Creation vs. Evolution

[redfern]

I'm not so sure that cultural and religious backgrounds have much to do with science.

I agree. But religion (NOT science) IS the common factor in Creationism.

You must be referring to how they do backflips trying to come to an agreement that fits their belief system?

They published their data. Show where they abrogated good scientific procedure.

They would all AGREE with what I wrote. Unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for.

But if an unknown condition is involved that significantly corrupts the data, then the data will not agree with other methods of dating. That is precisely what is not observed.

C14 dates of 28,000 - 45,000 years are consistent with what we would expect in the global flood model.

Sure, pick whatever value tickles your fancy. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with good science.

 

[Rosenritter]

Already done. You have made it clear that you think God inspired most of what is in the Bible, including the early chapters of Genesis. The Creationist reading of those chapters indicates the earth was created about 6000 years ago.

C-14 dating of biological samples frequently yields dates predating 6000 years ago. You believe that there was essentially no C-14 in the atmosphere at creation, and so finding only small amounts of C-14 in a sample can mean it lived when there was little C-14 for it to metabolize.

But a month or two ago in this thread it was shown that international teams of scientists collaboratively calibrate C-14 dating against several other independent methods of dating. Those methods reach back to well before 6000 years ago. At that point you quit participating in that discussion.

Concurrently you made the claim that samples that science expects to be much older than C-14 can date give C-14 dates much too young. When some of the real-world factors were itemized that are known to increase C-14 counts in old samples you terminated participating in that discussion.

You were willing to jump on the C-14 issue until … well …until ???

As it stands now, in spite of your enthusiasm, I am not much impressed by your pretense to scientific competence.

A few weeks ago my computers were dissembled while my wife and I moved to another house. Also in that approximate time frame Michael closed his creation and evolution thread. So I haven't seen these claims you make to be able to comment on them.

 

[Rosenritter]

One of the easiest (and least productive) things to do is to toss out vague arguments without having gone to the work of seeing if they actually are pertinent.

-- For each of the potential problems you mention, do you know which of the alternative dating methods might be susceptible to that problem?

--How might a scientist detect that the alternative dating sample has been compromised by each of the influences you mention?

-- The potential problems you itemize cover a diverse range of physical processes: volcanic emission of C12, changes in solar intensities, variations in the earth’s magnetic field, etc. How likely is it that the various independent dating methods would each be affected to pretty much the same degree, even though they are not all sensitive to the same physical parameters?

-- and – how likely is it that a collaborative team whose members come from a variety of religious and cultural and national backgrounds, and who specifically cross-check the dates they bring to the study with dates supplied by others on the team, and who are on the teams specifically because of their expertise in specific dating methodologies - how likely is it that they are so incompetent that they would be unaware of the influence of the things you mention? You think they are just a bunch of PhD scientific keystone cops publishing the most detailed and researched C-14 calibration data in the world?

When you come back with specifics then let’s talk again. Your half-baked maybe, might, could have stuff is a waste of time.

I hear these claims of "independent dating methods" but most of the attempts I've seen before are rather fudged, with all the results that don't match tossed out the window. That seems to be the standard operating procedure in such cases. Can you present something a little better than that vague claim? This is the first I've heard of this from you.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I am not aware that we really know much of what God said or wrote. Did He write anything Himself beyond the Ten Commandments in stone? And as to what He said, that is what people said He said, and even that was committed to writing often many years after it was supposedly spoken.

Dear redfern,

We shouldn't even be 'judging God.' God judges us, not the other way around. I want to tell you that God gave the ability to certain people to write what God wants them to. He speaks through other people, Moses included. And Jesus dictated the book of Revelation to John of Patmos. These are people whom the Lord visited and gave messages to. Matthew wrote his book, along with Mark, Luke and John. It goes on and on. No reason to disbelieve it. God is very thorough. Many books did not even make it to be put in the Bible. And you should read the Pseudepigrapha. It's quite interesting!! But it's still not in the Bible. Be careful to not misunderstand the Bible, or don't write at all. That is a safe way!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

You don't understand -

Dear patrick jane,

I do understand much more than you realize. God will tell us what is true when He plans on it, so that should suffice. PJ, you don't understand, but nothing will change the outcome. I'm sorry for any misunderstandings here.

Michael

 

[Caino]

Moses didn't personally write "So Moses died..." any more than Adam wrote "Adam died..." The successor would have picked up and filled in from that part and kept going. In this case, Joshua. Just because its called the "books of Moses" or "Moses" for short doesn't mean that Moses penned every word.

That's an obvious concession because it's not something that can be rationalized away. But it's not the only example of later redactions.

Abraham ibn Ezra writes that certain descriptions may have been added later to already existing verses. He gives three instance of this,

Genesis 12:6: And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the oak of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. That the addition of "then" in the land would indicate that it was added at a time that the Canaanite were no longer in the land.

that's written in retrospect by a different author.



Genesis 22:14: Avraham called the place Adonai Yir'eh, as it is said to this day, “On the mountain Adonai is Yir'eh.” That the addition of "as it is said to this day" was added later.


