A simple question

[Spiritualyalive]

that is NOT true.
see a decent scientific site like http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
and understand what the dendrochronology recalibration actually does. AiG is scientifically wrong on the issue in this essay.
period.

.....

Whats not true? That carbon-14 is always been constant that nearly every evolution scientist asumes or that it is inconstant?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Whats not true? That carbon-14 is always been constant that nearly every evolution scientist asumes or that it is inconstant?

(to the question-what is not true?-the answer is-)
that the technic C14 dating assumes that there has been a constant C12/C14 ratio over the last 40K years. the ratio is known to vary. the variation is being plotted and calibration programs are in place. an excellent example of the self correcting nature of modern science. (boy i wish Presbyterianism had something like this, inside joke, i've been working for a year on a Sunday School class on the history of American Presbyterianism, its pretty intense for me)

again.
see a good scientific description of the dendrochronology calibration technics like
http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/calibration.html

note it is not just a single curve see
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

...

 

[The Lady Kate]

Wow now your calling God a Liar. I know who the liar is here and it isn't God.

You've spoken to God personally?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I doubt you have, it's pretty much unrefutable. Since you are not taking into acount the Flood and the world pre-flood vrs post-flood there is, this is where you error lays. There is no overcoming this error either. You premise is off so all that follows will be off as well.

Carbon 14 and the Age of the Earth



Try listening again.

No matter how many times one listens to a lie it is still a lie.



Well tell me has AIG ever posted exactly where the flood starts and stops in the geologic column? Since a global flood is a pretty big event one should easily be able to point that out. I have asked about it several times, they do not seem to have an answer.



What are AIG’s numbers on what decay rates we should find before the flood and after the flood? How did they come to these exact numbers?



Why should I accept AiG as a better resource than ASA? AiG has stated on their own site that the will ignore any evidence that does not fit their model. Why should I trust a group that ignores evidence?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Whats not true? That carbon-14 is always been constant that nearly every evolution scientist asumes or that it is inconstant?

This part… “nearly every evolution scientist assumes[sic]” The scientists have known about this weakness for a long time, which is why C-14 tests are calibrated with samples of a known age from the area when ever possible. When AiG implies otherwise it is AiG that is being dishonest, not the scientists.

 

[Spiritualyalive]

This part… “nearly every evolution scientist assumes[sic]” The scientists have known about this weakness for a long time, which is why C-14 tests are calibrated with samples of a known age from the area when ever possible. When AiG implies otherwise it is AiG that is being dishonest, not the scientists.

And yet they still falsly claim that carbon-14 can be used to test beyound 50,000 years. I seen it thousands of times on T.V. ,news, papers, magazines, etc. Yet they never mention that a word wide flood whould have thrown nearly all carbon-14 off from the flood time all the way back to creation. It's stupid to assume that there this ignorant.

 

[Spiritualyalive]

You've spoken to God personally?

Dont we all?

 

[Spiritualyalive]

No matter how many times one listens to a lie it is still a lie.



Well tell me has AIG ever posted exactly where the flood starts and stops in the geologic column? Since a global flood is a pretty big event one should easily be able to point that out. I have asked about it several times, they do not seem to have an answer.



What are AIG’s numbers on what decay rates we should find before the flood and after the flood? How did they come to these exact numbers?



Why should I accept AiG as a better resource than ASA? AiG has stated on their own site that the will ignore any evidence that does not fit their model. Why should I trust a group that ignores evidence?

Ignoring false evidence is ok with me. There are alot people out there, especially evolutionists that will LIE up the ying/yang to prove evolution.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

And yet they still falsly claim that carbon-14 can be used to test beyound 50,000 years. I seen it thousands on times on T.V. ,news, papers, magazines, etc.

Where did you see this and who said it? I hear creationists say that C-14 is used to date the age of the Earth to 4.5 billion years all the time but I have never seen any scientist write a paper about using C-14 to date back that far or heard a scientist talk about it. If you could point to a source for this I would apreciate it.

Yet they never mention that a word wide flood whould have thrown nearly all carbon-14 off from the flood time all the way back to creation. It's stupid to assume that there this ignorant.

You have to find evidence of a global flood before you can blame everything on it.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Ignoring false evidence is ok with me. There are alot people out there, especially evolutionists that will LIE up the ying/yang to prove evolution.

Who decided it was false? Why is it fale? What tests did they do to falsify it?

 

[gluadys]

You're right, I am looking for something I don't see, a transitional form.

Technically all fossils are transitional forms. There are many fossils that well illustrate connections between major taxa.

Why don't you name two groups and tell me what a transition between them would probably look like.

That's not how I see it.

But now you have been told that how you see it is not the case.

However, most scientists are not theists.

A good percentage are. Depending on the survey and the question asked, theists account for 35% to45% of scientists.

But the proportion of theists is not the point. It is that there is no disagreement among scientists on the fact of evolution or the major premises of the theory of evolution. Scientists who are Christian are just as convinced as those who are not.

I would submit that the reason most of us can't overcome the first two hurdles is because it would require a faith in something which can never be definitively proven.

Science does not require faith precisely because it never attempts to definitely prove anything, so once you understand the logic of science, that is not a real barrier. Science does not aim for definitive proof because it is evidence-based, and we can never say we have all the evidence. So what it aims for is a theory which accounts for the evidence in a comprehensive, coherent and logical way. A theory is accounted good if it explains all known relevant evidence and predicts as yet unobserved evidence with success. That does not amount to definitive proof, but for a theory with the track record of evolution it amounts to a degree of confidence very close to it. Much biological evidence simply cannot be explained in any other way.

The very idea of stating we can emphatically prove that something occurred billions of years ago is, to me, obsurd when we have only been around just a few thousand years.

Actually, it is no more absurd than being able to say what happened a week ago, if one was not an eye-witness to an event. It is called the science of forensics and without it we would lose the basis of most criminal convictions and many medical diagnoses.

Luckily, the Bible tells us everything we need to know and evolution, thankfully, isn't one of them.

I assume you mean everything we need to know to be saved, since the bible most certainly not tell us everything.. Knowledge of evolution is not needed for salvation, but that does not make it any the less true.

As for point c. You were somewhat accurate. Let me modify your definition with one that applies to me:

'they are so fully committed to scripture and anything which contradicts it they must deny. Evolution contradicts and disturbs their belief. To them, this particular interpretation of scripture is a human interpretation of the text; it is not identical to God's Word. So they see disagreement with this interpretation, not as disagreement with a human person, but as disagreement with God.'

That is begging the question--assuming what you want to prove, namely that your interpretation of scripture is identical to God's Word.

I know you believe it is, so your statement follows from that belief. But believing your interpretation of scripture aligns with God's Word is precisely the point at issue.

If evolution is true, your interpretation of scripture cannot be. Therefore your interpretation of scripture cannot be identified with God's Word.

BTW - Is there a reason you've never responded to post #420?

I didn't see anything to comment on. Is there something particular you want to draw to my attention?

 

[GenemZ]

I don't see what believing in evolution or an old earth has to do with being politically correct. I'm conservative and I still believe in an old earth.

I believe in an old earth, as well.

You missed the pun.

His icon said, "AMEN." Right?

To be politically correct, it would have to read...."APERSON."

(If not, some woman's libers may get offended!)


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Spiritualyalive]

I believe in an old earth, as well.

You missed the pun.

His icon said, "AMEN." Right?

To be politically correct, it would have to read...."APERSON."

(If not, some woman's libers may get offended!)


Grace and peace, GeneZ

Old earth or old creation?

I can believe in a old Earth but the creation was not very old.

 

[GenemZ]

Old earth or old creation?

I can believe in a old Earth but the creation was not very old.

This creation is not very old. There were other creations before this one, just like there will be another new creation to take the place of this one.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

I suggest you backtrack in this thread a ways. For, it seems you just entered and missed a lot of work that has been done. Lot's.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Spiritualyalive]

This creation is not very old. There were other creations before this one, just like there will be another new creation to take the place of this one.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

I suggest you backtrack in this thread a ways. For, it seems you just entered and missed a lot of work that has been done. Lot's.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

That is hours of reading though!

 

[vossler]

Technically all fossils are transitional forms. There are many fossils that well illustrate connections between major taxa.

Why don't you name two groups and tell me what a transition between them would probably look like.

Well I keep hearing how reptiles begat mammals, yet each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. I'm sure you can come up with something that in your mind meets your criteria as a transitional form. But I do know this; there is anything but universal acceptance of it even in the secular scientific community.

A good percentage are. Depending on the survey and the question asked, theists account for 35% to45% of scientists.

I guess it depends on what you think a good percentage is. Personally, I don't believe it's any where near as high as you state, but for sake of discussion I'll give you that number. Now, depending on the survey 75 to 90% of all Americans profess to be Christians. So for you to state that 35-45% is a good percentage is really rather amusing, shouldn't it be something that cooresponds to the national average, something considerably higher than half?

But the proportion of theists is not the point. It is that there is no disagreement among scientists on the fact of evolution or the major premises of the theory of evolution. Scientists who are Christian are just as convinced as those who are not.

No disagreement?!?!?! Let's at least attempt to be genuine o.k? There is a vast amount of disagreement within the scientific community who actually do profess to be Christians.

Science does not require faith precisely because it never attempts to definitely prove anything, so once you understand the logic of science, that is not a real barrier. Science does not aim for definitive proof because it is evidence-based, and we can never say we have all the evidence. So what it aims for is a theory which accounts for the evidence in a comprehensive, coherent and logical way. A theory is accounted good if it explains all known relevant evidence and predicts as yet unobserved evidence with success. That does not amount to definitive proof, but for a theory with the track record of evolution it amounts to a degree of confidence very close to it. Much biological evidence simply cannot be explained in any other way.

If science claims that evolution is truth how is it that they can do this without proving it? The only truth that needs no proof is God's Word, and even that has been proven true time and time again. If evolution isn't definitively proven, how can it be possibly be considered truth?

Actually, it is no more absurd than being able to say what happened a week ago, if one was not an eye-witness to an event. It is called the science of forensics and without it we would lose the basis of most criminal convictions and many medical diagnoses.

Not a fair comparison at all. Forensic, criminal and medical sciences all concern themselves with things that have happened in the very recent past. If you don't see the difference to ability of accurately stating what happened a week ago compared to a billion years ago well then you really do have blinders on.

I assume you mean everything we need to know to be saved, since the bible most certainly not tell us everything.. Knowledge of evolution is not needed for salvation, but that does not make it any the less true.

I hope you don't think that the Bible only speaks about what we need to know to be saved. It says far, far more than that.

That is begging the question--assuming what you want to prove, namely that your interpretation of scripture is identical to God's Word.
I know you believe it is, so your statement follows from that belief. But believing your interpretation of scripture aligns with God's Word is precisely the point at issue.
If evolution is true, your interpretation of scripture cannot be. Therefore your interpretation of scripture cannot be identified with God's Word.

My interpretation is based not on my personal beliefs but on the actual Word of God. How did I come to this belief, through good bibilically based hermanuetics. If you'd like to discuss this topic from this point of view and not a scientific one I'd be more than happy to.

I didn't see anything to comment on. Is there something particular you want to draw to my attention?

Interesting...

How about just this:

Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place? If you're honest you would say no. Then it would be safe to say the science changed the interpretation of God's Word and therefore took precedent. So it really doesn't come down to my personal reading of scripture because I'm not the one taking liberties with the text, you are. Therefore, it is you that must, beyond a shadow of a doubt, clearly and convincingly, prove your point. Your task is great because the Word of God is clear and without ambiguity.

 

[depthdeception]

Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place?

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Without science, we wouldn't know that the earth orbits the sun, that effects of gravity upon the earth, the physical laws of the universe, etc. Has sciene "changed" the interpretation of the Scriptures in regard to these issues? Of course not. Why? Because the Scriptures are not meant to give us exact descriptions of the universe in which we live. THey are theological literature that represents the tesimony of GOd's people to God's activity in the history of God's people. If it is purported to be anything else, one actually mishandled the Scriptures.

The theory of evolution is not based upon "liberties" taken with the texts of the Scriptures. It is merely a representation of our best observations of the world in which we live. ANd if one is able to suspend certain personal presuppositions about what the Scriptures are intended to communicate, there is absolutely no difficulty in reconciling the Scriptures and theory of evolution, quantum physics, etc.

Your task is great because the Word of God is clear and without ambiguity.

ANd your task is great to show that your interpretation of the texts is actually what the Scriptures are attempting to communicate. I, for one, would suggest that substituting your personal interpretations for what the texts are probably actually saying.

 

[vossler]

I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Without science, we wouldn't know that the earth orbits the sun, that effects of gravity upon the earth, the physical laws of the universe, etc. Has sciene "changed" the interpretation of the Scriptures in regard to these issues? Of course not. Why? Because the Scriptures are not meant to give us exact descriptions of the universe in which we live. THey are theological literature that represents the tesimony of GOd's people to God's activity in the history of God's people. If it is purported to be anything else, one actually mishandled the Scriptures.

Yes, science is good, I've never disputed that. All I've said is that we put science above Scripture, God's very Word. If Scripture says 6 days but science says billions of years, well then science must be right.

The theory of evolution is not based upon "liberties" taken with the texts of the Scriptures. It is merely a representation of our best observations of the world in which we live. ANd if one is able to suspend certain personal presuppositions about what the Scriptures are intended to communicate, there is absolutely no difficulty in reconciling the Scriptures and theory of evolution, quantum physics, etc.

Ahhh...yes, "our best observations" are suppose to supersede the very Word of God. I suppose they really could if I just suspended my presupposition that the Scriptures say what they claim to say. Mmmmm...

And your task is great to show that your interpretation of the texts is actually what the Scriptures are attempting to communicate. I, for one, would suggest that substituting your personal interpretations for what the texts are probably actually saying.

That's an interesting position; what if we took that approach for the rest of Scripture also? I suppose you would also tell me that when attempting to 'interpret' passages in the Bible that speak of subjects such as fornification, adultery, homosexuality that my task would also be great in attempting to communicate this to someone. Even though the Words of the Bible may be clear and succinct on these matters, it is up to me to show them to be truth, to prove them in some manner. That I should substitute my own 'personal interpretation' because, well, I need to remember when these subjects were written about it was a different time and culture. Today, things are different, we've been enlightened, with so much more knowledge as to what they really mean.

Ahhh...yes...I'm beginning to understand.

 

[gluadys]

Well I keep hearing how reptiles begat mammals, yet each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. I'm sure you can come up with something that in your mind meets your criteria as a transitional form. But I do know this; there is anything but universal acceptance of it even in the secular scientific community.

Most species appear suddenly in the fossil record because most of the time we have no fossils from a species at all. Fossilization is really, really rare in the first place, most fossils that have formed are not recoverable (too deeply buried in rock--fossil exploration is done at sites of erosion which have brought them near to the surface), and most recoverable fossils have not been recovered yet. I have heard estimates that the many many fossils that have been found represent barely 1% of those still to be found.

We will never have a complete fossil record. So asking for a fine-grained preservation of species-to-species transitions is just being obstinate. It is like saying that if I have documentation of my mother's birth and my great-grandmother's birth, but not of my grandmother's birth, I have no evidence that my great-grandmother and my mother are related.

As it happens, the reptile-mammal transition is one of the best documented transitions in the fossil record. Although there are no species-to-species transitions, there are a number of genus-to-genus transitions, and a nearly complete line of family-to-family transitions. The transitions are traced morphologically by changes in the shape and placement of bones and teeth (which also provide evidence of muscle attachements, diet, brain size, locomotion etc.) The link below gives an outline of the transitional species found so far. At the beginning there is a list of what the morphological differences are between ancient reptiles and modern mammals, so as you read through the descriptions you can be on alert for what changes to look for. I especially recommend careful reading of what is happening in the area of the jaw joint between the appearance of Cynognathus 240 mya and the appearance of Peramus 155 mya. Please explain to me why this is not evidence of transition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

I guess it depends on what you think a good percentage is.

My point was that the proportion of theists in the scientific community is not so small as to discount it. (e.g. 2-3%) Although it does appear that theists are in a minority, it is still a significant minority.

Compare it to politics. Typically a US president (even in an undisputed election) is elected on the basis of 35-45% of votes cast. This is because the electoral college system automatically discounts part of the popular vote.

Of course, since only about half of eligible voters vote, and since many citizens don't even register to vote, the president is actually elected by a proportion of US citizens which is much smaller than the proportion of scientists who are theists. (btw when it comes to translating votes into representation, the Canadian system fares just as poorly. So I am not being anti-American here.)

No disagreement?!?!?! Let's at least attempt to be genuine o.k? There is a vast amount of disagreement within the scientific community who actually do profess to be Christians.

I am being very genuine. Creationists typically misunderstand/misrepresent disputes in the scientific community. For example, when you read creationist material on the Punctuated Equilibrium controversy, they give the impression that the very foundation of evolution was being called into question. Actually it was a tempest in the teapot about where evolution occurs and at what rate evolution occurs. Both the PE and neo-D camp were in full agreement that evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is sound in its basic principles.

A biologist who used to post frequently on the C&E forum explained how science works by answering the big questions first, and then moves on to smaller and smaller questions:

The first big question raised by the theory of evolution is this:

1. Are species specially created or do they arise by changes in existing species?

Today it is non-controversial to note that new species arise by changes in existing species. We have observed it many times in nature and replicated speciation in the laboratory. Evolution is a fact. No question about that at all.


So then we come to the next big question.

2. What is the major way of change?

Darwin proposed the answer which still stands: natural selection. The evidence is overwhelming. This is not to dispute the role of mutations or the existence of genetic drift and other non-selective mechanisms. Only to point out that natural selection is the principal driver of evolution, with other mechanisms playing the role of assistants.


But now comes a new question:

3. What is the major mode of speciation?

In this case there are three answers: phyletic gradualism, allopatric and sympatric speciation. All of these have been verified by observation and experiment as you have seen.

Now we can pose a new question:

4. Which one of those happened the most in the past?

To this question we do not yet have an answer. Darwinists plump for phyletic gradualism, PEs for allopatric cladistic speciation.

But the thing to notice is this. Would either answer to question 4 change any of the answers to the first 3 questions?

No, they would not. Our 4th level question is a smaller question, more focused and specific. It presumes we already know the answers to 1, 2 and 3 and builds on the known answers to those questions.

http://www.christianforums.com/t726062&page=121

I expect that if you attempt to document a "vast amount of disagreement" within the scientific community, it will all turn out to be disagreement on these sorts of small questions, not on the big ones.

But feel free to provide examples.

If science claims that evolution is truth how is it that they can do this without proving it?

What science claims is that evolution happens. This has been established by direct observation and experiment and so is proven.

Science also claims that the theory of evolution is a credible model of how evolution happens, has happened in the past and will continue to happen as long as species exist. The reason it is claimed to be a credible model is because it fits with the evidence in three ways: 1) it explains evidence that was already known in Darwin's day as well as much that has been discovered since; 2) it has a track record of making accurate predictions of evidence not discovered at the time the prediction was made, and 3) no evidence discovered to date calls it into question.

These are the essential characteristics of a good scientific theory. And while it is technically true that no theory is ever proven, when a theory is very well established on all three criteria, the probability that it is not true is considered so slight that scientists consider it true for all practical purposes. That doesn't mean they won't change their minds if overwhelming evidence to the contrary is found. All scientific truth is accepted provisionally as the best summation of scientific knowledge on the subject given evidence available today. It is never considered to be absolute truth.

Not a fair comparison at all. Forensic, criminal and medical sciences all concern themselves with things that have happened in the very recent past. If you don't see the difference to ability of accurately stating what happened a week ago compared to a billion years ago well then you really do have blinders on.

No, the time factor makes no difference as long as the evidence exists in the present. The only way time enters into it is that over a long stretch of time, evidence tends to disappear, so there is less of it to build a case on, and the case becomes less certain. But crucial evidence can disappear in just a week too. Consider how fast records can be erased from computer systems while hard copies are fed to shredders.

Forensic principles apply as long as evidence exists in the present, no matter what time period the original event is related to.

I hope you don't think that the Bible only speaks about what we need to know to be saved. It says far, far more than that.

Sure, but it still does not give us knowledge about everything. Or maybe I missed that recipe for rhubarb and strawberry pie?

My interpretation is based not on my personal beliefs but on the actual Word of God.

But it is your personal belief that your interpretation of scripture aligns with the actual Word of God.

How did I come to this belief, through good bibilically based hermanuetics. If you'd like to discuss this topic from this point of view and not a scientific one I'd be more than happy to.

I have no problem with good biblically based hermeneutics, but I expect we would have many disagreements on applying them. As I see it, hermeneutics tells very much against a literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts.

Interesting...

How about just this:

Without science could any man realistically determine that evolution took place? If you're honest you would say no. Then it would be safe to say the science changed the interpretation of God's Word and therefore took precedent. So it really doesn't come down to my personal reading of scripture because I'm not the one taking liberties with the text, you are. Therefore, it is you that must, beyond a shadow of a doubt, clearly and convincingly, prove your point. Your task is great because the Word of God is clear and without ambiguity.

I am honest. The answer is "no". That evolution took (and takes) place was determined through scientific investigation. Yes, science changed the interpretation of God's Word, and not for the first time either. It did not change God's Word, which, of course, is always consistent with truth.

If this were not so, we would have to say that God's Word was not consistent with the earth in orbit around the sun, until this was shown by science to be the case. For the interpretation of scripture prior to that time was that it supported the concept of the sun orbiting a stationary earth. Are we taking liberties with the text because we changed our interpretation of scripture to match the facts of nature?

Changing an interpretation of scripture to agree with what we know to be true does not take us away from God's Word. It takes us closer to God's Word, for God's Word always aligns with the truth. Only our interpretations of God's Word can be fallible.

And evidently God's Word is not always clear because we do struggle to understand it.

And scripture is often ambiguous. Otherwise we would have no doctrinal disputes and no separate denominations, for we would all agree on such matters as how many sacraments there are, whether baptism must always be by immersion, how church government should be structured, and many more points.

 

[Spiritualyalive]

I thought this was all about a simple question? Yet we got 50 pages on complicated answers!