Creation vs. Evolution

[Stripe]

Silly and plainly wrong assertion.

A description of one of the laws of science, in fact.


Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[MichaelCadry]

One of the problems that I have with this is when I look around me in the world of science and I see tens of thousands of scientists who all agree on the “millions of years”. In that group are a huge number of faithful Christians, Moslems, Hindus; Buddhists, etc. Sorry, but I am not buying into you portraying this as an atheist –creationist dichotomy. For most of the scientific world, and much of the religious world it is the Creationists, not the atheists, that are living in denial of the science.



I see. You are the one that pre-emptively declared atheists and humanists as not being smart enough to understand real years, but you want me to stay focused. Did I understand your major field of study was “hypocrisy”?



Maybe you really don’t know who Isaac Newton was, or who Lord Kelvin was. Looks like your familiarity with the history of science is a bit shallow. And I am sure a lot of the major advances in science came at the hands of faithful people of many faiths. Can you itemize some of the ideas that are now central to science that came at the hands of YECs?



Since that is a religious issue, and not a scientific one, I leave you to whatever you want to believe.



I shall require this of you as well.



I suspect evolution is not as trivially adjusted to large-scale adjustments in the time needed as you infer. But as I said, let’s focus on the C-14 question, and see where that takes us first.



Let me quote your original claim that I was asking about counterarguments on:



In the real world of C-14 dating, to REGISTER simply means the instrument gives a readout of how many C-14 (and C-12 and C-13) atoms it detected. So… assume a dinosaur lived a hundred million years ago. Similar to biological life today, a very small percentage of the Carbon atoms in its body were of the C-14 isotope. Dinosaur dies, and goes through the process of fossilization. At the moment of death, it no longer takes in carbon, and the C-14 atoms already in its body become more and more rare as the C-14 decays away. 100,000 years after it died, the level of residual C-14 is effectively zero.

Fast forward to today. Fossil-hunter Rosenritter chances upon the fossil of the long-deceased dinosaur, and decides to have its remains (whether soft or not) C-14 dated. A few questions (questions that real scientists that deal with C-14 dating are acutely aware of):

---The vast majority of fossils are found specifically because they are near the surface of the ground. With that in mind, how likely is it that, within the last 300 or so centuries, moisture has made its way from the surface into the strata the fossil is in? Unless it is pretty unusual, moisture in the ground is teeming with microscopic life, and also carries organic detritus in it. Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is also very soluble in surface moisture. Any chance that some “recent” carbon-14 atoms might end up in or on the fossil?

---Do you accurately know the radiation history the sample has been subjected to over the past 300 centuries?

---How do you extract the fossil so as to minimize its exposure to the current C-14 in the carbon dioxide in the air, and especially to biological contamination from skin contact?

---How do you store the sample for weeks (months, years) so as to be sure no modern carbon will adhere to it?

---In preparing the sample for the C-14 testing, how do you propose identifying, of the carbon that is part of the sample, which of the carbon atoms are original to the dinosaur, and which are contaminants?

---How do you assure that “system memory” (meaning carbon atoms from a prior run that adhered to interior parts of the counter rather than being counted in the previous test) does not supply some vagabond C-14 atoms to your counter?

If any of these steps introduce measurable levels of C-14, then it doesn’t matter how little of the original C-14 there is, you will REGISTER a date.

Dear redfern,

Just look at how many variables you have to consider for C-14 dating to be of any use. I don't trust any of your dating methods as they are man-made and not fool-proof whatsoever. They are only of good use until enough time passes to discover they are wrong also.

And why have you started saying 300 centuries instead of 30,000 years?? A bit late. So it won't appear as a big number, eh? You can write paragraph after paragraph, but I'm not buying any bit of it. If you knew half of what you say is true, maybe God would have let you create everything instead of Him! You don't know anything about much, much less nothing about little. You're just trying to scare Rosenritter away with your antics. Our God tells us that He created the Earth and Heaven, and man, and creatures, and plants ALL DURING THE SAME WEEK!! If you want to tell me different, you can go to that other place. Of course, I do instead want you to go to Heaven, for that is the reason that I started this thread. But you are quite frustrating at times. So once again, God says He created the sea and man in the same week. How about you start there at something simple? Does it register with you now?? I didn't think so. And your using highly improbable number of years for everything is to laugh at. You just want people to believe you instead of trying to disprove something that no man can know of the number of years.

I'm certainly not going to answer your post paragraph by paragraph. That would take me millions of years! Do you see what I mean or not?!

If you think these are not valid points, then I have a suggestion that could score your side big points. You guys set up a fully equipped C-14 dating lab. Set up a reciprocal agreement with one of the current labs so your scientists and theirs can freely monitor the tests at each other’s facilities.



I am not aware that the “long human lifespans” recorded in Genesis have been scientifically confirmed, and the really big reptiles are just a few million years too early for the Hebrew tale.

Can you point to scientific evidence that would help to calibrate the buildup of C-14?

The long lifespans of man were important enough for God to have man mention it and write it gives us Christians plenty to go on, even though it is useless to you. Somewhat like your C-14 dating to us. I can hardly wait until you find out there really is a God and a Hell. For this reason, us 'creationists' try to urge you to believe in the Creator, our God, so that you can escape Hell, and instead have fun with us in Heaven, playing games and talking, and having an absolute blast!! You have NO IDEA what is really going on. Just your cerebral activity, eh? That's what it all boils down to for you. You don't want to collectively rescind your claims or be found wrong. If you are right about God not existing, then certainly I have no qualms with apologizing to you for it profusely. It is too bad you don't share the same views. You can't STAND to be WRONG!! Too embarrassing, eh?

Why must you give up an eternity -- a forever -- so quickly and easily just to not deeply consider that there is instead, a God Who loves us, you in particular?? Do you think that God takes some sort of pleasure to see you burning in the lake of fire, our Sun??!! Your soul will burn there for eternity you know? Not Hell, or in the center of our Earth, but instead worse yet even, our Sun?? Ah well, we can only keep trying to find the right words to say to your hearts so that they might pierce them and your brain to alter your negativity. It is not hopeless surely. Many people hearkened to John the Baptist, and Jesus, after being persuaded by the Truth they Spoke. I hope you follow behind them!! We love our fellow man, or we would not continually try to talk some sense into your hearts and heads.

Please See The Love That God Wants To Share With You And Shower You With!!

Michael

 

[redfern]

… Just look at how many variables you have to consider for C-14 dating …

Michael, I realize you mean no harm, but on the other hand I see no benefit in responding to someone who is perpetually clueless about how science works.

… urge you to believe in the Creator, our God, so that you can escape Hell…

If the judgment yardstick your God uses is whether or not I believe in Him, instead of how decent and honorable a life I have lived, then He is a God who I have no respect for anyway.

(Side note – Attending to family obligations will probably keep me offline for the next couple of weeks.)

 

[MichaelCadry]

But you were much more specific than that, you pointedly and directly made the claim that the moon’s orbit was no longer perfect. The best you can do in scientifically explaining what it meant for that orbit to have been perfect is to babble about creation groaning. No wonder you have been so impotent at actually engaging the scientific content of these discussions. A broken tape recorder that just barely manages to squeak out the phrase “God’s Word” every few minutes has as much scientific credibility as you do.

Dear redfern,

I don't see any problem with how 6days presents his opinion/ beliefs hardly any worse than you do. 6days manages to keep up with everyone just fine and you just hate it when he does answer you with answers you just hate to find out are truthful. You have to admit there are five of you compared to him being one. What do you expect?: God to jump down from the sky and say, Here I am??!! He's not going to visit each and every atheist and let them know He's real. But you can bet He's going to send His Son to let you know He is real. I can't wait for that day, though you may not feel the same. Finally you will have your wish about knowing He's there. Okay, now, if 6days and Rosenritter didn't care very much, they would not remain here to try to talk some sense into you all and say heck with you all, it doesn't matter where you go after you die.

By the way, Alwight/Alan has not contacted me for weeks now, so he is probably unable to get to a computer, or he is in a nursing home, or perhaps he has passed away now. Most none of you care that he's dead or alive, or you would have inquired of me as to his health. And do you know what he asked me months ago? He asked me if I would pray to have an angel visit him and help with his health! You see, when the time finally comes down to it and you are face to face dealing with what is imminent, you then lose you ridiculous stubbornness, and seek for help from Heaven. Perhaps you should all not put off that inevitable time before it comes. Okay, just remember that I told you. God is not going to just say you can all come and be with Him forever most likely.

Is That What You Really Want?

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

I came across the reason we Creationists believe that the Flood was worldwide. It is hard to find, but it is there. See Gen. 8:9KJV, "But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the WHOLE Earth..." It says Whole Earth because it means the entire Earth. Now what else are you going to devise of Satan that says why this is not true?? Remember this post so that you can go back to it as needed.

Much Love, From God Above And From Me,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well, yes it is.

The attachment to another individual that produces an enduring long term parental partnership is an obvious reproductive success advantage, and so you'd expect the attachment desire to exist through evolution. Love is the subjective experience of having such an attachment.

Simples.

Dear gcthomas,

You've got it right partially. Love happens regardless of just parenting. Some lovers are "In Love" and share intimacy {sex} and have a great time!! Further though, love exists on another level also, which I have a feeling that you are aware of. You are 'in love' with your significant other, but you aren't necessarily 'in love' with anyone else, but you can 'love' your best friend more than you 'love' other friends, for starters. You can 'love' your parents or your fellow siblings, like brothers and sisters, and you can love your neighbor or an acquaintance. I am at the point where I love even those who do me wrong. Jesus said, 'Love thine enemies.' 'For what good is it that you only love those who love you back.' That is what Our Lord said to us, gct! Love is a strong feeling of attraction for another, so that you would even die in their place! I would give my life for yours. I can imagine what you think, but it is true. I would die so that you could still live on Earth and also in the Hereafter! Love is a feeling, gcthomas. It is similar to a gravitational force of quite an amount. Even like a magnet near metal. I hope that I've explained this well enough. God loves you very much. But He doesn't love that you don't believe He even exists, when it is He Who gave you life and that even every breath you breathe is controlled by Him as to when it should end or even begin at birth when you get slapped on the bottom.

Tons Of Love From God And Me!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

We've finally are finding it in writing that the Flood was all over the Earth. Oh, how the mockers have subsided. Now you all know that we Christians/ Creationists were right all along. So then Atheists, do we get ten points for proving the Truth about the Great Flood. I guess you are not sure if everything else you claim to be is also in jeopardy. I mean, if you're wrong about the Flood, you could also be wrong from some other thing you've adduced to boot. So the Flood was over the Whole Earth. Yippee!!

May God Help You See Clearly That You Could Be Wrong About Much More!!!

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Dear 6days,

We've finally are finding it in writing that the Flood was all over the Earth.

Ahhhh.... No..... What on Earth gave you the idea that the Flood was being accepted by anyone other than fringe dwelling fundamentalists?

Oh, how the mockers have subsided.

I've gone back to mostly lurking recently because A. The debate has gotten a bit stale and boring & B. I've recently started living in 2 different cities due to work so I've been a bit busy.

Now you all know that we Christians/ Creationists were right all along. So then Atheists, do we get ten points for proving the Truth about the Great Flood.

You would if you had done anything of the sort.

May God Help You See Clearly That You Could Be Wrong About Much More!!!

Oh Michael... If only you could see that you are right about nothing...



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelCadry]

Ahhhh.... No..... What on Earth gave you the idea that the Flood was being accepted by anyone other than fringe dwelling fundamentalists?
I've gone back to mostly lurking recently because A. The debate has gotten a bit stale and boring & B. I've recently started living in 2 different cities due to work so I've been a bit busy. You would if you had done anything of the sort.

Dear Tyrathca,

Who are you joking? You've all been arguing about whether the Flood was over the whole Earth or just in the vicinity of where Noah lived with his family. Perhaps you personally have not been debating it, but you can't speak for your cohorts about whether they have been debating it, because they have. And the debate has not gotten stale or boring, except to those who can't debate, without being proven wrong.

Oh Michael... If only you could see that you are right about nothing...

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Oh Ty, if you could only see that I dealt you all a lethal blow!! Who are you kidding, really? I am right about MUCH!! By the way, I'm sorry that you're so busy right now. Sounds awful. So what two cities are you living in? What country are you in? I thought it was Wales. Any idea how long you've got to live in two cities?? I hope it's a short time. Work is bad enough just being in one city, but at least it may be a change of venue.

Have An Exceptional Week!!

Michael

 

[Rosenritter]

You mean the question of whether people living 900 years would be "different"? Sure it would, if it were true.



Why? Don't you know?

Seems you haven't given the science of carbon dating much of a second thought and would rather hide behind PeeWee Herman style retorts. Seriously, you aren't able to explain Carbon Dating? And no, it's not when your friend hooks you up on a blind date with an attractive element.

Explain carbon dating please. List the necessary assumptions made in the methodology. Drop the retarded act and just answer to your ability.

Genesis 2:5-6 KJV
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Hint two: from that verse does ANYTHING look different about the pre-flood Genesis model than today? Thought you said you read the first five chapters. I am guessing you didn't actually think while skimming...

