Did humans descend from other primates?

[McCulloch]

Man did not descend from the primates.

Did humans descend from other primates?
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.

[otseng]

Where there is Uranium in the coal or surrounding the coal there will be Carbon 14.

I was trying to find more details of exactly how this happens. How does U generate C14?

[otseng]

The issue with this article is the interpretation of the facts/sources.

That's not the impression I got from Goat: "And you expect me to accept something from the IRC?Confused?:?? Honestly?

Not a single person here has claimed that the bacteria are the sole reason for the c14. You are arguing a strawman here.

Who said that it is the sole reason? It is however claimed as a reason. So attacking it is not arguing against a strawman. Unless everyone is retracting such a claim.

[Goat]

The issue with this article is the interpretation of the facts/sources.

That's not the impression I got from Goat: "And you expect me to accept something from the IRC?Confused?:?? Honestly?

Not a single person here has claimed that the bacteria are the sole reason for the c14. You are arguing a strawman here.

Who said that it is the sole reason? It is however claimed as a reason. So attacking it is not arguing against a strawman. Unless everyone is retracting such a claim.

Having the IRC as a source IS an issue. The folks at the IRC takes the concept that 'The bible is inerrant',and selectively filters information , and ignores all evidence that does not fit their preconceptions, AND it misrepresents the information it does use.

If you look at the tenents of the ICR, it shows that they start with a preconception and warp the information to fit those preconceptions

http://www.icr.org/tenets/

[otseng]

The oil pools, and collects in pockets, and much of the time is mixed with dirt and water as well. They all collect in the same places often enough. Nothing is "seeping out". It just changes frequently as rock and ground positions change.

Yes, oil are found in pockets. But the pockets are where the rocks on top are not permeable.

Allmost all radiometric dating is done on igneus rock so that you know that no C14 has leaked in or out.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Can you elaborate?

A) Without the proper igneus rock nearby the test has a high degree of error.

You mean the C14 would have a high degree of error?

B) How do I know you aren't making this up?

I've provided my sources, so I'm not making this up.

C) These are not "Evolutionary" timeframes. Geologists and physicists came up with these dating methods.

I use "evolutionary timeframes" in a chronological sense, not a biological sense.

D) No scientists worth his salt would ignore or intetionally not gather information on the basis that it "would raise more problems for their position"

Ideally yes.

E) If this test was done with C14, they should also do longer radiometric tests, like uranuim to see if the data correlates (ie. if 4 radiometric tests say its 300 million years old, and 1 says its 2000 years old, theres likely a problem with that one test).

Possibly. But I have yet to see other radiometric dating done on these.

Creation research isn't science.

Because it does conform to the naturalism paradigm?

Oh, BTW, it would be better if you used bbcode to format your posts, rather than using double quotes. See here for a quick tutorial.

[nygreenguy]

Where there is Uranium in the coal or surrounding the coal there will be Carbon 14.

I was trying to find more details of exactly how this happens. How does U generate C14?

Uranium, being radioactive, can give off neutrons which then attack to C12, making it C14. We posted a few articles a bit back that talked more about this.

[LiamOS]

Otseng.

The reason that Goat will not accept anything from ICR is likely the same reason that I won't.

The ICR regularly(and I do mean regularly) uses special pleading either implicitly or explicitly. Here the ICR makes the accusation that Atheists spending money on advertising rather than giving it charitably is hypocritical while blatantly ignoring the fact the Christians do so much more frequently and even having mentioned examples in the article. They do assert that Christians are charitable, but they entirely ignore the possibility that Atheists are.
This article also includes an argument from morality as a cite note.

Many of their published papers are laughable at best, but I suppose I should qualify that I only read those based on astrophysics or physics in general.
This paper essentially ignores most modern readings of the Earth's magnetic flux at various locations and can't even begin to explain the evident past reversals found in lava flows and such. It also appears to neglect the effects that the addition of other elements to the system which would be quite notable.

The Current State of Creation Astronomy is a rare gem in that it displays little in the way of wilful ignorance and raises some problems that don't(yet, at least) have good answers. The criticism of the structure or galaxy clusters depends on the non-existence of dark matter. Dark matter, whatever it actually is, quite clearly exists and is evident through even a Creationist hypothesis. Their failure to note this is somewhat worrying.
Most other 'problems' presented actually have reasonable explanations with the arguable exception of the apparent spiral structure of galaxies. Although the density wave theory is viable, it is not as comprehensive as most would like.
The largest criticism of this, though, is that they fail to offer any alternatives beyond 'maybe the universe is young' and don't even expand on that.

The ICR also openly makes assumptions such as:

* The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

* The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

Lastly, any organisation using the slogan "Biblical. Accurate. Certain." is inherently prone to wilful ignorance. If Goat and nygreenguy were citing an institute called "Atheism is right" whose tenets were something along the lines of "There is no God. Evolution and the Big Bang are true." you might question their credibility and you'd be more than right to do so.


Anyway, this is a very interesting debate to follow. I'd like to commend all the participants.

[Grumpy]

otseng

I was trying to find more details of exactly how this happens. How does U generate C14?

The same way cosmic rays generate C14 from N14, through the action of an energetic neutron. Atmospheric nuclear tests in the 40s and 50s created a spike of increased atmospheric C14...



...because of the energetic neutrons from the nuclear reactions. Any nuclear decay that produces an energetic neutron can produce C14 from N14. Since most naturally occurring radiation of this type(other than Cosmic Rays)results from the decay of U235(though this is far from the only source of energetic neutrons)there will be trace amounts of C14 found in carbon containing or surrounded by Uranium containing rocks or subjected to any other source of such neutrons.

Such sources must be considered when discussing C14 in old carbon, as ICR failed to mention, deliberately I think. It is an example of why ICR is not an accurate source of scientific analysis as they cherry pick facts that can be presented as supporting their preconceived conclusions and ignore those facts which are, inconvieniently, unsupportive. This is called pseudo-science.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Where there is Uranium in the coal or surrounding the coal there will be Carbon 14.

I was trying to find more details of exactly how this happens. How does U generate C14?

Uranium, being radioactive, can give off neutrons which then attack to C12, making it C14. We posted a few articles a bit back that talked more about this.

Which post are you referring to?

Looking at the Uranium series decay chain:


The only particles emitted in the entire chain are alpha and beta particles. There is no emission of just neutrons in the chain.

[LiamOS]

I think what grumpy was referring to was the release of neutrons upon fission, but I'm not entirely sure. ²³⁸U fissile though and makes up almost all natural uranium.

Could you clarify exactly what you mean, grumpy?

[nygreenguy]

Where there is Uranium in the coal or surrounding the coal there will be Carbon 14.

I was trying to find more details of exactly how this happens. How does U generate C14?

Uranium, being radioactive, can give off neutrons which then attack to C12, making it C14. We posted a few articles a bit back that talked more about this.

Which post are you referring to?

Looking at the Uranium series decay chain:


The only particles emitted in the entire chain are alpha and beta particles. There is no emission of just neutrons in the chain.

Uranium doesnt turn INTO carbon 14, but the neutrons RELEASED from decay are picked up by carbon making c12 carbon, c14 carbon.