Let's talk about Satan

BRAVO Sprinkles!!!! Keep talking.

I am one of those who gets twitchy and irritable when people start talking about young earth creationism -- the kind where they teach children that humans coexisted with dinosaurs --- It's like meeting someone who thinks the earth is flat. Yet I've met people who take everything in the bible 100% literally. gah --- makes me want to stab my eyes out. So I understand the frustration.

However (this part is important) since I myself am incapable of explaining how radiocarbon dating works, I strongly believe that the solution is education, and not calling people dumb/alienating them. There are whole "museums" propagating young earth creationism, you know. And most people, including probably most people on this forum, don't have the chemistry or science background necessary to truly understand and explain it.
 
BRAVO Sprinkles!!!! Keep talking.

I am one of those who gets twitchy and irritable when people start talking about young earth creationism -- the kind where they teach children that humans coexisted with dinosaurs --- It's like meeting someone who thinks the earth is flat. Yet I've met people who take everything in the bible 100% literally. gah --- makes me want to stab my eyes out. So I understand the frustration.

However (this part is important) since I myself am incapable of explaining how radiocarbon dating works, I strongly believe that the solution is education, and not calling people dumb/alienating them. There are whole "museums" propagating young earth creationism, you know. And most people, including probably most people on this forum, don't have the chemistry or science background necessary to truly understand and explain it.

No no no no no!! We all lived together....like this! --
awesome.jpg

(me being sarcastic btw...lol)
 
.​

Here’s a huge post for you [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Just thought I would give you some of the scientific knowledge that is out there. Like I said...I am not out to disproved anyone’s religion...I am really trying to show that they can go hand in hand with evolution once you take a step back and accept that we were created that way...that what is in the bible is a parable meant to explain things to the people back then...who for sure wouldn’t understand the evolutionary process, or the process by which God used it to create us.
Here is the proof that is out there -

"Amino acid
racemization dating is a technique that is used to date fossilized objects up to several million years in age. The naturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception, naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process calledracemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture).
Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old.[SUP][2][/SUP]
While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable. Such conditions would destroy all traces of the amino acids rather than just leave a racemic mixture of the molecules behind.
[edit]Baptistina asteroid family

The Baptistina asteroid family is a cluster of asteroids with similar orbits. This group was produced by a collision of an asteroid 60 kilometers in diameter with an asteroid 170 kilometers in diameter. Researchers from the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and the University of Prague have traced the orbits of these asteroids back from their current locations and estimated that the original collision happened 160 (±20) million years ago.[SUP][3][/SUP] 2011 data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer has revised the collision date to80 million years ago.[SUP][4][/SUP]
[edit]Continental drift



Fossil areas across landmasses.​

Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.[SUP][5][/SUP]
[edit]Coral

Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.[SUP][6][/SUP]
[edit]Cosmogenic nuclide dating

The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects over millions of years old.[SUP][7][/SUP]


[edit]Dendrochronology



Clearly defined tree rings.​

Dendrochronology is a method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings. The rings are the result of changes in the tree's growth speed over the year (since trees grow faster in the summer and slower in the winter). The age of a tree can be found by counting the rings and is the only method on this list that can date events precisely to a single year.
Now, any date derived from one individual tree is not in itself contradictory to the recent creation doctrine, since even the longest lived types of tree do not live longer than 5,000 years or so. However, it is possible to extend the chronology back over many different trees. This is done by taking the matching up living tree rings with dead tree rings, which go on longer than the living rings. Because the thickness of tree rings varies with the climate, a sequence of thick ring, thin ring, thin ring, thick ring, thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick ring is strong evidence that the corresponding rings formed at the same time. By observing and analyzing the rings of many different trees from the same area, including fossil trees, the tree ring chronology has been pushed back in some areas as far as 11,000 years.[SUP][8][/SUP]


[edit]Distant starlight



The Hubble Deep Field, taken in 1996, showing light that has been in the cosmic vacuum of space for billions of years, not thousands.​

See the main article on this topic: Starlight problem
The fact that distant starlight can be seen from Earth has always been a major problem for the young Earth idea. Because the speed of light is finite, what you are actually seeing when you look at an object is an image of that object from the past. "From the past" here has a few caveats regarding the relativity of our concept of the past, the future, and now. In the BBC Horizon program What Time Is It? physicist and former pop-synth player Brian Cox suggested that, as information cannot travel faster than light, and that time and space are relative, it can be considered that that the stars actually are what they look like "now", in a manner of speaking. Either way, though, the bottom line is still the same; the light has travelled a certain distance, for a certain time, before arriving on Earth to be seen by our eyes or telescopes. We can use this data to put a minimum time on the existence of the universe, by looking at how long some light has been travelling for.
On Earth, the delay caused by the speed of light is incredibly minor — when you look at an object a mile away, the light has been travelling for five microseconds. When you look at the Sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. It's more noticeable with sound and distant objects, but only because the light from things such as distant explosions or jet fighters is so much faster. There's still a delay and transit time for the information that says whatever made the light/sound must have been around that long ago to produce it.
On the cosmic scale of things, this delay is far from minor and really is noticeable. When astronomers look at the closest star to Earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago from our perspective. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over ten billion years ago. Light we are receiving from these fields has been travelling for ten billion years, and the universe must have, therefore, existed long enough for that transit time to take place.
Therein lies the problem for young Earth creationism; if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how can objects billions of light years away — and therefore billions of years old — be seen?
There are a few creationist "zingers" to solve this problem, but are almost exclusively centred around pretending the problem doesn't exist. One is omphalism, which suggests the light was already in place and on its way 6,000 years ago, which is basically like saying that "6,000 years ago, the world was created 14 billion years ago", which is a form ofLast Thursdayism. They also like time dilation fields and changing the speed of light, but as this requires a lot of Goddidit to make it work, as there is zero evidence for why the speed of light should change. There are a lot of issues surrounding changing fundamental physical constants such as c, namely that according to E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP], increasing c to make the world 6,000 years old would lead to normal radioactive decay blowing the planet up. Qualified astrophysicist Jason Lisle came up with the "anisotropic synchrony convention", which exploits how to reliably measure of the speed of light, but suffers from special pleading in that it assumes a highly unlikely physical reality deriving from a mathematical quirk is literally true - and there is no additional evidence for such a thing.
[edit]Erosion

Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.[SUP][9][/SUP] Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar, rather than the more solid stone that it's made of.[SUP][10][/SUP] VenomFangX of YouTube claimed that the Grand Canyon would have formed in about "5 minutes", which at the very least would require the water to travel 5-6 times the speed of sound.[SUP][11][/SUP]
In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is that the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it.
[edit]Fission track dating

Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of crystalline materials that contain uranium. As uranium decays, it sends out atomic fragments, which leave scars or "fission tracks" in crystalline structures. Because decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate, the number of fission tracks correlates to the age of the object.[SUP][12][/SUP] This method is generally held to be accurate, as it shows a high degree of concordance with other methods such as potassium-argon dating.[SUP][13][/SUP]
[edit]Geomagnetic reversals

A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every50,000 to 800,000 years, and generally take thousands of years.[SUP][14][/SUP] This fact is obviously inconsistent with the notion of a young Earth; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the Earth at least 8.5 million years old.[SUP][5][/SUP]
[edit]Helioseismology

The composition of the Sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the Sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the Sun can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years.[SUP][15][/SUP]
[edit]Human Y-chromosomal ancestry

See the main article on this topic: Y-chromosomal Adam
The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one person alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now - not taking into account smaller and less drastic mutations - the only one left. Because the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome is mutation, measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can tell you when this man lived. The most recent calculations put this common ancestor as having lived 340,000 years ago.
[edit]Ice layering



A section of an ice core with clearly defined annual layers.​

Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.[SUP][16][/SUP]
Nevertheless, the minimum age of the Earth identified by these means is 160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years.)
[edit]Impact craters

The number of impact craters can provide a probable lower limit on the age of the Earth. Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrences; the chance of an asteroid with an Earth-crossing orbit actually striking the planet has been estimated at 2.5 x 10[SUP]−9[/SUP] yr[SUP]−1[/SUP], and when multiplied by the estimated number of Earth-crossing asteroids this approximates about one collision for every 313,000 years.[SUP][17][/SUP] If this frequency is correct, the number of impact craters on Earth were it only a few thousand years old should be very few. The most logical number of observable >1km impact craters for a young Earth would in fact be something likezero — a number that is completely at odds with the observable evidence, since over one hundred such craters have been discovered .[SUP][18][/SUP]


A crater 1,200 meters in diameter.​

Even if creationists were to present some scenario in which many dozens of large asteroids could hit the Earth in less than 6000 years, there are still tremendous problems with this idea. The largest asteroid impacts are some of the most catastrophic events the world has ever seen. In Antarctica there is a crater 500 km in diameter which is calculated to have been caused by an asteroid 48 km in diameter roughly 250 million years ago.[SUP][19][/SUP] How the life we see today could have survived such an incident (if it had occurred in the last 6000 years) is a serious problem for YECs; an asteroid impact that big would have led to the extinction of all medium to large size species, an event that — given the creationist model; short time frame, no evolution — the world would have never recovered from.
[edit]Iron-manganese nodule growth



An iron-manganese nodule​

Beryllium-10 ([SUP]10[/SUP]Be) produced by cosmic rays shows that iron-manganese nodule growth is one of the slowest geological phenomena. It takesseveral million years to form one centimeter (and some are the size of potatoes).[SUP][20][/SUP] Cosmic ray produced [SUP]10[/SUP]Be is produced by the interactions of protons and neutrons with nitrogen and oxygen. It then reaches the earth via snow or rain. Since it is reactive, it gets absorbed by detritus material, within a timespan of about 300 years- very short compared to its half-life. Thusly, [SUP]10[/SUP]Be is excellent for use in dating marine sediment.
[edit]Lack of DNA in fossils

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.[SUP][21][/SUP]
If fossils of the dinosaurs were less than 6,000 years old, detectable fragments of DNA should be present in a sizable percent of dinosaur fossils, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic regions where the decay of DNA can be slowed down 10-25 fold. A claim that soft tissues in a Tyrannosaurus fossil had been recovered in 2005[SUP][22][/SUP] have since been shown to be mistaken,[SUP][23][/SUP] supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old.[SUP][24][/SUP]
[edit]Length of the prehistoric day

Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each.[SUP][25][/SUP] Because the rate of change of the rotation of the Earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about 370 million years ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral).[SUP][26][/SUP]
[edit]Lunar retreat

South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today."[SUP][27][/SUP] The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.[SUP][28][/SUP]
[edit]Naica megacrystals

The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum crystals on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceed 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than one million years.[SUP][29][/SUP]
[edit]Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds

Nitrogen is the most common impurity in natural diamonds, sometimes by as much as 1% by mass. Recently formed diamonds, however, have very little nitrogen content. A major way synthetic diamonds are distinguished from natural ones is on the basis of nitrogen permeation. It takes long periods and high pressures for the nitrogen atoms to be squeezed into the diamond lattice. Research on the kinetics of the nitrogen aggregation at the University of Reading have suggested that a certain type of diamond, I[SUB]a[/SUB] diamonds, spend 200-2000 million years in the upper mantle.[SUP][30][/SUP]
[edit]Oxidizable carbon ratio dating

Oxidizable carbon ratio dating is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. This dating method works by measuring the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon. When the sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time this will change and the amount of organic carbon will decrease to be replaced by oxidizable carbon at a linear rate. By measuring the ratio of these two allotropes, one can determine ages of over 20,000 years ago with a standard error under 3%.[SUP][31][/SUP]
[edit]Permafrost

The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by theglobal flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.
Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of Alaska, the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over225,000 years to reach present depth.[SUP][32][/SUP]
[edit]Petrified wood

See the main article on this topic: petrified forest
The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking millions of years".[SUP][33][/SUP]
It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be achieved in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions.
[edit]Radioactive decay

Radioactive decay is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the Earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years.[SUP][34][/SUP]
Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand radiometric dating and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods.
However, the most frequently used method of attack is to give examples of objects of known ages that were dated incorrectly. These instances are by far the exception rather than the rule and are usually due to unforeseen contamination or other errors that can be quickly identified and compensated for. This is not "cheating" and forcing results to confirm to expectations as many young earth creationists may claim, it is making the data as accurate and precise as possible (if it is "cheating" then cleaning your camera lens to get a better and clearer picture is also cheating).
[edit]Relativistic jets



A drawing ofquasar GB1508 and its relativistic jet​

A relativistic jet is a jet of plasma that is ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields. It is conjectured that the jets are driven by the twisting of magnetic fields in an accretion disk (the plate-like cloud of matter) found encircling many celestial objects. In super-massive bodies, immensely strong magnetic fields force plasma from the accretion disk into a jet that shoots away perpendicular to the face of the disk. In some cases, these columns of plasma have been found to extend far enough to refute the idea of a young universe.
For example, the quasar PKS 1127-145 has a relativistic jet exceeding one million light years in length.[SUP][35][/SUP] Because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, this column must be over one million years old. Moreover, these jets are generally billions of light years from Earth, meaning they were at least a million years old several billion years ago due, again, to the speed of light.
[edit]Rock varnish

Rock varnish is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborne dust accumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow; between 4 μm and 40 μm of material forms on the rock every thousand years, and instances of 40 μm of accumulation are very rare.[SUP][36][/SUP] Because the rate of accumulation is generally constant, measuring the depth of the varnish can provide dates for objects up to 250,000 years old.[SUP][37][/SUP]
[edit]Seabed plankton layering

Fossils of dead plankton that layer on the ocean floor is used to gauge temperatures from the past, based on the chemical changes of Crenarchaeota, a primitive phylum of microbe. Much like ice layering and dendrochronology, researchers drill through the ocean floor to extract samples which indicate annual temperature fluctuations in the plankton fossils, or "chemical rings" as it were. A 2004 pioneering expedition to the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole collected samples dating back to over 56 million years of temperature dating.[SUP][38][/SUP]
[edit]Sedimentary varves

Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter, as the water freezes and calms, fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers.
The creationist response is that, instead of once per year, these varves formed many hundreds of times per year. There is, however, much evidence against accelerated formation of varves.

  • Pollen in varves is much more concentrated in the upper part of the dark layer, which is thought to represent spring. This is what would be expected if varves formed only once per year because pollen is much more common at this time.[SUP][39][/SUP]
  • In Lake Suigetsu, Japan, there is a seasonal die-off of diatoms (calcareous algae) that will form layers in the bottom of the lake along with the sedimentary varves. If the 29 thousand varves in the lake formed more than once per year, there should be several sediment layers for every layer of deceased algae. However, for every one white layer of algae in Lake Suigetsu, there is only one varve.[SUP][40][/SUP]
  • The varve thickness in the Green River formation correlates with both the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle of the earth.[SUP][41][/SUP]
[edit]Space weathering

Space weathering is an effect that is observed on most asteroids. Extraterrestrial objects tend to develop a red tint as they age due to the effects of cosmic radiation and micrometeor impacts on their surfaces. Because this process proceeds at a constant rate, observing the color of an object can provide the basis for a generally reliable estimate. The ages provided by this dating technique exceed millions of years.[SUP][42][/SUP]
[edit]Stalactites


A stalactite​

A stalactite is a mineral deposit that is usually - though not exclusively - found in limestone caves. They are formed on the ceilings of caverns by the slow deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals as they drip, in solution, over the stalactite. These formations take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimetres (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less than ten thousand years old we would expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one metre.[SUP][26][/SUP] In fact stalactites frequently reach from the ceiling to the floor of large caverns.
It is true that cases of accelerated growth have been observed in some stalactites, but rapid growths are only temporary, as the rapidly growing stalactites quickly deplete the surrounding limestone.[SUP][26][/SUP]
[edit]Thermoluminescence dating

Thermoluminescence dating is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals, such as ceramics or lava. These materials contain electrons that have been released from their atoms by ambient radiation, but have become trapped by imperfections in the mineral's structure. When one of these minerals is heated, the trapped electrons are discharged and produce light, and that light can be measured and compared with the level of surrounding radiation to establish the amount of time that has passed since the material was last heated (and its trapped electrons were last released).
Although this technique can date objects up to approximately 230,000 years ago, is only accurate on objects 300 to 10,000 years in age. This is, however, still over 4,000 years older than the creationist figure for the age of the earth.[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP]
[edit]Weathering rinds

Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern United States are believed to have taken over300,000 years to form.[SUP][45]"[/SUP]
 
Also, why don't you prove that Richard Lewontin actually said that quote?

Don't bother, because I already know that you can't prove that he actually said it. Even if you actually heard him say it because maybe you were there, you still can't prove it to me, because I don't know that you were actually there. I'd have to believe you.

What I was trying to tell you is that every scientist must make an assumption, and one assumption is that they can reliably know anything at all. Just like when you quoted Richard Lewontin. Why did you do it? Did you believe that the quote is true? Did you think I would believe it is? Why do you accept this quote as valid, hmm??

It's because in order to get anywhere in life, you some times have to pretend that some things are granted, such as the reliability of a source of text.

In reality you can't even prove that there really ARE scientists who care about evolution. Not that I'm saying that you should doubt it, but I'm saying that really none of us are agnostic.

Ok, I agree with what you said here, but this doesn't change anything with regard to wrong assumptions, which I think honestly scientists do.
There are, like you said, some assumptions that necessarely have to be made, and every person arrive to this. This has been called common trust, or common ground in philosophy.

But there are also wrong assumptions, unnecessary one, and false assumptions. There is a whole area in logic dedicated to fallacies of assumptions.

And when I was talking about the assumption scientists make, is not in the category of the ones that are made on common ground like in any of your examples, I was talking about logical errors with regard to assumptions.
I didn't study logic, I just read a few basic books that dealt with basic logic. False assumptions are pretty basic, to me at least.

You can't date the dinosaur bones assuming that evolution is true. Is just plain wrong, and you know why? Because you will deceive yourself, that's why. When one does an unnecessary assumptions, he arrives at the conclusion that the very assumption would lead to.

When scientists date dinosaur bones, they assume evolution is true, and then proceed in dating on the base of evolutionistic scenarious and plots. That would lead to serious errors.

And why assuming evolution is true is a false/bad assumptions? Well, the answer is that evolution hasn't been proved. Evolution, as a theory, can be accepted only on the basis of faith, like creationism also. At least in the very present moment and time, no one knows 100% if evolution had ever happened, and neither creationism. We'll have to build a time machine to find out this.

You'll probably disagree with me, because you might think evolution is actually true. It's ok for me. I think this is one of the situations which is a bit ambigue, at least apparently. Thoughts?
Hope I will reply to you other posts soon.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
I understand.

However, dating things has nothing to do with evolution. Even if evolution were false, that does not mean things are not old, so it is really not begging the question plus the age of some bones does nothing to prove evolution.

If we're approaching this with an open mind: Evolution doesn't rule out creation. Old earth also doesn't rule out creation. The only issue really is the young earth account.

There's a lot missing from evolution. I don't entirely rule out the idea of creation either. The thing that I don't agree with is a 6000 year old earth, and I don't have to assume anything for this, I simply haven't seen anything to convince me that it's true. Even if evolution were false, even if all things were created, I still don't think it was done just 6000 years ago.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
I understand.

However, dating things has nothing to do with evolution. Even if evolution were false, that does not mean things are not old, so it is really not begging the question plus the age of some bones does nothing to prove evolution.

I agree that dating things has nothing to do with evolution. This was the idea I pleaded for from the begining of discussion. The problem is the other way around: that evolution has to do with dating things. Notice that I said this:

When scientists date dinosaur bones, they assume evolution is true, and then proceed in dating on the base of evolutionistic scenarious and plots. That would lead to serious errors.
I think that's what scientists do. They interpret the results of dating in light of presupposed history of evolution.

If we're approaching this with an open mind: Evolution doesn't rule out creation. Old earth also doesn't rule out creation. The only issue really is the young earth account.

I agree entirely that old earth doesn't rule out creation.

On the first, that evolution doesn't rule out creation, I'll have to make some distinction.
Firstly, if evolution were to be a blind process, unguided by anything, like the atheists think it is, for me it sounds like a logical impossibility. And I'm ready to defend that stand against anyone.

It's not only that religious people take this stand, but also there are even atheists who dismiss evolution, on the basis of common sense. Thomas Nagel, an atheist, has written recently a book that darwinian evolution simply "flies in the face of common sense." This just one major objection, beside the others that could be also raised.
So I think that evolution in a naturalistic or materialistic framework, not only didn't happened, but also it would be an intrinsic impossibility that such an event could ever take place.

If we're talking about evolution driven by an intelligent agent (like God or something else), I don't see any reason to think that an event like this couldn't take place. I mean, it is possible.
And this is the stand that most of the Intelligent Design advocates take. They don't know, if there is a God, and what are his attributes.
All they know is this: it has been observed in the universe processes and events that could only be explained in terms of an action by an intelligent agent, whatever that intelligent agent might be.
So this-that evolution was a process driven by God somewhere in the past- is a valid option.

The question is: it is true ? There are many people, even scientists, that think such a process never happened. There are biological "problems" that could be only elucidated by the direct action of an intelligent agent. I also think the same, that evolution driven by God could be a possibility, but still it did't happened.

The only issue really is the young earth account.
Yes, this could be true. I already said that I don't take the creation acount in the Bible in a literal sense either.
The other thing would be with regard to young creation, that it is a possibility. The Supreme God could make it happened not in 6 days, but in 6 seconds.
 
I agree that dating things has nothing to do with evolution. This was the idea I pleaded for from the begining of discussion. The problem is the other way around: that evolution has to do with dating things.

Actually it doesn't. Chronological sequence is not the same as the age of anything. The only way dating has anything remotely to do with evolution is getting a sequence.

If one fossil looks like it precedes another fossil, one has a hypothesis that the fossil might be a predecessor. This already implies that one fossil must be older! So it is not a circular assumption because by even considering evolution to come up with a test, you inherently bring in age.

The thing is though that it works both ways. If the hypothesis is that fossil A is the predecessor of B, you have to at least test if A is older than B. If B is older than A it would reject the hypothesis - so therefore testing for age could give evidence for or against.

Without the hypothesis you cannot form a test at all, because you haven't determined what to look for. It would be like if you randomly threw red paint all over the room without first determining what the red paint is supposed to test against. You end up with no evidence because you haven't set forth the hypothesis which outlines what you're seeking evidence for.


I think that's what scientists do. They interpret the results of dating in light of presupposed history of evolution.
If they assume it's true then why test? You don't have to test what you already know.

I really don't have the patience for the rest of this.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
I also don't believe in common sense, because common sense often tells people wrong things, like the idea that there's no gravity at the International Space Station, which is entirely wrong.

The ISS has zero g, but g does not stand for gravity, it stands for g-force! The gravity out there is not very much less than it is sitting on the earth I forget the exact number but it's something like 90% I guess. That means they don't experience significantly less gravity. If there were no gravity out there, the space station would fly away into the sun.

So the reason that water forms a blob and flame forms a sphere is that the g-force is about zero. g-force is acceleration which is felt as 'weight' when it's resisted against something, like your car seat, or the ground. Gravity produces g-force, but so do jets and rockets and cars. The reason the ISS experiences no g-force is because it's all moving at roughly the same relative velocity so the internal objects have close to zero relative velocity with each other and therefore no relative acceleration to be felt as weight - no g-force. Or so close to zero that it doesn't matter.
 
Actually it doesn't. Chronological sequence is not the same as the age of anything. The only way dating has anything remotely to do with evolution is getting a sequence.
I don't think it's just getting a sequence...
Evolution says things(especially bones) evolve in time, by mutations and natural selection,if you give them enough time...do you get the idea?

If they assume it's true then why test? You don't have to test what you already know.
Exactly...that was my question too...looks like we pose the same question apparently, and yet we have so different conclusions!

I really don't have the patience for the rest of this.
Considering that I already said that I know you won't agree with me, and I would accept that, and I also said it's a situation which is a bit ambigue (because each of us see the problem from different angles), this is a bit without tact, and a bit rude.
 
I don't think it's just getting a sequence...
Evolution says things(especially bones) evolve in time, by mutations and natural selection,if you give them enough time...do you get the idea?

Evolve implies time by definition. If one posits evolution they posit change over time because that's the only kind of evolution there is. This doesn't speak to exactly how long it takes, just that it took some amount of time, so yes it is mainly about sequence, with age only being a necessary product which one can use to find sequence.

The 'in time' portion of "evolve in time" is redundant because time is already necessarily implied in 'evolve'

Exactly...that was my question too...looks like we pose the same question apparently, and yet we have so different conclusions!
It was rhetorical, because I don't think most do it.

Do they have confirmation bias? Probably. Does it mean they're willfully being deceptive? I doubt it.

Considering that I already said that I know you won't agree with me, and I would accept that, and I also said it's a situation which is a bit ambigue (because each of us see the problem from different angles), this is a bit without tact, and a bit rude.
Whether I agree with you or not doesn't matter. It's the fact that I've already had this conversation and I don't wish to have it again.
 
Evolve implies time by definition. If one posits evolution they posit change over time because that's the only kind of evolution there is. This doesn't speak to exactly how long it takes, just that it took some amount of time, so yes it is mainly about sequence, with age only being a necessary product which one can use to find sequence.
Yes, it implies time by definition. A loooooooong time. In fact, Richard Dawkins (and others) makes analogies, so as to explain the power of time... He says something like this:

"Look, this monkey can't write anything intelligent, but if it has enough time,(and he accentuate on "enough"), she will probably writte something, at least two words. If we'll give her more enough time, she'll probably add two words in her masterpiece. See? Evolution makes sense. The key is time...enough, of course"

But there are some things, which mathematicians calculated that no matter how much time you give it, how much passion you put in the word enough, you won't have evolution. Of course, evolutionists don't believe that! They know the secret power of time, enough time! Just as a side note, the evolution can not explain time itself...

The 'in time' portion of "evolve in time" is redundant because time is already necessarily implied in 'evolve'
Of course, but I was saying "in time" in a quantitative sense

It was rhetorical, because I don't think most do it.

Do they have confirmation bias? Probably. Does it mean they're willfully being deceptive? I doubt it.
ok...

Whether I agree with you or not doesn't matter. It's the fact that I've already had this conversation and I don't wish to have it again.
Trust me, neither I.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
I also don't believe in common sense, because common sense often tells people wrong things, like the idea that there's no gravity at the International Space Station, which is entirely wrong.

The ISS has zero g, but g does not stand for gravity, it stands for g-force! The gravity out there is not very much less than it is sitting on the earth I forget the exact number but it's something like 90% I guess. That means they don't experience significantly less gravity. If there were no gravity out there, the space station would fly away into the sun.

So the reason that water forms a blob and flame forms a sphere is that the g-force is about zero. g-force is acceleration which is felt as 'weight' when it's resisted against something, like your car seat, or the ground. Gravity produces g-force, but so do jets and rockets and cars. The reason the ISS experiences no g-force is because it's all moving at roughly the same relative velocity so the internal objects have close to zero relative velocity with each other and therefore no relative acceleration to be felt as weight - no g-force. Or so close to zero that it doesn't matter.

Common sense is common sense when is correct. This implies it that could also be fallacious, when a carefull ponder is not considered.
Just like you for example...
I also don't believe in common sense, because common sense often tells people wrong things
This is common sense...one that contain a serious contradiction in it...you can't use common sense to deny common sense
That's why common sense is reliable, and your affirmation is self-contradictory and false.
 
Yes, it implies time by definition. A loooooooong time. In fact, Richard Dawkins (and others) makes analogies, so as to explain the power of time... He says something like this:

"Look, this monkey can't write anything intelligent, but if it has enough time,(and he accentuate on "enough"), she will probably writte something, at least two words. If we'll give her more enough time, she'll probably add two words in her masterpiece. See? Evolution makes sense. The key is time...enough, of course"

But there are some things, which mathematicians calculated that no matter how much time you give it, how much passion you put in the word enough, you won't have evolution. Of course, evolutionists don't believe that! They know the secret power of time, enough time! Just as a side note, the evolution can not explain time itself...

So do you hate them? Is that it? Do you hate me?

