Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Hedshaker,

How are you, Buddy?! I do hope that all is going well for you these days. Anything new lately? How was your weather today?? Like, you live in England, right?? Do you have an accent? Have you been to the USA? You probably don't think you have an accent, but I have this feeling you do. Well, I try to keep on-topic on this Thread, but sometimes I bypass all of that for a bit. I went to the Dentist a couple days ago and got a tooth pulled. No pain, mostly, but it took him almost an HOUR to get it pulled. He said he was having trouble getting enough leverage. He didn't want to break the adjoining tooth, but he said he did, I believe. My teeth are not in the best of shape, mostly because I was hooked on drinking too many soda pops. Also candy. Mmmm! Chocolate.

Hey, how do you feel about Carbon-14 dating? I thought it wasn't too reliable anymore. How can we be sure we are dating things correctly. We thought one method was good, then find out that it is fallible, then try something else, with no good proof that it's any better either. I know there are a few ways to date things. I want to find out when dinosaurs were on earth. Before man or after, or both. How long ago? Etc. I'm just revamping some of my beliefs, and pondering them closely. The only way I'm going to find out for sure, it seems, is when I face God and can ask Him. I can't wait. Oh-oh, I sound like Stevie Nicks (I Can't Wait!). That's a song she sang some years back. I'd like to confirm that my belief system is correct. Not about whether there is a God or not. Just instead about the dinosaurs' ages. Were the dinosaurs annihilated before the Big Flood, or did the Flood end their lives on Earth.

Well, Hedshaker, as always, it's nice being able to share with you and hear from you. You take good care of yourself, enjoy your life and make it count!!!

Warmest Regards Always,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm no expert but my understanding is that radiocarbon dating is limited to about 60,000 years ago, so it's no good for dating dinosaurs.:nono:
Radiometric dating however also includes other specific methods more useful for greater ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Dear Alwight,

Hey Bloke!! How sure/good is radiocarbon dating? And how about radiometric? How can we be sure that either is reliable? I mean, there is no way to test them. Let me know what you think! I am just ready to go and have some waffles and honey. Some I will have with maple syrup. All that I do know is that I'm hungry and it's bedtime. You are probably having afternoon there by now. It is 2:30a.m. here. Have a good one today!! Make it count!!

Your Bro',

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

Hey Bloke!! How sure/good is radiocarbon dating? And how about radiometric? How can we be sure that either is reliable? I mean, there is no way to test them. Let me know what you think! I am just ready to go and have some waffles and honey. Some I will have with maple syrup. All that I do know is that I'm hungry and it's bedtime. You are probably having afternoon there by now. It is 2:30a.m. here. Have a good one today!! Make it count!!

Your Bro',

Michael

Morning Michael.
Science concludes that radiometric dating and other methods all very much concur with "Deep Time".
For me there seems to be no doubt at all of the great age of the Earth based on all of the evidence, including what I can observe for myself.
It would require a very clever deception indeed to arrange things so that science was fooled by the evidence and I don't accept for a moment that science is either stupid or that it is all globally conspiring to deliberately tell us lies.
The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old Michael.

 

[nodelink]

...
The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old Michael.

Were you there at the launch event? Did you take photographs?

Do you not assume that all of the physical constants have remained constant?

What if the constants have changed?

Not all elements of conventional science have dismissed all notions of "time warp" or time travel or even a time machine. Have you?

Have you considered that you might have missed something in your knowledge and reasoning?

What if it turned out that there was a God who is eternally merciful to the heirs of Jesus Christ's Redemptive Work but implemented strict eternal justice with others? What if it turned out that the Bible's God was true? Would you be disappointed or glad?

Respectfully submitted.

 

[Hedshaker]

Hey, how do you feel about Carbon-14 dating? I thought it wasn't too reliable anymore. How can we be sure we are dating things correctly. We thought one method was good, then find out that it is fallible, then try something else, with no good proof that it's any better either. I know there are a few ways to date things. I want to find out when dinosaurs were on earth. Before man or after, or both. How long ago? Etc. I'm just revamping some of my beliefs, and pondering them closely. The only way I'm going to find out for sure, it seems, is when I face God and can ask Him. I can't wait. Oh-oh, I sound like Stevie Nicks (I Can't Wait!). That's a song she sang some years back. I'd like to confirm that my belief system is correct. Not about whether there is a God or not. Just instead about the dinosaurs' ages. Were the dinosaurs annihilated before the Big Flood, or did the Flood end their lives on Earth.

I don't know that much about carbon dating tbh, but I found this link (below) as a short explanation. But there's plenty of information regarding that and other scientific issues to be found on the internet, you just have to search for it. Just be sure to not bother with creationist sites if you're looking for genuine, honest information.

