Evolution

[MissileMan]

Waaaay too long to cut and past in a post; you'll have to go to the link.

Carbon Dating - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

Again, it's creationists that allege that the dating MAY be wrong. Where is the scientific evidence that isotopic dating is 100% off the mark in every case? It's generally accepted as an accurate dating method by most everyone except creationists.

Dinosaurs - http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/dinosaurs.php


From Dinosaurs - the Bible references a "dinosaur":

One of the oldest books of the Bible – Job – mentions creatures that were most likely dinosaurs. The book of Job was probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born. The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is recorded in Job chapter 40. "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."(Job 40:15-19) The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Their tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars - one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world. Some Bible scholars think this passage refers to elephants or hippopotami. This is incongruent with the description though, as elephants and hippopotami have tails like ropes or cords, not like “cedars” as described in Job. The next chapter of Job talks about another huge, fierce animal – a sea monster named Leviathan. It was not a whale or crocodile, because the Hebrew language had other words to describe such animals. Leviathan may be a plesiosaur – a large, seagoing reptile that evolutionists say became extinct 60 million years before man evolved.

I read that the word translated as "tail" was actually the Jewish word for "penis" and this same passage also makes referrence to it's stones. The behemoth was, more than likely, a well-hung hippo. In all honesty, stories of dragons and sea-monsters in the Bible are unremarkable. The belief that the world was flat, that the sea was full of monsters, and there were dragons in need of a knightly slaying endured for thousands of years after these people put pen to parchment or papyrus. It's no more believable than Scylla or Charybdis from the Odyssey.

 

[Nienna]

Like I said, arbitrary. Provide some links to studies by credible scientists that prove that carbon-dating doesn't work.

"Arbitrary" better describes the unprovable assumptions behind the dating methods (listed above). Also, many creationists ARE "credible scientists" with PhDs awarded by secular universities. However, here are two links to non-creationist sites which admit (or I should say, try to gloss-over) the fact that there are problems with radiometric dating methods.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm

Also, just some info... carbon 14 dating can NEVER give an age of millions of years. Its half-life is 5730 +/- 40 years.

For giggles, I googled this and guess what I found? The only sites that claim this as truth are either religious or creation based. No major university, no world-renowned paleontologists, only Young-Earthers.

You must have used a different google phrase than I did. The first site that popped up when I entered “soft tissue dinosaur” was msnbc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Here are a few others…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp

But they weren't called dinosaurs, remember? You'd think something as remarkable as a dragon would rate a mention on the manifest. And not just one dragon, but thousands. Uh, no wait. It was only 2 dragons, and after the waters receded, they evolved into hundreds of species of dragons and went extinct all over the world in a couple thousand years.

Dragons or dinosaurs were probably no more remarkable to them than a crocodile is to us today. It is unclear how many dinosaurs would have been aboard. One sauropod kind could have speciated (not evolved) into apatosaurus, diplodocus, brachiosaurus,etc. in the same way that one dog/wolf kind could have speciated into wolves, dingoes, poodles, etc.

I'm sorry that you have such problems with the beliefs of others. You are simply making accusations and sarcastic comments without offering any scientific evidence to contradict creationist beliefs. No one can force you to believe in creationism; however, debating opposing views can only be helpful to the cause of true science. Please debate in a more respectful and logical fashion.

 

[MissileMan]

"Arbitrary" better describes the unprovable assumptions behind the dating methods (listed above). Also, many creationists ARE "credible scientists" with PhDs awarded by secular universities. However, here are two links to non-creationist sites which admit (or I should say, try to gloss-over) the fact that there are problems with radiometric dating methods.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm

Your own link estimates the age of the earth at between 4 and 6 billion years. But for the sake of argument, let's say that you're right and isotopic dating is only accurate to 1% (generous beyond reason). A 4-6 billion year-old result is still at least 40-60 million years-old.

Also, just some info... carbon 14 dating can NEVER give an age of millions of years. Its half-life is 5730 +/- 40 years.

Yep, I should have said isotopic dating.

You must have used a different google phrase than I did. The first site that popped up when I entered “soft tissue dinosaur” was msnbc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Here are a few others…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp

Those are great links! Why do you suppose that there is a substantial difference between how these sites portrayed this discovery and the way it's being portrayed by the creationist sites? These articles claim the soft tissue was recovered from 60-80 million year-old dinosaur bones. The creationists are touting it as evidence that isotopic dating is unreliable and that man definitely shared the earth with dinosaurs. I guess it's easier to practice "hear no evidence, see no evidence, and speak no evidence" than it is to face reality.

