• 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?

Is there any verifiable evidence for creationism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 19.0%
  • No

    Votes: 85 81.0%

  • Total voters
    105

james bond

Well-Known Member
The thing is, I've seen all this stuff about theories, laws and hypotheses explained to you more times than I can count now, and by people who know what they're talking about who are much more well informed than you and I. But I've seen you dismiss such people. And you're still making the same old claims. I see you do the same thing with claims about Lucy. I have to wonder why.

Archimedes Principle is apparently a law of physics.

I only missed what a law was, and your example states many people misconstrue what it is, so you're committing the fallacy of composition, fallacy of equivalence, generalization and more. I would say these people know more than you, not I, from your posts.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I only missed what a law was, and your example states many people misconstrue what it is, so you're committing the fallacy of composition, fallacy of equivalence, generalization and more. I would say these people know more than you, not I, from your posts.
Umm, no. I don't know what you're talking about.

I've watched you make the same claims over and over, despite the fact that these things have long been pointed out and clarified. I'd say that explains the exasperation and frustration of many on this thread (and others). Not to mention the fact, that in probably hundreds of threads on this forum, the difference between scientific laws, theories and hypotheses have been discussed ad nauseum, all the while we still have people claiming that "evolution is only a theory." It's an old canard that for some reason, just won't die. Of course people can easily mess up scientific terms, but it shouldn't be the case after it's been explained on more than one occasion. That seems disingenuous to me. That's what I'm talking about.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Parsimony, you got into isochrons, but let's discuss how you got there.

From Jonathan Woolfe's "Essay on Radiometric Dating,"

"I. Theory of radiometric dating

...radiometric dating is a way of determining the age of a sample of material using the decay rates of radio-active nuclides to provide a 'clock.' It relies on three basic rules, plus a couple of critical assumptions. The rules are the same in all cases; the assumptions are different for each method. To explain those rules, I'll need to talk about some basic atomic physics.

There are 90 naturally occurring chemical elements. Elements are identified by their atomic number, the number of protons in the atom's nucleus. All atoms except the simplest, hydrogen-1, have nuclei made up of protons and neutrons. Hydrogen-1's nucleus consists of only a single proton. Protons and neutrons together are called nucleons, meaning particles that can appear in the atomic nucleus.

A nuclide of an element, also called an isotope of an element, is an atom of that element that has a specific number of nucleons. Since all atoms of the same element have the same number of protons, different nuclides of an element differ in the number of neutrons they contain. For example, hydrogen-1 and hydrogen-2 are both nuclides of the element hydrogen, but hydrogen-1's nucleus contains only a proton, while hydrogen-2's nucleus contains a proton and a neutron. Uranium-238 contains 92 protons and 146 neutrons, while uranium-235 contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons. To keep it short, a nuclide is usually written using the element’s abbreviation. Uranium’s abbreviation is U, so uranium-238 can be more briefly written as U238.

Many nuclides are stable -- they will always remain as they are unless some external force changes them. Some, however, are unstable -- given time, they will spontaneously undergo one of the several kinds of radioactive decay, changing in the process into another element.

There are two common kinds of radioactive decay, alpha decay and beta decay. In alpha decay, the radioactive atom emits an alpha particle. An alpha particle contains two protons and two neutrons. After emission, it quickly picks up two electrons to balance the two protons, and becomes an electrically neutral helium-4 (He4) atom. When a nuclide emits an alpha particle, its atomic number drops by 2, and its mass number (number of nucleons) drops by 4. Thus, an atom of U238 (uranium, atomic number 92) emits an alpha particle and becomes an atom of Th234 (thorium, atomic number 90).

A beta particle is an electron. When an atom emits a beta particle, a neutron inside the nucleus is transformed to a proton. The mass number doesn't change, but the atomic number goes up by 1. Thus, an atom of carbon-14 (C14), atomic number 6, emits a beta particle and becomes an atom of nitrogen-14 (N14), atomic number 7.

A third, very rare type of radioactive decay is called electron absorption. In electron absorption, a proton absorbs an electron to become a neutron. In other words, electron absorption is the exact reverse of beta decay. The mass number doesn’t change, while the atomic number goes down by 1. So an atom of potassium-40 (K40), atomic number 19 can absorb an electron to become an atom of argon-40 (Ar40), atomic number 18.

The half-life of a radioactive nuclide is defined as the time it takes half of a sample of the element to decay. A mathematical formula can be used to calculate the half-life from the number of breakdowns per second in a sample of the nuclide. Some nuclides have very long half-lives, measured in billions or even trillions of years. Others have extremely short half-lives, measured in tenths or hundredths of a second. The decay rate and therefore the half-life are fixed characteristics of a nuclide. They don’t change at all. That’s the first axiom of radiometric dating techniques: the half-life of a given nuclide is a constant. (Note that this doesn’t mean the half-life of an element is a constant. Different nuclides of the same element can have substantially different half-lives.)

The half-life is a purely statistical measurement. It doesn’t depend on the age of individual atoms. A sample of U238 ten thousand years old will have precisely the same half-life as one ten billion years old. So, if we know how much of the nuclide was originally present, and how much there is now, we can easily calculate how long it would take for the missing amount to decay, and therefore how long it’s been since that particular sample was formed. That’s the essence of radiometric dating: measure the amount that’s present, calculate how much is missing, and figure out how long it would take for that quantity of the nuclide to break down. Because it’s a statistical measurement, there’s always a margin of error in the age figure, but if the procedure is done properly, the margin is very small.

Obviously, the major question here is "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample?" In some cases, we don’t know. Such cases are useless for radiometric dating. We must know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically. Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that.

In order to do so, we need a nuclide that’s part of a mineral compound. Why? Because there’s a basic law of chemistry that says "Chemical processes like those that form minerals cannot distinguish between different nuclides of the same element." They simply can’t do it. If an element has more than one nuclide present, and a mineral forms in a magma melt that includes that element, the element’s different nuclides will appear in the mineral in precisely the same ratio that they occurred in the environment where and when the mineral was formed. This is the second axiom of radiometric dating.

The third and final axiom is that when an atom undergoes radioactive decay, its internal structure and also its chemical behavior change. Losing or gaining atomic number puts the atom in a different row of the periodic table, and elements in different rows behave in different ways. The new atom doesn’t form the same kinds of chemical bonds that the old one did. It may not form the same kinds of compounds. It may not even be able to hold the parent atom’s place in the compound it finds itself in, which results in an immediate breaking of the chemical bonds that hold the atom to the others in the mineral.

Why not? you might ask. Well, an atom’s chemical activity pattern is a result of its electron shell structure. (The exact details of this are rather complicated, so I won’t go into them here.) When the number of electrons change, the shell structure changes too. So when an atom decays and changes into an atom of a different element, its shell structure changes and it behaves in a different way chemically.

That’s it. That’s the sum total of the chemical and physical basis of radiometric dating. That’s all you really need to know to understand radiometric dating techniques.

How do these axioms translate into useful science? In the next part of this article, I’ll examine several different radiometric dating techniques, and show how the axioms I cited above translate into useful age measurements."

As a layman (or former Chem 1A, 1B student), the above is understandable. I've seen the half-life curve can be shown experimentally with dice. The other parts can be shown via explanation using the periodic elements table and the using different elements to show alpha, beta and gamma decays and what elements they change to. Is there an experiment to show the different radioactive decay to get a visual feel of radioctive decay? On youtube are several explanations of half-life and radiation and radioactive decay, so you would have to come up with something else to differentiate yourself (assuming you want to teach radiometric dating). I agree with his axioms and with "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample? In some cases we do not know. Such cases are useless for radiometric dating. We must know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically." Where the creation scientists disagree with is, "Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that." We can get into that next.

http://answersinscience.org/RadiometricDating-Woolf.htm
Yes, I agree so far.

You did understand my explanation, right? Do I need to clarify anything?
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I referred to asexual reproduction. This does not necessarily require a complex life form to split in two. Do you think it's is theoretically impossible that a fish, for example, could simply lay 1,000 eggs that are (nearly) genetically identical to the mother? Or do you think it's more practical for the fish to grow its own testicles so as to impregnate herself as done by this one?
I think evolution is God's handiwork in play

God did it

the design seems to work....does it not?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I am pleased to say that I know of no biased agnostics. Some people pretend to be agnostic—closet atheists—but that doesn't count.

:facepalm:

That's a load of bull s###! :footinmouth:

I am agnostic too, so if you think that agnostic cannot be biased, then let me tell you flat out -

You are bloody biased, Zosimus! :rolleyes:
 

Zosimus

Active Member
Peer-review does work, but nothing that works works perfectly.
I suppose that's entirely a function of what you think "works" means. Personally, I think the abysmally low Cohen's kappa measure tends to falsify the claim that peer review works. But perhaps your claim is more an expression of your personal faith than of anything meaningful.

The bottom line: evolution has happened and continues to happen, which includes speciation ("macro-evolution"), and either one accepts that or they've burrowed their head in the ground deep enough whereas reality no longer counts to them. It's just plain old common sense, thus it's an "axiom".
Well, if by "evolution" you mean that the frequency of alleles has varied from one generation to another in at least one population, then I would agree with you. I just don't see how you think that proves speciation. In fact, considering that no one has been able to even define the word "species" in any meaningful and universally-accepted manner, I think that I'll stick with agnosticism thank you very much. When you come up with a definition of the thing you're trying to prove exists, let me know.
 

Zosimus

Active Member
It's only "irrelevant" to those who have never taken a course in genetics.
So your main argument in favor of sexual reproduction is that it can lead to "purebred" offspring, which are known to be genetically inferior?

Here's a clue: That's a good argument against sexual reproduction not for it.
 

Zosimus

Active Member
:facepalm:

That's a load of bull s###! :footinmouth:

I am agnostic too, so if you think that agnostic cannot be biased, then let me tell you flat out -

You are bloody biased, Zosimus! :rolleyes:
I don't think you're agnostic at all. However, you can prove me wrong. Just post something saying:

"At the end of the day, I must admit that it's entirely possible that God exists. I have no way of knowing."

If you do so, I'll be convinced that you are agnostic. Otherwise, I'll continue to believe that you're lying not only to me but also to yourself.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So your main argument in favor of sexual reproduction is that it can lead to "purebred" offspring, which are known to be genetically inferior?

Here's a clue: That's a good argument against sexual reproduction not for it.
You really have no idea what you're talking about as you have completely misrepresented what I wrote.

Trying to have a serious conversation with you is all but impossible because you twist things plus misrepresent what actually is posted all too often. Why don't you actually try and read something as it is written and respond without being so disingenuous. Frankly, I have had you on my "ignore" option twice before because of your tactics, and there must be a weakness in me that had me take you off it.

Bye bye.
 

Zosimus

Active Member
You really have no idea what you're talking about as you have completely misrepresented what I wrote.

Trying to have a serious conversation with you is all but impossible because you twist things plus misrepresent what actually is posted all too often. Why don't you actually try and read something as it is written and respond without being so disingenuous. Frankly, I have had you on my "ignore" option twice before because of your tactics, and there must be a weakness in me that had me take you off it.

Bye bye.
Sure. Crossbreeds have the advantage of having the strengths of the breeds they come from—and the disadvantage of having all the weaknesses.

Of course, the same thing could be said about asexual reproduction.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I think we've given enough time to respond. It's avoiding the question or issue fallacy. There are questions that evos can't answer so they avoid it. So far, they avoided origins of life, origins of the universe, men are fish and birds are dinosaurs and apes to man hypotheses questions. Yet, in their minds evolution is perfectly valid. That's faith.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Umm, no. I don't know what you're talking about.

I've watched you make the same claims over and over, despite the fact that these things have long been pointed out and clarified. I'd say that explains the exasperation and frustration of many on this thread (and others). Not to mention the fact, that in probably hundreds of threads on this forum, the difference between scientific laws, theories and hypotheses have been discussed ad nauseum, all the while we still have people claiming that "evolution is only a theory." It's an old canard that for some reason, just won't die. Of course people can easily mess up scientific terms, but it shouldn't be the case after it's been explained on more than one occasion. That seems disingenuous to me. That's what I'm talking about.

What claims? The last general one was a question in regards to chimpanzees going bipedal. Can you answer it? What would make them want to do that when they were perfectly capable of reaching their food with their locomotion. How did giraffes change in order to reach their food? If a chimp learned to walk, then they would have to use a tool to reach for a banana. Walking isn't the best method for getting from point A to point B in the fastest or most economical manner. All of this should be second nature to evos if evolution was valid.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Newton's Universal Law of Gravity hasn't been abandoned, per se, although it is universally agreed that the law is defective in that it cannot explain the precession of Mercury or the bending of light in gravitational fields.

Additionally, I dispute the idea that the law of gravity holds true no matter where one is in the universe. The Law was formulated to better explain Kepler's Laws, which predict that a planet orbiting a star will sweep out equal areas in equal time periods. Stars in orbit around galaxies, however, do not obey Kepler's Laws. The current fad is to believe that the universe is crammed full of undetectable and unverifiable "dark" matter that physicists can randomly sprinkle wherever they want to hide the fact that the current laws and theories are completely unable to explain the motion of the things we see around us.

Interesting. Will have to check it out when I get time. All that cosmology stuff is... philosophy. To each their own.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I don't think you're agnostic at all. However, you can prove me wrong. Just post something saying:

"At the end of the day, I must admit that it's entirely possible that God exists. I have no way of knowing."

If you do so, I'll be convinced that you are agnostic. Otherwise, I'll continue to believe that you're lying not only to me but also to yourself.
No, I am not going to say that. What I will say is this:

"There are no way of knowing that god or gods exist or not, so until I have evidences to show such an entity existing, I will suspend judgement of any deity 'being real'."​

I am no way rejecting God existence, but I can reject the religions and their scriptures of people. I can reject their scriptures and their teachings, especially when I know they were all written and invented by men, and the scriptures merely give their views based on their superstitions of their time.

I can reject the bible (both Torah and the gospels) and Qur'an, because I can see the ignorances there, the superstitions (like the Book of Job, from chapters 38 to 41), the scientific impossibilities of events like
  1. ...the 6-day creation, or man being made out of dust (Genesis) or clay (Qur'an),
  2. ...or that of the worldwide Flood,
  3. ...or that everyone speaking one language one day and they all instantly speaking totally different languages before the end of the day (the Tower of Babel event),
  4. ...or more on God's supposed answers to Job (JOB 38 to 41)
  5. ...and that some way and some how, there was someone who witnessed the wagers between God and Satan (JOB 1 & 2).
And I can reject scriptures on the ground of historically inaccurate in many places, for instances Genesis 10 and Luke 2 (when the census of Quirinius took place).

Likewise, I can reject the very idea that Muhammad was visited by archangel Gabriel as BS, or that Muhammad was living in complete isolation, not knowing stories from the bible or other literature, ignoring the facts there have been Jews living in the Arabian peninsula or Christian preachers coming and going for centuries. (Most people converting didn't need to know how to readers, when you have preachers and storytellers).

I can reject religions like Christianity and Islam, because i know what some of the stuff written in them to be demonstrably "wrong".

And **** on you, telling me that I cannot be agnostic.

Do you truly think that being "agnostic" is all that a person needs to be, Zosimus?

Being agnostic is not the sum that all I am.

Now I may not be a "scientist", but having a bachelor in civil engineering (in my early 20s) and another in computer science (in my mid-30s), required a solid grounding in applied science for both courses, especially physics and mathematics, with some in chemistry (for example, soil testing).

The question I got to ask you is this:

What does any of this - being "agnostic" - have to accepting science, accepting verification, accepting scientific evidences, accepting peer review????​

Agnosticism don't teach me science, no more than atheism or theism do. Being agnostic can no more teach me how to design a suspension bridge, or write codes for some programs, or how to secure a network from hackers.

So being agnostic don't make YOU an expert in science. Saying that being agnostic is not biased, could only true about being in the middle between theism and atheism. All agnostics can do with their agnosticism, is questioning the positions of atheism and theism.

Otherwise, agnosticism, like atheism and theism, is just useless in the real world; you can't get a job being agnostic, unless you thinking of becoming an author.

Thomas Howard Huxley coined the word, agnosticism, which Charles Darwin later in his life, call himself "agnostic", but Darwin didn't make a big deal about his agnosticism. No, Zosimus, both of these men contributions to science, come from years of field works and research in naturalism, biology and geology. Their agnosticism contributed nothing but philosophy; and in the long run, that's really nothing.

You are certainly not impartial when it come to science, human behaviours or politics or anything else in the world that's not about relating to religion.

All I am saying is agnosticism, only played a tiny part of my life. Agnosticism only contributed to one tiny fraction of my world-view, because I have many other philosophies, other knowledge, other skills.

You are making too big a deal with your brand of agnosticism. And to brutally honest, I don't like your attitude towards me...and I am quite sure the feeling is mutual.
 

Zosimus

Active Member
No, I am not going to say that. What I will say is this:

"There are no way of knowing that god or gods exist or not, so until I have evidences to show such an entity existing, I will suspend judgement of any deity 'being real'."​

I am no way rejecting God existence, but I can reject the religions and their scriptures of people. I can reject their scriptures and their teachings, especially when I know they were all written and invented by men, and the scriptures merely give their views based on their superstitions of their time.

I can reject the bible (both Torah and the gospels) and Qur'an, because I can see the ignorances there, the superstitions (like the Book of Job, from chapters 38 to 41), the scientific impossibilities of events like
  1. ...the 6-day creation, or man being made out of dust (Genesis) or clay (Qur'an),
  2. ...or that of the worldwide Flood,
  3. ...or that everyone speaking one language one day and they all instantly speaking totally different languages before the end of the day (the Tower of Babel event),
  4. ...or more on God's supposed answers to Job (JOB 38 to 41)
  5. ...and that some way and some how, there was someone who witnessed the wagers between God and Satan (JOB 1 & 2).
And I can reject scriptures on the ground of historically inaccurate in many places, for instances Genesis 10 and Luke 2 (when the census of Quirinius took place).

Likewise, I can reject the very idea that Muhammad was visited by archangel Gabriel as BS, or that Muhammad was living in complete isolation, not knowing stories from the bible or other literature, ignoring the facts there have been Jews living in the Arabian peninsula or Christian preachers coming and going for centuries. (Most people converting didn't need to know how to readers, when you have preachers and storytellers).

I can reject religions like Christianity and Islam, because i know what some of the stuff written in them to be demonstrably "wrong".

And **** on you, telling me that I cannot be agnostic.

Do you truly think that being "agnostic" is all that a person needs to be, Zosimus?

Being agnostic is not the sum that all I am.

Now I may not be a "scientist", but having a bachelor in civil engineering (in my early 20s) and another in computer science (in my mid-30s), required a solid grounding in applied science for both courses, especially physics and mathematics, with some in chemistry (for example, soil testing).

The question I got to ask you is this:

What does any of this - being "agnostic" - have to accepting science, accepting verification, accepting scientific evidences, accepting peer review????​

Agnosticism don't teach me science, no more than atheism or theism do. Being agnostic can no more teach me how to design a suspension bridge, or write codes for some programs, or how to secure a network from hackers.

So being agnostic don't make YOU an expert in science. Saying that being agnostic is not biased, could only true about being in the middle between theism and atheism. All agnostics can do with their agnosticism, is questioning the positions of atheism and theism.

Otherwise, agnosticism, like atheism and theism, is just useless in the real world; you can't get a job being agnostic, unless you thinking of becoming an author.

Thomas Howard Huxley coined the word, agnosticism, which Charles Darwin later in his life, call himself "agnostic", but Darwin didn't make a big deal about his agnosticism. No, Zosimus, both of these men contributions to science, come from years of field works and research in naturalism, biology and geology. Their agnosticism contributed nothing but philosophy; and in the long run, that's really nothing.

You are certainly not impartial when it come to science, human behaviours or politics or anything else in the world that's not about relating to religion.

All I am saying is agnosticism, only played a tiny part of my life. Agnosticism only contributed to one tiny fraction of my world-view, because I have many other philosophies, other knowledge, other skills.

You are making too big a deal with your brand of agnosticism. And to brutally honest, I don't like your attitude towards me...and I am quite sure the feeling is mutual.
You see? You run off at the mouth about things that you claim to "know" but you really don't know.

You say that a six-day creation is impossible, but I say that a supernatural being could sneeze out a universe exactly as we see it in a microsecond, and we'd never know the difference.

You say that a worldwide flood is impossible, but I say that if the land mass of the Earth were perfectly spherical, the water would cover the Earth and be 2.5 km deep everywhere (excluding calculations for tides). A worldwide flood is hardly impossible.

You say that it's impossible for people to speak one language one day and another language another day. Yet all of this is supposedly caused by a being that can create the entire universe out of thin air. Impossible? No.

So you don't like God's answers to Job. Personally, I've never read them. However, that doesn't mean that A) God couldn't have said them, B) God couldn't have said something else but gotten misquoted, or C) that the Book of Job is pure fabrication, but God still exists. Even if you could definitively prove that the entire book of Job was written by an insane guy high on opium, what would that prove about whether God exists? Nothing.

As for whether someone witnessed God's wager with Satan, assuming that such a wager existed, surely you realize that with our level of technology we can videotape things and play them back. What might God and his angels be capable of with their level of technology? Who can say? Or go back to the previous question and realize that even if the book of Job is pure fabrication, what does that say about whether God exists? Nothing.

What if you could definitively prove that the Bible, Qur'an, and every other holy book was completely wrong. What would that indicate about whether God exists? Nothing.

For all you know, we are just part of the dream of an alien that sleeps for centuries at a time. Perhaps when that alien awakens, we will cease to exist. For all you know, you are a brain in a vat receiving electrical signals so that alien scientists can better understand how the human brain works.

You see, my problem is not that you believe something. I'm happy that you believe it. My problem is that you run around claiming to know it and furthermore you claim that evidence is involved somehow. Nevertheless, I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is zero logical basis for using evidence to confirm beliefs.

Yet, your response to this is profanity and personal attacks.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
What a boring thread. 140 pages, still no evidence for the affirmative, and the usual weasels diverting with clumsy jabs at science.

****ing YAWN.

I have very convincing evidence for creationism. Much less so for actual creation. :)

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top