I keep seeing you placing a lot of blame and accusations, which makes me very uncomfortable with you. I didn't want to say it but it feels like you have a personal bent, and I can't get behind that.

Also to use a math argument we need to have their premises that they are going by, because for example the probability of one organism evolving a specific trait is an entirely different calculation than the probability of billions of organisms evolving any trait whatsoever. I need to see the math.
 
Yes, it implies time by definition. Just as a side note, the evolution can not explain time itself...

Bzzt! Wrong.

Your scientific illiteracy is obvious. This reminds me of Ben Stein criticizing evolutionary theory because it doesn't explain thermodynamics or electromagnetism. I mean, come on. Seriously.

The theory of evolution is intended to do one thing, and one thing only: explain the diversity of life.

What constitutes time is in the realm of physics. Not biology.

You may as well have said, "evolution doesn't explain gravity" and it would have been just as relevant.

What a joke.
 
So do you hate them? Is that it? Do you hate me?

I keep seeing you placing a lot of blame and accusations, which makes me very uncomfortable with you. I didn't want to say it but it feels like you have a personal bent, and I can't get behind that.

I don't hate people, sprinkles. I don't hate evolutionists. Please believe me. And certainly I don't hate you. At least trust me on this. I like you, I like to debate with you:). I'm sory for giving that impression.
Perhaps you saw blame and accusations, but it wasn't with hate, with negativity, with emotions. I don't like hating, at all.
I just blame and accuse the scientific community because I believe they do some mistakes. The mistakes are real for me. I don't hate Richard Dawkins, but I don't agree with what he says.
I know you probably heard name callings from the religious people against scientific community, but please understand that not all people are like that.
I'm so sory for making feeling you uncomfortable. Please, try to understand that I don't want to be like that.
Also to use a math argument we need to have their premises that they are going by, because for example the probability of one organism evolving a specific trait is an entirely different calculation than the probability of billions of organisms evolving any trait whatsoever. I need to see the math.
I will search for this, and I will post it.
 
[MENTION=10096]Neurosis[/MENTION]

Yes I'd also add that probability arguments are often misused, and that the length of time is not as large a factor as people make it out to be.

The probability of a random thing happening does go up over time but this does not mean it takes that long for it to happen. The probability of flipping five heads in a row goes up the longer you keep trying, but in a given time frame there's about an equal chance of it happening so there is nothing to say that it can't happen at the very beginning.

The idea that evolution requires a long time is slightly inaccurate. A great length of time does help, but there's no special rule that says it must take long, this is an antiquated assumption as it's possible for some changes to be rapid.
 
Bzzt! Wrong.

Your scientific illiteracy is obvious. This reminds me of Ben Stein criticizing evolutionary theory because it doesn't explain thermodynamics or electromagnetism. I mean, come on. Seriously.

The theory of evolution is intended to do one thing, and one thing only: explain the diversity of life.

What constitutes time is in the realm of physics. Not biology.

You may as well have said, "evolution doesn't explain gravity" and it would have been just as relevant.

What a joke.

Yes, you are right. I think I meant that naturalism can't explain time, because I was talking about evolution based on naturalism.
But I think evolution is not only to "explain the diversity of life." Evolution attempts to explain also the origin of life, which it implies that the origins is not life. So you did the same kind of mistake.
 
Yes, you are right. I think I meant that naturalism can't explain time, because I was talking about evolution based on naturalism.
But I think evolution is not only to "explain the diversity of life." Evolution attempts to explain also the origin of life, which it implies that the origins is not life. So you did the same kind of mistake.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis attempts to explain that.

Granted there have been many who look at both, so they can end up lumped together at times, but they are not the same thing and they don't even necessarily imply each other.
 
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis attempts to explain that.

Granted there have been many who look at both, so they can end up lumped together at times, but they are not the same thing and they don't even necessarily imply each other.
Oh, I thought that evolution as a theory includes abiogenesis. Probably I was wrong.
 
Oh, I thought that evolution as a theory includes abiogenesis. Probably I was wrong.
People do include it in their study, but they are fundamentally different ideas. One is how life started and the other is what it did afterwards.

Some people accept evolution but reject abiogenesis, saying that God created things to evolve for example.
 
Back
Top