Deuteronomy 3:11: For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." That even though the first part of Og remaining is referring to the time of Moses, the location where his bedstead stood was added later.


But none of this should come as any surprise, scriptures are written and rewritten by holy men, some more holy than others. They are invariably flawed men whose speculations can be wrong. Problems arise when men make the writings of the men of past ages the writings of God.

I do believe there was a Moses, he was a leader and a reformer of previous beliefs and practices of those he lead out of Egypt across the water. I believe Moses wrote some things and that his books were the basis of later additions, edits and redactions which were incorporated into the much larger work done in Babylon after the Israelites lost their nation.

 

[6days]

I agree. But religion (NOT science) IS the common factor in Creationism.

The absolute truth of God's Word is the basis of Biblical creation. That is why science continues proving evolutionary beliefs false...and God's Word true.

They published their data. Show where they abrogated good scientific procedure.

Surely you must know evolutionists OFTEN abrogate scientific procedure to try shoehorn data to fit their beliefs. They sometimes even admit that radiometric dating depends on more than just lab results. In other words dates of hundreds of millions of years is disregarded when there is evidence of human activity.
J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".
EXAMPLE:
Richarad Leakey discovered modern looking skull KNM-ER1470 in 1972. He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

Geologist (paleocologist) Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon) However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct.

Because Leaky found the skull after the the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5442/abs/247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories. In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given
on the strata. The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...in_the_Koobi_Fora_Formation_East_Rudolf_Kenya

One thing in common with the various studies was the mentioning of difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that provides a date consistent with evolutionary expectations. IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Sure, pick whatever value tickles your fancy. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with good science.

Well said..... We call it radiometric back flipping. Dates can be adjusted by hundreds of millions of years to tickle the fancy of just so stories.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not so sure that cultural and religious backgrounds have much to do with science.

Unless it involves calling the most respected scientific organization in the world (National Academy of Sciences) a "religious organization" simply because 70% of their members don't believe in a god. Then suddenly "cultural and religious backgrounds" are quite important.

Another one of 6days' dishonest heads-I-win, tails-you-lose scenarios.

 

[redfern]

… Surely you must know evolutionists OFTEN abrogate scientific procedure to try shoehorn data to fit their beliefs. They sometimes even admit that radiometric dating depends on more than just lab results. In other words dates of hundreds of millions of years is disregarded when there is evidence of human activity.
J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".
EXAMPLE:
Richarad Leakey discovered modern looking skull KNM-ER1470 in 1972. He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

Geologist (paleocologist) Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon) However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct.

Because Leaky found the skull after the the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5442/abs/247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories. In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given
on the strata. The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...in_the_Koobi_Fora_Formation_East_Rudolf_Kenya

One thing in common with the various studies was the mentioning of difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that provides a date consistent with evolutionary expectations. IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Well said..... We call it radiometric back flipping. Dates can be adjusted by hundreds of millions of years to tickle the fancy of just so stories.

Now that you have got that off your back, I would hope that you could actually show the maturity to stick to the specific subject. You have claimed that C-14 dating cannot be calibrated back past 6,000 years ago. I provided a specific study done by an international consortium of scientists in which they did what you claim cannot be done – calibrate C-14 beyond 6000 years into the past. In discussing that specific study I said they:

… specifically cross-check the dates they bring to the study with dates supplied by others on the team

which you characterized as doing

… backflips trying to come to an agreement that fits their belief system

I was disappointed in your demonstrated need to resort to generic smears against the integrity of the members of the team, and so I asked you to specifically back your claim:

They published their data. Show where they abrogated good scientific procedure.

Your response is to instead respond with a diatribe about how some evolutionists seemed to be void of any semblance of intellectual integrity.

I know this is something that is clearly hard for you to fathom, but the C-14 calibration team was composed of scientists. You know what scientists are? Some scientists are involved in evolutionary studies, but most, in fact, are not. You see, the advances that come from science are usually made available for all – whether evolutionist, Creationist, Hindu, astronomer, geologist, anthropologist, etc. etc. C-14 calibrations are one of those things that are important to a wide spectrum of scientists. I’ll bet that very few of the C-14 calibration team members were directly involved in evolutionary studies. Like good scientists, they were focused on trying to do that thing that some goof-ball Creationists claim can’t possibly be done – calibrating C-14 dating back over ten thousand years.

Now it’s time for you to put on your big-boy pants, exercise some restraint, and civilly show specifically where the C-14 calibration team violated good scientific practice - you know, what you like to characterize as “backflips”. Can you show us that you are mature enough to do that, please?

 

[Rosenritter]

That's an obvious concession because it's not something that can be rationalized away. But it's not the only example of later redactions.

Abraham ibn Ezra writes that certain descriptions may have been added later to already existing verses. He gives three instance of this,

Genesis 12:6: And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the oak of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. That the addition of "then" in the land would indicate that it was added at a time that the Canaanite were no longer in the land.

that's written in retrospect by a different author.



Genesis 22:14: Avraham called the place Adonai Yir'eh, as it is said to this day, “On the mountain Adonai is Yir'eh.” That the addition of "as it is said to this day" was added later.


