and they were taught that the universe was eternal. And sure enough I found the steady state theory. I should have included that one after 6,000 years. I guess the earth was eternal, too. Then I became Christian in 2012 and started reading about creation science and the Bible. Around 2008, and especially 2011, I was already criticizing evolution as there really wasn't any definitive transitional fossils and I could not think of any example of macroevolution. The only thing ToE had going for it was natural selection, so I believed that and just bought the old earth and universe. Yet, the radiometric dating bothered me in that they got different ages for similar items. It didn't make sense to me to discard ones that didn't fit the timeline. Afterwards, the general or soft science articles in the news kept repeating the earth was 4.5 B yrs old and universe was 13.7 B yrs old, so much that it started to bother me. If we all knew it was so old and it was fact, then why keep telling us? Today, the media likes to point out how asteroids will be whizzing by so "close" to the earth and they'll usually give the 4.5 B yrs old earth in those articles. What are they trying to sell us? Asteroids aren't any threat at all. The only thing I can think of is they want us to be leery of the disaster and give us a reason to nuke some large meteor or possible asteroid in far space. But I digress.

Eventually, I started to read and listen to what creation scientists were saying. They had many prominent scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, father of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Wegener, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal and Johannes Gutenberg and so on. Thus, I ended up comparing both and thought the creation science was more likely. It does not mean intelligent design, although there is intelligence behind the design, but a young earth, a 6,000 yr old Earth.

That's another stupid thing today's atheist scientists can't get over. They cannot admit to something they discover has a design, especially intelligence behind the design. That's just stupid. It's not the same as an ID argument.

The beauty of science is that anyone with the time and inclination can learn exactly how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old. That is a fundamental difference between science and religion, in religion "truth" is revealed and must be accepted on faith whereas science is learned and can be learned by anyone.

If you can say "Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa", you really don't understand evolution. Until you learn why I say this you should not attempt to evaluate the ToE.

If you want to understand science you might read what science has learned in 100+ years since your list of prominent scientists lived.

 

[james bond]

It's not just one has the young timeline while the other has the old.

Science says the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. How old do you believe it is?

Do you know how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? And that science believed it was different in the past such as 6,000 years old, Lord Kelvin, the most famous physicist of his time, had it as 100 M (20 M - 400 M range) and Darwin had 306.7 M years old? Science text books change every year. So who's to say these guys are right now?

Actually I do know how how they come up with the age of the Earth as 4.5 B years old? I also know where the 6,000 yeas old number came from, and how Lord Kelvin and Darwin arrived at their numbers. I doubt you care, you only wish to attack science and ignore the fact that Lord Kelvin and Darwin estimated the minimum age of the earth. Science text books change every year.because science is progressing and not stagnant.

I also note you failed to answer my question.

Such a snotty attitude. Is it because you know science? I didn't hear any answers of how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old, so it's not something you can readily explain. A scientist could, but not an internet atheist like @FortFunIndiana. And just who are "they" anyway? Who came up with 4.5 B years old? Hint: It's not Billy Nye nor Degrasse.

My answer to your question at one time was the same as what science stated as 4.5 B yrs old for the Earth and 13.7 B years for the universe because I learned about evolution myself through reading. The ToE didn't really apply to what I was learning anyway. It only mattered if you took biology, geology, paleontolgy and zoology in college. Around the 80s, no one thought evolution had to do with atheism. Who gave a flying f*ck about those weirdos anyway? Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa.

I talked with older adults and they were taught that the universe was eternal. And sure enough I found the steady state theory. I should have included that one after 6,000 years. I guess the earth was eternal, too. Then I became Christian in 2012 and started reading about creation science and the Bible. Around 2008, and especially 2011, I was already criticizing evolution as there really wasn't any definitive transitional fossils and I could not think of any example of macroevolution. The only thing ToE had going for it was natural selection, so I believed that and just bought the old earth and universe. Yet, the radiometric dating bothered me in that they got different ages for similar items. It didn't make sense to me to discard ones that didn't fit the timeline. Afterwards, the general or soft science articles in the news kept repeating the earth was 4.5 B yrs old and universe was 13.7 B yrs old, so much that it started to bother me. If we all knew it was so old and it was fact, then why keep telling us? Today, the media likes to point out how asteroids will be whizzing by so "close" to the earth and they'll usually give the 4.5 B yrs old earth in those articles. What are they trying to sell us? Asteroids aren't any threat at all. The only thing I can think of is they want us to be leery of the disaster and give us a reason to nuke some large meteor or possible asteroid in far space. But I digress.

