Creation vs. Evolution

[I drank what?]

:thumb:

The gospel is what they are desperately trying to avoid by pretending that "six days" and "billions of years" are compatible.

haven't you heard of IDW's sim city theory?

/are you familiar with the game "sim city"?
//or something like it?

 

[6days]

Really? It is difficult to accept that, since the evidence from all the areas you mentioned does not support a 6000 year old earth.

Your assertions are countered by mine..
Evidence does support the Biblical creation account. (Genetics, physics, geology, biology, astronomy, history, paleontology, archaeology, etc)

 

[6days]

the Institute for Creation Research starts with the premise that the Bible is 100% accurate.

Great!*

Sorry, that is not the way science is done in the real world.

Actually...that is the way atheists perform origins science in the real world. Atheists start with the conclusion, unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads...to the Creator.

 

[Jonahdog]

Your assertions are countered by mine..
Evidence does support the Biblical creation account. (Genetics, physics, geology, biology, astronomy, history, paleontology, archaeology, etc)

Should there be evidence of human civilization that predated 6000 years and or the Big Flood? If so how would one date it? Is C-14 out even within the last 10K years?

 

[Stripe]

Two of the major issues I am aware of that are in dispute include the order in which life forms appeared on the earth, and the age of the earth.

Those rely on the assumption of the evolutionary model.

I would like to know what the specific evidence for a recent creation is, from 3 of the fields you mention - geology, physics, and astronomy.

Geology: Sedimentary layers show powerful evidence for a recent global flood.
Astronomy: The Earth-moon system cannot be more than about a billion years old.
Physics: Those two are physics.

But not to traditional Christians:COLOR="DarkRed"]But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. [/COLOR]Charles Spurgeon sermon number 30 ca:1850Until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism, almost all creationists were old Earth. That is the form of creationism that was presented at the Scopes trial, for example. The prosecution admitted that the Earth was probably millions of years old, and freely admitted that it made no difference to the Gospel.

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days," while you say "billions of years." When you pick a side, you might be able to be part of a rational discussion. :up:

 

[DavisBJ]

Are these being measured all under 20,000 years? Carbon-14 has it's limits, which is the reason I don't trust it.

Michael

:guitar:

Hogwash. You don’t trust it because you don’t want to trust it. If many of the dates determined by C14 are accurate, then a recent creation cannot be a fact, and that is something you cannot countenance.

Yes, C-14 has its limits, as does every measurement system I know of, whether it be measuring time, distance, mass, charge, density, conductivity, IQ, or whatever. And, with equal justification, I could declare that I don’t trust any measurement system that I find gives answers I am uncomfortable with. But I, unlike you, actually follow the evidence, even if it means I have to relinquish some cherished beliefs.

If, as some Christians assert, the evidence from true science leads to their particular concept of God, then I will have no choice but to follow the evidence down that path. But in fact, science has been one of the major reasons a huge number of pre-eminent scientists have turned away from religion. It may be popular for Christians to cheer for their team, and even pretend that it is winning, sans looking at the actual score, but in science that is not a very honest approach.

But back to the limits of C14 for dating – since the half-life of C14 is just under 6,000 years (near the time of the Genesis creation), many good biological samples give highly repeatable dates back that far. In fact, samples with as little as 1/16 of the C-14 remaining are commonly found. But 1/16 of the C14 means the sample has been around for 4 half-lives (½ x ½ x ½ x ½ = 1/16), or about 23,000 years. Kinda hard to do that if creation was only 7,000 years or so ago. C14 dates beyond 50,000 years have been made, but these are often less reliable than younger dates, simply because the older dates involve working with microscopic amounts of residual C14, and any contamination can seriously skew the measurements.

To me it seems almost like a type of cognitive dissonance when (and this is frequently seen) Christians argue that diamonds (which should be millions of years old, with no C-14 left in them) have been C14 dated at 50,000 years old. Supposedly this shows that C14 dating is poppy-****. But notice, what they do is shine their accusatory light on those extreme cases where someone sneezing in the far end of a C14 dating laboratory would leave enough C-14 in the suspended moisture droplets to foul delicate measurements up for the next several hours. Why is it, if the diamond was actually the product of a 7,000 year ago creation, that it doesn’t show that it still has almost 1/2 of its original C-14, just like real 7000 year old wood and bone and tissue samples do?

As the articles I mentioned in my prior post show, many Christian archaeologists are savvy enough to know that C-14 is a great tool for dating old campfires, hides, wooden tools, and such, to prove those things were in use as expected in Old Testament times. But C14 dating seems, in the fundamentalist Christian mind, to suddenly become unreliable just at the point they need it to, about 7,000 years ago. Meanwhile, real scientists, not beholden to tribal creation stories, find that C14 dating shows dates of 15,000 and 20,000 years ago are easily in the range that can be cross-checked by alternate dating methods.

 

[Jonahdog]

Geology: Sedimentary layers show powerful evidence for a recent global flood.
Astronomy: The Earth-moon system cannot be more than about a billion years old.

Your geology is silly. But then again your premise on the Earth-moon system is a bit closer to the 6000 year model. by how much? You need the Earth-moon system and everything else to be about 6000 years, right?
Does your head hurt when you try to cram all the silliness in?

 

[DavisBJ]

Those rely on the assumption of the evolutionary model.

I know that in your pathological hatred of evolution, you like to make it sound as though evolution was an underlying fallacy that drives all old-earth ideas, but it just ain’t so. The majority of the scientific studies that support old-earth say nothing about (Darwinian) evolution.

Geology: Sedimentary layers show powerful evidence for a recent global flood.

You have made the assertion. Now can you back it with specific studies that back the assertion?

Astronomy: The Earth-moon system cannot be more than about a billion years old.

Specifically what is it about the earth-moon system that you think precludes an earth older than a billion years? (And let’s shortcut to the actual evidence, skip cluttering the thread with unsupported assertions.)

Physics: Those two are physics.

Maybe you have a funky way in which you divide up the scientific disciplines where you live, but here many very competent physicists know relatively little about physical geology, and vice versa.

 

[DavisBJ]

It is how they date fossils, etc.

Michael

No, Michael. C14 dating is limited to under 100,000 years, and most fossils are much older than that.

 

[Stripe]

Your geology is silly. But then again your premise on the Earth-moon system is a bit closer to the 6000 year model. by how much? You need the Earth-moon system and everything else to be about 6000 years, right?
Does your head hurt when you try to cram all the silliness in?

:yawn:

I know that in your pathological hatred of evolution, you like to make it sound as though evolution was an underlying fallacy that drives all old-earth ideas, but it just ain’t so. The majority of the scientific studies that support old-earth say nothing about (Darwinian) evolution.

And yet, your ideas require an assumption of the evolutionary model. :idunno:

You have made the assertion. Now can you back it with specific studies that back the assertion?

Of course. :idunno:

Specifically what is it about the earth-moon system that you think precludes an earth older than a billion years? (And let’s shortcut to the actual evidence, skip cluttering the thread with unsupported assertions.)

The moon is receding at a decreasing rate today that a billion years ago would have had it causing kilometers-high tides.

Maybe you have a funky way in which you divide up the scientific disciplines where you live, but here many very competent physicists know relatively little about physical geology, and vice versa.

And yet, geology is just a subset of physics. :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe asserts without evidence:

The moon receded at a decreasing rate today that a billion years ago would have had it causing kilometers-high tides.

Nope. If you don't mind a little math:

The Gravitational force is Fg = Gm1m2 / R^2 where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objecgts, and R is the distance between them. Notice the R is squared, meaning the force declines with the square of the distance.

But there is a difference caused by distance. The formula:

DF / DR = 2Gm1m2 / R^3 Represents the change in force with a change in distance. So there's significantly more force on the facing side of the Earth than on the back side. Which causes a bulge in both sides (which is why we have two tides a day).

Now, the bulge is almost entirely in ocean water, and only a little in the land. The oceans are not quite frictionless with respect to land and as the bulge moves across the planet, the water encounters friction from the bottom, and more importantly, from coastal areas against which it is pulled by the Moon.

It is this force that is transferred to the Moon, slowing the Earth's rotation, and moving the Moon to a higher orbit.

The motion is not constant over geological time, because the coastal areas are not constant. So Pangea would have had a much lower force from tides than the present day arrangement with more coastal areas, and therefore more force against them.

It turns out that the rotation of the Earth, which remains proportional to the recession of the Moon, can be checked by tidal rhythmites which exist in the rocks.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Historical_Geology/Tidal_rhythmites_and_dating

And it fits nicely with the other data.

 

[DavisBJ]

Re. Circular reasoning....yes, possibly in some cases. But the same argument can be made of atheists. We start from a biased worldview. We interpret evidence according to that biased starting point.*

But I think there is still a significant difference between how our two sides can respond to evidence that transcends worldviews. If I see that the evidence is pretty clearly against some of my most cherished beliefs, I may absolutely hate it, but I am obligated to follow where it leads. If the evidence solidly favors an old-earth, are you willing to do a 180 on your young-earth views?

… If I recall correctly, the author used the terms of 'common ancestor' vs 'common designer'.*

In my mind, ancestor and designer are very different animals.

Cheating a bit... i googled a couple websites.

Not cheating at all. Google, when wisely used, is an immensely valuable resource. I use it extensively.

Geology
Is There Geological Evidence For a Young Earth?
http://www.icr.org/article/there-geological-evidence-for-young-earth/

Physics
"Further evidence for a young age from nuclear physics comes from ....."
http://creation.mobi/jim-mason-nuclear-physicist

Thanks, give me some time to read and carefully digest these before I respond.

Re Astronomy*
Lack of stage 3 stars points to a young earth.*

Do you have a link (or at least a specific chapter in a book or such for this? I don’t want to find I am responding to the wrong article or idea.

And … this one causes me some concern. If indeed, the point is made that the “Lack of stage 3 stars points to a young earth”, then I have no issue with it. But I suspect it may really be saying something to the effect that “you mainstream old-earth astronomers predicted such and such, and it wasn’t found, so you don’t know what you are talking about, and (illogical leap at this point) thus we are right and the earth is young.”

I say this because, crudely stated, scientific ignorance is the lifeblood of science. Almost every competent scientist knows a number of things that we cannot explain. And when a scientist accepts the task of finding one of the elusive answers, he almost always dredges up a half-dozen new mysteries on the way. Science is a localized encampment of explorers with unexplored wilderness on every side. We have mapped out what is really close to us, but the very act of reaching out and exploring new territories expands the length of the boundary into the still unknown territories around us.

As a reminder I keep close to me a full 370 page text: “Unexplained Problems in Astrophysics”. I could carefully itemize every not-understood problem delineated in that text and send it to you, but does ignorance on the side of science default to correctness on the creationist side? Remember, that is a two-edged sword, and leaves you guys vulnerable on issues like you having a grand total of zero (zip, null, none, nada) of the original Genesis manuscripts.

And, it is really refreshing to have a polite and reasoned conversation in place of the emotional and empty rhetoric that is so prevalent in this thread. Thanks much.

 

[6days]

*If many of the dates determined by C14 are accurate, then a recent creation cannot be a fact

Yes... agree.*

The test method IS accurate...we know how fast C-13 decays. But we don't know the ratio of C13/14 pre-flood. We don't know if C14 *existed in creation. False assumptions about the past would make extrapolated C14 dates false also.*

 

[Jonahdog]

Yes... agree.*

The test method IS accurate...we know how fast C-13 decays. But we don't know the ratio of C13/14 pre-flood. We don't know if C14 *existed in creation. False assumptions about the past would make extrapolated C14 dates false also.*

Well that is convenient, the false assumption of the accuracy of your holy Book makes further rational discussion pointless. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[DavisBJ]

And yet, your ideas require an assumption of the evolutionary model. :idunno:

Lord Kelvin was a good Christian, he was anti-evolution, and used his understanding of Physics to conclude that the earth was millions of years old.

Of course. :idunno:

I’m not one bit interested in playing your game of wanting me to ask for specifics. If you aren’t interested enough to provide it, then butt out of this conversation.

The moon receded (sic – is receding) at a decreasing rate today that a billion years ago would have had it causing kilometers-high tides.

Yup, today it is. Has it been receding at that rate for a billion years?

And yet, geology is just a subset of physics. :idunno:

And under Stipe’s ludicrous definition, a ballet dancer executing a graceful jump is using one of Newton’s laws, and must therefore be a part of the scientific discipline of physics.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe asserts without evidence: Nope. If you don't mind a little math:The Gravitational force is Fg = Gm1m2 / R^2 where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objecgts, and R is the distance between them. Notice the R is squared, meaning the force declines with the square of the distance.But there is a difference caused by distance. The formula: DF / DR = 2Gm1m2 / R^3 Represents the change in force with a change in distance. So there's significantly more force on the facing side of the Earth than on the back side. Which causes a bulge in both sides (which is why we have two tides a day).Now, the bulge is almost entirely in ocean water, and only a little in the land. The oceans are not quite frictionless with respect to land and as the bulge moves across the planet, the water encounters friction from the bottom, and more importantly, from coastal areas against which it is pulled by the Moon.It is this force that is transferred to the Moon, slowing the Earth's rotation, and moving the Moon to a higher orbit. The motion is not constant over geological time, because the coastal areas are not constant. So Pangea would have had a much lower force from tides than the present day arrangement with more coastal areas, and therefore more force against them.It turns out that the rotation of the Earth, which remains proportional to the recession of the Moon, can be checked by tidal rhythmites which exist in the rocks. url]http://en.wiki books.org/ wiki/H istorical_ Geology / Tidal_rhythmites_and _dating[/url]And it fits nicely with the other data.

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days," but you say: "billions of years." When you've learned to reject one or the other, perhaps it will be possible for you to in a rational debate.

 

[Stripe]

Lord Kelvin was a good Christian, he was anti-evolution, and used his understanding of Physics to conclude that the earth was millions of years old.

That's nice.

I’m not one bit interested in playing your game of wanting me to ask for specifics. If you aren’t interested enough to provide it, then butt out of this conversation.

What? :AMR:

Yup, today it is. Has it been receding at that rate for a billion years?

A bit hard of reading, aren't you. :chuckle:

And under Stipe’s ludicrous definition, a ballet dancer executing a graceful jump is using one of Newton’s laws, and must therefore be a part of the scientific discipline of physics.

:AMR:

You're weird.

 

[Stripe]

linky

 

[Jonahdog]

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days," but you say: "billions of years." When you've learned to reject one or the other, perhaps it will be possible for you to in a rational debate.

I've rejected the six days. It is without foundation.

Since I am unable to engage in rational debate using emoticons I will not be able to do so with you. Aren't I lucky.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I sincerely thank you for taking the time and effort to track this down. However … I did a Google search a couple days ago when you first posted the quotes in question, and this same Chemistry.Answers.com link popped up then. But that site simply repeats the identical (erroneous) text you gave us. There is no discussion or commentary on that text there.

In contrast, your original link was to a discussion forum (ScienceForums), similar to TOL, in which the pros and cons of ideas are hashed out. I suspect that article you quoted, when subjected to the examination of the participants at ScienceForums, would have been even more mercilessly ripped up than my mild disapproval of it. So I issue the request again – if you can find, within the ScienceForums discussion threads, where that article is found, I would (again) be in your debt.

Hydrogen 57 does not exist.

Dear Davis,

I shortened your post here by deleting some paragraphs. Wanted to let you know how to get to that post.

In your browser, type: Problems with Carbon Dating - Chemistry - Answer.com

Check out "Rate of formation" there. I don't feel that it is a forum site. Look forward to your response. Are you really a scientist? If so, I'm not going to argue about anything with you because it isn't fair to me, with limited knowledge of science compared to you. How many years of college did you have to go through?

I won't croak from cancer, most likely. It will be something else that is more recent and quick, and unexpected. Who knows? Maybe I'll get killed in a car accident. The way people here in Phoenix drive, it's scary. You have a lot of Mexicans who want to drive, but they can't understand English or all of the signs. A lot of them drive without a license or driver's training. So they are dangerous drivers. I have to die within months from now, supposedly for Armageddon to come. I am not going to go through explaining it. Read Rev. chapter 11.

Okay, thanks for worrying about me. I don't have a prostate gland anymore. So you are a scientist? I am a fisher of men. I am also an olive tree and candlestick standing before the God of the whole Earth. It is what I was told by an angel. I will let God bear witness of me. I am also here to prepare for the 2nd Coming of Jesus. Spiritually like Elias, Jesus told us that Elias must first come before Him to warn the people of the Earth.

Hope this post helps you. Thank God for the Internet so that it makes it possible to talk to so many people!! Even when I explain myself on Twitter, I get messages from many people all over all of the world.

Michael