February 05, 2006

Carbon dating proves nothing

As a scientist I am happy to uphold a well tested theory until such time arrives that proof arises to contradict it, and in doing so develop a more accurate theory. This does mean that every now and then I have to admit I was wrong and adjust my belief system to accommodate this new evidence. It was while researching for my current final year project on evolution that I stumbled across such a piece of mind blowing evidence that shattered a belief I had held for years.

I now maintain that clowns are not the scariest thing I have ever seen.

They are now a close second to creationist websites.

- 25 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. i'm scared of the internet :(

    05 Feb 2006, 19:50

  2. they really give me teh fear too :(

    05 Feb 2006, 20:51

  3. :(

    05 Feb 2006, 23:51

  4. fancy sharing an example?

    06 Feb 2006, 01:10

  5. Visiting Atheist

    If we're talking Intelligent Design, why do its supporters never say who designed the Designer?

    06 Feb 2006, 11:19

  6. nom

    why do mathematicians say there are 2 kinds of infinity?

    06 Feb 2006, 17:53

  7. Dave tCB


    One of the brainiest scientists I've met is a Jesuit astronomer. He's a top bloke too. Religion and science can fit together quite happily IMHO.

    06 Feb 2006, 20:46

  8. IMHO.


    06 Feb 2006, 23:36

  9. Dave tCB, yep it's true. It's only when people attempt to argue that their theory is correct by disproving the theories of others that I get irate. One needs to provide ones own proof too. Especially when challenging what would appear to be a rather solid theory. Science and religion can coexist peacefully but if religion really wants to influence science's opinion then, like with doubting Thomas, religion is going to have to come up with some solid evidence, some stigmata that we can touch with our own hands.

    and Laura, here are a couple of beauties…

    Extract 1: There is a wonderfully preserverd fossil of a marine reptile called an ichthyosaur. The mother ichthyosaur is shown almost completely giving birth to a live infant- the beak of the young reptile is still inside of the mother's birth canal. It is unlikely that she laid on the floor for millions of years giving birth, whithout being disturbed. This proved that the world is NOT millions of years old, and fossils dont require that long to form.

    True. It is likely that she died and lay on the floor for millions of years stone. cold. dead. She wouldn't have been the first female to die giving birth and wasn't the last. Or maybe it is more likely that she was compacted and turned to stone at the very second of giving birth. Right. As if pregnant women didn't have enough to worry about already…

    Extract 2: Another fact disproving evolution is mass extinction. In 1999 over 300 whales, porpises, turtles, seals, fish, and land animals, such as ground sloths and penguins were found catastrophically buried together. This could very well be the result of a huge flood. (HINT: NOAH'S ARK!) Overall, they found 346 whales within a 370-acre area, buried in a 260-foot thick layer of sedimantary rock called diatomite. This is consistent with the Biblical account of the Genesis flood. 346 fossil whales buried in thick, muddy, diatomaceous sediment is a remarkable find. It points to a rapid, catastrophic burial, which is consistent with the time frame of the Bible- a time frame covering thousands (not millions) of years.

    HINT: surely that would indicate that the ark SUNK. Oh nevermind.
    What springs to mind first is those poor whales, I mean, how unlucky does an aquatic organism have to be to drown in a flood? and if it was sedimantary rock (which has to settle in water over time) they must have consistently drowned on the same place over a period of time, like a bermuda triangle of death - that's really unlucky. Or maybe as the "catastrophic burial" scenario aims to suggest, they were caught in some form of cliff fall? All 346 of them - and that's the number that didn't escape. What exactly were 346+ whales doing loitering around under a dodgy cliff? And how big was this cliff then to be able to trap with ease 346 whales? They must have been pretty densely packed too if they weren't able to swim away. Mating? In which case this has got to be a candidate for the unluckiest orgy ever. They should be given the name Balaenoptera infelix.

    And, as if to add insult to injury, they were buried under 260 feet of diatomite. A substance that the website's own glossary defines as:

    diatomite (dI-'a-t&-"mIt) – a large amount of minute planktonic unicellular or colonial algae with silicified skeletons

    Yes, they perished under roughly 80 metres of their favourite food. It'd be like death by donut avalanche. Maybe that's what the creationists are trying to say? Because an 80 metre high cliff of donuts is, in my opinion, definitely miraculous.

    Still, more to the point, how would speedy fossilization and plankton mountains disprove evolution anyway? o_0

    07 Feb 2006, 01:31

  10. i'm at a lack for words. probably shouldn't talk anyway, since a) drunk and b) catholic. but the whale bit did make me laugh out loud. poor unlucky whales… i still find it puzzling this whole contra evolution thing even exists… guess i'm just as narrow-minded, just the other way round :/

    07 Feb 2006, 01:52

  11. Well I'm a roman catholic convent schoolgirl so I really shouldn't be talking either! :)
    I'm intrigued to find out what further research will uncover, but I think this level of interest in my project is probably unhealthy…

    07 Feb 2006, 02:06

  12. Pfft, there are scarier things on the internet than Creationists. Unforunately I can't mention them here, because otherwise they will come and get me…

    07 Feb 2006, 12:41

  13. fucksake. Can this "visiting atheist" person just fuck off. gettin boring now.

    07 Feb 2006, 21:31

  14. Why? Visting Athiest has been around and contributing to these blogs longer than you have. Being anonymous doesn't remove a person's right to comment.

    07 Feb 2006, 21:46

  15. warwick blogs ain't complete without the visiting atheist… show some respect vincent..

    08 Feb 2006, 08:20

  16. A conundrum

    If efficiency is intelligent laziness, does that mean intelligent design is just … chaos?

    08 Feb 2006, 20:35

  17. Dave tCB

    There's nothing like a catholic education to put you off organised religion. To be fair though, you'd be hard pushed to find many catholics who believe in creationism. Seems to be evangelical protestants in the main.

    Here is a joke –

    Prof Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI and a boy scout are all on a plane when the engines catch fire. The pilot runs out of the cabin and breaks the bad news that there are only 3 parachutes on board and he's taking one before jumping out the exit. The Prof grabs a parachute announcing that as one of the foremost scientific brains of Britain he deserves to live especially ahead of Benny who he accuses of being a dangerous religious fanatic. He then leaps out the exit.

    The Pope turns to the boy scout, gives him the last parachute and says that since he has had a long and happy life, he will make his peace with God and will die happily. "No need" answers the scout, "the clever scientist guy just jumped out wearing my rucksack!"

    Boom, boom.

    09 Feb 2006, 21:23

  18. OT - nom – there're more than two kinds of infinity… Main two are countable and uncountable infinity, examples of which are the cardinality of the natural numbers (counting numbers – you can count them all, but there's an infinite number of them) and the cardinality of the real numbers (e.g. a single irrational number like pi or e is countably infinite, but there are an uncountable number of them). Mmm, mathsy…

    09 Feb 2006, 21:54

  19. Sean, I'm not a maths student, but I thought that real numbers were countably infinite, you have to go with something like the power set of an infinite set to make an uncountably infinite set.

    10 Feb 2006, 10:15

  20. Never mind, I am getting confused – rational numbers are countable but real numbers are not.

    10 Feb 2006, 10:18

  21. A single male

    So it's completely unrelated to speed dating, then?

    14 Feb 2006, 01:43

  22. Michael Cornish

    I just wrote my email as my name. I feel rather stupid about… now.

    15 Feb 2006, 12:30

  23. Hehehe Michael, et voila, comment removed so you need not fear the spammers. That's just the loving and generous kind of person I am. Content was as follows:

    Creationist diatribes scare me too Mia. But on the other hand, they did provoke your very funny whale orgy response, for which I am very grateful. I'm never going to look at a whale the same again…
    What are your thoughts on the U.S. schools that teach only creationism and not evolution? 15 Feb 2006, 12:30

    Yes, truly we should thank fundamentalist christians for mass whale orgies. Every day. To their face. It's what Jesus would have wanted.
    And as for the schools, I pity them. I am sorry for the thousands of children who they expect to dictate the future of their species when they know nothing of their past. If God is responsible why are there so many mistakes, variations and links, why is life so awkward and ungainly and why the hell did He approve bloody halibuts?! When they decended from heaven to the earth they must have hit every branch on the ugly tree on the way down or something…

    19 Feb 2006, 23:17

  24. ggwb

    So, have stummbled across this blog string, and I can't help but throw in a few comments. First off I should say that I am a creationist, and like any blog you need a token atheist and a token creationist j/k. Anyway, I'm curious as to why each of you doubt the creation account? Second, I would like to offer some interesting thoughts to this discussion. How long did the creation account take?, or better does the biblical creation account express limits to the length of time for creation? What does the evidence of nature tell us? Imparticular the Law of General Relativity, I call it a law because it is the most exhaustible tested physical property in the universe and is accurate within 14 places of the decimal. This law conmbined with the fact that this universe contains matter, that which as mass and occupies space, gives conclusive agrument that a transedent being which exists outside of space and time created space and time. Personally, I believe that this transcendent being is the God of the Bilble and I can show several further agruments to support that, however, my time is limited.

    23 Feb 2006, 19:49

  25. I'm sorry, but the existance of matter in the universe and the applicability of Einstein's law of general relativity most certainly do not provide a credible argument for the existance of some 'creator' – that's almost as vague as me saying, for example, 'The sky's blue, therefore God exists'.
    Science, and in particular the concept of evolution, are not incompatable with the existance of some higher being, and it certainly is the case that we don't understand many things about the universe (like what started it all off, where it came from, where it's going and so on), but the whole argument that the universe in its entirety was designed and created by some being just doesn't seem to hold water in the least.

    25 Feb 2006, 08:23

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

February 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jan |  Today  | Mar
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28               

Search this blog


Most recent comments

  • You think skittles are cool huh? Try SMARTIES. Similar method – put the smarties in, shake, filter, … by Jenni on this entry
  • This looks amazing, but here's an idea: Sour Skittles It's just crazy enough that it might be awesom… by Bill on this entry
  • this site is brill! vodka skittles is legendary, i'm having a ziblata (get drunk party) this weekend… by kuppykake on this entry
  • i made this today within two hours luckily my dad had nuthing better to do but to shake the bottle f… by Phil on this entry
  • If you crush the skittles (as much as you easily can) before adding them to the vodka, they dont tur… by janelle on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder