Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

Lucretius said:
Really? I would like to see this strong evidence.

Actually, my source says that it is pretty much even and has been.

Try this source too.

I am aware that some C-14 dating can be affected by the Earth, that's why there is this thing called calibration.

Used to date organic materials up to 50,000 years huh,
Interesting.
So no million?

The Lady Kate · Feb 17, 2005

dhiannian said:
Fortunatly you don't even need to use the bible to date correctly, There are many ways, although the dating tools of today only have a calabration to date thousands of years not million.
If you date a layer, by which fossils are in it, assume how long they would take to change, then date the fossil by the layer it was found in.....
HUH???
They just talk in circles..

Just because you don't get it?

Also... when you say "they," I hear "we." You're including me and millions of fellow Christians in your nonsensical rants...do keep that in mind.

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

Calibration

The raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the assumption that the level of 14C absorption remains constant does not hold true in practice. The level is maintained by high energy particles interacting with the earth's upper atmosphere, which may be affected by changes in the earth's magnetic field or in the cosmic ray background. In addition there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks; and changing climate can sometimes disrupt the carbon flow between these reservoirs and the atmosphere. The level has also been affected by human activities -- it was almost doubled for a short period due to atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and has been reduced by the release of large amounts of CO2 from ancient organic sources where 14C is not present -- the fossil fuels used in industry and transportation.

The BP dates are therefore calibrated*(http://www.calpal-online.de) to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves*(http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/calibration_curves.htm) are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates with other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).

The difference between the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar can be ignored, because it's insignificant compared to the measurement uncertainty.

The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one at 10000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation at the end of the Younger Dryas period. The accuracy of radiocarbon dating is lower for samples originating from such plateau periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Your site?

Carmack · Feb 17, 2005

dhiannian said:
Used to date organic materials up to 50,000 years huh,
Interesting.
So no million?

60,000 (from your link) is still more than 6,000-10,000. Check here for longer dating methods: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

The Lady Kate said:
Just because you don't get it?

Also... when you say "they," I hear "we." You're including me and millions of fellow Christians in your nonsensical rants...do keep that in mind.

haha
I can't reply honestly to this without getting reported so I'll skip over the fellow christian part, Nonsensical??
Hmm so every site I've seen that SAYS the scientist use a circular method to date the fossils and layers is nonsence??
You better go tell them quick, before someone else sees their nonsence

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 17, 2005

dhiannian said:
And it's "Thou fool"

Actually it is "Fool"
or if you prefer:
"mu omega rho epsilon"
There is no "Thou" in the Greek
(in any of the Greek, including the Textus Receptus)

Hmmm, how does "Robert the Pedantic" sound?
Nah, I still like "Robert the Pilegrim" better.

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

Carmack said:
60,000 (from your link) is still more than 6,000-10,000. Check here for longer dating methods: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

still a big gap, even if they could date 100,000 yrs back accuratly, millions of years must still be assumed into existance.

Carmack · Feb 17, 2005

Nope. Check the link.

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 17, 2005

dhiannian said:
Calibration
The raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the assumption that the level of 14C absorption remains constant does not hold true in practice. []
Standard calibration curves* are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates with other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Your site?

[bolding added by me]
And your point would be?

The Lady Kate · Feb 17, 2005

dhiannian said:
haha
I can't reply honestly to this without getting reported so I'll skip over the fellow christian part,

Nah.... go ahead....reply honestly...why not just let it out?

Nonsensical??
Hmm so every site I've seen that SAYS the scientist use a circular method to date the fossils and layers is nonsence??
You better go tell them quick, before someone else sees their nonsence

Now, who's to blame that you only choose to view a limited (and poorly informed) selection of sites?

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
Actually it is "Fool"
or if you prefer:
"mu omega rho epsilon"
There is no "Thou" in the Greek
(in any of the Greek, including the Textus Receptus)

Hmmm, how does "Robert the Pedantic" sound?
Nah, I still like "Robert the Pilegrim" better.

LOL Is it pilgrim? Or pilegrim

Robert the Pilegrim · Feb 17, 2005

dhiannian said:
LOL Is it pilgrim? Or pilegrim

One last post then I really must be going ...
Pilegrim. It is a 13th century spelling.

gluadys · Feb 17, 2005

Novaknight1 said:
I don't doubt natural selection or heredity. The question is not do they occur, but the question is Do they add up to Evolution. Besides, why is it so hard to accept Creation as a fact? If you see the sonar on a submarine and say it was designed yet see the sonar on a bat or a dolphin and say it is the product of chance, isn't that inconsistant?

Why do you keep promoting this false dichotomy? Why can't evolution and creation be the same thing?

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

Robert the Pilegrim said:
One last post then I really must be going ...
Pilegrim. It is a 13th century spelling.

Wait one more,
It's just a name? Or is the meaning the same?

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

Ok I found it,
You are Sir Robert a journey, or abroad.
Thx for helping with my vocab quest
See ya later.

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

gluadys said:
Why do you keep promoting this false dichotomy? Why can't evolution and creation be the same thing?

The same reason you cannot be a squirrel and a dog.
They are 2 different beliefs, and they countradict one another.

gluadys · Feb 17, 2005

dhiannian said:
www.dictionary.com
faith ** (*P*)**Pronunciation Key**(fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Number 2 is where mill yr old earth believers fall.

No, it is where creationists fail. For they do not trust God's self-revelation in God's creation, but trust instead their fallible intepretations of scripture.

Lucretius · Feb 17, 2005

dhiannian said:
still a big gap, even if they could date 100,000 yrs back accuratly, millions of years must still be assumed into existance.

Are you completely ignorant? Do you think that radiocarbon dating is the ONLY dating method that exists?

This can date back millions of years.

For more information, Read this.

If you thought that radiocarbon dating was the ONLY method of age-datingyou were incredibly wrong.

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

gluadys said:
No, it is where creationists fail. For they do not trust God's self-revelation in God's creation, but trust instead their fallible intepretations of scripture.

Eh???
So who is wise and who knows all and who will interpret this holy word we have been given?
And why was this word given if it can't be understood...Ok sorry,
I think that's where faith comes in, believing God when he said he would preserve his word forever.

dhiannian · Feb 17, 2005

Lucretius said:
Are you completely ignorant? Do you think that radiocarbon dating is the ONLY dating method that exists?

This can date back millions of years.

For more information, Read this.

If you thought that radiocarbon dating was the ONLY method of age-datingyou were incredibly wrong.

Are you perhaps a monkey?
I looked and all I saw was error, error, not entirely accurate, error.

Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

Active Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

The Lady Kate

Guest

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Legend

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency