MEETING DAVE MATTHEWS

[RGibson77]

Dave was raised Quaker, but he supposedly stopped practicing after his sister's death.

[jpittman]

It is hard to define as far as undogmatic belief and the whole uncommitted deal.

Absolutely. That's why so many different people have different definitions of agnosticism. As one, I was just offering my opinion as well.

Take it easy out there in Texas Mr. Pittman.

You too, bro. I'm off to bed before my 8:00 class tomorrow. Have a good night.

Regards,
Jared

[skiizalot]

skiizalot wrote:
If Dave is Agnostic, then why would he say that Evelution is irrefutable as he did on 2.6.99 when talking about ants that protect some tree in South America?
Believing in evolution does not necessarily have anything to do with religious belief. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, merely the adaption of species.

Science has led most of us to believe that Evolution started with the big bang, involved bubbling pools of ooze that eventually became single cell organisms over billions of years and many more billions of years latter, I sit her in front of the computer the decendent of that pool of ooze. Evolution is about species changing species and not just the adaptation of species. Most Evolutionary Scientist do not believe in the existence of God or gods. My intended point was, if Dave believes that Evolution is almost irrefutable, then he is pretty convinced that the chances of there being a God that created us or put the big bang in motion are slim to none, which would provide the avenue for there not being a god, which would take away the agnostic title.
I personally believe that Evolution is a process of faith much like religion. Evolution can not explain the effects of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) on our physical world. There are no transitional fossils in the geological strata that should be present according to Darwin as he stated in his infamous Origins of Man.

[skiizalot]

I meant to say Origins of Species. Sorry.

[gravedigger]

I think evolution is based on evidence and that religion is based on faith. They're incompatible, in my opinion.

[gravedigger]

evolution in the Darwin sense can not explain physical phenomena such as the Effects of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (the disorder of a system always increases) or any other for that matter. However, the laws of physics underly Darwin's theory of evolution. I look at this way. Biology underlies evolution, chemistry underlies biology, physics underlies chemistry and Mathematics underlies physics.

peace,
Ken

[skiizalot]

If evolution is based on evidence, then what evidence is there? The answer would be closer to none. If there were evidence to support it and prove it, then all religion would be tossed out the window.

[gravedigger]

you'd think wouldn't it? but some people are harder to convince. Of course there's evidence for evolution. the countless numbers of fossils that are found that date back millions of years. I really could chat about this longer, but it's 2:30 am and I'm tired and I wanna go to bed, I had a few drinks about an hour ago and its gone right to my head

peace,
Ken

[skiizalot]

I too could discuss this matter for hours on end. I was led to believe that there are millions of fossils dating back over millions of years. It wasn’t until after high school that I began to wonder how anthropologist and geologists come to date fossils. Radio-carbon dating is not accurate past a couple of thousand years, so how are you going to tell me that fossils are a certain age. It use to be that if you looked up fossils in the World Book Encyclopedia it would tell you that the age of fossils are determined by the geological strata (layers of sedimentary rock present on the earth) that they are found in. Then if you looked up geological strata, it would say that its age is determined by the age of the fossils found in its layers. This brings up serious problems for me with modern science. I do not think the earth is near as old as modern science says it is. If there is serious speculation as to how fossils are dated and no proof of them being “millions” of years old, then in walks that great five-letter word FAITH. Evolution requires faith. Lastly, we still have the most important link to evolution missing, the transitional fossil. To paraphrase from Darwin’s Origin of Species, ‘If evolution is true, there will be millions of transitional fossils in the fossil records’. Darwin did not have the hundreds of digs to rely on as we have today. In those hundreds of digs guess how many transitional fossils have been found??? The answer is not a single one.

[gravedigger]

I apoligize in advance for this scientific post in a Dave Matthews Forum.
Here's a small lesson in Radiometric Dating. Carbon-14 is radioactive and decays into Nitrogen-14 with a half-life of 5730 years. That means that after 5730 years, half of the sample of Carbon-14 is turned into Nitrogen-14. So by testing the ratio's of Nitrogen-Carbon in a fossil, the age of that fossil can be found. But this Carbon dating is only valid for the date range of under 100,000 years, since all the Carbon would have been changed into Nitrogen by that time. But lo and behold, Carbon-14 is not the only radioactive isotope in the universe. Geologists use Potassium/Argon dating which has a range of up 4.6 billion years. The half-life of Potassium-40 is 1.3 billion years as it decays into Argon-40. This method is how "I'm gonna tell you" how fossils can be dated back millions of years. Evolution is not based on faith, is based on convincing scientific evidence.

peace,
Ken

[gravedigger]

by the way, what do you mean transitional fossils?? evolution doesn't happen overnight - its a slow gradual process.

[skiizalot]

Transitional fossils are those fossils that show the transition from species to species. Like the missing link between monkeys and men. The missing link would be the transitional fossil that shows that transition. If we are continually evolving and evolution takes millions of years, you would think that the number of different, odd, dissimilar fossils would be vast. Most fossils are pretty similar within there species.

[skiizalot]

Thank you for the information, but it is my understanding that Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14 at Carbon 14’s half life of 5,770 years. Carbon 14 is useless past 25,000 years and at the same time when scientists test the same bone chip they end up with multiple ages for the same specimen? I am not sure where you have your Nitrogen 14 information and would like to look at your source.

Remember all discussions are in good fun.

[skiizalot]

I want to know your source on Potassium Argon dating not Nitrogen 14.

I thought that Potassium Argon dating was only used to date igneous or volcanic rocks, and those rocks that have not gone through a heating re-crystallization process after initial formation. So, how are you getting your evidence that the fossils are that old? – “This method is how "I'm gonna tell you" how fossils can be dated back millions of years.” Just because the rock is suppose to be that old, doesn’t mean you can “I’m gonna tell you” how old the fossils are. I think the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, TX. provides a good example as to why you can’t truss the dating of the fossils in the rocks they are found. There, a clear example of humans co-existing with dinosaurs is found. I am sure that in that area Potassium Argon dating would show the rock is billions of years old, yet we have two species that purported to never exist at the same time walking in the others footprints.

[gravedigger]

Hi, my roomate usually posts here under this name, but I've noticed this discussion and decided that I'd offer my two cents.

Fossil evidence is not so much a proof of evolution but rather evolution is the best inference that can be made based on the fossil evidence available. You are totally right in saying that fossil dating has its problems, most notably, organisms becoming embedded in rock long after it had originally formed. In cases like this, dating the rock around the organism is not at all accurate. However, as when interpreting any set of data, one most strive to be as logical as possible in the act. Fossil anomalies like these can, for the most part, be set aside when the majority of the evidence supports the theory. As for the lack of evolutionary transition states between different organisms, there are some. One such example is the volvocine series which clearly shows the rise of multicelluarity from single celled organisms. When you say there are no transition states between organisms i believe you are looking at too small a time scale. We cannot really see a distinct transition between say Homo Erectus and Homo sapiens because those sort of changes just dont happen all at once overnight. But Homo erectus can easily be seen as the evolutionary link between Homo habilis and Homo sapiens.
As for potassium argon dating, it can be applied to fossils found in non-igenous rock though it is not very precise. When using this format of dating, it is not so much the rock around the fossil that is dated; The decay rate (Potassium 40 has a decay rate of 1.31 billion years) of the potassium in an ingneous rock bed is calculated and then and fossils in any non-igneous rock can be labeled as newer and any below it, older. There are also other forms of dating.