CELESTE

If a fossil is preserved in amber or otherwise preserved in some way, does this slow down the decay of C14 or can Carbon 14 dating still be used accurately to date any fossils regardless of the state of preservation?

What is the current teaching on this in science?

I am attempting to compare the supposed simplest primordial cell that is our earliest ancestor (according to Darwinian theory) to the actual simplest fossil evidence we have of the earliest living cell, and I am also going to compare to the simplest cell on earth today.

TONIGHT at 6PM Central. Anderson Cooper is a trustworthy journalist who would not have charlatans on his show. Plus researchers have concluded after a study that these memories do not bear any resemblance to "imaginations" but bear resemblance to reality -- even MORE REAL than reality.(see link for peer reviewed report) I hope you will reevaluate your beliefs that there is nothing after this life and what proof do you have? We don't have proof but thousands of these reports are evidence! Click on the link for a short preview of Anderson Cooper's show coming on tonight at 6pm Central. You owe it to yourself to seek out all viewpoints and evidence before making what might be an eternal decision.

NOTE: The link stated it will be shown at 7:00pm & 10pm Eastern but I am in Central time zone and it is at 6:00 PM according to ATTUverse.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/27/anderson-coo...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ /releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm (info on PLOS One peer reviewed paper)

Is it possible that some or even most evidence for evolutionary theory is questionable, or disputed, or has more than one interpretation? Have you checked to see what other scientists/researchers/PhD's are saying about certain evidences of evolution? Please give your best evidence for evolution. I am not an expert, but I do try to look objectively at both sides, I read Evolution books, Creation and ID books, so I am interested in seeing all viewpoints. I may email or comment in the next few days and thanks for answering. I will also ask in Science after this question is completed.

We have many different types of evidence for the existence of God and Christianity. There is historical, philosophical, fulfilled prophecies, and present day evidence of people whose lives have been transformed by God, & more. Here is a short video and this is just one of millions of testimonials giving evidence that Jesus is alive. It may not be empirical evidence, but why then do you not demand empirical evidence from science. Dawkins admitted concerning Abiogenesis (non-life to life & still a hypothesis not even a scientific theory): "No one knows how it happened....it's not a trivial problem....it's one of our gaps at the moment". and Jerry Coyne in his recent book "Why Evolution is True" stated:

“How the unique properties of life originated from inert matter is still one of the great unsolved problems of biology…Perhaps we’ll never know...."

So Atheist, you accept a naturalistic non-life to life story, without empirical evidence? The other alternative is a supernatural origin. Now what do you think of this girl"s story, which is evidence we accept for God.

http://www.cbn.com/tv/1420836714001

Trying to decide what to read next. Any suggestions?

What empirical evidence do you have that the Origin of Life happened in an atheistic manner? What is the evidence for this? How did the Origin of Life take place naturally, with no guiding intelligence and what is your evidence of this?

A true scientific theory should be based on lots of empirical evidence. I am interested in hearing about it from R/S atheists/evolutionists who have looked into the subject. I will also ask in Biology. Just throwing out insults doesn't answer the question, or make the person look cool. So please be courteous. I would like to look up each piece of empirical evidence and see if it is in dispute for whatever reason, or if it is valid evidence for consideration. So check back for an edit or email. It may take time though. Thanks.

But a good scientist will not be afraid to wade into controversy to find answers. Good, free thinking scientist James Shapiro, is being attacked by the bad and ugly, Coyne and Dawkins because Shapiro sees natural selection/mutation as not being creative enough for all the diversity and complexity of life that we have, and is doing research on what he calls Natural Genetic Engineering - and taking a beating for it too. Here is a quote from University of Chicago's Dr .James Shapiro:

“Darwin modeled natural selection on artificial selection by humans. He ignored the inconvenient fact that human selection for altered traits has never generated a truly new organismal feature (e.g., a limb or an organ)..."

Please give one example of a novel evolutionary feature and let's discuss it to see if there really is a controversy, or not.

But a good scientist will not be afraid to wade into controversy to find answers. Good, free thinking scientist James Shapiro, is being attacked by the bad and ugly, Coyne and Dawkins because he sees natural selection/mutation as not being creative enough for all the diversity and complexity of life that we have, and is doing research on what he calls Natural Genetic Engineering - and taking a beating for it too. Here is a quote from University of Chicago's Dr .James Shapiro:

“Darwin modeled natural selection on artificial selection by humans. He ignored the inconvenient fact that human selection for altered traits has never generated a truly new organismal feature (e.g., a limb or an organ)..."

Please give one example of a novel evolutionary feature and let's discuss it to see if there really is a controversy, or not.

therefore dismiss and eliminate Intelligent Design as a hypothesis/theory for origin of life? The simplest cell was partially modeled by Venter labs and just some of the processes required 128 computers and took 9-10 hours for one instance of cell division. This is the simplest we have on earth (e-coli is 8 times more complex), and now researchers have agreed that the biological cell is so complex it could not have happened by mere chance. The odds are so great it would be no different than a creative miracle. So now researchers are looking for a missing factor, chemical law or some other mechanism to explain the emergence of life. Since as Dawkins pointed out "Nobody knows how [life] started" (Origins Project) , please give evidence as to how it has been determined scientifically that Design in the cell is not actual design? Any empirical evidence - or just opinion?

