Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Parsimony]

First of all, let me give you one that is obvious and you probably already heard it. Carbon dating. About how long it takes for something to decay. I'm not even close to a physicist. Now how do you know how much carbon was in that rock when God created it? God could have created any amount of carbon in that rock he wanted.

(1) Carbon dating isn't used to date rocks.
(2) If God didn't want us to think that the Earth was old, He could have either made the isotope ratios in rock either be completely random (which would cause all isotopic dating methods to be inconsistent with each other) or He could have made the isotope ratios line up with that of a young Earth.
(3) Isochron plots do let us know what the original isotope ratios were.
(4) When different dating methods consistently yield the same age range for a given rock layer, you know it can't just be a coincidence. Either the age is correct or God carefully crafted the isotope ratios so that it would appear to be a certain age, thus making Him deceptive. I prefer to think that He would have no need to do this.

 

[rusra02]

Quote-mining...

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)

You should also read Raup's work. He supported evolution, he was arguing against gradual evolution as a universal.

I acknowledged Raup was an evolutionist. Nonetheless, what he found in the evidence and was refreshingly honest enough to admit, supports direct creation rather than evolution.
Claiming "Quote mining" is just a disingenuous ploy attempting to prevent evidence against evolution being shared, IMO.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I acknowledged Raup was an evolutionist. Nonetheless, what he found in the evidence and was refreshingly honest enough to admit, supports direct creation rather than evolution.
Claiming "Quote mining" is just a disingenuous ploy attempting to prevent evidence against evolution being shared, IMO.

As you say, Raup was an evolutionist. One can only assume he was less convinced that his own evidence demanded direct creation than you seem to be.

Am I to assume his 'refreshing honesty' extended to his entire conclusion, rather than just the part you've represented here?

 

[Shad]

I acknowledged Raup was an evolutionist. Nonetheless, what he found in the evidence and was refreshingly honest enough to admit, supports direct creation rather than evolution.

Actually no. The quote you mined, or just copied from a site that already did so distorted his views. He still support evolution and his points were against 1 mechanic applied as a universal. Nothing more

Claiming "Quote mining" is just a disingenuous ploy attempting to prevent evidence against evolution being shared, IMO.

Nope since it is quoted for the purpose of distorting a view for those gullible enough not to fact check what they read

The full article. Your evidence is still not a major issue with the theory. He is attacking Darwin's ideas, a few of the modern idea such as universal gradualism

https://archive.org/stream/cbarchiv...ctsbetweendarwinandpaleo1930#page/n1/mode/2up

 

[Brian Schuh]

We are still waiting for evidence that supports your claim.

Absolutely true? Does not exist. Most probable, most likely ... sure, that's available.

It's like the idea that a trickster god made the universe with the light from distant stars already on its way.

No, I looked at them, they are not worth the bandwidth that they burn.

Evolution holds up just fine to history. Your problem is that your version of history does not hold up to evolution (and a bunch of other things).
Persuppostion of supernatural events is not an attempt to "prove that God created the universe"? We were not born yesterday.

Rather a bad example since it is clear that you have no idea of how radiometric dating is done.

Have you any arguments that support your claims outside of disputable scripture?

Wallowing in a tautology does not help your case.

It's like the idea that a trickster god made the universe with the light from distant stars already on its way.

Exactly, you are brighter than I thought. One could say God created the universe yesterday at 3 PM with a bunch of created memories in our minds and no amount of evidence could prove that wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Exactly, you are brighter than I thought.

One could say God created the universe yesterday at 3 PM with a bunch of created memories in our minds and no amount of evidence could prove that wrong.

And the fact that the claim is untestable renders it effectively worthless except as a matter of (literally) baseless faith.

 

[Brian Schuh]

If I start with an assumption that a rock was created and an evolutionist carbon dates it, my question would be, "how do you know how radioactive the rock was when God created it?" Showing that the evolutionist also has an assumption. For this reason, any evidence from carbon dating is to dismissed, now what evidence do you have that the Earth is older than 5776 years?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I start with an assumption that a rock was created and an evolutionist carbon dates it, my question would be, "how do you know how radioactive the rock was when God created it?" Showing that the evolutionist also has an assumption. For this reason, any evidence from carbon dating is to dismissed, now what evidence do you have that the Earth is older than 5776 years?

Nothing you'd accept. You win. Congratulations.

 

[savagewind]

If I start with an assumption that a rock was created and an evolutionist carbon dates it, my question would be, "how do you know how radioactive the rock was when God created it?" Showing that the evolutionist also has an assumption. For this reason, any evidence from carbon dating is to dismissed, now what evidence do you have that the Earth is older than 5776 years?

Erosion and accretion. Do the math!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For those other than @Brian Schuh , see Evidence against a recent creation.

 

[savagewind]

For those other than @Brian Schuh , see Evidence against a recent creation.

Stalactites: >1,000,000


A stalactite
A stalactite is a mineral deposit that is usually - though not exclusively - found in limestone caves. They are formed on the ceilings of caverns by the slow deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals as they drip, in solution, over the stalactite. These formations take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimetres (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less than ten thousand years old we would expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one metre.[31]In fact stalactites frequently reach from the ceiling to the floor of large caverns.

It is true that cases of accelerated growth have been observed in some stalactites, but rapid growths are only temporary, as the rapidly growing stalactites quickly deplete the surrounding limestone.[31]

 

[Brian Schuh]

I already said that I'm not trying to prove anything and that I don't care what y'all believe and that I don't care if evolution is true or false, in fact- sure I believe evolution. I just made a claim that God created the universe 5776 years ago like it is a historical fact. I'm winning this, not because I proved anything, but because all y' all can do is get back to " the Bible is false" "you don't know what you're talking about" and then ignore entire arguments of mine because I might use one wrong word.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

...and then ignore entire arguments of mine because I might use one wrong word.

Just what "entire arguments" are we ignoring?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Stalactites: >1,000,000


A stalactite
A stalactite is a mineral deposit that is usually - though not exclusively - found in limestone caves. They are formed on the ceilings of caverns by the slow deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals as they drip, in solution, over the stalactite. These formations take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimetres (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less than ten thousand years old we would expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one metre.[31]In fact stalactites frequently reach from the ceiling to the floor of large caverns.

It is true that cases of accelerated growth have been observed in some stalactites, but rapid growths are only temporary, as the rapidly growing stalactites quickly deplete the surrounding limestone.[31]

This is evidence I would like to see, but the history of the rate of growth of the stalactite cannot be known.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just what "entire arguments" are we ignoring?

This is evidence I would like to see, but the history of the rate of growth of the stalactite cannot be known.

Why did you side-step my question?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Just what "entire arguments" are we ignoring?

My first argument was that it has never been observed that a mutation has increased a life form's ability to survive. First a couple people posted one word, "nonsense." Then a couple people posted about genes that they believe are mutations that are of benefit. I asked how they know it really is a mutation, that maybe those genes always existed. Nobody replied yet. It always get back to "the Bible is false, and those who believe it are ignorant" and no matter how many times y'all repeat that, it doesn't help your case.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My first argument was that it has never been observed that a mutation has increased a life form's ability to survive. First a couple people posted one word, "nonsense." Then a couple people posted about genes that they believe are mutations that are of benefit. I asked how they know it really is a mutation, that maybe those genes always existed. Nobody replied yet. It always get back to "the Bible is false, and those who believe it are ignorant" and no matter how many times y'all repeat that, it doesn't help your case.

Thanks for the response.

 

[savagewind]

This is evidence I would like to see, but the history of the rate of growth of the stalactite cannot be known.

The history of the rate growth of the stalactite is known. It has been observed and calculations were made. Are you saying that at times the rate was very fast? That can't be known so I agree with you that it isn't known how fast the erosion of caves used to be and the growth of stalactites used to be. It would have had to speed up and slow down A LOT. What made it speed up and did the same thing make it slow down, do you think?

 

[viole]

My first argument was that it has never been observed that a mutation has increased a life form's ability to survive. First a couple people posted one word, "nonsense." Then a couple people posted about genes that they believe are mutations that are of benefit. I asked how they know it really is a mutation, that maybe those genes always existed. Nobody replied yet. It always get back to "the Bible is false, and those who believe it are ignorant" and no matter how many times y'all repeat that, it doesn't help your case.

Even if true, it is not important. Since mutations are agnostic about the advantages/disadvantages they provide, there is no logical reason to infer that all mutations are detrimental or neutral. Being random plays both ways. One is definetely more likely than the other, but the latter will inevitably happen. You just need a lot of tries.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian Schuh]

History cannot be observed again. A scientific theory has to be observed before I take it seriously. Many aspects of evolutionary theory have or are being observed, so I accept them. No one observed the rate of growth of a stalactite. Science is rendered impotent to rewrite history, as the scientific method requires observation.