Creation AND Evolution

[imnotcrazy357]

I suppose radiometric dating just doesn't count.

To lend credence to the ancient dates used in geologic column (and try to remove some of the circular reasoning involved), evolutionists use a technique known as radiometric dating to assign "absolute" ages to rocks and ofssils. Radiomatric dating is based on the fect that radioactive elements decay into other elements (known as thier "daughter" elements) are relatively constant rates. A method comonly used for relatviely "recent" dates on the evoltuionary time scale (less than 50,000 years) uses the element carbon-14, which decays into nitrogen 14 over time. Other common elements used in radiometric dating are potassium-40, rubidium-87 and uraniam-235 and 238.

The half-life of an elemnt can be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil if the original and final amounts of radioactive element in the sample are known. Although the final amount of the element is in the sample is easily measured, there is no way to measure how much of the element was in the sample originally. THe scientists seeks to asnwer this question by making calculations based on several guesses:

• How much of the "daughter"element did the sample originall contain?
  
• How much of the "parent" element entered or secaped the sample during the decay process?
  
• How much of the "daughter" element entered or escaped the sample during the decay process?

To answer these questions, the scientist must make "reasonable" guesses, which are usually based on evolutionary assumptions. Thus, circular reasong enters the argument once again: the assumtion of evoltuion is used to asnwer the varioues questions, which are used to calculate a date, which "proves" the assumption of evoltuion. If a date is obtained that does not fit the geologic column, it is a simple matter of adjusting one's estimates of the parent and daughter elements originally present in order to come up with a date that fits the evolutionary time scale.

Thus, it can be said that radioactive dates are largely assumptions by the assumptions of the person doing the dating. If evoltuionary assumptions are replaced with creationist assumptions, the dates given by several of the best motheds (carbon-14 dating and the various uranium-lead methods) often become more less consistent with the Genesis chronology.

I'd say it doesn't count

I still see no reason to believe that the flood occurred.

Agate Springs fossil graveyard.

A hill near Agate Springs, Nebraskas containts the fossilzed and closely packed bones of about 9000 animals. Rhinos, Camels, Giant Boars and other exotic animals all jumbled together. It appears that entire herds were destroyed by some great catastrophe that threw their bodies together quckly and violently. Because thier bones show none of the suually signs of weathering or of mutilation by scavengers, geologist conclude that the animals were buried quickly before the elements and the scavengers could do their work.

History Channel has done a show, that has evidence of a world wide flood. If you would like to watch it, that is if you have the time, I could find you a link.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I'd say it doesn't count

First, let's not forget that your assumption about the original levels of the radiometric substance are based upon how you interpret the Bible.

Second, the rate of (let's use this as an example) carbon-14. The levels of carbon-14 created by solar radiation only changes extremely slowly, over hundreds of millions of years. Why? To put it extremely basically, the sun is big. Very big. Change takes a long time to happen to big things.

Agate Springs fossil graveyard.

The vast preponderance of fossils are not mixed. Sites of geologic activity where fossils are mixed isn't really that surprising.

History Channel has done a show, that has evidence of a world wide flood. If you would like to watch it, that is if you have the time, I could find you a link.

Sure.

 

[Macroman]

Some talk about radio metric.. Check it out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

 

[ja97]

I find that this thread is dominated by Shredder(Nice old DX avatar.) and Macro. Thank God (Thread about creation and evolution. Meh).

The SUPPOSED "Big Bang" theory has been argued for and against by the Catholic and Christian community and the Atheist or unbelieving communty alike. However, the finding of fossils, and them being dated with radiometric technology, is somewhat of a blow for the beliefs of the Catholic and Christian beliefs of creation and evolution.

We're slime. Get with it.

*DX chorus plays in background*

Oh thanks soooo much Shredder. I'm watchin' WWE again. Bitch.

NOTE : If somebody has posted something like this, or arguing against it already, please let me know.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Oh, great. They admit themselves that argon was present in the rock. Way to invalidate your own argument that gas will just bubble up through molten rock.

Isochron Dating

Where are they taking the samples from? How far apart are they from each other? Was there bias? Who reproduced the results? Etc.

If you just throw links at me, I cannot address these concerns directly with you. You need to be able to summarize the material yourself, be able to back it up, etc.

 

[Macroman]

Many Christians also believe in the Big bang, They believe that the big bang was Called upon or started by God.

 

[x⁹]

I don't see why you're so scared of having ID taught alongside an uproven theory, Shredder. If the ID theory is as ridiculous as you think it is, then people will see that and ignore it.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Many Christians also believe in the Big bang, They believe that the big bang was Called upon or started by God.

Yes, but I don't see why they would.

I don't see why you're so scared of having ID taught alongside an uproven theory, Shredder. If the ID theory is as ridiculous as you think it is, then people will see that and ignore it.

First, we are arguing the merits of creationism versus evolution.

Second, I.D. isn't a theory. It's pseudo-science. Where is the line drawn? Do we then try to teach astrology? What about tea leaf reading? Why shouldn't we "teach the controversy"?

 

[jebckr]

If the ID theory is as ridiculous as you think it is, then people will see that and ignore it.

I can think of about 2.5million people in america that believe something even more outlandish than that...

edit: lol i mean 250million, sorry.

 

[Macroman]

Yes, but I don't see why they would.

Maybe because there is some decent evidence prooving the big bang theory.

 

[Dorito]

Creationism and evolution could easily fit very well together. At a Christian's viewpoint, you can believe that evolution did take place, what you must also believe is that God did have a hand in it.

The Big Bang theory, only one question I have to ask. Where did the matter that created it come from?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Maybe because there is some decent evidence prooving the big bang theory.

I'm talking about God. Why would they believe in God?

Creationism and evolution could easily fit very well together. At a Christian's viewpoint, you can believe that evolution did take place, what you must also believe is that God did have a hand in it.

Why would you believe that God would have a hand in it, or even exist?

The Big Bang theory, only one question I have to ask. Where did the matter that created it come from?

We don't know that it was matter that was there before. It was a singularity, of indeterminate size, that suddenly expanded at incredible speeds.

 

[Dorito]

Why would you believe that God would have a hand in it, or even exist?

The Word of God to me is sapient.

We don't know that it was matter that was there before. It was a singularity, of indeterminate size, that suddenly expanded at incredible speeds.

Well, then let's not call it matter, let's call it, it. How did this it come into existence? You imply the idea of God is so dubious, yet you yourself admit you do not know how it came to be.

How can one say an idea about something that isn't scientifically proved can be wrong? More or less, claiming that one idea is above the rest.

You said logic several posts up. Logic is different for everyone, there is no set logic everyone has, nor that anyone follows. Something could be logical to me, but not logical to someone else, doesn't make it any less logical or illogical. As in the mind of the person, it is still logical or illogical to them and that is all logic is, a perception, an idea, a way to reason.

 

[TJ]

ok this is my argument and its short and simple.

can you prove god?

i rest my case

 

[Shredderbeam]

The Word of God to me is sapient.

It makes sense to you. Cool.

Well, then let's not call it matter, let's call it, it. How did this it come into existence? You imply the idea of God is so dubious, yet you yourself admit you do not know how it came to be.

Of course I don't know. Before the singularity, the universe didn't exist. How could I know?

How can one say an idea about something that isn't scientifically proved can be wrong? More or less, claiming that one idea is above the rest.

Some ideas are more substantiated and logical than others.

You said logic several posts up. Logic is different for everyone, there is no set logic everyone has, nor that anyone follows. Something could be logical to me, but not logical to someone else, doesn't make it any less logical or illogical. As in the mind of the person, it is still logical or illogical to them and that is all logic is, a perception, an idea, a way to reason.

Wrong. Logic is just so. 2 + 2 = 4, square circles cannot exist, etc. From these rules, logical philosophy is born. To claim otherwise is a fallacy.

 

[Dorito]

It makes sense to you. Cool.

More or less.

Of course I don't know. Before the singularity, the universe didn't exist. How could I know?

Which is why I am saying you are giving me an end product, i.e. the Big Bang, without giving me the supplies to make it, in a sense.

Some ideas are more substantiated and logical than others.

No, just because more than one person share the same idea of logic on one concept, doesn't mean it's any less logical then the one person who no one shares the idea with. It'd be less logical to you, because you think it is illogical, and your idea would be the logical one because it's your logic. To another person, their idea is just as logical as yours, and your idea is just as illogical as their idea to you.

Wrong. Logic is just so. 2 + 2 = 4, square circles cannot exist, etc. From these rules, logical philosophy is born. To claim otherwise is a fallacy.

Logic doesn't have rules, as philosophy isn't a defined thing, it's simply one's concept that others might find to be logical. Also, please don't use the word fallacy, it reminds me of Sythe's rebuttals.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Which is why I am saying you are giving me an end product, i.e. the Big Bang, without giving me the supplies to make it, in a sense.

Basically, I am. There is evidence that indicates that it happened, but no satisfactory logic to explain why it happened, or why anything exists.

No, just because more than one person share the same idea of logic on one concept, doesn't mean it's any less logical then the one person who no one shares the idea with. It'd be less logical to you, because you think it is illogical, and your idea would be the logical one because it's your logic. To another person, their idea is just as logical as yours, and your idea is just as illogical as their idea to you.

And to me, that idea is illogical. Some people may think that their idea is logical, when in reality, it isn't.

Logic doesn't have rules, as philosophy isn't a defined thing, it's simply one's concept that others might find to be logical.

I think that it does. If all A is B, then at least some B is A. There are no two ways about it. A square circle is logically impossible, as it is a contradiction. That is the sort of logic that I am considering to be absolute.

There is another type of philosophy, one that does not deal with searching for contradictions, etc., but rather focuses upon the brute force of our experience. That, I agree, is subjective.

Another thing: Take Cruel__Machine. In his view, all of experienced reality could be an illusion. Each person could be experiencing their own reality. Indeed, nothing might exist, at all. With regard to this view, I agree that no one view is inherently superior over another.

Also, please don't use the word fallacy, it reminds me of Sythe's rebuttals.

Ahahaha, fair enough.

 

[Dorito]

Basically, I am. There is evidence that indicates that it happened, but no satisfactory logic to explain why it happened, or why anything exists.

There is evidence that might support it, but that so called evidence could also be from something totally unrelated, there isn't any evidence to prove that evidence is really from such an event.

And to me, that idea is illogical. Some people may think that their idea is logical, when in reality, it isn't.

Of course if you don't agree with another person's logic it will seem illogical to you. That does not mean however that in reality there idea is illogical. As in reality, there is no defined logic.

I think that it does. If all A is B, then at least some B is A. There are no two ways about it. A square circle is logically impossible, as it is a contradiction. That is the sort of logic that I am considering to be absolute.

There is another type of philosophy, one that does not deal with searching for contradictions, etc., but rather focuses upon the brute force of our experience. That, I agree, is subjective.

Another thing: Take Cruel__Machine. In his view, all of experienced reality could be an illusion. Each person could be experiencing their own reality. Indeed, nothing might exist, at all. With regard to this view, I agree that no one view is inherently superior over another.

Yes, I will agree there is two different kinds of logic, but, this discussion would use the second of the two you stated. As there isn't defined rules such as 2 + 2 = 4, you can't use that kind of logic debating whether the Big Bang might of happened or not.

As to Cruel__Machine's view, yes, I've actually brought that up in other discussions, none on here, but that could very well be true. You agree then, then just because someone's view and the logic they use to say the Big Bang didn't happen, while you support it did, doesn't make their logic any less intelligent, logical, or real.

Ahahaha, fair enough.

Thank you

 

[Shredderbeam]

There is evidence that might support it, but that so called evidence could also be from something totally unrelated, there isn't any evidence to prove that evidence is really from such an event.

It could be, or perhaps every piece of evidence is shaky and uncertain. Perhaps the Bible was authored by Satan, or a conspiracy of Reptilians. I choose to believe that, in all likelihood, evidence is as it appears.

Of course if you don't agree with another person's logic it will seem illogical to you. That does not mean however that in reality there idea is illogical. As in reality, there is no defined logic.

That's true.

Yes, I will agree there is two different kinds of logic, but, this discussion would use the second of the two you stated. As there isn't defined rules such as 2 + 2 = 4, you can't use that kind of logic debating whether the Big Bang might of happened or not.

2 + 2 = 4 is a way of saying that two sets of two and four are identical to each other. To say that two sets of two and five are equal to each other is false by the very definition of equal.

As to Cruel__Machine's view, yes, I've actually brought that up in other discussions, none on here, but that could very well be true. You agree then, then just because someone's view and the logic they use to say the Big Bang didn't happen, while you support it did, doesn't make their logic any less intelligent, logical, or real.

Yes, I agree that the Big Bang could be totally false, as could anything else in my life that I believe to be true.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

ok this is my argument and its short and simple.

can you prove god?

i rest my case

all I can say is dumbass....

Creationism and evolution could easily fit very well together. At a Christian's viewpoint, you can believe that evolution did take place, what you must also believe is that God did have a hand in it.

The Big Bang theory, only one question I have to ask. Where did the matter that created it come from?

Impossible for someone to be a devote Chisritian to fit with evolution.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Animals were formed at once, not evolved from one to another. To believe evolution was set into place be God. This would make a different form of the Christian faith. It would not be Christian itself. All denominations of Christianity all believe that the entire Bible is the word of God, the only difference is the enterpritations. If you made evolution to confrom with this, then you would have to deny part of the Bible, thus denying Christianity.

Many Christians also believe in the Big bang, They believe that the big bang was Called upon or started by God.

They believe this, but they don't then they are unable to believe the Bible as 100% truth. People who often accept this conform into Athiesm, or aren't considered Christians in my book. They are doing nothing but weaking the faith of others around them.