Listen to this exchange as I thought he was joking, but no, he wasn't joking. Start at 50 - 1:23 if you want to hear it. Then skip to 33:10. The Great Debate What is Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHMnD2FDeY

LAWRENCE KRAUSS:...when computers become conscious, which they will,......Will we call them life? And I think they'll object if we don't, I suspect. I think the definition of life is a floating, is a moving target.

youtube video start at 33:10

NOBEL LAUREATE DR. SIDNEY ALTMAN: There is another question, Lawrence, which I would like to ask you...You were talking about the future of computers and that they will have consciousness, which I don't understand at all, I don't understand what you mean by consciousness... but knowing that you're a very erudite person and that you've probably read some of Isaac Asimov.

KRAUSS: Yeah, of course [I've read Asimov].

ALTMAN: Shouldn't we make sure that the 3 laws of robotics are imposed on our computers?[3 laws which protect human life from artificial/computer life?

KRAUSS: No, actually, I don't. It always amazes me, ....... We have this perception that somehow alien life - being computer life, is always a threat, and that in fact, our future isn't, isn't their future, and part of the problem of Asimov's 3 laws is the ASSUMPTION THAT DOING AWAY WITH HUMANS IS A BAD THING, AND IT'S NOT AT ALL CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT'S A BAD THING IN THE LONG TERM, BECAUSE I DOUBT, I DOUBT, THAT 200 YEARS FROM NOW THAT BEING HUMAN WILL, WILL HAVE THAT MUCH RESEMBLANCE TO WHAT BEING HUMAN IS NOW, not matter whether computers get intelligent or not.

DR. ALTMAN: shaking head

KRAUSS: I suspect that what we'll be able to do in Genetics...

DR. ALTMAN. no no no no no no no....

He is serious. Will this cause him to lose credibility. Or will other atheists agree with him about doing away with human life not being a bad idea. Your thoughts?

On what basis was it assigned 10,000 yrs. Was some sort of dating method used, if not why was it given the age of 10,000 years if they do not know yet. The first line of the article doesn't say "possibly 10,000 yrs, or estimated 10,000 years -- it says:

"Scientists in Siberia say they've extracted blood samples from the carcass of a 10,000-year-old woolly mammoth"

Wouldn't it be a candidate for carbon dating though? How is the decision to carbon date something made? I realize nothing over 60,000 years, I think, would still contain carbon14, but what if the age isn't known?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/31/187...

We are supposedly closer to abiogenesis - but it has been decades since the Miller/Urey experiment, which was not the early earth environment anyway, and abiogenesis is still an unworkable hypothesis. Dr. Jack Szostak in attempting to solve the problem used organic molecules, which of course didn't exist on primordial earth and his experiment is nothing like real abiogenesis or real life. Dr. Szostak even said, " “It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines…could have formed spontaneously from non-living matter,” Prof. Roger White, an evolutionist and science philosopher, speaking for the Origin of Life scientific community said this in the peer reviewed paper NOUS:

" There is almost universal agreement that life did not first come about merely

by chance."

So if life did not result from chance, how do scientists know it was not intelligently designed regardless of whether the Intelligent Agent is an undiscovered natural mechanism, an evolved higher intelligence which purposely designed us, or a God. Just because we cannot define who or what caused the intelligent action, doesn't mean we should dismiss and ignore the evidence of intelligence or seeming intelligence.

The simplest cell in the world was computer modeled and it was so complex it required 128 computers working simultaneously for 9-10 hours to bring about an instance of cell division. This information is encoded in our dna, and it certainly is a possibility of intelligence.

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012...

"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."

Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

"We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others. The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They've never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things."

Dr. Michael Egnor professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

The biggest problem is with the origin of information. Information origin in the first self replicating organism, and evolution's claim of going by leaps and bounds to form an arthropod's complex brain, compound eye, and complex nervous system during the Cambrian era. What research shows there is no missing mechanism which better explains the origin of information besides "copying errors" - mutation for NEW informationl.

And 14 years to your life, if black. Plus there are other health benefits - see link. Not to mention Eternity after this life. :) Are you ready to start going to church?? ;)

http://www.truthinaction.org/index.php/2013/04/go-...

the powerful appearance of Design is explained away as illusion? Also, I am NOT saying the Intelligent Designer is the God of my personal religion, but in science it should be explained why Design is not Design? Nobody's religion has any place in science, but science has a responsibility to not be biased when it is still in the hypothesis stage for Origin of LIfe. The Intelligent Designer could be a Higher Intelligence from another planet as far as science is concerned. But why is Design eliminated immediately and called illusion?

Richard Dawkins states that" the immense complexity and diversity and beauty and elegance of life and perhaps above all the POWERFUL ILLUSION of DESIGN in living things started from "extreme simplicity." He says the first self - replicating molecule started from "a reasonably complicated chemical beginning". He adds, "You've got to have genetics..Natural Selection can't get going until you have genetics." He admits that getting genetics started is "not a trivial problem; it's a problem that actually HASN'T BEEN SOLVED ...That's one of our GAPS at the moment...NOBODY KNOWS HOW [LIFE] STARTED"... .He goes on to state that he is looking for a Law of Chemistry, but it hasn't been discovered yet and he is not a chemist. Richard Dawkins with Lawrence Krauss, Origins Project

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj%E2%80%A6

So on the basis of what evidence is Design eliminated? Not necessarily supernatural Design either. Just admitting that Design is there and using a falsifiable formula to determine whether it is real, as is used in Archaeology and other disciplines..

In case you don't know, Origin of Life is far far from being understood, and none of the hypothesis are near being elevated to scientific theory. My sources are peer reviewed and not from a Creationist site. http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

I was thinking of trying to help a mentally challenged (mildly retarded) man to get some food stamps and he makes about $700 per month SSI, and his cousin pays about $100 month to help with his utilities. He owns his own little house and is in his 60's in Louisiana. Do you think he is eligible?