Theistic Evolution

[kaotic]

Everything we dig up from the ground did indeed exist(like Dinosaurs) along with Adam and Eve in the garden of eden up to 6000 yrs ago

Hmm lets see you are saying that every dating method that has ever been done on Dinosaur bones and fossils are wrong even though its always came out to the same result millions of years.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seesaw
Hmm lets see you are saying that every dating method that has ever been done on Dinosaur bones and fossils are wrong even though its always came out to the same result millions of years.

Actually, they date the rocks, not the fossils.

Not that it's impossible to date all fossils. In fact, I seem to recall reading about some multi-mya fossils having detectable C14 in them, even though C14 should be virtually impossible to detect after 50,000 years.

 

[kaotic]

LOL you do know that there is other dating methods than C14.

http://www.zoomschool.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossildating.html

http://www.esr.pdx.edu/pub/biology/bi101/nov30.htm.

OR

http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/seismo/istat/9th/dating_methods.html

or

http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/seismo/istat/9th/time_scale.html

 

[kaotic]

The oldest fossil on ever found. The dating works, if it didn't they would stop using it.

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/teams/3/mckaymeet.html

 

[npetreley]

Of course there are other methods behind C14 -- but the point is that C14 should be undetectable after about 50,000 years. So these fossils wuth detectable C14 have a little problem...how can they be millions of years old and still have C14 in them? Don't worry, though, the answer is only as far as one's imagination.

I like that first link, saw. Let's have a look.

Paleontologists use many ways of dating individual fossils in geologic time.

Ah, good. So one method can be used to check another, right?

The oldest method is stratigraphy, studying how deeply a fossil is buried. Dinosaur fossils are usually found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock layers (strata) are formed episodically as earth is deposited horizontally over time. Newer layers are formed on top of older layers, pressurizing them into rocks.

This is called a hypothesis. Another hypothesis is that the great flood caused the layering, in which case the older dates would be grossly incorrect.

Paleontologists can estimate the amount of time that has passed since the stratum containing the fossil was formed.

Yes, they can guess. And since the stratum varies dramatically depending upon the location (layers can be thin, thick, or missing entirely), this guess could be grossly inaccurate, since nobody was there to see WHY the layer is thinner, thicker, or missing. Erosion? Sedimentation? Deposition by flood?

Generally, deeper rocks and fossils are older than those found above them.

Yes, generally. And when the younger fossils are buried below the older ones, geologists simply explain it away by assuming there was an overthrust. So here you have dating by assumption, and special pleading for the exceptions.

Observations of the fluctuations of the Earth's magnetic field, which leaves different magnetic fields in rocks from different geological eras.

How did you date the fluctuations in the magnetic field? Under the assumption of an old earth, maybe? And then you are applying those dates to the rocks?

Dating a fossil in terms of approximately how many years old it is can be possible using radioisotope-dating of igneous rocks found near the fossil. Unstable radioactive isotopes of elements, such as Uranium-235, decay at constant, known rates over time (its half-life, which is over 700 million years). An accurate estimate of the rock's age can be determined by examining the ratios of the remaining radioactive element and its daughters. For example, when lava cools, it has no lead content but it does contain some radioactive Uranium (U-235). Over time, the unstable radioactive Uranium decays into its daughter, Lead-207, at a constant, known rate (its half-life). By comparing the relative proportion of Uranium-235 and Lead-207, the age of the igneous rock can be determined. Potassium-40 (which decays to argon-40) is also used to date fossils.

This is dealt with extensively elsewhere (excessive argon problems, dating of rocks only 10 years old as if they were millions of years old, etc.)

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,568 years. That means that half of the C-14 decays (into nitrogen-14) in 5,568 years. Half of the remaining C-14 decays in the next 5,568 years, etc. This is too short a half-life to date dinosaurs;

It's also too short to date coal. So why is there measurable C14 in virtually all coal?

Radioisotope dating cannot be used directly on fossils since they don't contain the unstable radioactive isotopes used in the dating process. To determine a fossil's age, igneous layers (volcanic rock) beneath the fossil (predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the dinosaur's existence) are dated, resulting in a time-range for the dinosaur's life. Thus, dinosaurs are dated with respect to volcanic eruptions.

That's what I said. They don't date the fossils, they date the rocks.

Looking for index fossils - Certain common fossils are important in determining ancient biological history.

The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. Circular reasoning.

 

[kaotic]

Yes but like i said, if the dating methods are really wrong the science community would have stoped using them. And everytime someone in the science community tries to test the age of Dinosaurs the result is always the the same millions of years old.

 

[kaotic]

What i mean is that scientist's test these methods over and over and over before using them. If you have a new dating method and you test it, and test other things over and over and over and get the same result over and over then you know it works.

 

[paulewog]

Yes but like i said, if the dating methods are really wrong the science community would have stoped using them.

I find this a bit laughable 'cause, um, as far as I know, evolution started out at what, a couple million years? and now it's like 40 BILLION years?

That's some really, really, really bad dating methods... but I don't think the general types of dating methods have changed that much. And we still just keep getting older and older.

Also, the datings are inconsistent... even on things we know the approximate date of.

And I don't think they even work anyways, for example, the Flood would have really messed things up for dating.

 

[kaotic]

Lets see the technology a few years ago was really bad we have really powerful Super computers now, and the dating technology has become alot more advanced.

 

[kaotic]

Its also laughable that people still think the flood happened.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by paulewog
I find this a bit laughable 'cause, um, as far as I know, evolution started out at what, a couple million years? and now it's like 40 BILLION years?

40 billion years? What the heck are you talking about?

Also, the datings are inconsistent... even on things we know the approximate date of.

Dating methods have limitations and must be used with respect to those limitations. For example, a favorite creationist claim is that dating a mollusk shell of a living mollusk via carbon dating resulted in a date of 2300 years old. Of course, anyone who knows anything about carbon dating knows it cannot be used on aquatic life.

And I don't think they even work anyways, for example, the Flood would have really messed things up for dating.

Like how?

 

[blader]

paulewog: The universe is not even half that as old as 40 billion years. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Evolutionary processes started many, many hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

[kaotic]

Today science has such powerful technologies now that allow us to understand what happened on millions of years ago and billions of years ago. But like alot of people have said Believe what you want and I will believe what i want.

Scientist's has always said when its wrong. And they try to fix the problem.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by paulewog

That's some really, really, really bad dating methods... but I don't think the general types of dating methods have changed that much. And we still just keep getting older and older.

On what evidence do you base your opinion of "really, really, really bad dating methods?" The data hasn't been getting older and older. They actually agree more and more with each other.

Also, the datings are inconsistent... even on things we know the approximate date of.

Only when you date things using methods that weren't designed to date these things. Actually, it's surprising to how much accuracy the dating methods agree when dating things such as the earth.

And I don't think they even work anyways, for example, the Flood would have really messed things up for dating.

How does the flood affect the rate of radioactive decay?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by npetreley
The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. Circular reasoning.

That's funny. I could have sworn that site talked about dating igneous rocks via decaying radioactive isotopes. Maybe you missed that part?

 

[Hector Medina]

blader typed:

paulewog: The universe is not even half that as old as 40 billion years. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Evolutionary processes started many, many hundreds of millions of years ago.

It will be sooner or later.........

Pre evolution:

1775 50,000-100,000 yrs old

19 c.

1,000,000+ yrs old

20 c.

1 Billion yrs old

Late 20c. today

4.6 billion for the earth
18-20 billion for the universe.

And still going(heh,heh,heh,ha,ha,ha)

My Bible was right the 1st time

started 4004 B.C.

Earliest cultures 2000-4000 B.C.

Mid-East
Hebrew
Babylonians
Sumerians
Egyptians
Persians
etc.......

Oriental/Far East 1500-2000 B.C.

Chinese
Mongoiain
Tibetans
Hindus
etc.....

Africans came inbetween 2500 B.C.-500 B.C.


European 1500 B.C. to current
Greeks
Romans
Germanics
Slavs
Celts
etc......

Most Languages originated from the tower of babel about 3000-3500 B.C.



Biblical as well as secular rescearch go right along with the Bible.

I could get into the inacurracies of radiomertic dating but some have already talked on that here.
Unless you want to hear it from me

Remember those sites are:

www.answersingenesis.org

www.drdino.com



In Christ,

Hector

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
blader typed:

paulewog: The universe is not even half that as old as 40 billion years. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Evolutionary processes started many, many hundreds of millions of years ago.

It will be sooner or later.........

Pre evolution:

1775 50,000-100,000 yrs old

19 c.

1,000,000+ yrs old

20 c.

1 Billion yrs old

Late 20c. today

4.6 billion for the earth
18-20 billion for the universe.

And still going(heh,heh,heh,ha,ha,ha)

My Bible was roght the 1st time

started 4004 B.C.

Earliest cultures 2000-4000 B.C.

Mid-East
Hebrew
Babylonians
Sumerians
Egyptians
Persians
etc.......

Oriental/Far East 1500-2000 B.C.

Chinese
Mongoiain
Tibetans
Hindus
etc.....

Africans came inbetween 2500 B.C.-500 B.C.

European 1500 B.C. to current
Greeks
Romans
Germanics
Slavs
Celts
etc......

Biblical as well as secular rescearch go right along with the Bible.

I could get into the inacurracies of radiomertic dating but some have already talked on that here.
Unless you want to hear it from me

Remember those sites are:

www.answersingenesis.org

www.drdino.com



In Christ,

Hector

Well the truth is that the earth dating it's going to get any older cause of all the evidence points to a date around 4.5 billion. And the universe is around 10 and 20 billion years old.

My Bible was roght the 1st time

started 4004 B.C.

Earliest cultures 2000-4000 B.C.

Hmm thats funny since there is no evidence of that. And since you think that earth was right the first time, why didn't god to the same for the other planets huh. The only other planet in our solar system that has ever had water is Mars. And as you can see something happened that killed the planet. It doesn't say anything about that in the bible does it NO.

Even though you want to believe the bible doesn't mean it's right.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

My Bible was right the 1st time

Just because someone never admits that they are wrong doesn't make them right.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
Just because someone never admits that they are wrong doesn't make them right.

And just because you think they're wrong doesn't make them wrong.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by npetreley
And just because you think they're wrong doesn't make them wrong.

lol that also goes for christians and muslims and other religious people, and everyone.