Eventually, I started to read and listen to what creation scientists were saying. They had many prominent scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, father of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Wegener, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal and Johannes Gutenberg and so on. Thus, I ended up comparing both and thought the creation science was more likely. It does not mean intelligent design, although there is intelligence behind the design, but a young earth, a 6,000 yr old Earth.

That's another stupid thing today's atheist scientists can't get over. They cannot admit to something they discover has a design, especially intelligence behind the design. That's just stupid. It's not the same as an ID argument.

The beauty of science is that anyone with the time and inclination can learn exactly how "they" came up with the age of the earth as 4.5 B yrs old. That is a fundamental difference between science and religion, in religion "truth" is revealed and must be accepted on faith whereas science is learned and can be learned by anyone.

If you can say "Evolutionary thinking states they started off as pygmy tribe in Africa", you really don't understand evolution. Until you learn why I say this you should not attempt to evaluate the ToE.

If you want to understand science you might read what science has learned in 100+ years since your list of prominent scientists lived.

I didn't say evolution, but evolutionary thinking. ToE has to do with biology, but paleontology is close.

So, really what you're admitting is 4.5 B is just another number along with the other estimates and "methods" scientists in the past have use to age things including the earth. That's the conclusion I came to. What it means is we have to look elsewhere for more evidence.

ETA: If someone can readily explain how they came up with 4.5 B year age of the earth, then more power to them. Also, they should know the name of the person who came up with it.

 

[alang1216]

I didn't say evolution, but evolutionary thinking. ToE has to do with biology, but paleontology is close.

I guess I misunderstood you. Maybe you could explain the difference?

 

[alang1216]

So, really what you're admitting is 4.5 B is just another number along with the other estimates and "methods" scientists in the past have use to age things including the earth. That's the conclusion I came to. What it means is we have to look elsewhere for more evidence.

ETA: If someone can readily explain how they came up with 4.5 B year age of the earth, then more power to them. Also, they should know the name of the person who came up with it.

Next time you go to the doctor tell them you want leeches instead of antibiotics since that is what medicine used at one time.

Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford.

 

[james bond]

So, really what you're admitting is 4.5 B is just another number along with the other estimates and "methods" scientists in the past have use to age things including the earth. That's the conclusion I came to. What it means is we have to look elsewhere for more evidence.

ETA: If someone can readily explain how they came up with 4.5 B year age of the earth, then more power to them. Also, they should know the name of the person who came up with it.

Next time you go to the doctor tell them you want leeches instead of antibiotics since that is what medicine used at one time.

Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford.

>>Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford.<<

Wrong answer. Bzzz. Rutherford came up with 2.2 B years using uranium dating. So that's another method and age for the earth that scientists came up with. The guy who came up with 4.5 B years is Clair Patterson who used uranium-lead dating to get 4.5 B yrs old. I only mention this because people in general do not know how they came up with 4.5 B years old earth. While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED. They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.

"Estimate of age of Earth
When Patterson returned to the University of Chicago to work under his research adviser Harrison Brown, Brown, knowing about Patterson's experience with mass spec, teamed him up with George Tilton to do geological aging on zircons. Zircons are extremely useful for dating since, when they are formed, they possess tiny imperfections of uranium inside them but no lead. Therefore, if any lead is present in the zircon, it must come from the decay of uranium. This process is known as U-Pb dating. The job of the team was to measure the concentration and isotopic compositions of the elements inside the zircon. Tilton was to measure the uranium and Patterson, the amount and type of lead.[4] The goal for Patterson was to figure out the composition of the primordial lead in the Earth. In doing so, it would be possible to figure out the age of the solar system and, in turn, the Earth from using the same techniques on meteorites.