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days & Rosenritter,

It looks like Creationists have won hands down, score 1-0. Evolutionists, 0-1. Finally!! See Post #20646 above. After all of this time! I'm not trying to rub it in. Just declaring it. The whole world was affected by the Great Flood from God!! What an awesome amount of water that would be. Hey Hedshaker and DavisBJ, what do you think of this? Come out of hiding for a bit! Hey gcthomas, take heart. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while.

Praise The Lord God,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Dear Tyrathca,

Who are you joking? You've all been arguing about whether the Flood was over the whole Earth or just in the vicinity of where Noah lived with his family. Perhaps you personally have not been debating it, but you can't speak for your cohorts about whether they have been debating it, because they have.

And no one had shown that a worldwide flood occurred.

And the debate has not gotten stale or boring, except to those who can't debate, without being proven wrong.

Nope definitely stale. Nothing new, not even well argued versions of old arguments.

Oh Ty, if you could only see that I dealt you all a lethal blow!!

Oh Michael you are as delusional as ever.

Who are you kidding, really? I am right about MUCH!!

You are a profoundly ignorant and simple man.

By the way, I'm sorry that you're so busy right now. Sounds awful. So what two cities are you living in? What country are you in? I thought it was Wales.

Australia actually.

Any idea how long you've got to live in two cities??

About 6 months.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[gcthomas]

Explain carbon dating please. List the necessary assumptions made in the methodology. Drop the retarded act and just answer to your ability.

Hmmm. Constant decay rates and proportion of CO2 with C14 in the atmosphere are not assumptions, because carbon radiodating is calibrated against a variety of other dating methods.

Careful handling and processing of the samples IS assumed, as tiny amounts of introduced modern C14 can dramatically and artificially lower the returned dates. (This is where the RATE team messed up, testing easily contaminated parts of bones of unclear provenance, with the added bonus of not caring if the dates were artificially reduced.)

That the sample is younger than, say, 50000 years IS an assumption. Which is why C14 dating cannot be used to disprove older dates — a true older date cannot be proven with C14 radiodating, so marginal C14 dates cannot disprove these old dates, especially when the team does not have the experts necessary to date such old items without contamination.

 

[MichaelCadry]

And no one had shown that a worldwide flood occurred.

Dear Ty,

Just because man can't prove it happened yet, doesn't mean that it didn't occur. My Bible says it did and if you read Post #20646 above, you will see that my Bible says the Flood was over the 'whole' Earth. The Lord Himself said the 'whole' Earth. My Bible is my history book just as you have your history books and science books, etc. My Science Book works fine for periods not too long ago, but as far as going back 6,000 years, I don't believe it, nor the evolutionary ape-man progressive drawings either. My History Book tells me of the history of certain time periods, but not those in Biblical times. I saw a show once about evidence of the Flood in the Grand Canyon and other parts of the world, and they concluded that there really was a Great Flood on Earth. So I guess it is just what or who you want to believe.

Nope definitely stale. Nothing new, not even well argued versions of old arguments.

Whether it has gotten stale here or not is Your take on things. I see a lot of intriguing persons on this thread and there are always other things to talk about. You just talk about only a few things. We talk about many things here. New people arrive here all of the time and we enjoy discussing things. But one question is off the map: the Great Flood was worldwide. No more wondering about that.

Oh Michael you are as delusional as ever.
You are a profoundly ignorant and simple man.

Oh Ty, I am far from delusional. I have had the Lord and a number of angels visit me and they gave me info that I share with others and the info is pertinent or else no one would post here. If I were delusional and useless, people wouldn't keep coming here and posting, and enjoying their stay here. Also, I have written a book which is in it's seventh edition and it has been in the downtown Phoenix, AZ, USA Library since 2003. It gets checked out regularly, or they would pull it from their shelves. They have two different editions there, each with different covers. My Avatar here is the cover of book now. It cost me
$200 for the rights to the image. Someone else made the stars in the background for me. It's just beautiful. My book is available at Barnes & Noble, or Amazon.com. It is also Free at my website. If you're interested, I can explain to you how to get to the website and read a copy of it. Just let me know, Ty. If I were delusional, I would not be experiencing such success, which is bolstered up by the Lord God.

Now, I think you are profoundly ignorant and a confused man, deceived by Satan, whom you also know nothing about and that is why he can delude you. You're going to be in for a Rude Awakening, not me. We will just have to agree to disagree at times.

Australia actually.
About 6 months.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

I was thinking Australia too, but I didn't want to venture it. I know Stuu is in New Zealand. Australia must be so extremely beautiful with tons of beachfront swimming and fishing. I would LOVE to visit there, but I guess it isn't in the cards for me. I really believe that Jesus is returning soon, though I do not know the year. Only that I can feel it strongly so much that I can taste it.

Are you pleased with your job or not?? Will you have an apt. in both cities to stay at, or will you have to rent a motel/hotel room? Probably be cheaper to rent something monthly or weekly, like an apt. Those motels can get to be expensive. I hope it is a pleasant experience for you! Doesn't seem like it will be boring, that's for sure!

Warmest Regards,

Michael

 

[6days]

Constant decay rates and proportion of CO2 with C14 in the atmosphere are not assumptions, because carbon radiodating is calibrated against a variety of other dating methods.

Of course there are assumptions. What was the ratio of C14 to C12, 5,000 years ago? Evolutionists assume the ratio was much the same as now.

Careful handling and processing of the samples IS assumed, as tiny amounts of introduced modern C14 can dramatically and artificially lower the returned dates. (This is where the RATE team messed up, testing easily contaminated parts of bones of unclear provenance, with the added bonus of not caring if the dates were artificially reduced.)

When results contradict evolutionary beliefs, they assume contamination.

That the sample is younger than, say, 50000 years IS an assumption.

Likewise, to assume the sample is older than 50,000,000 years is an assumption.

Which is why C14 dating cannot be used to disprove older dates — a true older date cannot be proven with C14 radiodating,

However C14 dating can be used to help prove younger dates - a true younger date from C14 dating does help confirm the truth of God's Word.

 

[gcthomas]

Of course there are assumptions. What was the ratio of C14 to C12, 5,000 years ago? Evolutionists assume the ratio was much the same as now.

No, they don't assume that, as I already explained in the post you quoted. Look up 'calibration' if the words were too long. The ratios have been measured, not assumed.

When results contradict evolutionary beliefs, they assume contamination.

No they don't. They compare the results of multiple methods and see which results are replicated. It was only the RATE team that refuses to compare with other methods. Why is that I wonder?

Likewise, to assume the sample is older than 50,000,000 years is an assumption.

No, they don't. No assumption is made, since measurements using multiple independent methods are used. Why would a sample that had its dating confirmed by several methods want to use a method that is, by design, incapable of making the measurement better?

However C14 dating can be used to help prove younger dates - a true younger date from C14 dating does help confirm the truth of God's Word.

Not without verification using other methods — to ignore that standard practice is to undermine the credibility of the result. Why were RATE scared of using U, Pb or Ar methods to verify? Did they know already that it would show the lie of what they were claiming?

 

[Jose Fly]

I've gone back to mostly lurking recently because A. The debate has gotten a bit stale and boring

No doubt. That's why I keep asking the creationists here if they have anything new, or if they just plan on repeating old arguments that have never had any scientific relevance.

 

[Jose Fly]

Seems you haven't given the science of carbon dating much of a second thought and would rather hide behind PeeWee Herman style retorts. Seriously, you aren't able to explain Carbon Dating? And no, it's not when your friend hooks you up on a blind date with an attractive element.

Explain carbon dating please. List the necessary assumptions made in the methodology. Drop the retarded act and just answer to your ability.

If you have an argument, make it. If it's valid it's valid, and if it's not it's not, regardless of whether I post a treatise on C-14 dating at ToL.

Stop playing games and state your case.

Hint two: from that verse does ANYTHING look different about the pre-flood Genesis model than today? Thought you said you read the first five chapters. I am guessing you didn't actually think while skimming...

Again you make reference to this "model", yet you haven't said what it is. So to repeat....what is "the Genesis model"?

 

[Hawkins]

No doubt. That's why I keep asking the creationists here if they have anything new, or if they just plan on repeating old arguments that have never had any scientific relevance.

You sound as if you already won the old arguments but you did not. Why bother new arguments while the old are not concluded.

It remains your deception to ask for anything new.

 

[Jose Fly]

You sound as if you already won the old arguments but you did not. Why bother new arguments while the old are not concluded.

It remains your deception to ask for anything new.

??????? Most of these creationist arguments are decades old (some at least 50 years old, from Morris and Witcomb's The Genesis Flood), and not one of them has had any impact at all on science. Every one of the arguments are 100% scientifically irrelevant.

Given that, by what measure can you assert that the arguments "are not concluded"?