Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Thumper]

People, including scientists, have also spent time at the places you mention! And guess what? They still reject it! Your interpretations are subjective! If spending time in museums or what not, makes you an expert, then the ones who reject it are experts too! I side with them

Please learn to use the "reply" button to communicate so that people can better understand what you are replying to. You'll also look less like a rube.

The overwhelming majority of scientist worldwide accept evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology. Acceptance by scientists within the field of biology itself is estimated at around 99.6%.

My point in addressing your earlier comment was that I do not just rely on "my professors" to tell me, I also go look for myself and am always open to evidence that my understanding might be wrong. I would hope that you are just as willing to look at the facts and change your mind should the evidence warrant it.

Our current understanding of biology has changed since the time of Darwin. We now have over 150 years of research, observation, and testing to substantiate our understanding of how biology on this planet actually works.

This understanding of biological evolution has greatly improved our medicines and human healthcare, our crop production yields, out animal husbandry, etc. We might not have all the answers yet, but what we do know is serving us very, very well.

Until you've got something that gives us a better advantage in creating real progress in biological science, real results to help improve our lives, you've got nothing. In fact you've got less than nothing.

 

[Jose Fly]

No evidence for evolution!

The primary "evidence for evolution" is the fact that we see it happen. We see populations evolving all the time, right in front of us. In some cases we actively fight the process (e.g., evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and in others we exploit the process to our own ends (e.g., domestication of animals).

Either way, that populations evolve over time is a repeatedly observed and documented fact.

Radiocarbon dating, has dated modern things as thousands of years already! Can be off!

Sure, just like any other methodology can give erroneous results. I have a clock in my house that won't keep good time. Does that mean all clocks are useless all the time? Of course not.

Radiocarbon curves have been calibrated with objects of known ages and via dates derived from independent means (e.g., stalagmites, lake varves). So the methodology is quite reliable.

There is also something I read about the flood possibly interfering with the results of radiocarbon dating! I would need to research it again in order to explain it! Also atmosphere may have been different back then

I'm confused as to why you're arguing against dating methods, since earlier it seemed like you accept a 4+ billion year old earth. Usually it's only young-earth creationists who try and argue against dating methods.

 

[Polymath257]

No evidence for evolution! Radiocarbon dating, has dated modern things as thousands of years already! Can be off! There is also something I read about the flood possibly interfering with the results of radiocarbon dating! I would need to research it again in order to explain it! Also atmosphere may have been different back then

Yes, *all* methods *can* be off when used incorrectly. Carbon dating won't work for modern artifacts because of the release of radioactivity from the nuclear tests in the 1940-1960's. But, it *can* be used to date things that are earlier than that *if* the correct procedures are used. For example, carbon in certain shells doesn't come from the atmospheric carbon that is required for correct carbon dates, so the dates for certain shells will be incorrect.

Next, carbon dating is only one type of radioactive dating and cannot be used (because of the short half-life) for items older than about 50,000 years. To go older, we have other methods, including Rb/Sr, K-Ar, and U-series dating methods. That you seem to think that C-14 dating is relevant to questions about most evolution is telling.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, *all* methods *can* be off when used incorrectly. Carbon dating won't work for modern artifacts because of the release of radioactivity from the nuclear tests in the 1940-1960's. But, it *can* be used to date things that are earlier than that *if* the correct procedures are used. For example, carbon in certain shells doesn't come from the atmospheric carbon that is required for correct carbon dates, so the dates for certain shells will be incorrect.

Next, carbon dating is only one type of radioactive dating and cannot be used (because of the short half-life) for items older than about 50,000 years. To go older, we have other methods, including Rb/Sr, K-Ar, and U-series dating methods. That you seem to think that C-14 dating is relevant to questions about most evolution is telling.

Can you prove any of these statements?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm with you. Radiocarbon dating is not necessarily a valid science. It could be off, and most likely is very off. Scientists have a knack for making the math work to the variables that they see working in a system. If there are variables that exist that they have not considered, they fit the mathematics to work with the "known" or assumed available information. The earth is expanding and is nearly 4 times larger than it was 200 million years ago, that is 4 times less dense than scientists currently assume that the earth was 200 million years ago, and that is according to their own faulty dating methods which place the age of all of earth's oceans under 200 million years old.

Carbon dating does need to be calibrated because of how it works. Because it involves the production of C-14 in the upper atmosphere, changes in solar output *can* affect the details. That is why it is calibrated to something like tree-ring dates, for example.

But carbon dating is only for *very* recent things: mostly archeology. It has a practical limit of about 50,000 years because of the short half-life of C-14. So, once again, carbon dating is completely irrelevant to talking about ages of hundreds of millions of years.

Your information about he density of the Earth is wrong. I would also point out that while the current oceans are less than 200 million years or so (parts of the Pacific may be excluded here), there *were* oceans 200 million years ago. The modern oceans were produced when continents split up, so are relatively new.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you prove any of these statements?

Of course. The half-life of C-14 is about 5700 years. After 10 half-lives, *any* radioactive material is reduced to 1/1000th the original amount. That is pretty basic. hence, before about 50,000 years ago, the amount of C-14 (already small) is small enough to make accruate dating problematic. Going before 100,000 years ago is impossible for carbon dates.

As for there being other dating methods that are not subject to the issues of carbon dating, look them up. Rubidium-Strontium, Potassium-Argon, and various Uranium series dating methods .

I'm curious what you think I said that is not supported. The fact that certain shells get their carbon from C-14 depleted sources? That there *are* other dating methods with longer half-lives? Or that if you misuse a method, you can get incorrect answers?

 

[Sonofason]

Of course. The half-life of C-14 is about 5700 years.

This is a claim, please show your evidence for this claim.

After 10 half-lives, *any* radioactive material is reduced to 1/1000th the original amount.

This is another claim..please show your evidence to support this claim.

That is pretty basic. hence, before about 50,000 years ago, the amount of C-14 (already small) is small enough to make accruate dating problematic. Going before 100,000 years ago is impossible for carbon dates.

This is yet another claim...please show your evidence to support this claim of yours.

As for there being other dating methods that are not subject to the issues of carbon dating, look them up. Rubidium-Strontium, Potassium-Argon, and various Uranium series dating methods .

The fact is, that you have never seen any evidence that any of these claims of yours here are true, so you send me off to go find my own evidence to prove that something I know is not true is true. Please show evidence, or admit you have none.

I'm curious what you think I said that is not supported. The fact that certain shells get their carbon from C-14 depleted sources? That there *are* other dating methods with longer half-lives? Or that if you misuse a method, you can get incorrect answers?

I am not asking you for claims that you believe are supported. I am asking you to support your claims.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is a claim, please show your evidence for this claim.

I'm curious....are you disputing the half-life of C-14?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No evidence in any way, shape or form of evolution, but your professors have convinced you there is and I know how compelling it is to have teachers spoon feed ideas to students

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm curious....are you disputing the half-life of C-14?

I'm asking for evidence that it is accurate and holds true over centuries and over millennia. Do you have any evidence to show that it does? Please explain why it does, and show your evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You blame God for not being there to protect Adam and Eve. You claim that God decimated the human race. You imply that there exists an entity, a serpent that actually believes in Christmas, and you seem to suggest that those who do not believe in God know that God is to blame.

I blame God for nothing. Likewise with Santa Claus. I am an atheist.

I do, however, discuss both. It doesn't matter if they exist or not, Santa is still depicted as fat and jolly, and Jehovah as angry, harsh, and judgmental - like Darth Vader, who also never existed.

 

[Sonofason]

Carbon dating does need to be calibrated because of how it works. Because it involves the production of C-14 in the upper atmosphere, changes in solar output *can* affect the details. That is why it is calibrated to something like tree-ring dates, for example.

But carbon dating is only for *very* recent things: mostly archeology. It has a practical limit of about 50,000 years because of the short half-life of C-14. So, once again, carbon dating is completely irrelevant to talking about ages of hundreds of millions of years.

Your information about he density of the Earth is wrong. I would also point out that while the current oceans are less than 200 million years or so (parts of the Pacific may be excluded here), there *were* oceans 200 million years ago. The modern oceans were produced when continents split up, so are relatively new.

Please prove to me why my premise regarding the density of the earth is wrong. Prove to me that there were oceans more than 200 million years ago.

 

[Sonofason]

I blame God for nothing. Likewise with Santa Claus. I am an atheist.

I do, however, discuss both. It doesn't matter if they exist or not, Santa is still depicted as fat and jolly, and Jehovah as angry, harsh, and judgmental - like Darth Vader, who also never existed.

I see.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Honestly, if you choose to debate with people that believe in God, you must therefore, as I had said, contend with those who believe in God.
contend - to strive in debate : argue

My words were, "I don't have to contend with such people, although I choose to interact with them both here and elsewhere." I may contend with them, but I don't have to. I choose to. I could be completely divorced from them.

 

[Polymath257]

This is a claim, please show your evidence for this claim.

Do you want to go to a lab to measure it? We can use the *current* decay rate, easily enough measured, to determine the half-life. This isn't a difficult thing to do.

This is another claim..please show your evidence to support this claim.

Do you know what a half-life is? After one half-life, half of the original amount is left. That is the definition of the concept. After two half-lives, 1/4 the original amount is left. That radioactive material decay according to an exponential decay law is easily measured for short half-life materials and the general law is easy enough to determine. And yes, the general law is easy enough to establish from known physics. After that, it is simple mathematics.

This is yet another claim...please show your evidence to support this claim of yours.

Well, 50,000 years would constitute about 9 half-lives. Given current technology, and the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, that would leave a small enough amount to be difficult to measure accurately. If you use certain accelerator technology, it is possible, thereby extending the utility of carbon dating (but significantly increasing the costs) to around 100,000 years.

The fact is, that you have never seen any evidence that any of these claims of yours here are true, so you send me off to go find my own evidence to prove that something I know is not true is true. Please show evidence, or admit you have none.

Do you want a reference to a scientific paper detailing the measurement and determination of the half-life of C-14?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm asking for evidence that it is accurate

Well that would be the cases I described, where scientists have calibrated C-14 curves with objects of known ages and with things like lake varves, tree rings, and stalagmites. Now, I'm not sure what sort of support you're looking for on things like this, but here are a few citations (some to web sties, others to more scientific resources)....

Calibration of radiocarbon dates - Wikipedia

Radiocarbon Calibration

C-14 Information and Labs

and holds true over centuries and over millennia. Do you have any evidence to show that it does? Please explain why it does, and show your evidence.

First, as Polymath pointed out, C-14 dating is only applicable to objects that are less than ~50,000 years old. So any objects older than that would have to be dated using other methods.

And if you read through the resources linked above, you'll see how some of the calibrations extend back over tens of thousands of years, indicating that the decay has not changed over that time.

The method

The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at �10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journal Science. In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range.​

The page goes on to describe how the collection and analyses of additional data indicated that the decay rate is constant and the method is reliable.

 

[Sonofason]

My words were, "I don't have to contend with such people, although I choose to interact with them both here and elsewhere." I may contend with them, but I don't have to. I choose to. I could be completely divorced from them.

If you choose to interact with them, then you must contend with them. And if you choose to interact with them, then you certainly cannot completely divorce yourself from them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

First of all, you call me an idiot, not you talk down to me and treat me like an idiot! Do you really have to explain to me what a metaphor is? I wasn't born yesterday! In fact I am 50 years old! And I never claimed the "thousand years" in "A day to God is as a thousand years" was literally thousand! What this scripture shows is that God has his own timetable, and it is often longer than our own! That was petty to claim that I didn't understand anything because I said "evening and morning" rather than "morning and evening" Do you really think I am confused and think the day starts out with the evening! You are one of those believers that thinks God excuses you for rudeness and attitude! He wants us to "honor men of all sorts" And there are places in the Bible, which use morning and evening in a non literal way, esp in Psalms!

Is there a reason you choose to ignore the "Reply" button?

The matter of what is meant by a day in Genesis is settled by the claim that God rested on the seventh day, and the commandment that one also rest on the seventh day, that is, observe the Sabbath.

The genesis creation myths are both wrong. Do you disagree? Did you want to defend the biblical narratives in the light of the scientific account of the evolution of the universe? You can't, even by claiming allegory. The Christian creation stories are no more accurate than the Mesopotamian or Viking creation stories. They all got exactly one thing right - a first moment for our universe - and missed the rest.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm asking for evidence that it is accurate and holds true over centuries and over millennia. Do you have any evidence to show that it does? Please explain why it does, and show your evidence.

Yes, we can determine the types of things that can affect the rates of radioactive decay. Such things are incredibly rare and unusual. In particular, chemical environment, temperature, pressure, etc, don't do it (for the elements used in dating methods. Some other elements can have up to a 1% change because of high pressure-but this is rare). Nor would they be expected to given the nature of an atom and the nature of the nucleus.

So, unless you can come up with a physical process that *can* greatly affect the rates, both the theoretical and the observational aspects are quite sufficient to demonstrate that constancy of rates.

There is NO known way, short of being inside of a star, to make the decay rates change enough to reduce the measured ages below half of what we have calculated. And for situations consistent with the existence of life, errors of decay rates will be less than a fraction of a percent.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No evidence for evolution! Radiocarbon dating, has dated modern things as thousands of years already! Can be off! There is also something I read about the flood possibly interfering with the results of radiocarbon dating! I would need to research it again in order to explain it! Also atmosphere may have been different back then

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed.

There is no way for a flood or a different atmosphere to affect radioactive decay.

You can't effectively argue against science if you don't know it.