Click here: How Carbon-14 Dating Works

Again, there's plenty of good stuff about dinosaurs and their time on Earth on the net but you have to be sure to skip creationist sites if you want genuine information. And remember, science does not deal with "proof". Proof is for fine liquor and mathematics. Science is only concerned with examining the evidence and developing theories based on what it explains. If new evidence emerges the theories change to suit. It just happens to be the most successful method for gaining knowledge about the world in human history.

Dinosaurs lived between 230 and 65 million years ago, in a time known as the Mesozoic Era. This was many millions of years before the first modern humans, Homo sapiens, appeared.

Scientists divide the Mesozoic Era into 3 periods: the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. During this time, the land gradually split up from one huge continent into smaller ones. The associated changes in the climate and vegetation affected how dinosaurs evolved.

Sourse

Of course, I'm assuming you want to know the truth as based on the modern scientific method and current understanding. If, on the other hand, you want to bolster pre conceived YEC beliefs instead then there's plenty of confirmation bias to had on creationist sites. Your choice....... :up:

Well, Hedshaker, as always, it's nice being able to share with you and hear from you. You take good care of yourself, enjoy your life and make it count!!!

Same back to you :up: It's a good idea to take care and learn as much as you can now since this is the only life we know for sure, we get.

All the best :cheers:

 

[1God4all]

Dear Dennyg1,

You are such a prize!! Thank you for appreciating me. I feel the same towards you. I do believe everything you say about your post. I figure you know what you are talking about and have checked out references of study. Yep, some of the animals I mentioned might not have been back there during the dinosaurs' age. I was just trying to figure out the different ones. Now, Denny, I also think that the elephant is like a woolly mammoth. Were they around when the dinosaurs were here on Earth? How about earthworms? And caterpillars? I don't know everything and figure I WILL find out more when the Lord comes and I can ask. He will already know what I want to ask Him. As I type this, I know there are angels in the room guiding me. Well, I love you as a friend, so don't forget it!! It's wonderful to know there are good people like you out there! Are you banned? I'm sorry for you. It won't last long, most likely.

May God's Angels Watch Over You And Guide You, Too!

Michael

I can answer.

Mammoths and modern elephants are very closely related you are correct. Ancient man regularly hunted them, and we can see this in cave paintings. There are no dinosaurs in these paintings.

There were several types of mammoth. At a dig site near where I live, 30+ Columbian mammoths were found. Dinosaurs died about 63 million years prior to mammoths, sabre-tooth cats, wooly rhinos, and other large mammals showing up. One was a giant armadillo-like creature, which may be what you were referencing in your previous question. Caterpillars and earthworms were around when dinosaurs roamed, yes.

Glad to help and thanks again for being a good Christian

 

[1God4all]

Were you there at the launch event? Did you take photographs?

Do you not assume that all of the physical constants have remained constant?

What if the constants have changed?

Not all elements of conventional science have dismissed all notions of "time warp" or time travel or even a time machine. Have you?

Have you considered that you might have missed something in your knowledge and reasoning?

What if it turned out that there was a God who is eternally merciful to the heirs of Jesus Christ's Redemptive Work but implemented strict eternal justice with others? What if it turned out that the Bible's God was true? Would you be disappointed or glad?

Respectfully submitted.

Radiocarbon dating measures the decay of radioactive isotopes commonly found in minerals. The decay rate is measured in half-lives. The breakdown rate of radioactive isotopes is not something that can ever change, and thus an uncorrupted sample cannot be wrong by more than 1% of the total age determined.
So if a fossil is measured to be 200,000,000 years old, it is certain that the true age is between 202,000,000 and 198,000,000 years old.

Carbon 14 is the go-to for samples from 70,000 years ago or less. Uranium-lead (4 billion year half-life), potassium-argon, argon-argon, rubidium-strontium, and thorium-lead are isotope decay pairs used for anything older. To improve accuracy, results from several of these different pairs are cross checked, and only if they agree on age is the sample credible.

 

[alwight]

Were you there at the launch event? Did you take photographs?

Do you not assume that all of the physical constants have remained constant?

What if the constants have changed?

Not all elements of conventional science have dismissed all notions of "time warp" or time travel or even a time machine. Have you?

Have you considered that you might have missed something in your knowledge and reasoning?

What if it turned out that there was a God who is eternally merciful to the heirs of Jesus Christ's Redemptive Work but implemented strict eternal justice with others? What if it turned out that the Bible's God was true? Would you be disappointed or glad?

Respectfully submitted.

If science were simply about what I concluded then yes you might well have a good reason to doubt me.
However if better and cleverer minds than mine who may specialise in a specific area of science have been unable to find fault or falsify the accepted mainstream scientific conclusions then I surely won't be able to.
But by all the generally accepted mainstream sciences that can help in putting an age to the Earth there is consensus and really is no dispute at all.
As far as I'm concerned, give or take a few million years, 4.5 billion year or so is indeed a reasonable and factual conclusion, while clearly just a few thousand years is not.
But no I was not actually there to see it which seems to be about the best rebuttal that YE creationist can muster.

I am very happy to accept whatever is the real truth.
:e4e:

 

[everready]

If science were simply about what I concluded then yes you might well have a good reason to doubt me.
However if better and cleverer minds than mine who may specialise in a specific area of science have been unable to find fault or falsify the accepted mainstream scientific conclusions then I surely won't be able to.
But by all the generally accepted mainstream sciences that can help in putting an age to the Earth there is consensus and really is no dispute at all.
As far as I'm concerned, give or take a few million years, 4.5 billion year or so is indeed a reasonable and factual conclusion, while clearly just a few thousand years is not.
But no I was not actually there to see it which seems to be about the best rebuttal that YE creationist can muster.

I am very happy to accept whatever is the real truth.
:e4e:

Then accept this :up:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

everready

 

[noguru]

Michael, the first time I ever looked into a internet forums I was, like all new encountered concepts, a little bewildered. But here's the thing, when faced with new ideas and concepts you can do one of two things. You can throw the towel in and rely on others to show you the way or you can THINK ABOUT IT. God won't help you on that score, it's up to you and I firmly believe that every one has a natural intelligence if only they would use it.

Look at what is going on and try to see the logic of what is going on.

Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he can eat for ever. That same logic applies to thinking.

Excellent post. Why is it that some "non-Christians" are more familiar with real Christian philosophy that many self proclaimed Christians?

 

[Jonahdog]

Then accept this :up:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

everready

Why? An alleged quote from someone who lived years before it was written down by an author we are not even sure of? Again, why should anyone accept it as actually being said and as actually meaning anything? Because it uses old ways of sayingith?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Morning Michael.
Science concludes that radiometric dating and other methods all very much concur with "Deep Time".
For me there seems to be no doubt at all of the great age of the Earth based on all of the evidence, including what I can observe for myself.
It would require a very clever deception indeed to arrange things so that science was fooled by the evidence and I don't accept for a moment that science is either stupid or that it is all globally conspiring to deliberately tell us lies.
The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old Michael.

Dear Alwight,

That's a pretty old Earth. That's a long time. Even a million years is old. I am pondering my beliefs, so I do thank you, Al. I'm not quite sure where to go just yet, except sticking with my YEC beliefs. I have to analyze everything.

It is possible for me to believe that God created man long ago. And now He has made/formed man again back about 6,000 years ago. But even that is far-fetched, though possible. You see what I mean? I have to mull it over. It's tricky, but there is an answer.

If it were different than what is written in Genesis, Jesus would have told us. But then again, maybe He kept it secret, because He said to His disciples, 'There is more that I could tell you, but you are not ready.' I know it is written in the Four Gospels, but I am unsure where right now. Maybe Creation is what He didn't expound on because His disciples were not ready to hear it. I don't know.

Well, hope to hear from you again soon. May God Use His Trump Card Soon!

Best Wishes,

Michael

:cheers:

:angel:

 

[alwight]

Then accept this :up:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

everready

"Ego sum resurrectio et vita"
The same thing but using Latin words.

Words are simply things that people fashion for their own particular purposes. What is written down in words does not somehow thereby become the truth, only something that someone has put together for their own purposes.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I don't know that much about carbon dating tbh, but I found this link (below) as a short explanation. But there's plenty of information regarding that and other scientific issues to be found on the internet, you just have to search for it. Just be sure to not bother with creationist sites if you're looking for genuine, honest information.

Click here: How Carbon-14 Dating Works

Thank you for the link, Hedshaker. I read a good amount of it and know how they date things using it, but what if they are wrong about the half-life of carbon-14 (6 protons, 8 neutrons) being 5,700 years? That would bring us to 5,700 years ago, when our Adam and Eve were formed, approximately.

Again, there's plenty of good stuff about dinosaurs and their time on Earth on the net but you have to be sure to skip creationist sites if you want genuine information. And remember, science does not deal with "proof". Proof is for fine liquor and mathematics. Science is only concerned with examining the evidence and developing theories based on what it explains. If new evidence emerges the theories change to suit. It just happens to be the most successful method for gaining knowledge about the world in human history.

Sourse

Of course, I'm assuming you want to know the truth as based on the modern scientific method and current understanding. If, on the other hand, you want to bolster pre conceived YEC beliefs instead then there's plenty of confirmation bias to had on creationist sites. Your choice....... :up:

I checked out the dinosaur link. Thanks so very much. It is quite easy to understand. I plan to peruse it more soon. I have a lot of trouble believing they were from 65 million years ago, but whatever. I will have to further investigate.

Same back to you :up: It's a good idea to take care and learn as much as you can now since this is the only life we know for sure, we get.