Dragons or dinosaurs were probably no more remarkable to them than a crocodile is to us today. It is unclear how many dinosaurs would have been aboard. One sauropod kind could have speciated (not evolved) into apatosaurus, diplodocus, brachiosaurus,etc. in the same way that one dog/wolf kind could have speciated into wolves, dingoes, poodles, etc.

Uh, yeah! Right! A T-Rex that eats an entire village is just some little dragon that isn't worth mentioning. And this miraculous mass speciation mysteriously ends at the same time man's record keeping begins. Coincidence? Oh, and then they all simply die at the same time without even a mention.

I'm sorry that you have such problems with the beliefs of others. You are simply making accusations and sarcastic comments without offering any scientific evidence to contradict creationist beliefs. No one can force you to believe in creationism; however, debating opposing views can only be helpful to the cause of true science. Please debate in a more respectful and logical fashion.

Guilty as charged on sarcastic, I won't deny it. But if you continue to forward absurd notions like dinosaurs on the ark, I will continue to answer absurdity with sarcasm.

 

[Isaac Brock]

For those involved, in debating dating methods, some information for you.

Carbon dating with a half life as mom4 said of about 5700 is only estimated accurate to at the most liberal, 60,000 years or ten half lives, which makes it only useful for archeological objects, and studies into roughly the last two ice ages.

However, the same principle used in carbon dating, is used in other elements found in biological structures such as:

Potassium (40) dating - H/L 1.3 Billion Years, estimated accuracy to about 13 Billion years
Uranium (235) dating - H/L 700 Million Years, estimated accuracy to about 7 billion years (though no sample has been found that aged)
Uranium (238) dating - H/L 4.8 Billion Years, estimated accuracy to about 48 billion years (though no sample has been found that aged)

The real problem is not with the accuracy of the dating, it's trying to isolate samples from the outside world which now has radioactive sources beyond natural background radiation.

Fossils, from what I understand now are vaccum sealed, and calibrated using more than one method in order to come to a date. There are many factors that can throw off any particular method of dating, which is why most "verified" fossils have more than one dating method agree within a given tolerance.

 

[Nienna]

Your own link estimates the age of the earth at between 4 and 6 billion years.

Of course they estimate an old age for the earth. Most scientists are old-earth evolutionists.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that you're right and isotopic dating is only accurate to 1% (generous beyond reason). A 4-6 billion year-old result is still at least 40-60 million years-old.

1% accuracy would mean that the scientists were accurate 1% of the time. It's faulty logic to simply take 1% of their estimate.

Those are great links! Why do you suppose that there is a substantial difference between how these sites portrayed this discovery and the way it's being portrayed by the creationist sites? These articles claim the soft tissue was recovered from 60-80 million year-old dinosaur bones.

I suppose the difference is in the differing a priori assumptions of the two groups of scientists. Creationists believe in an omnipotent creator. Secular scientists have decided that material and natural causes are the only possible explanation. These are the beliefs they bring to the table, before examination of any evidence.

The creationists are touting it as evidence that isotopic dating is unreliable and that man definitely shared the earth with dinosaurs. I guess it's easier to practice "hear no evidence, see no evidence, and speak no evidence" than it is to face reality.

The best thing to do is to employ critical thinking and ask how each group of people arrived at their conclusions. We have the hard evidence. Unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found with soft tissue. Both groups agree that...1) this is a dinosaur bone...2)It is not fossilized, and...3)It includes soft tissue.
Both groups also agree in general that...4)There have been examples of specimens which have fossilized rapidly, within 10-500 years...5)Soft tissue decays rapidly.

Using these given facts, scientists arrive at different conclusions. Creationists look at an unfossilized dinosaur bone that contains soft tissue and conclude that the bone must not be very old. Secular scientists look at an unfossilized dinosaur bone that contains soft tissue, and even with the knowledge that soft tissue decays rapidly and fossilization doesn't necessarily take millions of years, they still conclude that the bone is millions of years old. Then they are left scrambling to explain how it could still contain soft tissue.

A true critical thinker would accept the simpler explanation. But, because of their belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (an unobserved assumption), they cannot see what the evidence in front of their eyes is telling them. (Hear no evidence, see no evidence?) Perhaps if it was any other bone than a dinosaur bone, they would have arrived at a different conclusion.

Uh, yeah! Right! A T-Rex that eats an entire village is just some little dragon that isn't worth mentioning. And this miraculous mass speciation mysteriously ends at the same time man's record keeping begins. Coincidence? Oh, and then they all simply die at the same time without even a mention.

