jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Oh, absolutely....Yet there is nothing in the Creationist's worldview which threatens evolutionary biology or theory in the least bit. The fact that science hasn't disbanded evolution says a lot on that regard.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .
- Thread starter Jared Jammer
- Start date
Oh, absolutely....Yet there is nothing in the Creationist's worldview which threatens evolutionary biology or theory in the least bit. The fact that science hasn't disbanded evolution says a lot on that regard.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I know I would. I know most of science would. Just need the evidence.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
He was not asking at all, it’s a rhetoric in the form of a question, not to obtain answers, but meant to make a point based on his next theory, i.e., “the Imperfection of the Geological Record;”
You don’t understand the question at all. It’s like saying: we won’t find them in “countless numbers” because of the “Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on a theory by Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.
Therefore, one cannot argue or ask “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” because of the “Imperfection of the Geological Record”. It’s a circular theories by Darwin.
jm2c said:
Speculate is theorize, but you said “We don't need to "speculate" because the answer is obvious”
What OBVIOUS answer you are talking about? Darwin did not give any specific answer to a RHETORICAL QUESTION, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth”, but another “SPECULATION” OR “THEORY”, and that is, “The Imperfection of the Geological Record”, but you guys kept on digging proofs of fossils to prove the unprovable evolutions.
jm2c said:
Darwin was like saying WE DO NOT HAVE ANY GEOLOGICAL RECORD because of “The Imperfection of the Geological Record”, so do not look for the ‘MISSING LINKS” because you won’t FIND them, but you guys kept of digging them fossils and all you guys found are nothing but HOAXES with ridiculous, almost comical, ages on them.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
I wish you could somehow summarize all these links for me or us.
Where else do you think I found them? The same place where you found yours.
They, the scientists, I think have their own forum like this as you and I have this thread. So, let’s not play who’s smarter in this thread. If you can refute my statements please do so and if you use links at least please try to summarize them on how you understand them. Now, about the “Geology course”, does anyone here have any credential on any of these you are talking about?
Will the real Geologist, Paleontologist, Anthropologist please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Geologist, Paleontologist, Anthropologist please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here..
That’s what I think.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
Evolutionists evidences were proven to be nothing but hoaxes. You could read them all over the internet, from Lucy to the Nebraska man, they all hoaxes.
What evidence I can show you that God created everything?
GENESIS 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
What evidence can I show you that man did not come from apes?
GENESIS 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You're right. So, what was the point he then made following this rhetorical question?
And that is one of the reasons we have an imperfect geological record, yes. So why did you bring up the question as if Darwin didn't know why we had an imperfect geological record?
This sentence makes no sense. Darwin asked what you admit already was a rhetorical question: “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”, so that he could then answer the question. That's not "circular". Is it circular for me to write "So, why do we crack open the egg? Because we want to use the yolk to make a cake."?
Because it is. Darwin asked the question so that he could give an answer to it.
You're not making any sense. Your own statements above clearly show why it is that he asked this question. Where exactly are you getting confused? Do you not understand the purpose of asking a rhetorical question when explaining a theory?
No, that is categorically NOT what he said. What he said was that we have an IMPERFECT geological record, and explained why. He never said that we shouldn't look for missing links - that's absurd. We HAVE found them. We have thousands of hominid fossils that fit evolutionary predictions perfectly. Are you honestly claiming that they are ALL hoaxes?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
False. There have been a few hoaxes. But they were only found out to be hoaxes because we had real ones to compare it to. Why do you think that they are all hoaxes? What is the evidences?
Lucy was not a hoax. This has been refuted several times.
Also the nebraska man to my knowledge was never a hoax. It has been debated as to what it's identity is however.
genypher
Member
The first issue with this post is that it is based on the faulty logic that the theory of evolution in any way addresses a first cause. Evolution simply addresses the processes by which species adapt and change over time.
If anyone is actually interested in knowing the facts about evolutionary sciences and the discoveries made in this field, I suggest checking out the Smithsonian's site:
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
If anyone is actually interested in knowing the facts about evolutionary sciences and the discoveries made in this field, I suggest checking out the Smithsonian's site:
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
A single creationist PHd claimed there was a problem with radio-metric dating because he sent a rock that quite obviously wasn't what he had it tested for. Multiple agencies have critiqued that creationists claim. The Creationist himself has never address the criticism to his method or study, which should be common place among peer-reviewed science. The critiques of Dr. Austin's claims are very valid and legitimate, yet he continues to spread his claims, as if they were truth, among creationist circles, thus spreading the misinformation so far that even you post it on the internet as a factual short-coming of Geology and other sciences... To further understand the details of this, please read the links. You only need to read a couple Dr. Austin's because they are all incredibly similar. There are at a least a dozen problems with his claims, as highlighted in the rebuttals that I posted.
Precisely. Dr. Austin's work cannot be found in academia. It is not supported by anyone in the scientific community. It shows an incredible lack of basic geologic knowledge.
Let me give you a perfect example why you don't have to hold a degree in a field in order to root out when someone from that field is lying...
Dr. Austin has made some claims that, to a lay person, seem pretty solid. He shows these great mounds of what look like geologic layers and even a carved out gulley, which we all know was formed when Mount St. Helens erupted. Again, to the untrained eye, or to someone looking for validation of their beliefs in the scientific world, that seems like pretty conclusive evidence that catastrophic events can alter the face of the planet... Well, no one is disputing that. Catastrophic events have and do continually alter the landscape around us. But Dr. Austin is also making assertions that simply fly in the face of all other forms of scientific knowledge, simply because he wants the simplistic answer... How do I know this? Ask yourself a few simple questions: Does the evidence of a localized event mesh up with the scale of the entire globe? Does the dating of a whole group of layers coincide with the dating of layers preceding it? Does the fact that a volcanic eruption can carve out a gulley in a few years discredit the fact that rivers can also carve out gullies over thousands or millions of years? Does the presence of ancient minerals in newly formed rocks discredit the fact that there are also exist ancient rocks?
You don't have to ever take a course in science to understand why these questions are simple. Yet Dr. Austin, someone with a PHd in Geology, who is championed in the Creationist community as one of their greatest proponents for reconciling faith and science, stops asking questions... Why does he do that? Why does he stop being skeptical of his own work, when other scientists are trained to be skeptical of themselves all the time?
Dr. Austin stops asking questions because Dr. Austin is only attempting to validate one specific version of one specific belief system. Dr. Austin is biased by a very personal presupposition. Because of this, he is a sham of a scientist and, regardless of his intention, he continually repeats an inaccuracy over and over and over again, to the point that we are talking about it today....
Am I a geologist? No. I'm not. I don't know that there are any on the forum. There are some biologists and anthropologists that I know of, but I have yet to discuss anything with a geologist. Does that mean that I cannot educate myself on the basic principles of geology before engaging in a conversation? Does that mean that I can't spend a few hours reading over introductory geological course material from several free online academic courses? No, it doesn't. And the reason that I attach so many links to most of posts are so that you or others can do the same thing. If we're going to debate something, we shouldn't do based purely on arguments from ignorance. And we shouldn't trust sources that are quite obviously biased and have no intention of address criticisms of their work, as the Institute for Creation Research does so often.
You're quite mistaken.
Please read this book:
I think it does a phenomenal job of explaining the incredible amount of work that goes into finding just one evolutionary ancestor. It richly details fossil hunting and a whole slew of other processes that you're completely unaware of. To claim that all human ancestral fossils are hoaxes is mind-boggingly ignorant.
Last edited:
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?" by Keith Swenson
Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test.
In August of 1993, I had the exciting privilege of accompanying geologist Dr. Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research on a climb into the crater of Mount St. Helens to view the lava dome. It was one of those experiences that was well worth every exhausting moment! The dome (Figure 1) sits like a small mountain (roughly 3/4 mile in length and 1000 feet high) directly over the volcanic vent, which is at the south end of the huge horseshoe-shaped crater blasted out of the mountain by the May 18, 1980 eruption. It is composed of a volcanic rock called dacite and appears to an observer in the crater as a huge steaming mound of dark, blocky rubble.
Actually the present lava dome at Mount St. Helens is the third dome to form since the 1980 eruption, the first two having been blasted away by subsequent eruptions. The current dome started to form after the volcano's last explosive eruption on October 17, 1980. During 17 so-called dome-building eruptions, from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986, thick pasty lava oozed out of the volcanic vent much like toothpaste from a tube. Dacite lava is too thick to flow very far, so it simply piled up around the vent forming the mountain-like dome, which now sits as a plug over the volcanic orifice.
Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope dating methods can be used mainly on volcanic (igneous) rock, such as dacite. (Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically.) Second, the date of formation of the dacite is known. (This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, "Were you there?", we can answer-"Yes, we were!") It is widely assumed that the radioisotope clock is set at zero and starts ticking when igneous rock solidifies from a molten state.
The concept of radioisotopic dating is fairly simple. The method used at Mount St. Helens is called potassium-argon dating. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or "variety" of the element potassium) spontaneously "decays", becoming argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 gram of potassium-40, in 1.3 billion years, would decay to the point that only 0.5 gm was left. Theoretically, given certain assumptions, one could measure the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample and calculate how old the rock is. When this is done, the age is usually very great, often millions of years.
In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2 (below), were recently published.1
Sample (Mt.St.Helens' new dome)
"Age"(in millions of years)
1. "Whole Rock" 0.35 ± 0.05
2. Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3. Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4. Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5. Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6
Figure 2. Potassium-argon "ages" for "whole rock" and mineral concentrate samples from lava dome at Mount St. Helens.
What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this? A good possibility is that solidification of magma does not reset the radioisotope clock to zero. Probably some argon-40 is incorporated from the start into newly formed minerals giving the "appearance" of great age. It should also be noted that there is poor correspondence between the different samples, each taken from the same rock.
Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple2 gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Figure 3):
Historic Lava Flow
Potassium-Argon "age"
(in millions of years)
Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801)1.6 ± 0.16
Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 1.41 ± 0.08
Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3
Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065) 0.27 ± 0.09 0.25 ± 0.15
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3
However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. (Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)
Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably. (The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating.
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geologic stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological `clock'."6
William D. Stansfield, Ph.D
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
So to counter the criticisms that I've levied against the idea that these guys are making wild assumptions without knowing as much as they need to about these dating methods, you quote someone who was also part of that very same study??
There's no bias evident in this article, is there....?
Again, no bias at all...
Also, who is William D. Stansfield?
I've found him listed on 7 different creationist websites, but, oddly enough, his name does not appear in many articles via Google Scholar. I've found some 1960s and 1970s textbooks that have him a contributor, but he's a geneticist. Is this the same guy?
Regardless, no one has ever made the claim that Radio-Metric dating is the Be-all End-all of geologic dating methods, which is one of the issues that I have with Austin and this other guy from your first article. Geologists know which limitations exist on each method. The face that these guys think that one sample, collected by them, prepared by them, and sent to a lab blind illustrates a failure of the entire system shows their shortsightedness and bias. If they really wanted to push the envelop and correct the system, why don't they expand on their study? If their prognosis is correct, as they claim it is, then why don't they publish their findings in peer-reviewed articles? Why don't they hire unbiased collectors to collect samples from all over the world and perform a triple or quadruple blind test? I mean, if they're so absolutely certain that the dating methods of the geologic community are so flawed, and that they never get anything right, and that the Earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old, why don't they prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? They have an entire institution to back their studies and their claims, right? They obviously have the funding and apparently the public support of fellow believers? Why don't they just set the whole world straight and prove conclusively that they've been right all along and that god created the world 6,000 years ago?
They don't do that because somewhere inside their educated minds they know that they are being dishonest.
Here are some helpful links - spend some time digesting the data before replying with a knee-jerk defense of creationism:
The Age of the Earth
(Please not in this one that there is an entire section dedicated to common creationist attacks on dating methods, as well as the great number of dating methods available outside of Radiometric)
http://geoscirocks.com/Geo101_Dating_Lab_Worksheet_Miramar.pdf
Here's a cool worksheet from a Geology 1101 course. You can use the internet to complete it, as I've made sure. Try it out one weekend when you have some freetime and you'll see it's not some conspiracy against your religion.
Introduction to Geology | Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences | MIT OpenCourseWare
This is a completely free and open course from MIT. Enjoy.
McBell
Unbound
Well, IF, and that is a mighty mighty big if, creationists can do something, anything really, other than attack the strawmen they call evolution...
Interesting how not a single creationist has ever been able to provide enough evidence to come up with a hypothesis, never mind a theory, that supports creationism.
Instead, they act as though all they have to do is whine about their strawmen and "poof", somehow creationism works.
McBell
Unbound
Bold faced lie
Repeating the same bold faced lie does not make it become true.
Still waiting for some credible evidence.
Spitting out Bible verses doesn't work outside your choir.
So all fossil, all biogeographic, all radiometric and all genetic evidence have proven to be hoaxes now? Gonna need a citation for that.
gnostic
The Lost One
Sure, the moment they can provide a testable or verifiable evidences for the existences of God, and evidences for creation actually happened the way it say it did in Genesis 1 & 2.
So far the bible has been shown to be historically and scientifically unreliable, especially in Genesis. And if you read God answered to Job, many of god's claims are nothing more than superstitions and just bragging about being responsible for natural phenomena that have nothing to do with science.
Job 38 and 40 just showed utterly uneducated God and the author are. It showed God as superstitious as Job and the author.
outhouse
Atheistically
PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES.
Because all credible sources say evolution is fact.
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
- In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
- Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
- Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
- Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
That test Dr. Austin tested was a closed system and cannot be altered by any machine or K-Ar dating method. Once the natural occurring argon escape the system close and started forming or should start forming the daughter isotopes, i.e., argon, from potassium and ten years after the system closed or reset to zero they’ve tested the rock and it gives them 350,000 years in just 10 years. It was a blind test from an independent lab.
“These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory.”
Use your common sense, in just 10 years it yields 350,000 years. That’s 35,000 per year. So, if you divide Lucy’s age, i.e., 3,200,000 years old to 35,000/yr. you should see 91.42 years only and not the 3,200,000 years and that would make Lucy an ape and not a human.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
The two are inexorably linked though, it would be illogical for God to create a world with all the specific instructions to create life, yet have no particular interest in the result..
and to then assume that the result being a single sentient species making creation itself self-aware- and giving thanks for it, is just another staggering coincidence.
addressing the process by relying on design improvements occurring by chance, along with everything else, does not represent an adequate explanation for most people.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
”uneducated God” WOW!
Speaking of Job 40:15 “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.,
“BEHEMOTH”, the DINOSAUR species? Yes! And the “LEVIATHAN” in Job 41:1, Job 3:8 and Psalm 104:26 known as the sea monsters.
You just gave us more proof from Job that human were living contemporaneously with dinosaurs and the leviathans.
Now, tell me who is the “uneducated” here, you, who provided this evidence against evolutionist, or God? You should have kept your thoughts with you.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
When Dr. Horner was asked if he could carbon-14 test the T-Rex soft tissue discovered by Mary Schweitzer in 1993, why did he refuse? Was he concern about what might be the outcome of the test? You should do a research on this and find out yourself and you will be surprise that those millions and billions of years were nothing but lies.
“He was concerned about the “spin” that creationists might put on such a result and that a radiometric dating result in thousands of years “is not going to help us.” By helping us, he means those of the evolutionary faithful. He is absolutely correct with regard to his concerns. The evidence of dinosaurs that date back to the biblical story of creation in the book of Genesis would be a tragedy for those who are hanging their hats, not to mention their professional reputations, on the Darwinian assumption of deep time.”