Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[McBell]

Let's take this to mythology. How did early people's explain the beginning? Just about all of them have a Creation story. But there were a few that have mythology of evolution. Right, there are ancient myths saying we evolved from animals over millions of years. Just an interesting fact. There were ancient people who think like y'all and wrote myths about it.

You appear to not understand that evolution is about the diversity of life and NOT about how life first began.

Again you demonstrate you lack the knowledge to engage in meaningful honest discussion on this topic.

 

[Sapiens]

Here are sources for you, as requested

• Aitken, M.J. (1990). Science-based Dating in Archaeology. London: Longman. ISBN 0-582-49309-9.
• Aitken, Martin J. (2003). "Radiocarbon Dating". In Ellis, Linda. Archaeological Method and Theory. New York: Garland Publishing. pp. 505−508.
• Bianchi, Thomas S.; Canuel, Elizabeth A. (2011). Chemical Markers in Aquatic Ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13414-7.
• Bousman, C. Britt; Vierra, Bradley J. (2012). "Chronology, Environmental Setting, and Views of the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Cultural Transitions in North America". In Bousman, C. Britt; Vierra, Bradley J. From the Pleistocene to the Holocene: Human Organization and Cultural Transformations in Prehistoric North America. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press. pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-1-60344-760-7.
• Bowman, Sheridan (1995) [1990]. Radiocarbon Dating. London: British Museum Press. ISBN 0-7141-2047-2.
• Cronin, Thomas M. (2010). Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-14494-0.
• Dass, Chhabil (2007). Fundamentals of Contemporary Mass Spectrometry. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-68229-5.
• Eriksson Stenström, Kristina; Skog, Göran; Georgiadou, Elisavet; Genberg, Johan; Johansson, Anette (2011). A guide to radiocarbon units and calculations. Lund: Lund University.
• Ferronsky, V.I.; Polyakov, V.A. (2012). Isotopes of the Earth's Hydrosphere. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-94-007-2855-4.
• Killick, David (2014). "Using evidence from natural sciences in archaeology". In Chapman, Robert; Alison, Wylie. Material Evidence: Learning From Archaeological Practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. pp. 159–172. ISBN 978-0-415-83745-3.
• L'Annunziata, Michael F. (2007). Radioactivity: Introduction and History. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-52715-8.
• L'Annunziata, Michael F.; Kessler, Michael J. (2012). "Liquid scintillation analysis: principles and practice". In L'Annunziata, Michael F. Handbook of Radioactivity Analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: Academic Press. pp. 423–573. ISBN 978-0-12-384873-4.
• Libby, Willard F. (1965) [1952]. Radiocarbon Dating (2nd (1955) ed.). Chicago: Phoenix.
• Macdougall, Doug (2008). Nature's Clocks: How Scientists Measure the Age of Almost Everything. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24975-2.
• Malainey, Mary E. (2010). A Consumer's Guide to Archaeological Science. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-5704-7.
• Maslin, Mark A.; Swann, George E.A. (2006). "Isotopes in marine sediments". In Leng, Melanie J. Isotopes in Palaeoenvironmental Research. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 227–290. ISBN 978-1-4020-2503-7.
• Mook, W.G.; Waterbolk, H.T. (1985). Handbooks for Archaeologists: No. 3: Radiocarbon Dating. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. ISBN 2-903148-44-9.
• Post, Wilfred M. (2001). "Carbon cycle". In Goudie, Andrew; Cuff, David J. Encyclopedia of Global Change: Environmental Change and Human Society, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 127–130. ISBN 0-19-514518-6.
• Renfrew, Colin (2014). "Foreword". In Taylor, R.E.; Bar-Yosef, Ofer. Radiocarbon Dating. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. pp. 12–14. ISBN 978-1-59874-590-0.
• Schoeninger, Margaret J. (2010). "Diet reconstruction and ecology using stable isotope ratios". In Larsen, Clark Spencer. A Companion to Biological Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 445–464. ISBN 978-1-4051-8900-2.
• Šilar, Jan (2004). "Application of environmental radionuclides in radiochronology: Radiocarbon". In Tykva, Richard; Berg, Dieter. Man-made and Natural Radioactivity in Environmental Pollution and Radiochronology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 150–179. ISBN 1-4020-1860-6.
• Suess, H.E. (1970). "Bristlecone-pine calibration of the radiocarbon time-scale 5200 B.C. to the present". In Olsson, Ingrid U. Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 303–311.
• Taylor, R.E. (1987). Radiocarbon Dating. London: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-433663-9.
• Taylor, R.E. (1997). "Radiocarbon dating". In Taylor, R.E.; Aitken, Martin J. Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 0-306-45715-6.
• Taylor, R.E.; Bar-Yosef, Ofer (2014). Radiocarbon Dating (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. ISBN 978-1-59874-590-0.
• Terasmae, J. (1984). "Radiocarbon dating: some problems and potential developments". In Mahaney, W.C. Quaternary Dating Methods. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 1–15.ISBN 0-444-42392-3.
• Theodórsson, Páll (1996). Measurement of Weak Radioactivity. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. ISBN 9810223153.
• Trumbore, Susan E. (1996). "Applications of accelerator mass spectrometry to soil science". In Boutton, Thomas W.; Yamasaki, Shin-ichi. Mass Spectrometry of Soils. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 311–340. ISBN 0-8247-9699-3.
• Tuniz, C.; Zoppi, U.; Barbetti, M. (2004). "Radionuclide dating in archaeology by accelerator mass spectrometry". In Martini, M.; Milazzo, M.; Piacentini, M. Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam: IOS Press. pp. 385–405. ISBN 978-1-58603-424-5.
• Walker, Mike (2005). Quaternary Dating Methods (PDF). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-86927-7.
• Warneck, Peter (2000). Chemistry of the Natural Atmosphere. London: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-735632-0.

 

[Brian Schuh]

You appear to not understand that evolution is about the diversity of life and NOT about how life first began.

Again you demonstrate you lack the knowledge to engage in meaningful honest discussion on this topic.

If there was a Creator, why is it so difficult to understand that he wanted a diversity of life forms and that he created the evolutionary process as a self correcting mechanism in case something went wrong?

 

[Brian Schuh]

• Aitken, M.J. (1990). Science-based Dating in Archaeology. London: Longman. ISBN 0-582-49309-9.
• Aitken, Martin J. (2003). "Radiocarbon Dating". In Ellis, Linda. Archaeological Method and Theory. New York: Garland Publishing. pp. 505−508.
• Bianchi, Thomas S.; Canuel, Elizabeth A. (2011). Chemical Markers in Aquatic Ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13414-7.
• Bousman, C. Britt; Vierra, Bradley J. (2012). "Chronology, Environmental Setting, and Views of the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Cultural Transitions in North America". In Bousman, C. Britt; Vierra, Bradley J. From the Pleistocene to the Holocene: Human Organization and Cultural Transformations in Prehistoric North America. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press. pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-1-60344-760-7.
• Bowman, Sheridan (1995) [1990]. Radiocarbon Dating. London: British Museum Press. ISBN 0-7141-2047-2.
• Cronin, Thomas M. (2010). Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-14494-0.
• Dass, Chhabil (2007). Fundamentals of Contemporary Mass Spectrometry. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-68229-5.
• Eriksson Stenström, Kristina; Skog, Göran; Georgiadou, Elisavet; Genberg, Johan; Johansson, Anette (2011). A guide to radiocarbon units and calculations. Lund: Lund University.
• Ferronsky, V.I.; Polyakov, V.A. (2012). Isotopes of the Earth's Hydrosphere. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-94-007-2855-4.
• Killick, David (2014). "Using evidence from natural sciences in archaeology". In Chapman, Robert; Alison, Wylie. Material Evidence: Learning From Archaeological Practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. pp. 159–172. ISBN 978-0-415-83745-3.
• L'Annunziata, Michael F. (2007). Radioactivity: Introduction and History. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-52715-8.
• L'Annunziata, Michael F.; Kessler, Michael J. (2012). "Liquid scintillation analysis: principles and practice". In L'Annunziata, Michael F. Handbook of Radioactivity Analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: Academic Press. pp. 423–573. ISBN 978-0-12-384873-4.
• Libby, Willard F. (1965) [1952]. Radiocarbon Dating (2nd (1955) ed.). Chicago: Phoenix.
• Macdougall, Doug (2008). Nature's Clocks: How Scientists Measure the Age of Almost Everything. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24975-2.
• Malainey, Mary E. (2010). A Consumer's Guide to Archaeological Science. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-5704-7.
• Maslin, Mark A.; Swann, George E.A. (2006). "Isotopes in marine sediments". In Leng, Melanie J. Isotopes in Palaeoenvironmental Research. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 227–290. ISBN 978-1-4020-2503-7.
• Mook, W.G.; Waterbolk, H.T. (1985). Handbooks for Archaeologists: No. 3: Radiocarbon Dating. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. ISBN 2-903148-44-9.
• Post, Wilfred M. (2001). "Carbon cycle". In Goudie, Andrew; Cuff, David J. Encyclopedia of Global Change: Environmental Change and Human Society, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 127–130. ISBN 0-19-514518-6.
• Renfrew, Colin (2014). "Foreword". In Taylor, R.E.; Bar-Yosef, Ofer. Radiocarbon Dating. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. pp. 12–14. ISBN 978-1-59874-590-0.
• Schoeninger, Margaret J. (2010). "Diet reconstruction and ecology using stable isotope ratios". In Larsen, Clark Spencer. A Companion to Biological Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 445–464. ISBN 978-1-4051-8900-2.
• Šilar, Jan (2004). "Application of environmental radionuclides in radiochronology: Radiocarbon". In Tykva, Richard; Berg, Dieter. Man-made and Natural Radioactivity in Environmental Pollution and Radiochronology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 150–179. ISBN 1-4020-1860-6.
• Suess, H.E. (1970). "Bristlecone-pine calibration of the radiocarbon time-scale 5200 B.C. to the present". In Olsson, Ingrid U. Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 303–311.
• Taylor, R.E. (1987). Radiocarbon Dating. London: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-433663-9.
• Taylor, R.E. (1997). "Radiocarbon dating". In Taylor, R.E.; Aitken, Martin J. Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 0-306-45715-6.
• Taylor, R.E.; Bar-Yosef, Ofer (2014). Radiocarbon Dating (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. ISBN 978-1-59874-590-0.
• Terasmae, J. (1984). "Radiocarbon dating: some problems and potential developments". In Mahaney, W.C. Quaternary Dating Methods. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 1–15.ISBN 0-444-42392-3.
• Theodórsson, Páll (1996). Measurement of Weak Radioactivity. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. ISBN 9810223153.
• Trumbore, Susan E. (1996). "Applications of accelerator mass spectrometry to soil science". In Boutton, Thomas W.; Yamasaki, Shin-ichi. Mass Spectrometry of Soils. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 311–340. ISBN 0-8247-9699-3.
• Tuniz, C.; Zoppi, U.; Barbetti, M. (2004). "Radionuclide dating in archaeology by accelerator mass spectrometry". In Martini, M.; Milazzo, M.; Piacentini, M. Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam: IOS Press. pp. 385–405. ISBN 978-1-58603-424-5.
• Walker, Mike (2005). Quaternary Dating Methods (PDF). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-86927-7.
• Warneck, Peter (2000). Chemistry of the Natural Atmosphere. London: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-735632-0.

What if I produce a long list of books, everything from religion, theology, philosophy, history etc etc. You don't have time to study what I have studied. Same here, just answer the question.

 

[Brian Schuh]

You appear to not understand that evolution is about the diversity of life and NOT about how life first began.

Again you demonstrate you lack the knowledge to engage in meaningful honest discussion on this topic.

I lack the knowledge of how one can know know how radioactive a rock is when it was created. Obviously you lack this knowledge as well, because you can't answer the question.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Y'all get back to same argument, "Creation is ignorant, the Bible is false, evolution is fact!" And no matter how many times in many ways you repeat this, it isn't convincing to someone intelligent. I need real evidence

 

[Brian Schuh]

If I measure how radioactive a rock is, and I know the rate of decay, I can't know when it was created unless I also know how radioactive the rock was when it was created. This is simple high school math. Do I have to spell it out? I thought you were all brighter.

 

[Parsimony]

If I measure how radioactive a rock is, and I know the rate of decay, I can't know when it was created unless I also know how radioactive the rock was when it was created. This is simple high school math. Do I have to spell it out? I thought you were all brighter.

Isochron plots let you know how radioactive it was when it formed. I posted a link earlier describing how such plots are made.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Isochron plots let you know how radioactive it was when it formed. I posted a link earlier describing how such plots are made.

You are assuming that God did not create the rock in order to carbon date so that you can prove God didn't create the rock. Sorry, im not convinced.

 

[Parsimony]

You are assuming that God did not create the rock in order to carbon date so that you can prove God didn't create the rock. Sorry, im not convinced.

I'm pretty sure you've been told multiple times by now, but carbon dating is not used to date rocks. Also, did you even check out the link? How much of it did you read? Also, if we assume that God created rocks in such a way that two different isotopes with different decay rates just happened to say that the rock is the same age, then we are getting back to the whole "deceptive God" argument again (which you already said that you do not accept). So either the rocks really are old or God conveniently arranged isotope ratios for multiple different radioisotopes just so that it would seem that the rock was old.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I'll repeat a story, a scientist (who happened to believe in creationism) created a rock somehow and took it to a scientist friend who believed in evolution and asked him to carbon date it, as a prank. The scientist said some long time, and the creationist said that the rock is a couple days old.

 

[Parsimony]

I'll repeat a story, a scientist (who happened to believe in creationism) created a rock somehow and took it to a scientist friend who believed in evolution and asked him to carbon date it, as a prank. The scientist said some long time, and the creationist said that the rock is a couple days old.

If he asked him to carbon date it, he wouldn't have gotten any age because carbon dating isn't used on rock... again...

 

[Brian Schuh]

I'm pretty sure you've been told multiple times by now, but carbon dating is not used to date rocks. Also, did you even check out the link? How much of it did you read? Also, if we assume that God created rocks in such a way that two different isotopes with different decay rates just happened to say that the rock is the same age, then we are getting back to the whole "deceptive God" argument again (which you already said that you do not accept). So either the rocks really are old or God conveniently arranged isotope ratios for multiple different radioisotopes just so that it would seem that the rock was old.

Okay, let's talk about the possibility of a deceptive God and why it shouldn't be believed. First, how do you know if God is deceptive? Second, how do you know the intent was to deceive? For all you know, God could be a psychopath that can't wait to put you in hellfire for eternity. Obviously this is a question for a theologian, what makes you think you know how to answer that? Have you studied theology like I have?

 

[Brian Schuh]

If he asked him to carbon date it, he wouldn't have gotten any age because carbon dating isn't used on rock... again...

You are using a minor mistake in a detail, to miss the point. Replace the word rock in that post with the appropriate word, then reread it.

 

[Parsimony]

Okay, let's talk about the possibility of a deceptive God and why it shouldn't be believed. First, how do you know if God is deceptive? Second, how do you know the intent was to deceive? For all you know, God could be a psychopath that can't wait to put you in hellfire for eternity. Obviously this is a question for a theologian, what makes you think you know how to answer that? Have you studied theology like I have?

If God is deceptive then there is no reason to be selective about what we do or do not believe. Not only could we not trust isotope ratios, but we could not trust anything. So you either have (1) God is not deceptive and we can trust our measurements and observations about the universe or (2) God is deceptive and we can't trust anything we measure or observe about the universe. You also don't have to be a theologian to use rational argumentation.

You are using a minor mistake in a detail, to miss the point. Replace the word rock in that post with the appropriate word, then reread it.

In order to take the claim more seriously, I would need to see a source for it and know the details. Most dating techniques don't work on things as young as a few days. They will give incorrect, random ages depending on the specifics of the devices used. Of course, if the scientist in question had used two different dating methods on that rock then the two dates would have been inconsistent with each other, revealing that the rock had not been a closed system. Lastly, it was the express intend of the creationist to fabricate the rock in such a way as to be deceptive, which brings us back to the "deceptive God" argument.

 

[Brian Schuh]

A common misconception is that if one doesn't accept a theory that makes sense with evidence, that it must be because the person doesn't understand it.

Recently I was in an argument with a Christian who thought I didn't accept Jesus just because I failed to understand the gospel. She was mortified when she saw that I did understand the gospel and still reject it.

I don't reject some things y'all say because of ignorance. I understand it, and still reject it.

 

[Brian Schuh]

If God is deceptive then there is no reason to be selective about what we do or do not believe. Not only could we not trust isotope ratios, but we could not trust anything. So you either have (1) God is not deceptive and we can trust our measurements and observations about the universe or (2) God is deceptive and we can't trust anything we measure or observe about the universe. You also don't have to be a theologian to use rational argumentation.

In order to take the claim more seriously, I would need to see a source for it and know the details. Most dating techniques don't work on things as young as a few days. They will give incorrect, random ages depending on the specifics of the devices used. Of course, if the scientist in question had used two different dating methods on that rock then the two dates would have been inconsistent with each other, revealing that the rock had not been a closed system. Lastly, it was the express intend of the creationist to fabricate the rock in such a way as to be deceptive, which brings us back to the "deceptive God" argument.

Yeah, and we all might just be brains in jars.

You assume that the Creator's intent was to deceive. I don't believe it was.

If your entire theory rests on carbon dating, it is flimsy. Don't you have more support for your "facts" than something that is so easily disputed?

 

[metis]

If your entire theory rests on carbon dating, it is flimsy. Don't you have more support for your "facts" than something that is so easily disputed?

False, and here's a link whereas you can check out other techniques used: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wow, you found a new species of car! We have to find out how it is related to a Cheviot! What a joke.

We have evidence- we can dig down and look at the historical record;

And we find a tree of related forms on which every individual can be plotted, yes with some gaps, sudden apparent jumps, and dead ends, even a few regressions, but a general progression towards sophistication while retaining certain basic shared features..

That describes an automobile junk yard... and also the fossil record equally as well, so yes, nothing in this observation even hints at, far less proves that they all morphed from one to another through millions of lucky mutations.

 

[Shad]

Right, my failure to accept your views is my problem, same for children, if they have to be homeschooled, that is their problem. It is typical that if I don't agree with an evolutionist, then I must be ignorant or even worse. Much like if I don't accept Jesus, a Christian believes I'm going to hell.

No it your failure in accepting view taught within a science class that clash with your ideology. Other groups that are Christians have no issues with such a course in school. You ignorance is based on the strawmen arguments and distortion of the theory that make you ignorant.

I whole heartedly accept the evolutionary that has been observed. But you haven't provided evidence on why we don't have a young earth.

Carbon dating of objects that are older than your time stamp. Look up Uranium-leading and Uranium-thorium dating methods and the results of it along with argon dating

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

About carbon dating, I admit I am not a physicist, but you can't pull the wool over my eyes. An idiot can see carbon dating is nonsense.

Again its chemistry not physics. You opinion is nonsense since the methods work and are standards used. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence outside your text supporting your time stamp. All you have done is whine about methods that shows your ideology to be false, nothing more.

As it isn't your job to teach me anything, don't bother reply.

I said as much. However when you ask for evidence then you have contradicted yourself as you are asking me to educate you in these views and evidence supporting such views. So either you are incompetent or your demands for evidence as all bluster. You have no intention in learning anything that shatters your flawed ideology.