I don't know the accomplishments of the specific T-rexes that were aboard the ark. However, I think it is likely that an animal capable of eating an entire village would be a rather large animal. It would not be economical for God send send huge animals to a vessel with (large, but still) limited space. Scientists have found that T-rex eggs were roughly about the size of footballs, so we know that T-rexes did not start out to be extremely large. Also given that God charged each pair of animals with propagating their species, it is more likely that He would send younger, and thus smaller, representatives of the species. The average size of a dinosaur is roughly equivalent to the size of a goat. Only very old examples of a few species grew to enormity.

Mass speciation is not miraculous; it is the natural order. Speciation occurs everywhere today, as we can observe in finch beaks or moths or whatever isolated population is left with a limited gene pool from which to breed. Finch beaks and moths are also excellent examples of how speciation can occur very rapidly.

No one knows how long it took the many species to die out, or even if all the species have died out. New species of animals are being discovered even recently in rainforests of the world. It is not entirely out of the question that a dinosaur species could have survived.

Guilty as charged on sarcastic, I won't deny it. But if you continue to forward absurd notions like dinosaurs on the ark, I will continue to answer absurdity with sarcasm.

It is your assumption that my beliefs are absurd. I find it absurd to assume that the earth is billions of years old. However, I do not mock those who believe this. I ask for evidence and try to consider it critically.

 

[Nienna]

The real problem is not with the accuracy of the dating, it's trying to isolate samples from the outside world which now has radioactive sources beyond natural background radiation.

Thank you for the information. I have to mention, that though isolating samples is one problem, I think the biggest problem is this...

Scientists can measure the concentrations of parent/daughter isotopes with a great deal of accuracy. But the correlation between isotope concentrations and age/dates is shaky. Scientists must rely on the assumption that they can calculate and correct for all outside influences on the sample. These can never be observed for most specimens.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Thank you for the information. I have to mention, that though isolating samples is one problem, I think the biggest problem is this...

Scientists can measure the concentrations of parent/daughter isotopes with a great deal of accuracy. But the correlation between isotope concentrations and age/dates is shaky. Scientists must rely on the assumption that they can calculate and correct for all outside influences on the sample. These can never be observed for most specimens.

That is indeed a problem when using one sole dating method, and as you said. Many, though not all past samples, had to be re-evaluated by calibrating using multiple dating mehtods as they did give erroneous dating results. Carbon dating was used as the sole dating methods till well into the 60's, however now, it's fairly common place to use multiple dating activities with half lives in the proper ranges.

I think the another major issue with the fossil record and evolution is that is incomplete. There are many gaps, but this is not enitrely unsurprising. An excellent read if you woud like to know where and how current scientific theories have come to be in a very readable package is "A Short History of
Everything" by the excellent travel author Bill Bryson. Sources in his book explain that 99.99% of the earth's surface is and has not been conducive for fossilization, while makes sense as we do not see fossils everywhere we go. Thus, I'm not sure I can agree with the argument that a shakey fossil record is a coup-de-gras on rejecting evolution as a theory.

 

[Nienna]

That is indeed a problem when using one sole dating method, and as you said. Many, though not all past samples, had to be re-evaluated by calibrating using multiple dating mehtods as they did give erroneous dating results. Carbon dating was used as the sole dating methods till well into the 60's, however now, it's fairly common place to use multiple dating activities with half lives in the proper ranges.

Cross referencing is a good idea, but wouldn't all radiometric dating processes be subject to the same flawed assumptions?

I think the another major issue with the fossil record and evolution is that is incomplete. There are many gaps, but this is not enitrely unsurprising. An excellent read if you woud like to know where and how current scientific theories have come to be in a very readable package is "A Short History of
Everything" by the excellent travel author Bill Bryson. Sources in his book explain that 99.99% of the earth's surface is and has not been conducive for fossilization, while makes sense as we do not see fossils everywhere we go. Thus, I'm not sure I can agree with the argument that a shakey fossil record is a coup-de-gras on rejecting evolution as a theory.

I agree that, of course there are many gaps in the fossil record. You are correct in stating that fossilization is rare, and gaps are to be expected. However, we mustn't jump from "expecting gaps" to the assertion that finding links is inevitable. It is best to draw conclusions from the evidence on hand while continuing to look for more evidence. To date, there are no unquestionable links between any species.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Cross referencing is a good idea, but wouldn't all radiometric dating processes be subject to the same flawed assumptions?

The assumptions aren't flawed per se, the differences result from errors with one given method of dating is often, or more likely always is, a result of a sole variation on background radiation from the specific isotope being test.

Calibarating that with other methods allows a great deal of certainty whether or not our results are true. For instance, say Rubidium testing gave you 1.1 million years, Uranium testing gave 1.3 and Argon gave you 0.8. You'd be fairly confident that your dating is most likely correct. You can run a statistical t-test to determine that. However, if you had 1.1, 3.0 and 11, you know something is wrong and that your sample is possible to be dated using the current methods.

That's in a nutshell how modern dating works.

I agree that, of course there are many gaps in the fossil record. You are correct in stating that fossilization is rare, and gaps are to be expected. However, we mustn't jump from "expecting gaps" to the assertion that finding links is inevitable. It is best to draw conclusions from the evidence on hand while continuing to look for more evidence. To date, there are no unquestionable links between any species.

I don't think scientists "expect gaps" to necessarily be filled in the fossil record itself at all. Rather that they expect that the amount of fossils available for data will be small. For instance, if you collected all the existing humanoid bones from the classified Homo and Austral specimens, the'd fit in the back of a few chevy trucks. However, consider that if the theory of evolution is indeed correct, and the current hypothesis on how our species has come to be is true, our base sample which includes all humanoids that ever lived is comparitively small. Humanoids are predicted to only have existed for a rather "blink in the eye" in terms of life of planet, theorized of course.

It follows that given such a small population that have every lived, coupled with the rarety in which fossils of any kind form, we should expect the size of our sample to draw conclusions to be small and have gaps in it from variations of the species that simply have not fossilized or have been found.

 

[MissileMan]

Of course they estimate an old age for the earth. Most scientists are old-earth evolutionists.

It was the link you presented to further your argument. I suppose you want me to refute my own argument now?

1% accuracy would mean that the scientists were accurate 1% of the time. It's faulty logic to simply take 1% of their estimate.

That's not what I said. You say isotopic dating is unreliable. You have no evidence that it is 100% inaccurate, so I was allowing for it to be only 1% accurate. Even under that ridiculously lenient tolerance, a 4-6 billion year-old result would indicate a minimum of 40-60 million years.

I suppose the difference is in the differing a priori assumptions of the two groups of scientists. Creationists believe in an omnipotent creator. Secular scientists have decided that material and natural causes are the only possible explanation. These are the beliefs they bring to the table, before examination of any evidence.

The best thing to do is to employ critical thinking and ask how each group of people arrived at their conclusions. We have the hard evidence. Unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found with soft tissue. Both groups agree that...1) this is a dinosaur bone...2)It is not fossilized, and...3)It includes soft tissue.
Both groups also agree in general that...4)There have been examples of specimens which have fossilized rapidly, within 10-500 years...5)Soft tissue decays rapidly.

Did you even read the links you provided? The bone was indeed fossilized, but apparently not completely. They found this soft tissue deep inside the fossil after breaking it so that it could be moved.

Using these given facts, scientists arrive at different conclusions. Creationists look at an unfossilized dinosaur bone that contains soft tissue and conclude that the bone must not be very old. Secular scientists look at an unfossilized dinosaur bone that contains soft tissue, and even with the knowledge that soft tissue decays rapidly and fossilization doesn't necessarily take millions of years, they still conclude that the bone is millions of years old. Then they are left scrambling to explain how it could still contain soft tissue.

You again misrepresent the truth. The bone was fossilized.

A true critical thinker would accept the simpler explanation. But, because of their belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (an unobserved assumption), they cannot see what the evidence in front of their eyes is telling them. (Hear no evidence, see no evidence?) Perhaps if it was any other bone than a dinosaur bone, they would have arrived at a different conclusion.

I'm not the one so blinded by faith that I imagine the words "unfossilized bone" in an article about a T-Rex skeleton.

I don't know the accomplishments of the specific T-rexes that were aboard the ark. However, I think it is likely that an animal capable of eating an entire village would be a rather large animal. It would not be economical for God send send huge animals to a vessel with (large, but still) limited space. Scientists have found that T-rex eggs were roughly about the size of footballs, so we know that T-rexes did not start out to be extremely large. Also given that God charged each pair of animals with propagating their species, it is more likely that He would send younger, and thus smaller, representatives of the species. The average size of a dinosaur is roughly equivalent to the size of a goat. Only very old examples of a few species grew to enormity.

Dinosaur sizes varied from as small as a dog or turkey to those bigger than most whales. It's extemely likely that the smaller ones outnumbered the larger, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore the fact that the large ones existed.

Mass speciation is not miraculous; it is the natural order. Speciation occurs everywhere today, as we can observe in finch beaks or moths or whatever isolated population is left with a limited gene pool from which to breed. Finch beaks and moths are also excellent examples of how speciation can occur very rapidly.

You're comparing a difference in bird beaks to the wholesale mutation that would be required to transform a stegosaurus into a T-Rex or brontosaurus?

No one knows how long it took the many species to die out, or even if all the species have died out. New species of animals are being discovered even recently in rainforests of the world. It is not entirely out of the question that a dinosaur species could have survived.

According to you, there were only a couple thousand years available for the repopulation and then extinction of most, if not all, the dinosaurs. And not a single mention in the Bible about the sudden mass extinction of all the dragons.

 

[Gabriella84]

I've always wondered about the dinosaurs. Why aren't they mentioned in The Bible. You would think Peter or Paul would have noticed a giant brontosaurus in their Garden.
Of course, I am stealing this routine from Bill Hicks, the funniest man who ever lived.

 

[xandy123]

Evolution is nothing but a cute little theory used by atheists to tell themselves that there really isn't a God.

Okay so I gues chiding and cynicism are really effective means of getting your point across

 

[xandy123]

Microevolution. Even I believe that a species alters itself to adapt to its environment. However, species jumping evolution is preposterous and has not basis in fact.



I don't blame Darwin. It's not an entirely rediculous theory and requires an active mind to think of such a thing. However, evolution, as it stands, is the secular progressive's way of looking at Christians and saying, "We don't need your fancy shmancy God, you ancient, superstitious old dingbats."

My original assessment stands as my true feelings on the modern incarnation of the theory. I'm open to the possibility of small-scale, God guided, species jumping evolution. However, I think the special care God took creating human beings according to Genesis precludes the idea that we descended
from monkeys.

Who said "We don't need your fancy shmancy God, you ancient, superstitious old dingbats." did someone who represents everyone who belives in evolution go up to someone who represents everyone who is christian and say that? where did you get that quote from hmm, ah you made it up.

Wow you really dont know anything about evolution do you
If you belive that genesis precludes humans from bieng descended from ape you must also conceed that thefore the eath and all it's oraganisms appeared within a matter of day making evolution of anykind something that never happened. Unless you belive that evolution has taken place since god created the world 6,000 years ago right after the sumerians discovered bread. You cant belive in evolution and still belive in the historical accuracy of creation as described in genesis. It's just not possible. Besides I dont know what you are talking about when you say "species jump evolution" Evolution isnt' a jump but an exteremly long and gradual process wherby a dominant species that is more able to live and survive i and enviroment outperforms and outcompetes a similar speices. Humans didnt "jump" from becoming apes it was essentially a random genetic change that allowed apes long long ago to start down on the road to becoming human. Creationism says that everything on the earth know is as god intended it, how can you reconcile that with a scientific theory that says that humans in our current form took years to develop. Genetically humans and apes are still very similar, are you going to deny that DNA exist too, or that the earth isnt billions of years old how much science are you going to have to refute to sustain your argument.

 

[manu1959]

I've always wondered about the dinosaurs. Why aren't they mentioned in The Bible. You would think Peter or Paul would have noticed a giant brontosaurus in their Garden.
Of course, I am stealing this routine from Bill Hicks, the funniest man who ever lived.

einstein da vinci, michaelangelo and airistotle don't mention the bible or the dinosaurs.............hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....wonder if that means neither exist

 

[xandy123]

It is your assumption that my beliefs are absurd. I find it absurd to assume that the earth is billions of years old. However, I do not mock those who believe this. I ask for evidence and try to consider it critically.

Nobody assumes the earth is billions of years old, people can prove it with science. How's about you prove with science that there were dinosaurs on the ark hmm?

 

[manu1959]

Nobody assumes the earth is billions of years old, people can prove it with science. How's about you prove with science that there were dinosaurs on the ark hmm?

aligators turtles and lizzards....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

the same libs who love to teach about evolution get all harumphey when you imply that perhaps in the human population the most fit are dominating. What do they call it? Oh yeah, social darwinism.

 

[Said1]

aligators turtles and lizzards....

And long neck geese, a hump backed camel and some chimpanzees.

 

[MissileMan]

And long neck geese, a hump backed camel and some chimpanzees.

Some rats, and cats, and elephants?

 

[007]

You should have given as one of your vote choices, "theory", because that is precisely what evolution is, a "theory", and has never been proven as fact.