Biblical Stories that Support Evolutionary Science

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by LadyShea
Is your strategy to just talk in circles until everyone is dizzy then yell "I win"?

Seems to work for Kent Hovind. Why, if I didn't know any better...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by EPHRIAM777


1. Please take time to learn the QUOTE commands, your posts are hard to read, and respond to.  A simple, polite request.

Eph replies...

I know how to use it..I'm doing this on purpose...! Sorry if your having trouble with them...

Okay, your intentions are simply to be irritating... noted..

Originally posted by EPHRIAM777

I see you STILL haven't had it sink in yet...So once again I'mm drudge through this for ya...For example...I said the dating systems used to date the age of the earth..or rocks...or bones are ALL FLAWED...I don't need a "scientist" to know that...Nor do you need a scientists name for a source...Your askig the wrong question here Smilin...Your next move on this "chess board"...Is to present evidence why you think they ARE good dating systems....Then we go from there....I'll blow you out of the water WHEN you make your next move..and DO that...

See I laid the foundation of a challenge to you and your EVO position...by making a statement..Now you gotta do one of two things...Either defend YOURSELF and what you DO believe about EVO....Or accept the "check mate"....and fold...!

Again.....The dating systems used in dating the age of the earth ect ect ect ..are FLAWED systems and NOT valid....! Therefore the LIFE that exists on this planet..didn't have the VAST amounts of TIME that Evolution says is required for things to have Evolved...!

Your move Smilin...!

(I love chess btw... ever play online?)
Okay, radioactive decay is used to date geological formations.

Parent Isotope Stable Daughter Product Currently Accepted 1/2 Life Value
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years

The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is called the age equation and is:

Don't worry about 'blowing me out of the water'. None of this is my work. If you can prove otherwise... your nobel prize awaits.

(Knight to queens 4, your move Eph)

 

[Smilin]

And no comments on Noah's ark yet? Does the silence prove me right?....

 

[Smilin]

Here's another radioactive decay dating method Eph:

The radiocarbon clock has become an extremely useful and efficient tool in dating the important episodes in the recent prehistory and history of man, but because of the relatively short half-life of carbon-14, the clock can be used for dating events that have taken place only within the past 50,000 years.

Now, prove it is flawed, and why it's still being used today?

/me waiting for the 'gail force wind'

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by Smilin
The radiocarbon clock has become an extremely useful and efficient tool in dating the important episodes in the recent prehistory and history of man, but because of the relatively short half-life of carbon-14, the clock can be used for dating events that have taken place only within the past 50,000 years.

Now, prove it is flawed, and why it's still being used today?

My favorite, all-so-often-repeated-in-labs story:

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19(3), pp. 9-29
The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they were "not aware of a single significant disagreement" on any sample that had been dated at different labs. Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that "no gross discrepancies are apparent." Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a gross discrepancy!

Carbon dating is based upon several assumed axioms that are un-proveable (ie: One that was used for many many years, and I believe is still in use is that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was and is constant).

It's not the most accurate dating method in the world. Many lab tests of the same material come back differently by huge gaps. When a wooly mammoth was discovered, different limbs dated different dates, seperated by thousands of years, and the wood of the crate it was shipped in was dated to 2000 years old!

Cool concept in theory, but still has kinks to work out.

Shlomo!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by The Thadman
It's not the most accurate dating method in the world. Many lab tests of the same material come back differently by huge gaps. When a wooly mammoth was discovered, different limbs dated different dates, seperated by thousands of years, and the wood of the crate it was shipped in was dated to 2000 years old!

Care to cite references for those examples?

 

[Morat]

Carbon dating is based upon several assumed axioms that are un-proveable (ie: One that was used for many many years, and I believe is still in use is that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was and is constant).

Nope. No one, least of all people doing carbon dating, assume the C12/C14 ratio was constant.

In fact, it wasn't. Luckily, there are many ways to determine what the ratio was (dating samples with known dates, ice cores, etc) and the radiocarbon clock is, to the best of my knowledge, fully calibrated over it's useful range (about 60,000 years).

It's not the most accurate dating method in the world. Many lab tests of the same material come back differently by huge gaps. When a wooly mammoth was discovered, different limbs dated different dates, seperated by thousands of years, and the wood of the crate it was shipped in was dated to 2000 years old!

References please. Oh, and bear in mind the error bars.

Cool concept in theory, but still has kinks to work out.

Really? Can you name some?

 

[sulphur]

YES garbage collectors are required everyday.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by sulphur
YES garbage collectors are required everyday.

lol.. sulphur... are you talking in your sleep now? lol... how does this relate to my topic?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
I think you already know the answer, seesaw: it's their God. If it doesn't mention their God, it must automatically be incorrect regardless of the evidence and the fact that science does not study the supernatural (for obvious reasons).

MB.. not all of us Christians hold this belief...
(Thus my whole motivating factor for this thread)

Many regards,
Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by The Thadman

Evolution on a macro scale has never been observed and it's not repeatable.

Sorry, Wrong,,, Macroevolution has been observed. Want some examples...???


Now, since you discredit the idea of Macroevolution (new species arising from existing species)....
Let me pose a simple question to you?
Do you believe the biblical story of Noah's ark?
Humor me... you'll see where I'm headed with this.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Smilin
Only one race? What do you mean exactly?  Haven't you noticed all the different categories under the 'Race' classification part of any job application?

JohnR7:

I welcome and enjoy your participitation in my many threads, yet you keep making statements and not responding when challenged?

I'm just curious why you didn't counter me on your claim of only 'one race'

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by JesusServant
I can only explain this Biblically, and I don't think that's what you're looking for. As a matter of fact, I'm never sure what you're looking for Smilin

JS, respectfully, I'm looking for your thoughts on how the different races emerged from a common set of parents without using evolution. The 'something else' Pete referred to. How would you explain it?


And I'm constantly looking for answers, my truck keys, my card-key to work, my wallet, that drawing I can't seem to find... etc..etc...

 

[Smilin]

The journies of man.....

Where was the Tower of Babyl located...and were the nations really scattered there????

or are we all of African descent?

 

[Smilin]

Amazing...

where is everyone that constantly states Evolution is a lie...product of Satan... etc....etc

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Smilin
Amazing...

where is everyone that constantly states Evolution is a lie...product of Satan... etc....etc

Oh... shutup Smilin! j/k

You know that evolution equals satan.

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by Smilin
Sorry, Wrong,,, Macroevolution has been observed. Want some examples...???


Now, since you discredit the idea of Macroevolution (new species arising from existing species)....
Let me pose a simple question to you?
Do you believe the biblical story of Noah's ark?
Humor me... you'll see where I'm headed with this.

Smilin, just post your proof. I am not in the mood for rhetoric and beating around the bush.

Shlomo,

 

[lithium.]

There is no proof only evidence, and here is some.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by seesaw
There is no proof only evidence, and here is some.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Seesaw, I believe and support evolution on the micro scale (it's observable, repeatable, etc.). I would like evidence for evolution on the macro scale (which has not been observed, never repeated, etc.).

I have read all 29+ of these proofs in the past and I have responded to them, and in my opinion, they're still lacking, sorry man. If you'd like me to write a paper concerning each one, I'm afraid that it's going to have to take back burner for a while. There are too many alternate hypotheses to the common descent theory for me to touch all of them in a single post.

Smilin' seems to have a Biblical proof concerning it, so I was asking him to cut to the chase.

Shlomo,

 

[Morat]

Seesaw, I believe and support evolution on the micro scale (it's observable, repeatable, etc.). I would like evidence for evolution on the macro scale (which has not been observed, never repeated, etc.).

What is micro and macro? Is speciation macro or micro? Why or why not? If speciation occurs, what prevents two species sharing a common ancestor from diverging through the already allowable speciation events to the point where they can no longer properly be labeled the same genus?

Oh, and "repeatable" is a facet of observation. All observations must be repeatable. Experiments are a means of generating observations.

Thus, you can have a repeatable observation that a rock falls at 9.8 m/s2 by simply dropping it several times, and you can have a repeatable observation that the Archy fossil posseses both feathers (a trait found, now, solely in Aves) and several features (teeth, claws, pelvis) found only in reptiles, and never in modern birds. To repeat that observation requires only that another person be able to inspect one of the Archy[/o] fossils.