How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[The Barbarian]

There is a video on the origin of evolution you need to watch. That 'theory' is older than Christianity
and many other religions. And it has nothing to do with science.

Wow. Haven't heard that one for a long, long time. Most creationists are too embarrassed to try and sell that story, these days. Even "Answers in Genesis" dropped it a long time ago.

Truth is, it was never meant to be shown to anyone who really knows about evolution. It was supposed to be shown to people already indoctrinated.

 

[-57]

We aren't measuring the age of candles.

If you want to discuss rocks, we can look at rocks from known historic lava flows.

"Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating (Dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; Krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. The 122 BCE flow from Mt Etna, for example, gave an erroneous age of 0.25 0.08 Ma. Note, however, that even an error of 0.25 Ma would be insignificant in a 20 Ma flow with equivalent potassium content."

At worst, new rocks date to 0.25 million years old. This is just 0.25% error for a 100 million year old date.

There are many problems with dating lava flows....Here's one.
The jist....The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based.

 

[46AND2]

There are many problems with dating lava flows....Here's one.
The jist....The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based.

Doesn't challenge it a bit.

Austin didn't measure the recent lava flow, he measured some SOURCE material (from the mantle, which is older than the Cardenas) which was not formed at the same time as the lava. i.e., material which was not melted within the lava.

It's kind of funny, actually. All he succeeded in doing was CONFIRMING that deeper is older, by telling us what we already knew: material from the mantle is deeper, and therefore older, than the Cardenas.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are many problems with dating lava flows....Here's one.
The jist....The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based.

And here's where Austin messed up on that project:
That is why isochron results are usually considered reliable if the data points are derived from the individual minerals of a single igneous rock sample, or on multiple samples of a single lava flow. The molten state allows isotopic homogenization, the solidification ceases that process, and therefore the expected result is the time since the solidification occurred.


It is possible for the data points to fall on an isochron line if this requirement is violated. The result will still have the same meaning: the time since all of the samples were isotopically homogenized with respect to each other. However, that result does not have to be the time since each sample formed. Often it will be the isotopic age of the common source of the samples. That result could also be the age of the samples themselves, but only in the case where their common source was isotopically homogeneous -- i.e., zero-age -- when the samples formed from it.

For example, as discussed in the talk.origins Age of the Earth FAQ, young Earth sediments and meteorite whole-rock measurements all sit on a Pb/Pb isochron that gives the age of the Solar System:

Figure 2. Pb/Pb isochron of terrestrial and meteorite samples
(Scanned from Dalrymple (1986) with permission)

That isochron tells us the time since the samples were isotopically homogenized with respect to each other -- the time since the meteorites and Earth formed from the solar nebula. It does not imply that the young Earth sediments themselves are 4.5 billion years old.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

Austin, as you might know, was the fellow who took a sample of recent lava flow from Mt. St. Helens, with included xenocrysts, which had not melted in the flow, and therefore gave an erroneous date for the sample.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

 

[BobRyan]

After college, Kramer went to seminary to study ways to read Genesis through a different lens, taking the view that you can reconcile faith and science without forcing the two to cohere line by line.

Steps needed for tossing the Bible out the window in favor of blind evolutionism.
1. Toss reason out the window
2. toss the Bible out the window - pay no attention to the details "in the text".
3. Toss science out the window - accept whatever myths and fictions are presented in favor of blind faith evolutionism.
4. Return to step 1 when observations in nature refute blind faith evolutionist assumptions.

 

[BobRyan]

-57 said: ↑
There are many problems with dating lava flows....Here's one.
The jist....The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based.

But here you assume that those old lava flows and the recent ones don't have any jynxed material tossed in to try and mess up the findings against assumptions favorable to evolution.

Doesn't challenge it a bit.

Austin didn't measure the recent lava flow, he measured some SOURCE material (from the mantle, which is older than the Cardenas) which was not formed at the same time as the lava. i.e., material which was not melted within the lava.

It's kind of funny, actually. All he succeeded in doing was CONFIRMING that deeper is older, by telling us what we already knew: material from the mantle is deeper, and therefore older, than the Cardenas.

