On Nov 4, 3:57 pm, Lorentz <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:26 am, "IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:56 pm, haiku jones <575jo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:36 pm, "IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
celled Pond Protozoa
This being, of course, something Darwin never said...
and thru ions of time,
HOLY SHIT! Scientists can ionize time itself now?
Geez, where did they do that? The Large Hadron
Collider, no doubt. Well, I warned them and I warned
them, but would they listen to me? Noooooo.
chances, and
accidents...worked its way up to a 206 bone human being
Is that all? Shucks, some snakets have five hundred
vertebrae alone. God must have put more work into
the serpent.
having over 60
major anatomical systems
Really? Bet you can't list even half
of that number:
all working collaboratively and balancing
each other .... then absolutely not. God said how he created man, and
that is in Genesis 2 whereby man was made FULLY formed and FULLY
functioning .
And God liked doing that so much that he did it twice, as is
clear from even a casual reading of the first two chapters.
Darwinnian Evolution was only a desperate theory so
God could be discounted , of which there is absolutely no evidence. In
fact, it violates known laws of science
Which fact is apparently unknown to most known
scientists.
Which "known laws" do you have in mind, by the way?
. If its MICRO
evolution...then yes, God allowed for this to take place which gives
us the variation within a family
Hey, I've got a MICRO evolution question for ya: how did
humans manage to micro it, in just a few thousand years,
starting with eight Semites and ending up with Japanese, Zulus,
Swedes, Pygmies, Ainu, Australian Aborigines, Navajos,
Eskimos, Terra del Fuegans, and the entire rainbow
spectrum of humans we have today?
Oh, and before I forget? You still owe me that
list of "over 250 razor-sharp physical constants"
Haiku Jones
-- The Bible indicates this and
science has shown this to be true. To get truth, one should consult
The Bible first because sooner or later, modern science has confirmed
it to be true or is in the process of doing so .- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If youre really interested in your questions particularly a young
earth, the fallacy of Carbon 14 Dating , etc...,
It' is too bad that scientists don't use carbon dating for
organisms that died more than 100 KYA. Time in millions of years is
usually dated by uranium-thorium or uranium-lead measurements of
different types. There are several ratios to check in the decay
sequence of uranium, and they usually agree with each other. The
elements for these aging techniques come from igneous rock. Now a
days, they use individual garnet crystals to obtain the elements for
dating these rocks. Use of individual crystals prevents errors from
happening because of trapped materials. Stenos Laws are used to
extrapolate the dates between volcanic layers.
Each radioactive method of dating establishes a lower limit to
the age of the earth. Carbon 14 dating just shows us that the world is
older than 50 KY. The uranium methods have established that the earth
cooled down from liquid at least 4 BYA. It is the uranium methods
that establish that dinosaurs lived between 65 MYA and 245 MYA. No
dinosaur was ever examined by the carbon 14 method.
I seriously doubt your sources have found any weakness in the
uranium decay series, especially when a single garnet crystal is used.
Most evolution occurs on a time scale that extends far beyond
the capabilities of C14 dating methods.For your information,
scientists know that the C14 method is not useful for dating objects
mixed with petroleum products. This includes any living thing that has
died in the last 500 years, since industrialization started full tilt.
This includes that oyster Creationists love to present as a false
determination. This also includes some of the clothes used by ancient
Egyptians. Many middle east people used petroleum products in their
clothes. C14 does not work in certain specific conditions well known
to scientists. C14 dating is useful for showing that there are
civilizations far older than the 5500-6500 years. Civilization took a
lot longer to develop than 6 KY.
"Macroevolution" of multicellular animals takes place on time
scales greater than 10 KY. On the class level, evolution takes
millions of years. The time it took for birds to develop from their
theropod ancestors took tens of millions of years. This type of time
span was not determined by C14 dating.
Even if it were shown tomorrow that C14 dating had a significant
and formally unknown limitation, educated scientists would still know
that the earth was older than a million years. Igneous rocks that
solidified a billion years ago would still have isotopes that show
that the earth is at least a billion years old. This is verified using
different isotope ratios.
The discrepancy between the 6 KY age of the earth and reality is
independent of evolution and biology. The age of igneous rock is not
determined using fossils. They don't use "trace fossils" to calculate
the age of granite or obsidian. The 4 BY plus origin of the earth
wasn't determined by the requirements for life to evolve. It is a
matter of physics and chemistry. No matter how you think life
developed, real science says that the world is at least 4 billion
years old.
To show people that you aren't a defensive liar, I suggest you
address the issue of uranium-thorium-lead isotopic dating. Explain the
errors in that. After that, present the limitations of carbon-14
dating.
A very nice essay on the topic indeed. Well done.
I find it amusing that a certain type of creationist
always drags radiocarbon dating into any discussion,
whether it's germane to the topic or not. They
appear to feel "Well, I'm not sure what we're talking
about, but since it's been proven that C14 dating
is a hoax, that should shoot down any argument".
Amusing not only because they've got one hammer
for all possible nails, but because they never
seem to realize that the various potential
problems that can complicate radiocarbon dating
have been winkled out, explored, and brought to
the attention of anyone interested by...
divine revelation? careful interpretation of
Scripture? a Papal pronouncement ex cathedra?...
no, BY SCIENTISTS. By scientists who work in
the field, who look for potential problems, and
who then make the necessary corrections.
These same folks seem never to have heard of
cross-checking radiocarbon dating against
other short-range methods, such as tree rings,
varves, and ice cores.
By the way, one of the best, and most
thorough, explanation of various
radiometric (and other) dating techniques --
and one written by a Christian, for other
Christians -- is at:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