All the best :cheers:

Thank you for such an informative post. I do see they have different methods of dating things besides Carbon-14 dating. That's somewhat comforting, as long as their methods don't fall short and be useless. I heard from someone that carbon-14 dating was not precise. Well, I do appreciate your efforts to post to me with the links and everything! Thanks again, very much.

Cheerio, Mate!!

:cheers:

:angel:

 

[Jonahdog]

"Ego sum resurrectio et vita"
The same thing but using Latin words.

Words are simply things that people fashion for their own particular purposes. What is written down in words does not somehow thereby become the truth, only something that someone has put together for their own purposes.

You are correct but you miss the fundamentalist point---if it is in the Bible it is true---end of story. To believe otherwise puts fundamentalist Christians in fear of hell. So their beliefs are comforting to them.

And, there are many who then get to feel they are better than those non believers who face damnation from their loving god.

Interesting concepts we humans create.

 

[noguru]

You are correct but you miss the fundamentalist point---if it is in the Bible it is true---end of story. To believe otherwise puts fundamentalist Christians in fear of hell. So their beliefs are comforting to them.

And, there are many who then get to feel they are better than those non believers who face damnation from their loving god.

Interesting concepts we humans create.

Damnation Alley

 

[alwight]

You are correct but you miss the fundamentalist point---if it is in the Bible it is true---end of story. To believe otherwise puts fundamentalist Christians in fear of hell. So their beliefs are comforting to them.

And, there are many who then get to feel they are better than those non believers who face damnation from their loving god.

Interesting concepts we humans create.

Yes, this fundamentalist way of "thinking" is exactly the kind of thing I've spent much time posting here and trying to understand why exactly some people seem to reject a more rational thinking process in favour of blind trust in a particular ancient scripture? :think:

If science presents a rational, convincing and believable conclusion from using evidence from many different testable sources (say on the age of the Earth) then why would I choose to believe that science is wrong and that an ancient scripture's words are literally true instead?
I do find that utterly baffling at times. :bang:
(counts to ten )

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

That's a pretty old Earth. That's a long time. Even a million years is old. I am pondering my beliefs, so I do thank you, Al. I'm not quite sure where to go just yet, except sticking with my YEC beliefs. I have to analyze everything.

It is possible for me to believe that God created man long ago. And now He has made/formed man again back about 6,000 years ago. But even that is far-fetched, though possible. You see what I mean? I have to mull it over. It's tricky, but there is an answer.

If it were different than what is written in Genesis, Jesus would have told us. But then again, maybe He kept it secret, because He said to His disciples, 'There is more that I could tell you, but you are not ready.' I know it is written in the Four Gospels, but I am unsure where right now. Maybe Creation is what He didn't expound on because His disciples were not ready to hear it. I don't know.

Well, hope to hear from you again soon. May God Use His Trump Card Soon!

Best Wishes,

Michael

:cheers:

:angel:

Michael, you seem to have a very pliable mind and seem to find contractions that I don't think exist.
I've never told you not to believe in God or Jesus, I only ever say that empirical reality should matter to you as well and that religious people should perhaps take heed of it rather than look for comfort in a fantasy version from an ancient scripture.

Yesterday I was with my solicitor (lawyer) performing a legal procedure required to grant me legal probate. It required two solicitors, me and a holy Bible.
I explained that I wasn't religious nor believed in God.
I was told I could affirm instead but that would have required some altering of pre-written text so I explained that it really made no difference to me if my right hand was on a Bible or was held upright in affirmation, so I swore my oath on the Holy Bible.
The point is that for me the Bible is only a book written by men not a book of magic spells or arcane "truth", I merely went through a required procedure by civil law and no lightning bolt struck me dead.

 

[MichaelCadry]

It was Judas who followed satan's directions, he didn't have to. The Father had to remove His protection from Jesus because His life had to be given for our sin. For He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

When one thinks of how the Father must have felt when He had to watch His only Son go through as described in Ps.22:1-21 and not lift a finger to help or stop it is beyond my comprehensen, I can not even imagine what restraint (and love for mankind) the Father must have had knowing He had the power to stop it.

I couldn't and know of no parent who could watch their only son, being completely innocent go through as Jesus did and do nothing but watch while having the total power to stop it, do you?

Dear Old man,

I don't know how God did it and I would not be able to do it. God was trying to save mankind, so He went through it. Yes, God had to allow it to be done. He knew it was a great part of His Plan. Look at how many souls Jesus has saved!! Tons! Jesus was the best prophet ever and a Savior to boot. Though I have trouble watching the Crucifixion on TV, I realize it had to be done.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

atrol:

:angel:

 

[everready]

"Ego sum resurrectio et vita"
The same thing but using Latin words.

Words are simply things that people fashion for their own particular purposes. What is written down in words does not somehow thereby become the truth, only something that someone has put together for their own purposes.

He put these words together for your purpose.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

everready