See -- that is what I am talking about - these recent flows can't be compared to older ones to "test evolutionism" -- because if the result is not in favor with assumptions for evolution -- then some jynxed material must have been tossed in by "mother earth" (just in the case of recent flows - not the older ones) so that the assumptions don't work.

 

[46AND2]

But here you assume that those old lava flows and the recent ones don't have any jynxed material tossed in to try and mess up the findings against assumptions favorable to evolution.



See -- that is what I am talking about - these recent flows can't be compared to older ones to "test evolutionism" -- because if the result is not in favor with assumptions for evolution -- then some jynxed material must have been tossed in by "mother earth" (just in the case of recent flows - not the older ones) so that the assumptions don't work.

Austin purposely chose poor samples. Like any tool, you have to use it correctly.

 

[BobRyan]

Austin purposely chose poor samples. Like any tool, you have to use it correctly.

Ok that makes more sense -- he was "evil" -- he did it on purpose?

 

[46AND2]

Ok that makes more sense -- he was "evil" -- he did it on purpose?

Scientists had already determined years prior that the Cardenas basalt contained source material. Why do you 5hink he selected that site?

 

[The Cadet]

Ok that makes more sense -- he was "evil" -- he did it on purpose?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "yes". What, do you think young-earth creationists blatantly lying is new thing? There's been a running awards show on youtube for the most blatant breach of the ninth commandment in support of the creationist cause for several years now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Steps needed for tossing the Bible out the window in favor of blind evolutionism.
1. Toss reason out the window
2. toss the Bible out the window - pay no attention to the details "in the text".
3. Toss science out the window - accept whatever myths and fictions are presented in favor of blind faith evolutionism.
4. Return to step 1 one observations in nature refute blind faith evolutionist assumptions.

Do you honestly think this kind of post would convince anyone? All it accomplishes is making you look like a fool that has no legitimate argument, and thus is left with "evolution is stupid pants, so you're stupid for thinking it is valid, because I say so".

 

[BobRyan]

After college, Kramer went to seminary to study ways to read Genesis through a different lens, taking the view that you can reconcile faith and science without forcing the two to cohere line by line.

Steps needed for tossing the Bible out the window in favor of blind evolutionism.
1. Toss reason out the window
2. toss the Bible out the window - pay no attention to the details "in the text".
3. Toss science out the window - accept whatever myths and fictions are presented in favor of blind faith evolutionism.
4. Return to step 1 when observations in nature refute blind faith evolutionist assumptions.

Do you honestly think this kind of post would convince anyone?

I think we can both agree that the post was not going to turn any atheist against atheism, would not turn any Christian against the Bible, and would not turn any T.E. from being T.E.

forcing people to change their free-will decisions is not part of the context for the thread.

The post is not stated as a "proof" for anything.

All it accomplishes is making you look like a fool that has no legitimate argument

Are you looking for an argument against atheism? Against evolutionism?

This thread is about the process that some "evangelical" apparently chose.

Since you are atheist - would you mind if we visited step 4 in that list starting with statements by well-known diehard-atheists such as Leonard Susskind the father of string theory and Martin Reese a nobel prize winning cosmologist and father of multiverse mythology??

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think we can both agree that the post was not going to turn any atheist against atheism, would not turn any Christian against the Bible, and would not turn any T.E. from being T.E.

forcing people to change their free-will decisions is not part of the context for the thread.

The post is not stated as a "proof" for anything.



Are you looking for an argument against atheism? Against evolutionism?

This thread is about the process that some "evangelical" apparently chose.

Since you are atheist - would you mind if we visited step 4 in that list starting with statements by well-known diehard-atheists such as Leonard Susskind the father of string theory and Martin Reese a nobel prize winning cosmologist and father of multiverse mythology??

String theory and multiverses have nothing to do with the evolution vs creationism debate that this subforum is for. Also, neither of those things would clash significantly with the bible.

Given the subforum this thread is under, obviously, I expect posts relating to evolution and creationism. However, your post is what I consider to be a counterproductive post. Attempting that weak and obvious of an appeal to emotion not only doesn't bring people to your side, but it repels people from it.

Your post certainly wouldn't change an atheist's mind, but what you don't seem to understand is that it makes changing their mind harder for both yourself and others.

 

[The Cadet]

The post is not stated as a "proof" for anything.

I have to disagree. It's proof positive that you really don't know much about the science you're criticizing.

 

[BobRyan]

After college, Kramer went to seminary to study ways to read Genesis through a different lens, taking the view that you can reconcile faith and science without forcing the two to cohere line by line.

Steps needed for tossing the Bible out the window in favor of blind evolutionism.
1. Toss reason out the window
2. toss the Bible out the window - pay no attention to the details "in the text".
3. Toss science out the window - accept whatever myths and fictions are presented in favor of blind faith evolutionism.
4. Return to step 1 when observations in nature refute blind faith evolutionist assumptions.

Do you honestly think this kind of post would convince anyone?

I think we can both agree that the post was not going to turn any atheist against atheism, would not turn any Christian against the Bible, and would not turn any T.E. from being T.E.

forcing people to change their free-will decisions is not part of the context for the thread.

The post is not stated as a "proof" for anything.

All it accomplishes is making you look like a fool that has no legitimate argument

Are you looking for an argument against atheism? Against evolutionism?

This thread is about the process that some "evangelical" apparently chose.

Since you are atheist - would you mind if we visited step 4 in that list starting with statements by well-known diehard-atheists such as Leonard Susskind the father of string theory and Martin Reese a nobel prize winning cosmologist and father of multiverse mythology??

I have to disagree. It's proof positive that you really don't know much about the science you're criticizing.

As I said before - I would never discount proclivity for name-calling and ad hominem attacks out of the favorite resort list for T.E and Atheism. I am not trying to discount the frequency for such options for those groups. Certainly they do enjoy that.

But I was talking about actual facts.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I think we can both agree that the post was not going to turn any atheist against atheism, would not turn any Christian against the Bible, and would not turn any T.E. from being T.E.

forcing people to change their free-will decisions is not part of the context for the thread.

The post is not stated as a "proof" for anything.

Are you looking for an argument against atheism? Against evolutionism?

This thread is about the process that some "evangelical" apparently chose.

Since you are atheist - would you mind if we visited step 4 in that list starting with statements by well-known diehard-atheists such as Leonard Susskind the father of string theory and Martin Reese a nobel prize winning cosmologist and father of multiverse mythology??

String theory and multiverses have nothing to do with the evolution vs creationism debate that this subforum is for.

We are talking about "observations in nature" that dictate "For a designer" and the fact that even these atheist sources admit to it.

Now if you want to argue that "a designer" is not at all an issue for atheists and T.E. when it comes to blind faith evolutionism - well maybe we do need to have that discussion.

If on the other hand you want a well known atheist biologist such as Collin Patterson talking about the "religious" nature of the argument for evolutionism. We can discuss that as well, since the title of this thread deals with "evangelicals" looking at blind faith evolutionism and deciding to trade-in their Bible on the subject of origins for a more atheist-centric understanding of that doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

wouldn't change an atheist's mind, but what you don't seem to understand is that it makes changing their mind harder for both yourself and others.

Is it the "current opinion" of atheists on this board that Bible believing Christians who accept the Bible 7 day creation week (As even atheists such as James Barr describes it) -- are viewing atheist concepts of origins to be the best and most logical explanation for origins??

If that has somehow come about on this area of the board - can someone explain how that happened??

I would have presumed that they understood the opposite of that to be true.

 

[-57]

Is it the "current opinion" of atheists on this board that Bible believing Christians who accept the Bible 7 day creation week (As even atheists such as James Barr describes it) -- are viewing atheist concepts of origins to be the best and most logical explanation for origins??

If that has somehow come about on this area of the board - can someone explain how that happened??

I would have presumed that they understood the opposite of that to be true.

Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolutionism...all impossible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Steps needed for tossing the Bible out the window in favor of blind evolutionism.
1. Toss reason out the window
2. toss the Bible out the window - pay no attention to the details "in the text".
3. Toss science out the window - accept whatever myths and fictions are presented in favor of blind faith evolutionism.
4. Return to step 1 when observations in nature refute blind faith evolutionist assumptions.

Sounds like the key to "blind faith" evolutionism is to stop accepting every single thing written in the Bible without question...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolutionism...all impossible.

And your opinion matters because...?