As Patterson and Tilton began their work in 1948, Patterson quickly became aware that his lead samples were being contaminated. They knew the age of the igneous rock from which the zircon came, and Tilton’s uranium measurements aligned with what should be in a zircon at that particular age, but Patterson’s data always was skewed with too much lead.[4] After six years the team did publish a paper on methods of determining the ages of zircon crystals and Patterson did achieve his Ph.D., but they were no closer in determining the age of the Earth.

Brown was able to receive a grant from the United States Atomic Energy Commission to continue work on dating the Earth, but more importantly, to commission a new mass spectrometer in Pasadena, California at Caltech. In 1953, Brown brought Patterson along with him to Caltech, where Patterson was able to build his own lab from scratch. In it he secured all points of entry for air and other contaminants. Patterson also acid cleaned all apparatuses and even distilled all of his chemicals shipped to him. In essence, he created one of the first clean rooms ever, in order to prevent lead contamination of his data.[4] He then was able to finish his work with the Canyon Diablo meteorite. He used the mass spectrometer at the Argonne National Laboratory on isolated iron-meteorite lead to collect data on the abundance of lead isotopes. With the new data, in 1956 he published “Age of Meteorites and the Earth”, the first paper containing the true age of the solar system’s accretion, which was 4.550Gy ± 70My.[5][6][7][8]"

Clair Cameron Patterson - Wikipedia

However, what's wrong with this scenario? Patterson was able to clean his room from other contaminants. In fact, he may created one of the first clean rooms ever. If one does measurement on the actual earth, then there are contaminants everywhere from the earth's environment that have affected the fossils or rock. In order to use radiometric dating, one has to know the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened. Thus, one cannot always accurately measure using radiometric dating. And that's what we get. We get a wide range of answers. You can radiometric date something you know from present day and get millions of years for it. Again, one must know the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened. Many scientists think they know, but they do not. What they do is they guess and this is where the evolutionary bias comes in. They only accept the radiometric dating that falls within their preconceived notions. They even aged the moon rocks that were brought back and they had the same problems.

Here's an example of a young earth in fossils. One can't do it with rocks, only organic matter. Creation scientists have found carbon-14 remaining in dinosaur fossils. They have used carbon-14 dating to come up with young dinosaurs from thousands of years ago. However, this does not fit what evolution states that they lived about a 100 million years ago and became extinct about 65 million years ago, so it's disregarded as the fossils being contaminated. Today, scientists think they know what was original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened, so no one can present an argument that is different.

.

 

[james bond]

I didn't say evolution, but evolutionary thinking. ToE has to do with biology, but paleontology is close.

I guess I misunderstood you. Maybe you could explain the difference?

I thought you meant the pygmy tribe. Here it is if that's what you meant:
"Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BCE. Will Durant, in his The Story of Civilization, explained that certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports. The Vedas of Ceylon admitted only the possibility that deities might exist but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way by the tribes.[2]"

History of atheism - Wikipedia

If you meant evolutionary thinking, then here is its history in relation to ToE.
History of Evolutionary Thought

 

[alang1216]

While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED. They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.

Interesting idea that there are others that know better than the experts. Who are these others and how did they come to know more than the experts.

As for the remainder of your post, you may use non-science sources to dispute science but I trust the scientific method and don't see consensus as conspiracy. If a scientist were able to disprove an established theory, e.g. ToE, they would be a rock star in their world.

 

[alang1216]

History of atheism - Wikipedia

Evolution does not require one to be an atheist so this more appropriate in the Religion and Ethics forum. Plenty of theists accept that their God works through evolution.

 

[james bond]

While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED. They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.

Interesting idea that there are others that know better than the experts. Who are these others and how did they come to know more than the experts.

As for the remainder of your post, you may use non-science sources to dispute science but I trust the scientific method and don't see consensus as conspiracy. If a scientist were able to disprove an established theory, e.g. ToE, they would be a rock star in their world.

Radiometric dating and carbon-14 dating are both scientific methods to measure age, but there are assumptions that are made for using either. We can use carbon-14 dating on organic fossils and diamonds and get a younger age. It's wrong to state only one is scientific method.

 

[alang1216]

While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED. They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.

Interesting idea that there are others that know better than the experts. Who are these others and how did they come to know more than the experts.

As for the remainder of your post, you may use non-science sources to dispute science but I trust the scientific method and don't see consensus as conspiracy. If a scientist were able to disprove an established theory, e.g. ToE, they would be a rock star in their world.

Radiometric dating and carbon-14 dating are both scientific methods to measure age, but there are assumptions that are made for using either. We can use carbon-14 dating on organic fossils and diamonds and get a younger age. It's wrong to state only one is scientific method.

Carbon-14 dating is radiometric dating.

 

[james bond]

While you got radiometric dating correct, people do not know how it works because it's COMPLICATED. They just take an expert's opinion and this is used to heap scorn upon others who know better.

Interesting idea that there are others that know better than the experts. Who are these others and how did they come to know more than the experts.

As for the remainder of your post, you may use non-science sources to dispute science but I trust the scientific method and don't see consensus as conspiracy. If a scientist were able to disprove an established theory, e.g. ToE, they would be a rock star in their world.

Radiometric dating and carbon-14 dating are both scientific methods to measure age, but there are assumptions that are made for using either. We can use carbon-14 dating on organic fossils and diamonds and get a younger age. It's wrong to state only one is scientific method.

Carbon-14 dating is radiometric dating.

Wrong again. C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby. Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .

 

[alang1216]

Carbon-14 dating is radiometric dating.

Wrong again. C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby. Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .

Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.

 

[james bond]

Carbon-14 dating is radiometric dating.

Wrong again. C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby. Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .

Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.

Okay, I take it back. One point for you. If radiocarbon dating was discovered first, then we may be talking about a younger earth. However, Charles Lyell changed all that.

 

[deanrd]

According to science, how does a new species develop?

Anyone who doesn't know by now doesn't want to know.

 

[james bond]

Carbon-14 dating is radiometric dating.

Wrong again. C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby. Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .

Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.

Besides, you were wrong about scientific method. They're both scientific methods.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Carbon-14 dating is radiometric dating.

Wrong again. C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby. Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .

Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.

Besides, you were wrong about scientific method. They're both scientific methods.

So, let's review:


Evolution and the age of the Earth: Both known facts.

Religious nutball still touching himself on a message board: check.

Number of "creation science" papers published: 0.

Amount of education or experience in these fields by this religious nutball: none.

Difference made by little tantrums thrown by this religious nutball: none.

Number of credible scientists disputing or even attempting to dispute evolution or the age of the Earth: 0.

 

[deanrd]

Carbon-14 dating is radiometric dating.

Wrong again. C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby. Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .

Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.

Besides, you were wrong about scientific method. They're both scientific methods.

So, let's review:


Evolution and the age of the Earth: Both known facts.

Religious nutball still touching himself on a message board: check.

Number of "creation science" papers published: 0.

Amount of education or experience in these fields by this religious nutball: none.

Difference made by little tantrums thrown by this religious nutball: none.

Number of credible scientists disputing or even attempting to dispute evolution or the age of the Earth: 0.

I was going to say you are wrong.

Then I noticed you used the word "credible".

Never mind.

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

 

[alang1216]

Carbon-14 dating is radiometric dating.

Wrong again. C14 is radiocarbon dating developed in the late 1940s by Nobel winner Willard Libby. Radiometric dating was discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1902 .

Actually no, radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, not unlike ribeye being a type of beef.

Besides, you were wrong about scientific method. They're both scientific methods.

So, let's review:


Evolution and the age of the Earth: Both known facts.

Religious nutball still touching himself on a message board: check.

Number of "creation science" papers published: 0.

Amount of education or experience in these fields by this religious nutball: none.

Difference made by little tantrums thrown by this religious nutball: none.

Number of credible scientists disputing or even attempting to dispute evolution or the age of the Earth: 0.

He's all yours, I'm defeated.