Deuteronomy 3:11: For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." That even though the first part of Og remaining is referring to the time of Moses, the location where his bedstead stood was added later.


But none of this should come as any surprise, scriptures are written and rewritten by holy men, some more holy than others. They are invariably flawed men whose speculations can be wrong. Problems arise when men make the writings of the men of past ages the writings of God.

I do believe there was a Moses, he was a leader and a reformer of previous beliefs and practices of those he lead out of Egypt across the water. I believe Moses wrote some things and that his books were the basis of later additions, edits and redactions which were incorporated into the much larger work done in Babylon after the Israelites lost their nation.

Those are excellent observations. If only we had God to weigh in on whether those words were of God or not?

Mat 5:17-18 KJV
(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I tend to interpret that statement that Jesus himself approved of the Hebrew text as it stood in that day, including the parts that were added along the way.

 

[Rosenritter]

The absolute truth of God's Word is the basis of Biblical creation. That is why science continues proving evolutionary beliefs false...and God's Word true.

Surely you must know evolutionists OFTEN abrogate scientific procedure to try shoehorn data to fit their beliefs. They sometimes even admit that radiometric dating depends on more than just lab results. In other words dates of hundreds of millions of years is disregarded when there is evidence of human activity.
J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".
EXAMPLE:
Richarad Leakey discovered modern looking skull KNM-ER1470 in 1972. He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

Geologist (paleocologist) Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon) However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct.

Because Leaky found the skull after the the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5442/abs/247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories. In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given
on the strata. The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...in_the_Koobi_Fora_Formation_East_Rudolf_Kenya

One thing in common with the various studies was the mentioning of difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that provides a date consistent with evolutionary expectations. IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Well said..... We call it radiometric back flipping. Dates can be adjusted by hundreds of millions of years to tickle the fancy of just so stories.

Did you get all of that redfern?

 

[redfern]

Did you get all of that redfern?

You mean that long harangue from 6days about anthropology, when the subject he was supposedly responding to was C-14 calibration?

 

[Caino]

Those are excellent observations. If only we had God to weigh in on whether those words were of God or not?

Mat 5:17-18 KJV
(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I tend to interpret that statement that Jesus himself approved of the Hebrew text as it stood in that day, including the parts that were added along the way.

And so it is, Jesus left the law and Judaism to itself. He didn't come to reform Judaism or the man made laws, he established the kingdom of heaven wherein Gods will becomes the law of our hearts.

Your technical argument doesn't mean that Jesus thought God wrote the OT.

 

[6days]

You mean that long harangue from 6days about anthropology, when the subject he was supposedly responding to was C-14 calibration?

Harangue: a sweet type of dessert, often associated with French, Swiss, and Italian cuisine, made from whipped egg whites and sugar. :cloud9:

Yes my refutation of your claim was sweet dessert. You were shown how evolutionists abrogated good scientific procedure in favor of their belief system.

 

[6days]

Your technical argument doesn't mean that Jesus thought God wrote the OT.

Jesus often referred to the OT as a source of absolute truth.

 

[redfern]

Yes my refutation of your claim was sweet dessert. You were shown how evolutionists abrogated good scientific procedure in favor of their belief system.

Then you engaging in pathological lying is a sweet dessert to you, since you completely avoided my claim about C-14 calibration and instead reached into your sewage bucket to see what you might like to use from there.

 

[6days]

You have claimed that C-14 dating cannot be calibrated back past 6,000 years ago. I provided a specific study done by an international consortium of scientists in which they did what you claim cannot be done – calibrate C-14 beyond 6000 years into the past.

What I actually said was unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

I know this is something that is clearly hard for you to fathom, but the C-14 calibration team was composed of scientists.

Of course they are scientists.

I’ll bet that very few of the C-14 calibration team members were directly involved in evolutionary studies. Like good scientists, they were focused on trying to do that thing that some goof-ball Creationists claim can’t possibly be done – calibrating C-14 dating back over ten thousand years.

Hmmmmmm. So scientists who disagree with your beliefs are goofy? I think that is...
Poisoning the well fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

 

[redfern]

What I actually said was unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

It is apparent that you have nothing more than a bunch of generic “what-ifs” instead of specifics. I will note that some of the factors you allude to are things that are far less “unknown conditions” than you would have us believe. But since you show no inclination (or perhaps realize you are scientifically incompetent) to actually read and deal with the calibration study itself, then I am inclined to let you just babble on in your childish ignorance. “There are none so blind …”

Hmmmmmm. So scientists who disagree with your beliefs are goofy? I think that is...
Poisoning the well fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

This is truly classic coming from someone who regularly itemizes the missteps that scientists have made in studying evolution. “Hypocrisy” is thy middle name?

 

[6days]

This is truly classic coming from someone who regularly itemizes the missteps that scientists have made in studying evolution. “Hypocrisy” is thy middle name?

No... my middle name is Duane.

What missteps are you talking about?

 

[MichaelCadry]

No... my middle name is Duane.

What missteps are you talking about?

Dear 6days,

Wow, your middle name is Duane? You have a very unique name! Are you named for your grandpa's on both sides? I won't say your first name here. Cool!!

Michael