Evolution vs. Creationism

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth

:spank3:
:

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Now you are being stupid. I GAVE you those sources. I hand typed the bulk of it from what I found in my own library. Because you found the same points in a pdf file on another website means nothing, proves nothing, and is irrelevant.

About the c-14 dating, If I made the whole thing up, that doesn't invalidate anything. Do you need to be spoon fed everything? Don't you research your beliefs to see if they are TRUE or not? -Or do you just go off of what a journalist or scientist says? I gave you fact you can cross reference about the methodology of the testing. I gave you the flaws. I gave you the alternative scenarios. If you need to try to discredit this whole thing because of a source reputation, name, or other such nonsense, then you have shown how reliable your own data is by reason of non-thinking acceptance.

You need to calm down and stop with your constant assumptions.

You also need to cite your sources. That's all I'm saying, and since you have again failed to provide a link to the carbon dating information here it is:

http://kecirohomeschool.com/carbondating.htm

At no point did I even attempt to argue that anything you wrote was invalid because you didn't link a souce. All I implied was, link a source. Would you like to know why?

5- Copyrighted Material -All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work. Proper format is to post the first few paragraphs and then link to the article for the rest. Please don't repost entire articles here.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3482

Because it is an offense on this site. It is also intellectually dishonest to imply, through ommision, that another's work is your own.

Finally, by moving along to my question about Uranium series (which was the first thing I did), you should understand that I have ACCEPTED the fact that C-14 dating is unreliable, having no knowledge of it other than what you provided. I know nothing about dating methods scientists use to gauge the age of fossils.

Now you may have some sort of infection, or you may not have found a source that puts Uranium series dating into question, but when you do post next, if you provide information that is not yours, please remember to link the webpage, or provide the source of written text from which the information arises.

Thanks.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
You need to calm down and stop with your constant assumptions.

You also need to cite your sources. That's all I'm saying, and since you have again failed to provide a link to the carbon dating information here it is:

http://kecirohomeschool.com/carbondating.htm

Talk about assumptions, you just posted a link when I told you that I typed most of it by hand from books. This means you have put up a link that you ASSUME is my information that I posted. You can do that for whatever purpose you wish, but it isn't fact.

At no point did I even attempt to argue that anything you wrote was invalid because you didn't link a souce. All I implied was, link a source. Would you like to know why?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3482
Because it is an offense on this site. It is also intellectually dishonest to imply, through ommision, that another's work is your own.

1. I am well versed in this. You seem to think nobody can have books and that a website must exist for any text presented. That is wrong and illogical. I never made any claim that ist was all mine by the fact I GAVE sources. If this is the best you can do to take your eyes off the issue, it is really pretty bad

2. For an issue of this nature to even come up, the work must be from another place and copied. If mine was a rehash, it invalidates your entire point and is rather offensive that you think I cannot have the capacity to understand something and restate it even if it uses SOME original wording while also listing sources. In addition, some sources give away their information freely with a stipulation that they neednot be referenced which further invalidates your whole point.

Finally, by moving along to my question about Uranium series, you should understand that I have ACCEPTED the fact that C-14 dating is unreliable, having no knowledge of it other than what you provided. I know nothing about dating methods scientists use to gauge the age of fossils.

Now you may have some sort of infection, or you may not have found a source that puts Uranium series dating into question, but when you do post next, if you provide information that is not yours, please remember to link the webpage, or provide the source of written text from which the information arises.

If it fits the criteria of necessity, and/or if I feel like disclosing it so you can poke around at it avoiding the issue, I might. At this point I question wether I should even bother if you would rather play games with who authored what instead of adressing the issue at hand. After all, if I break rules, it is my butt now isn't it?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
This conclusion, though it may be logically valid provides us with no genuinely useful information.

So, until there is empirical, objective and independently verifiable proof of the existence of a supreme being, I will not be bothered by whether or not such an entity exists. [/B]

First, I can't believe that you are foolish enough to not be concerned about the existence of God.

Second, you state that my argument is logically valid, yet you dismiss it as useless. Does that mean that you conced the point? Or does that mean that you just don't really care?

 

[deciophobic]

Download kent Hovind's series of seminars, he will refute everything that has been brought up here and many more.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/hovind/

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by deciophobic
Download kent Hovind's series of seminars, he will refute everything that has been brought up here and many more.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/hovind/

Who are you directing this to? There are a couple of viewpoints being discussed.

 

[Zhukov]

Andy: “How can you be so obtuse?”

Warden Norton: “What? What did you call me?”

Andy: “Obtuse. Is it deliberate?”

Talk about assumptions, you just posted a link when I told you that I typed most of it by hand from books. This means you have put up a link that you ASSUME is my information that I posted. You can do that for whatever purpose you wish, but it isn't fact.

Carbon dating:

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up.

Carbon dating:

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up.

Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long.

First: explaination of how carbon dating works and then, the assumptions it is based on.

Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long.

This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back to normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950’s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radioactive version of carbon.

This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc.

In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years.

Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissue. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life) and so on.

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Example:

If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on.

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing

An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

http://kecirohomeschool.com/carbondating.htm

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

This is the most idiotic premise for a thread that I have ever seen. This really isn't complicated. Evolution is a THEORY. Disproving evolution does not confirm the validity of creationism. Just because two views are diametrically opposed, and one is proved invalid, does not mean that the other is automatically proven valid. Give me a break.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
This is the most idiotic premise for a thread that I have ever seen. This really isn't complicated. Evolution is a THEORY. Disproving evolution does not confirm the validity of creationism. Just because two views are diametrically opposed, and one is proved invalid, does not mean that the other is automatically proven valid. Give me a break.

Actually you missed the other parts about WHY the viewpoint NOT proven invalid works. There was reference to prophecy and reference to knowing things 2700 years ago that science has just proven in the last hundred years.

Given the Bible claims to be devine and infallible, this would prove it so. Given it claims that we were created, then the first point here proves that.

Simple flawless deduction.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Andy: “How can you be so obtuse?”

Warden Norton: “What? What did you call me?”

Andy: “Obtuse. Is it deliberate?”




http://kecirohomeschool.com/carbondating.htm

To which the teacher replies to the student: "Empty your cup".

In case your google search for origin can't determine the correct source here either, this is from an old interview with Bruce lee illustrating the purpose of forgetting everything you already know when trying to understand something new. Misconceptions and previous knowledge do not make room for full understanding.

That being said Mr. Know-it-all, :

(None of the materials produced by XXXXXXXXXXXX are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.) Our web site is another facet of our ministry, provided to help spread the truth into all the world.

Not that you care since you STILL don't get my source because:

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

-Which comes from the ONLY public domain and only COMPLETELY unchanged perfect rendering of original text, the King James authorized 1611 version.

---Now, notice the disclaimer. It notes a website AND books or other materials. Whatever you THINK, because it is wrong and you are a selfish jackass seems to be the best you can hope for to keep from acknowledging God as your creator and therefore looking at Him in the eye. That isn't my fault. At least have a spine enough to admit you are not wanting to accept Him for the real reason and quit trying to undermine my knowledge, credibility, and reliability with a false sense of points which will continue to make you look stupid.

One final note:

Your whole point of me potentially "ripping off" someone elses work hinges on 1 and only 1 concept:

The reason for linking, which you obviously do not understand, is because the law makes it an issue if Jim asks for money or operates a device which brings in ANY financial gain and somebody uses another person's information WITH said device and produces income.

This is therefore using someone elses work to create a cashflow illegally and unfairly. This is WHY the law exists. This is the ONLY time it has teeth. If no money is made from the information, and no slander is created, the law does not apply. As for Jim, it makes sense to impliment as a rule so he has no liability.

My using this information, if a ripoff, STILL does not have any way of being attacked by law. Even though I have shown you numerous times that there is no truth to your claim, I felt you ought to at least learn SOMETHING since you refuse to learn ANYTHING here.

So there you have it. Maybe now you will realize somebody out there CAN know something you don't, be honest, and still be credible.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov

And you didn't comment on Thorium-230. I would think someone with your obviously expansive knowledge of C-14 and Argon dating methods should have an opinion on Uranium series too.

Because I am a person of integrity, but not silly games, here is what you ask. Note you could probably google up several sources, so have fun:

Dudley’s Radiodating Research (1975). Radiodating of the sedimentary rocks, based on uranium, thorium, and other chains, had become relied on heavily to provide the "millions of years" dates. But a broad variety of research data repeatedly demonstrated that these methods are extremely unreliable. H.C. Dudley, one of these researchers, found that using pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc., he could change the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes. The implications of this are astounding. The strata were laid down under great pressure, and samples would vary widely to temperature and other changes. Such discoveries, along with the fact that the dates never agree with one another, greatly reduce the value of radiodating uranium, thorium, and other rocks (H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," in Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2).

 

[Bullypulpit]

I love that one. "I don't have any experience, therfore you can't either."

What's your point? Were you hanging around when the solar system formed?

A relationship with Christ is given freely. What are you afraid of?

What am I afraid of? Demagogues and zealots wielding political power.

Then adress the validity of the evidence I presented to you.

I will when you present evidence worthy of being called evidence.

Biblical prophecy is infallible and DOES prove it. You must have ignored my previous post about the shape of the Earth being fortold in 700 BC. Shall we open a thread to show proof that the Bible DOES prove the existence of God?

You've been following the rabbit down the hole for way too long. And there's no point in opening a thread to debate Biblical proof, since such proof is neither empirical or independently and repeatedly verifiable. It is not evidence or proof...It is mythology.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Who are you directing this to? There are a couple of viewpoints being discussed.

evolutionists

 

[deciophobic]

One last thing, would all you evolutionists out there who don't believe in God...do you really want to be related to a rock and have no purpose in life, except to eventually die? and that's it, THE END?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by deciophobic
One last thing, would all you evolutionists out there who don't believe in God...do you really want to be related to a rock and have no purpose in life, except to eventually die? and that's it, THE END?

There is no meaning in life but what we give it. If you choose to see it as empty and devoid of meaning in the abscence of a supreme being, that is your choice. I need no such crutch to see the beauty and meaning that life has to offer.

As to what happens after life has ended, well I guess we'll just have to see. After all, no one's come back with pictures.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
As to what happens after life has ended, well I guess we'll just have to see. After all, no one's come back with pictures.

But someone has come back.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
But someone has come back.

Pearls before swine, my friend.

I have taken away any doubt or possibility of doubt. I have proven and can prove on any science topic. I cannot, however, make him drink. He still doesn't believe fire can be quenched by water.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
But someone has come back.

Oh...Yeah...Right, him. Prove it.

 

[Hobbit]

Prove he didn't. Is there a body anywhere? Has anyone found the tomb of Jesus? I didn't think so. Now while this doesn't prove that he did come back, it may put a few things in perspective.

 

[Big D]

If Jesus does come back and starts up his shit,

us Jews will get him again.