Jump to content

Yay Dna!


white_raven23
 Share

Recommended Posts

Eh, those Swedes. You can't trust them. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen: How long before some literalist-inerrantist claims that the DNA was put there by Satan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These DNAs could be faked. These scientists are out to decieve you by spiltting them to make them older and planting a bear's teeth in the cave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay sheeple, this is just god testing our faith, its time told put our hands over our ears and say 'jesus loves me' till this goes away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'll sell you some gold that is 4.6 billion years old. (at one dollar for each year.)

 

But really, carbon 14 dating, if used, could not place the date of an item older than 70,000 years tops. So, what I want to know is what method was the DNA dated? Was DNA take out to dinner or a move?

 

Most likely, a layer of sediment the tooth was found, was the basis of the 400,000 year dating for any DNA found in the tooth. But we are not told. We must take it on faith that it is so, because "scientists" said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'll sell you some gold that is 4.6 billion years old. (at one dollar for each year.)

 

But really, carbon 14 dating, if used, could not place the date of an item older than 70,000 years tops. So, what I want to know is what method was the DNA dated? Was DNA take out to dinner or a move?

 

Most likely, a layer of sediment the tooth was found, was the basis of the 400,000 year dating for any DNA found in the tooth. But we are not told. We must take it on faith that it is so, because "scientists" said so.

 

Yeah, it makes so much more sense for us to be made out of mud and ribs about 10,000 years ago... :Wendywhatever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think DNA dating is based on the assumption of a constant rate of mutations.

 

So if the DNA has to be younger (as Creationists want) then the mutations have to have been more speedy. So which way do they want this? "Mutations don't happen" which is proven wrong over and over again, "Mutations happens slow" then Homo Sapiens is old (because they have done this with our ancestors too), or "Earth is young" and mutations of Homo Sapiens must have happened fast and the Creationist is more vivid supporter of Evolution than the scientists themselves!!!

 

And the evidence for mutations through meiosis can be found (amongst others) in the fact that that this science is accepted and used in thousands of cases in the criminal justice system. DNA can't be a fingerprint if no mutation occurs. So if a Creationist wants to take up the battle, then more than 10,000 crimincal cases have to be retried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably correct in how they dated it Han, but it would be nice if they said how they dated it. Maybe they dated the tooth. Is knowing how they dated it too much to ask? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they asked the tooth fairy? :)

 

I strongly suspect it's based on the mutation frequency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'll sell you some gold that is 4.6 billion years old. (at one dollar for each year.)

 

But really, carbon 14 dating, if used, could not place the date of an item older than 70,000 years tops. So, what I want to know is what method was the DNA dated? Was DNA take out to dinner or a move?

 

Most likely, a layer of sediment the tooth was found, was the basis of the 400,000 year dating for any DNA found in the tooth. But we are not told. We must take it on faith that it is so, because "scientists" said so.

 

Submitted to 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest VorJack

Oh, I'll sell you some gold that is 4.6 billion years old. (at one dollar for each year.)

 

Uh? Why would the age of gold alter the value? All gold is pretty close to the same age anyway, plus or minus a million years or so, since if formed as the earth was cooling. Unless you want to go back to the age of the atoms themselves, which were formed in dying stars that exploded into nebula ...

 

Or am I over-analysing this? Screw it, I'll trade you the gold for a splinter from the True Cross and an anchor stone from Noahs' Ark.

 

But we are not told. We must take it on faith that it is so, because "scientists" said so.

 

No, we must observe that it's an article of only four paragraphs and hence not designed to be comprehensive. If we want more information, we must look for it ourselves, or wait until the scientists publish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We must take it on faith that it is so, because "scientists" said so.

 

Yeah - scientists with crazy things like 'evidence' and 'repeatable results'. :loser:

 

The best the ID nitwits can come up with is ridiculous semantics, and no theory except for a fairy tale. I'll take the scientist's word over Kent Hovind's any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.