white_raven23 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060714/sc_af...ce_060714171218 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Eh, those Swedes. You can't trust them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 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 More sharing options...
A T Thunderbird Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 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 More sharing options...
ped Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Paul_S Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 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 More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 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 More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Maybe they asked the tooth fairy? I strongly suspect it's based on the mutation frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JP Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 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 More sharing options...
Guest VorJack Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 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 More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 We must take it on faith that it is so, because "scientists" said so. Yeah - scientists with crazy things like 'evidence' and 'repeatable results'. 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts