Nope. Punctuated equilibrium argues about steps in evolution. Not gradual, but sudden after a period of stasis.
But they are "evolutionists" at the core. They all support common descent.
Ciao
- viole
-
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!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
Nope. Punctuated equilibrium argues about steps in evolution. Not gradual, but sudden after a period of stasis.
But they are "evolutionists" at the core. They all support common descent.
Ciao
- viole
james bond
Well-Known Member
I posted this earlier, but want to expound on it. Evolution is controversial. It had to disavow Christianity in order to for it to take root in the 1800s. Its beginnings were based on atheism and from atheists.
"No single naturalist of the 1700s epitomizes the revolutionary changes that the Enlightenment brought to the study of nature more than Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788). In the 1600s most naturalists believed the world was a few thousand years old and that species were created separately and organized into an unchanging hierarchy, with humans positioned just below the angels. In the 1800s, Darwin described a world that was inconceivably old, one in which life gradually changed from one form to another without any need for direct supernatural intervention. Roughly midway between those two views—both chronologically and intellectually—was the remarkable Georges-Louis Leclerc Buffon.
Buffon’s career centered on a single enormous project: an encyclopedia he called Histoire Naturelle, which he planned to contain everything known in his day about the natural world. (Buffon only managed to publish 36 out of his projected 50 volumes before he died.) To create it, he was able to draw on his own astonishing expertise, which ranged from astronomy to botany, as well as the knowledge of experts he consulted. But in writing his encyclopedia he did not merely parrot the opinions of others. Instead, he tried to explain all of the facts he amassed with overarching theories about the planet and its inhabitants.
Buffon proposed that the debris flung out from a comet’s collision with the sun became the planets.
(JB: Notice the artwork.)
A non-Biblical explanation of Earth’s history
Buffon realized that to interpret the world, he had to understand its history. And despite censures from the Church, he did not rely on the Bible as a strict guide to that history. Instead, he used the new physics of Isaac Newton to conjecture how matter in motion might have formed the Earth. He proposed that a comet striking the sun had broken off debris that became the planets of the solar system. Initially, the Earth was scorching, but gradually it cooled until molten rock turned to dry land and clouds rained down to form oceans. Buffon estimated the entire process took over 70,000 years. To most Europeans of Buffon’s time, who considered the Earth to be fewer than 7,000 years old, this was practically an eternity."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_06
And the website admits as much with a warning to teachers of evolution. Evolution is the only "scientific" (cough, cough) accepted THEORY because creation science and its theories are not accepted anymore by science. Its science is not accepted anymore. This is not science, but biased BS.
"Dealing with objections to evolution
On occasion, teachers find themselves on the receiving end of questions about the inclusion of evolution in the curriculum. Students may bring up challenges in class. Parents may object to their child learning about evolution. School administrators or other teachers may fail to support teachers in their efforts to teach evolution. Community members may present intentional challenges to individual teachers, to school districts, or even to statewide entities by attempting to influence science education standards or by changing legislation.
The Understanding Evolution website focuses on the science of evolutionary biology, not the controversy in the public arena relating to evolution. If you are a teacher facing significant challenges to teaching evolution because of any of the objections described above, you can contact the National Center for Science Education or learn about the law and your rights on their website.
All teachers, even those in communities thoroughly supportive of teaching evolution, should keep in mind that some students perceive evolution to be incompatible with religious faith. Although many religious views are compatible with evolutionary theory and although many religious organizations support the teaching of evolution, students may be unaware of these facts. The perception of a clash between science and students' beliefs can cause discomfort in class. To make these students more comfortable, you can help them understand that evolution, like all of science, seeks to explain natural things through natural causes. It need not be considered incompatible with their faith because science does not rely on, and cannot evaluate or test, supernatural explanations. At the same time, your teaching should reflect the fact that evolution is the only scientifically valid and accepted theory that accounts for our observations of the biological world. Alternative "theories" that have been proposed for insertion into the science curriculum have not been supported by valid science"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/dealingwithobjections.php
"No single naturalist of the 1700s epitomizes the revolutionary changes that the Enlightenment brought to the study of nature more than Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788). In the 1600s most naturalists believed the world was a few thousand years old and that species were created separately and organized into an unchanging hierarchy, with humans positioned just below the angels. In the 1800s, Darwin described a world that was inconceivably old, one in which life gradually changed from one form to another without any need for direct supernatural intervention. Roughly midway between those two views—both chronologically and intellectually—was the remarkable Georges-Louis Leclerc Buffon.
Buffon’s career centered on a single enormous project: an encyclopedia he called Histoire Naturelle, which he planned to contain everything known in his day about the natural world. (Buffon only managed to publish 36 out of his projected 50 volumes before he died.) To create it, he was able to draw on his own astonishing expertise, which ranged from astronomy to botany, as well as the knowledge of experts he consulted. But in writing his encyclopedia he did not merely parrot the opinions of others. Instead, he tried to explain all of the facts he amassed with overarching theories about the planet and its inhabitants.
Buffon proposed that the debris flung out from a comet’s collision with the sun became the planets.
(JB: Notice the artwork.)
A non-Biblical explanation of Earth’s history
Buffon realized that to interpret the world, he had to understand its history. And despite censures from the Church, he did not rely on the Bible as a strict guide to that history. Instead, he used the new physics of Isaac Newton to conjecture how matter in motion might have formed the Earth. He proposed that a comet striking the sun had broken off debris that became the planets of the solar system. Initially, the Earth was scorching, but gradually it cooled until molten rock turned to dry land and clouds rained down to form oceans. Buffon estimated the entire process took over 70,000 years. To most Europeans of Buffon’s time, who considered the Earth to be fewer than 7,000 years old, this was practically an eternity."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_06
And the website admits as much with a warning to teachers of evolution. Evolution is the only "scientific" (cough, cough) accepted THEORY because creation science and its theories are not accepted anymore by science. Its science is not accepted anymore. This is not science, but biased BS.
"Dealing with objections to evolution
On occasion, teachers find themselves on the receiving end of questions about the inclusion of evolution in the curriculum. Students may bring up challenges in class. Parents may object to their child learning about evolution. School administrators or other teachers may fail to support teachers in their efforts to teach evolution. Community members may present intentional challenges to individual teachers, to school districts, or even to statewide entities by attempting to influence science education standards or by changing legislation.
The Understanding Evolution website focuses on the science of evolutionary biology, not the controversy in the public arena relating to evolution. If you are a teacher facing significant challenges to teaching evolution because of any of the objections described above, you can contact the National Center for Science Education or learn about the law and your rights on their website.
All teachers, even those in communities thoroughly supportive of teaching evolution, should keep in mind that some students perceive evolution to be incompatible with religious faith. Although many religious views are compatible with evolutionary theory and although many religious organizations support the teaching of evolution, students may be unaware of these facts. The perception of a clash between science and students' beliefs can cause discomfort in class. To make these students more comfortable, you can help them understand that evolution, like all of science, seeks to explain natural things through natural causes. It need not be considered incompatible with their faith because science does not rely on, and cannot evaluate or test, supernatural explanations. At the same time, your teaching should reflect the fact that evolution is the only scientifically valid and accepted theory that accounts for our observations of the biological world. Alternative "theories" that have been proposed for insertion into the science curriculum have not been supported by valid science"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/teach/dealingwithobjections.php
james bond
Well-Known Member
Agreed. They have to support their own "faith."
Whatever. But I think that it is sufficient to infer that what the Bible says does not find any support, not even minuscule, in what biological science says today. No matter whether it is gradualism or puctuated equilibrium.
That does not entail that the Bible is wrong. It just entails that science does not support it. In the slightest.
Ciao
- viole
gnostic
The Lost One
There are your problems.
First and foremost, evolution is biology, about changes occurring at gene-level, and with passing genes to offspring and descendants.
ToE have nothing to do with atmosphere. And ToE have nothing to do with astronomy, let alone with the Big Bang.
The Big Bang explain about the formation of the young universe, such as the formation of the subatomic particles, to that of the earliest matters (hydrogen and helium atoms), before explaining how the earliest stars and galaxies were formed. Then finally including explanations on how heavier elements were formed, such as carbon, iron, etc, which became the building block for formations of planets.
At no stage, does the Big Bang explain how life form. The Big Bang can be broken down to physics (such as astrophysics, astronomy) and chemistry. The Big Bang doesn't say anything about life, biology or evolution.
And second, you attacking straw man.
When on bloody Earth did I say that I believe in eternal universe or accepted he long debunked Steady State theory?
Are you so damn dishonest that you must make something I allegedly believe in?
You have just proven to me just how far and how underhandedly dishonest you are, to resort such tactics, making false accusation.
Congratulations, JB. You have completely ignored the bible telling you, teaching you - not to bear false witness. Clearly, creationist such as yourself can completely ignore this command at your own convenience.
Last edited:
james bond
Well-Known Member
Sounds a bit circular. Uniformitarianism is founded on atheism. It was not until Clair Patterson found radiometric dating in 1956 that evolution have a leg to stand on. Lord Kelvin's hypotheses were accepted prior to it.
"In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_23
All right, I'll have to pull up my uranium-lead isochron plots for next time.
What refinement techniques? I tried finding the age of the earth using alternative dating methods, but to no avail. Then I found God said that He will keep it to Himself in the Bible along with the beginning and end. I have a friend, who wrote a primer on Pascal and we discuss it. He gives a good explanation, but nothing conclusive so it's all hypotheses whether you believe in evo or crea.
Again, we do not know what the founders have found, so nothing is required at present. If you want a rumors article, here it is -- . BTW have ever gone spelunking? I've only done the Pinnacles, Carlsbad Caverns and Diamond Head. Nice, roomy spelunking ha ha.
Nice claustrophobia.
"The conclusion is not widely accepted by others. “Intentional disposal of rotting corpses by fellow pinheads makes a nice headline, but seems like a stretch to me,” said Jungers. Zollikofer agrees. “The ‘new species’ and ‘dump-the-dead’ claims are clearly for the media. None of them is substantiated by the data presented in the publications,” he said. Hawks is open to other explanations, but said that disposal made sense. “The evidence really tends to exclude the idea that they entered the chamber one at a time, alive, over some time, because we have infants, small children, and very old adults who would almost certainly not have managed to get into this chamber without being deposited there.”
Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, said that how the creatures reached their final resting place was a “big puzzle”.
“If we’re talking about intentional disposal, we’re talking about creatures with a brain the size of a gorilla’s going deep into a cave, into the dark, and posting bodies through a small fissure into this cave chamber. It’s remarkably complex behaviour for what we’d think of as a very primitive human-like species. Whether there are other explanations remains to be seen, but it’s one of the plausible explanations,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...-of-ancient-human-discovered-claim-scientists
Again, it's hundreds of amino acids, so it's not true new information. Just natural selection.
How?
It absolutely is not because atheism does not deal with the age of the Earth in any way.
Darwin didn't know exactly how long evolution was supposed to take, so the popular ideas of the Earth being millions of years old could have still worked in his mind.
The Earth was already known to be old by the time Darwin came around, at least in the "millions of years" category. Like I said before, Darwin didn't know exactly how long it would take to go from a single cell to a vertebrate,
By refinement, I mean improving the accuracy of the techniques by gathering more data and using equipment with better precision.
Rubidium-strontium can be used to date things that old as well, but I don't know if it has been used specifically on the Earth (it has been used on meteorites, however, and the given ages are very close to those of the Earth).
Chapter and verse please.
Pascal? What's he have to do with this?
Plenty of photos of the fossils exist.
The burial mystery has nothing to do with whether the fossils represent a hoax or not.If you want a rumors article, here it is -- . BTW have ever gone spelunking? I've only done the Pinnacles, Carlsbad Caverns and Diamond Head. Nice, roomy spelunking ha ha.
Nice claustrophobia.
"The conclusion is not widely accepted by others. “Intentional disposal of rotting corpses by fellow pinheads makes a nice headline, but seems like a stretch to me,” said Jungers. Zollikofer agrees. “The ‘new species’ and ‘dump-the-dead’ claims are clearly for the media. None of them is substantiated by the data presented in the publications,” he said. Hawks is open to other explanations, but said that disposal made sense. “The evidence really tends to exclude the idea that they entered the chamber one at a time, alive, over some time, because we have infants, small children, and very old adults who would almost certainly not have managed to get into this chamber without being deposited there.”
Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, said that how the creatures reached their final resting place was a “big puzzle”.
“If we’re talking about intentional disposal, we’re talking about creatures with a brain the size of a gorilla’s going deep into a cave, into the dark, and posting bodies through a small fissure into this cave chamber. It’s remarkably complex behaviour for what we’d think of as a very primitive human-like species. Whether there are other explanations remains to be seen, but it’s one of the plausible explanations,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...-of-ancient-human-discovered-claim-scientists
Even if it was just one amino acid, it would still represent new information because that information was not there before. It sounds like you are arguing that the information content of the DNA was the same before and after the mutation. If that was true, then the cell wouldn't have been able to produce any new enzymes at all: it would have been stuck producing the same enzymes as before. Since it does produce new enzymes, the information has to be new.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Hmm... using the Bible when it suits your own purpose just like you know who and starting in with ad hominem fallacies, as well.
I didn't bring up atmosphere because that was day 2. I didn't think we got past day 1 of Genesis. Why did you bring up atmosphere when it has nothing to do with ToE?
We should just stick to ToE and biological evo which I have been doing with Parsimony. He's a poster who is well versed in his presentation. Yet, the evo website that I use states that one has to find the origins or else it does not mean much. I asked for an explanation of the following when comparing it to Genesis, but got no origins from the non-believers.
So it's really the Big Bang Theory vs creation science and ToE vs creation science? In the former, it could be that parts of the Big Bang Theory backs up the Bible albeit there are major differences such as the "bang" part, years difference and sequence). The history of evolutionary thought touches upon origins because ToE needs it as stated through Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon -- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_06 . Are you denying this?
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The most likely scenario with a good majority of cosmologists have it that the BB was not the without a natural cause, as most of them, accroding to Leonard Susskind believe it likely that something(s) preceded it. See M-Theory for example as just one possiblity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Ha, leave it at what you believe it to be you mean.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Huh? OK.
gnostic
The Lost One
I didn't bring up evolution regarding to the atmosphere; I didn't mixed these two up.
I brought up atmosphere with regarding to one of the flaws in Genesis creation, and went on to say each of these days are myths.
You reading comprehension is seriously defective, JB.
This is what I wrote:
Do see me mentioning "evolution" in any of the above paragraphs???
All I am saying regarding to atmosphere, is that it is not scientifically possible for the atmosphere to be created in A SINGLE DAY!!!!
According to Genesis 1:6-8, God magically created the "water above", the earth's atmosphere or sky in a single day (on the 2nd day of creation).
It is the same with each day.
On the 3rd day (Genesis 1:9-10), God created lands, in a single day. Another scientific impossible feat.
In Genesis 1:14-19, he created the sun, moon, and stars in a single day (on the 4th day).
If you believe in fairytale or myth, then that's fine. But if you even bother to study and research earth science and astronomy, the author of Genesis is as primitively stupid as they come for believing in supernaturals and superstitions, where sun, moon, stars, atmosphere, land can appeared out of nothing.
Again, no where did I had written in my previous post state that evolutionary biology have to do with astronomy or earth science (including the Earth's atmosphere).
In the whole reply, I have only talk of Genesis being inaccurate, scientifically (eg creation in Genesis 1 & 2) and historically (regarding after the flood, giving Uruk and Egypt as my examples of Genesis 10). No where did I mention evolution.
You supposed to read what I have written, not jump to wrong conclusion of what I didn't write or make something up that I didn't say.
You seriously either need to develop your reading skill or comprehension, or (B) if you don't wear glasses, get your eye-check in the weekend, and get a pair.
I won't be holding my breath, waiting for your apologies for misreading my post.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
This demonstrated your level of ignorance.
Charles Darwin himself clearly stated that he was never an atheist. He had never given up being a Christian, though he did admit he was agnostic. Some people can be theist and agnostic at the same time.
So that make your claim, a lie.
The pope - Pope Francis is as big a Christian you can get, as leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He accepted evolution as being a well-substantiated theory on biological changes, including that of natural selection, all without giving up being a Christian. So again, you are being narrow-minded, and you're lying.
Parsimony, here, whom you have been replying to recently, on this very topic, is both Christian and he accepted evolutionary biology as fact. And parsimony isn't the only Christian here, who accept evolution. I don't see him giving up one or the other. So again, you are making dishonest claim and dishonest generalisations about who accept evolution.
For a Christian, you cannot seem to make claims without lying.
gnostic
The Lost One
As to the Big Bang, which is a very different subject to biology (including evolution).
Let's focus on your claim on the Big Bang only. Hence, I am leaving out this silly link of yours, regarding to your article on Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon.
I don't see anywhere, where the Big Bang back up the bible or creation myth.
Can you show any verse in the bible that describe anything relating to the Big Bang cosmology?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Your should explain it to me. Evolution is your bailiwick. How is uniformitarianism backed up by radiometric dating? The former was 1800s and the latter was 1956.
You just admitted Darwin did not know in front of everyone here. It means he took it upon faith. Lyell and his atheistic theories was to rebel against Christian theories on the origins of the earth. Darwin was deeply influenced by Lyell and it lead to him disavowing his Christian faith.
So easily confused. No one said atheism had to do with age of the earth ha ha. What I said was uniformitariasm is founded on atheism. "The apostle Peter informed us in 2 Peter 3:3 that scoffers would continue to be around in the last days, jeering at God and His children. Peter also told us exactly what the scoffers would be saying: “All things continue as they are from the beginning of creation.
The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines uniformitarianism as a geological idea which says “that existing processes acting in the same manner as at present are sufficient to account for all geological changes.” In other words, those who believe in uniformitarianism say exactly what the Peter said the scoffers would say: “All things continue as they are from the beginning of creation.”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=869
Now, you're not an atheist, so how do you explain your faith in an atheistic concept? Are you going to end up like Darwin?
Some of the great scientists, carefully ciphering the evidences furnished by geology, have arrived at the conviction that our world is prodigiously old, and they may be right but Lord Kelvin is not of their opinion. He takes the cautious, conservative view, in order to be on the safe side, and feels sure it is not so old as they think. As Lord Kelvin is the highest authority in science now living, I think we must yield to him and accept his views.
-Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth (Burchfield, ix)
Lord Kelvin and his heat model theory was wrong, but Clair Patterson made even a more colossal error with radiometric dating.
So, it's strictly faith that you base your evolution on.
Can you explain Rubidium-strontium dating? What are its assumptions?
"Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically based, approximate age of the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.
The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.
What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age of the earth is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc., to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age of the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.
Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to billions of years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda."
I think it is in Isaiah 46:10 -- http://biblehub.com/isaiah/46-10.htm . Now, God can tell us the future and then it will be so, but how many of us has God told our future to? Not many. What I think God predestined is our past or what we are born with. However, He did not predestine our future unless He reveals it to us. This is because of free will. I think Isaiah 46:10 states that He can predestine our future, but He keeps it to Himself. We do not know our exact beginning either unless God reveals it to us.
I said I have a friend whom I discuss the bs of evolution with and he, too, has a background in computer languages. He's an expert in Pascal. How does it relate to atheists and evolutionists? Have you heard of Pascal's Wager? Basically, non-believers are wagering against misery (I call it pain and suffering) while believers are wagering to gain all -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries .
How does "the burial mystery has nothing to do with whether the fossils represent a hoax or not?" Are you purporting to know more about homo naledi? How old are they? Are they really homo when their brain size was so small? What about the skeptics questions? Go ahead and explain and back it up with news or scientific articles.
Since there are so many photos, then show us some and explain what we are looking at and what they mean? What kind of new information can we glean from it?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Here is the Concordia dating info.
The assumption is that when zircons crystallize they lose all of their lead and as long as the crystal remains closed its lead/uranium ratios should follow curve in the chart above. It is known (experimentally) that synthetic zircon under certain conditions reject Pb almost completely, and under certain other conditions can incorporate up to 3% Pb during crystallization.
It is further theorized that since all isotopes of the same element are chemically identical, they should be removed in proportional amounts, forming a straight line on the concordia diagram, that crosses the concordia curve at both the crystallization and the contamination date. Loss of uranium moves the point up and to the right, while a loss of lead moves the point down and to the left.
The straight line can be explained by natural mixing. Theoretically, if X1 and X2 are isotopes of an element X, and Y1 and Y2 are isotopes of element Y, the plot of X1/Y1 vs. X2/Y2 from different samples of the solid will be a straight line passing through the origin. Measurements from La Virgen volcano by A.K. Schmitt et al. (Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol 158, pg 288, 289) correlate well to a straight line through the origin.
Consider the experiment of mixing oil in water. Not all the oil droplets would be the same size. However if the carbon in oil contained 75% 12C and 25% 13C, then this carbon ratio would be preserved in every single oil droplet. Assume that the oxygen in oil and water has 60% 16O and 40% 17O.
Now assume we do an experiment where we solidify this oil-water mixture by freezing and collect 10 samples of the solid. Where there were big oil droplets, there would be a high ratio of 12C/16O and 13C/17O. Where there were small oil droplets, there would be a small ratio of 12C/16O and 13C/17O (less oil implies less 12C and 13C). If we plotted the 12C/16O ratio on the y axis, and the 13C/17O ratio on the x axis, we would obtain a straight line with the slope of (12C/13C)/(16O/170). A sample not containing any oil will fall on the origin since it does not contain carbon.
In reality you don't always get a nice neat line, showing that reality is more complicated than indicated by the theory. Furthermore, contamination can total reset the "clock", providing a way to explain data that does not fit the theory.
For Concordia dating the samples must have both the crystallization and the contamination dates, so this provides yet another way to explain data that does not fit the theory.
Concordia dating is based on the following assumptions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009254197000545
The assumption is that when zircons crystallize they lose all of their lead and as long as the crystal remains closed its lead/uranium ratios should follow curve in the chart above. It is known (experimentally) that synthetic zircon under certain conditions reject Pb almost completely, and under certain other conditions can incorporate up to 3% Pb during crystallization.
It is further theorized that since all isotopes of the same element are chemically identical, they should be removed in proportional amounts, forming a straight line on the concordia diagram, that crosses the concordia curve at both the crystallization and the contamination date. Loss of uranium moves the point up and to the right, while a loss of lead moves the point down and to the left.
The straight line can be explained by natural mixing. Theoretically, if X1 and X2 are isotopes of an element X, and Y1 and Y2 are isotopes of element Y, the plot of X1/Y1 vs. X2/Y2 from different samples of the solid will be a straight line passing through the origin. Measurements from La Virgen volcano by A.K. Schmitt et al. (Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol 158, pg 288, 289) correlate well to a straight line through the origin.
Consider the experiment of mixing oil in water. Not all the oil droplets would be the same size. However if the carbon in oil contained 75% 12C and 25% 13C, then this carbon ratio would be preserved in every single oil droplet. Assume that the oxygen in oil and water has 60% 16O and 40% 17O.
Now assume we do an experiment where we solidify this oil-water mixture by freezing and collect 10 samples of the solid. Where there were big oil droplets, there would be a high ratio of 12C/16O and 13C/17O. Where there were small oil droplets, there would be a small ratio of 12C/16O and 13C/17O (less oil implies less 12C and 13C). If we plotted the 12C/16O ratio on the y axis, and the 13C/17O ratio on the x axis, we would obtain a straight line with the slope of (12C/13C)/(16O/170). A sample not containing any oil will fall on the origin since it does not contain carbon.
In reality you don't always get a nice neat line, showing that reality is more complicated than indicated by the theory. Furthermore, contamination can total reset the "clock", providing a way to explain data that does not fit the theory.
For Concordia dating the samples must have both the crystallization and the contamination dates, so this provides yet another way to explain data that does not fit the theory.
Concordia dating is based on the following assumptions.
- Radiogenic lead is from the in-situ decay of Uranium. Some zircon crystals have a 231Pa/235U activity ratio of 2. (Refer American Mineralogist, Volume 92, pages 691-694, 2007) This implies that for every 207Pb atom that is being produced from 235U, there is another 207Pb atom being produced that is not originating from in-situ decay of 235U. (Other than 231Pa, there are many other isotopes in the decay chain of 238U and 235U. If you know of some study that has actually checked whether the other isotopes of the decay chain of Uranium in zircon are in equilibrium, please link that study to this article.)
- All lead is removed from zircons when they crystallize, such that there are no daughter isotopes present in the original sample. If zircons cooled and crystallized faster than they are thought to have done, then they could have had original lead, and that would throw off the entire process.
- All isotopes of the same element are removed in proportional amounts. However, since lighter isotopes move faster than heavier ones at a given temperature, there would be a tendency for lighter isotopes to be removed a little faster.
- That the decay rates are constant. However, there is evidence of accelerated decay in the past.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009254197000545
james bond
Well-Known Member
I didn't bring up evolution regarding to the atmosphere; I did mixed these two up.
I brought up atmosphere with regarding to one of the flaws in Genesis creation, and went on to say each of these days are myths.
You reading comprehension is seriously defective, JB.
This is what I wrote:
Do see me mentioning "evolution" in any of the above paragraphs???
All I am saying regarding to atmosphere, is that it is not scientifically possible for the atmosphere to be created in A SINGLE DAY!!!!
According to Genesis 1:6-8, God magically created the "water above", the earth's atmosphere or sky in a single day (on the 2nd day of creation).
It is the same with each day.
On the 3rd day (Genesis 1:9-10), God created lands, in a single day. Another scientific impossible feat.
In Genesis 1:14-19, he created the sun, moon, and stars in a single day (on the 4th day).
If you believe in fairytale or myth, then that's fine. But if you even bother to study and research earth science and astronomy, the author of Genesis is as primitively stupid as they come for believing in supernaturals and superstitions, where sun, moon, stars, atmosphere, land can appeared out of nothing.
Again, no where did I had written in my previous post state that evolutionary biology have to do with astronomy or earth science (including the Earth's atmosphere).
In the whole reply, I have only talk of Genesis being inaccurate, scientifically (eg creation in Genesis 1 & 2) and historically (regarding after the flood, giving Uruk and Egypt as my examples of Genesis 10). No where did I mention evolution.
You supposed to read what I have written, not jump to wrong conclusion of what I didn't write or make something up that I didn't say.
You seriously either need to develop your reading skill or comprehension, or (B) if you don't wear glasses, get your eye-check in the weekend, and get a pair.
I won't be holding my breath, waiting for your apologies for misreading my post.
>>I did mixed these two up.<<
So you admit you were mixed up ha ha.
All I did was ask you a question about atmosphere and ToE?
>>I didn't bring up atmosphere because that was day 2. I didn't think we got past day 1 of Genesis. Why did you bring up atmosphere when it has nothing to do with ToE?<<
According to you and the evos here, atmosphere has nothing to do with ToE which I understand. So, how can my asking a question to make my reading comprehension better to be in error? What makes you jump to that conclusion? Are you just looking for trivial errors in my argument? You also are using ad hominem fallacies and the tone you are taking sounds like that fool metis ha ha.
So, what you're saying is you brought up atmosphere in regards to the Bible. You claim it cannot be created in a single day. How can it not be created in a single day? Again, I didn't get to day 2, but since you know so much don't let me interrupt you.
What was created on day 1 according to you? The earth was created, right? Was it spinning on its axis? How do explain the end of day and start of night? What is the light? What gases were created?
It's very confusing from here as you jump to Genesis 1-6-8. Are you sure your interpretation is what it says? How about posting what Genesis 1-6-8 says, so that everyone reading this can comprehend?
>>God magically created the "water above", the earth's atmosphere or sky in a single day (on the 2nd day of creation).<<
So, we skipped to day 2? What does your statement mean?
>>It is the same with each day.<<
Ditto.
Then you ramble on into...
>>If you believe in fairytale or myth, then that's fine. But if you even bother to study and research earth science and astronomy, the author of Genesis is as primitively stupid as they come for believing in supernaturals and superstitions, where sun, moon, stars, atmosphere, land can appeared out of nothing.
Again, no where did I had written in my previous post state that evolutionary biology have to do with astronomy or earth science (including the Earth's atmosphere).
In the whole reply, I have only talk of Genesis being inaccurate, scientifically (eg creation in Genesis 1 & 2) and historically (regarding after the flood, giving Uruk and Egypt as my examples of Genesis 10). No where did I mention evolution.
You supposed to read what I have written, not jump to wrong conclusion of what I didn't write or make something up that I didn't say.
You seriously either need to develop your reading skill or comprehension, or (B) if you don't wear glasses, get your eye-check in the weekend, and get a pair.
I won't be holding my breath, waiting for your apologies for misreading my post.
<<Where did I say what you claim I said and misread???
james bond
Well-Known Member
I never said BBT was the same, but served to differentiate it from evolution and the differences between it and creation science as well as evolution and creation science.
Again, you are full of opinion like our friend. No, let's not skip the link. It's a valid point which you cannot answer because you probably lack the intellectual capacity. I provided a link that works and it's not silly wikipedia.
Probably because you have links that do not work ha ha.
I already posted the video comparison in #2586.
Please do not call in the creation myth because that is ignorant. That is just opinion which is not a valid argument.
I'm sure I'm not going to get an apology for all the ad hominem fallacies and statements of belittling opinion of another's pov. How can any person respond to that kind of negative treatment? What happened to the gnostic I was talking to before? You sure sound like you know who now.
Here is a news article stating how BBT backs up the Bible -- http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/ . Again, there are differences, but compared to SST, the new scientific theory agrees more with the Bible.
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, that was an unfortunate typos.
Again, I would apologise for my error in not proof reading what I've typed up.