Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

notto · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
Excuse me? C-14 dating is only reliable for things up to 60,000 years old. And that's only if the assumptions made are correct.

U don't know this by now?

Your claim about the assumptions is what was incorrect. Scientists do not assume that the atmosphere was always the same. We know absolutely that it is not and that is why calibration is done and is necessary. You are obviously not familiar with C14 calibration. You should google it, read up on it, and then you would be at a point where you can make comments on it without spreading information that is incorrect.

I will say again, what you stated is false, plain and simple.

just another skeptic · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
I'll just post this one more time so it doesn't get missed:

What would count as evidence for a devine entinty? If the general concensus is that science cannot prove or disprove God, what can be given?

I don't know about "fail terribly".....but the Big Bang doesn't give any evidence for evolution of a universe. They can give evidence of age like dopler shift, but not evidence that it set evolution in motion.

Well, I don´t quite get you here. How should the Big Bang be evidence for evolution?
We have evidence for the Big Bang and some of the stages involved in which the universe developed (better word here than evolved), but this has nothing to do with the colloquial term Evolution or the ToE.

shinbits said:
Biological evolution fails in three ways: it's lack of transitionals, and the fact the most "transitionals" found don't show a pattern from a simple to complex being. At best, there is only a "smaller" to a "bigger" creature.

But a lot of transitionals have been found . What do you expect to be found as an "transitional"?

shinbits said:
Third, "transitionals" are extremely unuseful in showing that an entire population had evolved. We know that organisms, especially humans, can be born with deformities, or simply an unusual build for it's type of population that it a one time occurance and doesn't get passed on.
"Transitionals" found are usually just individual fossils, and often, not always, are not accompanied by more discoveries of fossils like it.

Although the media always talks about single fossil founds a lot of those fossils were found with accompanions like the Tiktaalik found, as far as I know were 27 individuals. They can´t all be deformities.
And you should trust the paleontologists to discriminate between deformations and special features.

shinbits said:
While any one of these may be able to be explained away, the combination of these things together make evolution hard to believe.

As far as dating, we know thatwith carbon dating, it can only date back in thousands of years, not millions. Even in this case, there are still assumptions that must be made, like the atmosphere was always the same, which isn't a logical assumption if one believes the earth evolved over time into what it is today.

Right, with TOF-MS 80.000 to 100.000 years, with an error margin, but nevertheless useful. We can determine the atmosphere composition of past times by ice cores and we can calibrate the C12/C14 ratios by dendrochronology, lake varves and other means.

shinbits said:
Radio-metric dating relies on a ratio of an element to the ratio of what it decays to. This is unreliable, because we have to make assumptions, like the "parent" element which decays was pure. We also have to assume that things like water didn't wash similar elements into or out of the rocks. This factor would greatly mess up the "correct" age.

But we know the compositions of certain minerals and if one component decays into another, we know the starting amount of the isotopes. And there are still the isochron dating methods, were we don´t have these problems.

shinbits said:
There's also the factor that some rocks may naturally contain either the initial element, or the element that it decays into. This would also make radio-metric dating unreliable.

Well, isochron dating or take another mineral.

shinbits · Apr 13, 2006

TeddyKGB said:
The first is outright false; there's a wealth of transitionals in the hominin lineage alone.

Showing more and more complex creatures at each stage? No. Read my post more carefully.

Says who, you? How many Archaeopteryx fossils exist? How many A. afarensis fossils?

What does the phrase "most NOT all" mean?

You misinterprete my post then complain about it. That's just stupid.

No one assumes the "atmosphere was always the same.[/quote=]
You'd have to in order to use C-14 dating.

Elements are pure by definition.

Click to expand...

okay.

Water doesn't selectively wash radioactive elements out of rocks.

Click to expand...

Not selectively, but randomly washes radioactive elements out of rocks. This still leaves the same problem of unreliability.

Adriac · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
[ quote]No one assumes the "atmosphere was always the same.[/ quote]
You'd have to in order to use C-14 dating.

No, you don't. Atmospheric levels are known to vary. The scale is calibrated.

You should really not say these things without checking them first.

Baggins · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
Showing more and more complex creatures at each stage? No. Read my post more carefully.

.

Shinbits even you should know the evolution theory does not predict increasing complexity

Baggins · Apr 13, 2006

Shinbits:

Have you considered posting one outlandish claim per post, it would make the refutations easier for you to follow, because some of them must be falling by the wayside unread as you bring them up again.

shinbits · Apr 13, 2006

just another skeptic said:
But a lot of transitionals have been found . What do you expect to be found as an "transitional"?

Transitionals meaning showing a change from one form to another. There's not many of those at all.

Archaeopteryx wouldn't count as one, because we have no form before or after that we can say it evolved from or evolved into. There's only guesses as to what it which forms those could be.

Although the media always talks about single fossil founds a lot of those fossils were found with accompanions like the Tiktaalik found, as far as I know were 27 individuals. They can´t all be deformities.
And you should trust the paleontologists to discriminate between deformations and special features.

Okay. And you're right about paleontologists in this area.

Right, with TOF-MS 80.000 to 100.000 years, with an error margin, but nevertheless useful. We can determine the atmosphere composition of past times by ice cores and we can calibrate the C12/C14 ratios by dendrochronology, lake varves and other means.

there's also factors like the sun is shrinking at a rate of something close to 100 miles per century. Also, the fact that the earth is slowing down about 1/000 of a second every year. In 360,000 years, the earth should've had about an hour less daylight. Plus, the spead of the earth's rotation would alter the atmosphere, because it would cause winds to completely ravage the earth and affect things like clouds.

This would also make it harder for life to even exist.

But we know the compositions of certain minerals and if one component decays into another, we know the starting amount of the isotopes.

How can you possibly know that for sure, given certain variables like rainstorms, snow, floods and other factors which could both wash out, or wash in elements?

And there are still the isochron dating methods, were we don´t have these problems.

I've actually never heard of that. I'll have to look into it.[/quote]

shinbits · Apr 13, 2006

Baggins said:
Shinbits even you should know the evolution theory does not predict increasing complexity

I never said it does; but if these things aren't able to be shown with what's already been found, then there's no reason to believe it happens.

Adriac said:
Atmospheric levels are known to vary. The scale is calibrated.

There is no way to know what the atmosphere was like even a thousand years ago. It's impossible to correctly calibrate the scale and measure correctly. There can be evidence found to suggest what the atmosphere was like, and what the rate/amount of sunlight hitting the earth was, but you'd ultimately have to assume.

TeddyKGB · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
Showing more and more complex creatures at each stage? No. Read my post more carefully.

Right out, as evolution does not require linearly increasing complexity.

What does the phrase "most NOT all" mean?

Then deal with the transitionals for which we have multiple specimens, please.

me said:
me said:

No one assumes the "atmosphere was always the same.

Click to expand...

You'd have to in order to use C-14 dating.

No, you don't.

Not selectively, but randomly washes radioactive elements out of rocks. This still leaves the same problem of unreliability.

Water does not wash any elements out of rocks. Mechanical and chemical weathering are predictable, modelable processes.

Baggins · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
Transitionals meaning showing a change from one form to another. There's not many of those at all.

How many do you expect, what transitions are you looking for

How can you possibly know that for sure, given certain variables like rainstorms, snow, floods and other factors which could both wash out, or wash in elements?

This is where scientists are cunning, they find unweathered rock samples.

Simple but effective

Adriac · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
there's also factors like the sun is shrinking at a rate of something close to 100 miles per century. Also, the fact that the earth is slowing down about 1/000 of a second every year. In 360,000 years, the earth should've had about an hour less daylight. Plus, the spead of the earth's rotation would alter the atmosphere, because it would cause winds to completely ravage the earth and affect things like clouds.

Untrue. The shrinking sun was only arrived at in one study; subsequent studies have failed to find any significant shrinkage. Even if they did, other stars are known to expand and contract cyclicly; there is no reason to assume the rate is constant.

The earth's rotation is slowing at about 0.005 seconds per yearl this would mean a 14 hour day 4.6 billion years ago. That has some implications, but nothing catastrophic.

You see the way I found that info with one simple Google search? It would be greatly appreciated if you would confirm your own claims, rather than just throwing them out there.

Baggins · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
I never said it does;

shinbits said:
Showing more and more complex creatures at each stage? No.

yes you did, or at least that is how I read your statement

There is no way to know what the atmosphere was like even a thousand years ago.

Yes there is, air bubbles trapped in ice cores do this job for 10s of 1000s of years.

Will you stop churning out stuff off the top of your head, it is all wrong, all you would need to do is spend an hour reading up about this to know you are wrong.

notto · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
There is no way to know what the atmosphere was like even a thousand years ago. It's impossible to correctly calibrate the scale and measure correctly. There can be evidence found to suggest what the atmosphere was like, and what the rate/amount of sunlight hitting the earth was, but you'd ultimately have to assume.

But your claim about C14 dating is still false. We can directly measure the level of atmospheric gases in known samples. That is all that is needed to calibrate c14 dating. If you understood how C14 dataing was done, you would know that but then you really don't know, do you.

The rate/amount of sunlight hitting the earth has nothing to do with using C12/C14 ratios to date objects because the proportions are calibrated against samples of a known age.

Repeating a false claim doesn't not make it any truer.

Can you briefly lay out for us the process of C14 dating and where any assumptions about the atmosphere fit in? Be sure to comment specifically on calibration as anyone who knows anything about the subject is aware that it is a significant part of the practice.

Care to show us how your assertions are correct? Perhaps you could point us to a few good sources from people who actually do the work to show us how they are using the assumptions or where they state anyplace that they assume the atmosphere was the same in the past as it is now.

You obviously are very familiar with their work as you are making the claim that it is misguided. Asking you to describe their work to us seems reasonable and should be fairly easy for you to cover.

Care to give it a go? It would go a long way toward rebuilding your credibility and showing us why we should accept anything you say. Go on then, show us that you are familiar with the process of C14 dating to the point that your assertions should be trusted and are not simply pulled out of your lack of knowledge toolbelt.

Adriac · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
There is no way to know what the atmosphere was like even a thousand years ago. It's impossible to correctly calibrate the scale and measure correctly. There can be evidence found to suggest what the atmosphere was like, and what the rate/amount of sunlight hitting the earth was, but you'd ultimately have to assume.

just another skeptic said:
Right, with TOF-MS 80.000 to 100.000 years, with an error margin, but nevertheless useful. We can determine the atmosphere composition of past times by ice cores and we can calibrate the C12/C14 ratios by dendrochronology, lake varves and other means.

Ice core samples are much more than just suggestion.

TeddyKGB · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
There is no way to know what the atmosphere was like even a thousand years ago. It's impossible to correctly calibrate the scale and measure correctly. There can be evidence found to suggest what the atmosphere was like, and what the rate/amount of sunlight hitting the earth was, but you'd ultimately have to assume.

Thousand-year-old rocks have measurable amounts of all isotopes of carbon in them.

notto · Apr 13, 2006

Baggins said:
This is where scientists are cunning, they find unweathered rock samples.

Are they found inside indestructable waterproof floating termite nests? That apparently would be a good place to look.

just another skeptic · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
Transitionals meaning showing a change from one form to another. There's not many of those at all.

Archaeopteryx wouldn't count as one, because we have no form before or after that we can say it evolved from or evolved into. There's only guesses as to what it which forms those could be.

I´m not a paleontologist, only a biochemist, but I´ve heard about a lot of transitionals in this forum alone, complete with references. Archaeopteryx was only a single piece in a line between dinosaurs and birds (as I recall altogether 10 to 15 intermediate steps) but this has to be answered by someone else. I´m no expert in this field. I read about it but have no references available.

shinbits said:
Okay. And you're right about paleontologists in this area.

Thanks

shinbits said:
there's also factors like the sun is shrinking at a rate of something close to 100 miles per century.

Uh, sorry, but thats not true. The sun is going through various cycles, shrinking and expanding again, showing different activities like sunstorms and dark spot activities and so on.
And what do you want to say with this?

shinbits said:
Also, the fact that the earth is slowing down about 1/000 of a second every year. In 360,000 years, the earth should've had about an hour less daylight.

Hm, don´t have the exact numbers but as far as I recall the slowing down is much slower .

shinbits said:
Plus, the spead of the earth's rotation would alter the atmosphere, because it would cause winds to completely ravage the earth and affect things like clouds.

This would also make it harder for life to even exist.

Sorry, but you confuse something here. The rotation speed of the earth doesn´t change the atmosphere. It might only change the climate, but not the elements present in the air.

shinbits said:
How can you possibly know that for sure, given certain variables like rainstorms, snow, floods and other factors which could both wash out, or wash in elements?

Because when minerals form, they have a very defined crystal structure, with minor variable element alterations, but which element is put where in the crystal is fixed. Elements which don´t belong in the crystal structure become excluded and are not initially found in the mineral. If some of the elements decay into something not initially there we can determine the age of the mineral, easy (well, not quite that easy, but doable)

shinbits said:
I've actually never heard of that. I'll have to look into it.

I´m here to help, if you have questions

rmwilliamsll · Apr 13, 2006

shinbits said:
snip snip to address a single point.

There is no way to know what the atmosphere was like even a thousand years ago. It's impossible to correctly calibrate the scale and measure correctly. There can be evidence found to suggest what the atmosphere was like, and what the rate/amount of sunlight hitting the earth was, but you'd ultimately have to assume.

you didn't google and look up the calibration techniques for C14. or you would have used that information gained to properly ask these questions.

shame on you. learning is so much easier with the net and google that you are without excuse to continually talk such ignorant trash.

if you want people to follow your arguments, to be persuaded by your logic and conviction you will have to meet them more than 1/2 way and do your part to understand the science involved.

shinbits · Apr 13, 2006

Adriac said:
Untrue. The shrinking sun was only arrived at in one study; subsequent studies have failed to find any significant shrinkage. Even if they did, other stars are known to expand and contract cyclicly; there is no reason to assume the rate is constant.

Well, try looking at this:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html

The earth's rotation is slowing at about 0.005 seconds per yearl this would mean a 14 hour day 4.6 billion years ago. That has some implications, but nothing catastrophic.

Again, just one hour shorter would cause the winds to be very destructive all over the earth, let alone ten hours shorter.

Let's not also forget, that the earth is moving away from the sun. This means that 100,000 years ago, the rate of sunlight into the atmosphere would be very different.

There are many factors which make C-14 dating unreliable.

It's good to see that you guys aren't seriously misquoting me like you were at first.

shinbits · Apr 13, 2006

TeddyKGB said:
Thousand-year-old rocks have measurable amounts of all isotopes of carbon in them.

True. But those amounts vary from rock to rock.

Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

Legend

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Legend

Member

avid reader

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency