• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

what exactly do you Know... about evolution???

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
50
Visit site
✟27,690.00
Faith
Atheist
The radiometric dating proceedures are flawed... by great extents as I have posted. Read over them again... and then critique them (do not give a link... do it yourself). I am waiting for pete's isochron info.

   Amazing. I distinctly remember someone like myself pointing out the errors in that post. What I don't find (and I looked) is you showing where I'm wrong. Since you didn't, I must assume you now know you are in error, but are repeating a falsehood.

   Also, I distinctly remember Pete giving you a nice link to isochron info. Which means you're not waiting for it. What you are doing, I suppose, is working out the steps involved in "clicking on a link".

  So, since you can't manage to click a link, and you can't manage to deal with a rebuttal to your rather poorly reasoned and horribly research post, I can only assume you have no real interest in the facts, only in promoting your own baseless worldview.

 
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
and morat... what I didn't find was your reply... maybe I missed it...

oh well ... I'll post my message from the beginning over again... find the flaws and give them on this board... not a link... write out what the link says... or paraphrase it... or past it... fine with me.

no one has really said anything to refute my posts
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
"Well, almost, you see there are one type of lizards that had wishbones and feathers, these were a type of dinosaur. And interestingly enough they appear in the fossil record before birds and after lizards."

amazing... so you've got an example of a fossile that has a wishbone and feathers... and (you claim) is a lizzard. Now lets thing here... do you suppose that the lizzard before that one, the one with no feathers/no wishbone... just produced one of the ones you described in one reproductive cycle after a million years of chance??? Or would it take gradual steps in between??? And, the one you describe just happened to become a bird one day... with no cycles in betwee??? Well... that is truly amazing... Like I said... you hope for a myth. Remember... and that's just one 'claimed' example... there should be many more of them that the existing complete taxas that are seen.
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
You've got a 'history' in the earth showing a apparently instant change from simple bacterias to complex animals....

(as paleontologist Niles Eldredge said). , "Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, ... does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge." These include more than 5000 species, including sponges, jellyfish, corals, worms, mollusks, trilobites, and crustaceans”
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
you can't possilbly think that everything out there... the Universe... and the proposed possibility of other Universes... simply poofed into existence. You say that the particles/elements/laws that were there formed into what we have today...??? Well, how bout this... where did the laws come from... where did the expance of space come from... where did the elements ( or their predecesors) come from...

and you ask... where did God come from... and I say to you... HE IS

and I believe...
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
The K-Ar and Ar-Ar methods are the most reliable sources of radiometric dating. “The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of 40K escapes from the liquid.”2 (Dalrymple)

And These… the most, (some say only), reliable sources are flawed. The igneous rock that is found within layers of the earth is what is tested… the methods most of you already know… no need to type that out… here’s the catch… the initial presence of Ar already in the rock. Here is a little bit of what Andrew Snelling, an associate professor of geology in El Cajon, California had to say.

“According to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not be any daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they form. When measured, all 40Ar* in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in situ radioactive decay of 40K within the rock since it formed. However, it is well established that volcanic rocks (e.g. basalt) contain excess 40Ar*, that is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric contamination or in situ radioactive decay of 40K. This excess 40Ar* represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth's mantle by the parent magmas, is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age significance.
However, are all other rocks in the earth's crust also susceptible to "contamination" by excess 40Ar* emanating from the mantle? If so, then the K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dating" of crustal rocks would be similarly questionable.
When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar "ages" of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon (40Ar*).2 In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% Ar at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4,000 atmospheres.3 This is approximately 2,500 times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed to exclude Ar when they crystallize.
Because it is known that excess 40Ar* is carried from the mantle by plumes of mafic magmas up into the earth's crust, it is equally likely that much of the excess 40Ar* in crustal rocks could be primordial 40Ar. Thus, we have no way of knowing if any of the 40Ar* measured in crustal rocks has any age significance. Additional to the primordial 40Ar from the mantle is 40Ar* released from minerals and rocks during diagenesis and metamorphism, so that there is continual migration and circulation of both primordial 40Ar and 40Ar* in the crust which is reflected in their presence in CO2-rich natural gases. Therefore, when samples of crustal rocks are analyzed for K-Ar andAr-Ar "dating," one can never be sure that whatever 40Ar* is in the rocks is from in situ radioactive decay of 40K since their formation, or if some or all of it came from the mantle or from other crustal rocks and minerals. Thus all K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dates" of crustal rocks are questionable, as well as fossil "dates" calibrated by them.”

In respect to the many test on rocks formed from lava flows…evolutionists say that since argon is a gas, all of it should have escaped from the lava before it cooled. “Therefore, all the 40Ar in the rock should be the result of decay from potassium. Based on the measured potassium, argon, and the decay rate, they calculate an age. That is why it does not matter how long the magma was in the volcano before it erupted. They believe that when the volcano erupts, all the 40Ar escapes, and the atomic clock gets reset to zero.
If all the argon escaped from hot lava of volcanoes that erupted long ago, then all the argon should escape from the hot lava of volcanoes that erupt in modern times too. But modern lava does have 40Ar in it. This is known as the “excess argon problem” in geological circles. My position is that there is no such thing as excess argon. The rocks have the right amount of argon in them. This amount just happens to be more than the amount predicted by an incorrect theory.” (Sean D. Pitman M.D.)

This is argon that cannot be atmospheric or decayed from K
“Funkhouser and Naughton found that the excess 40Ar in the 1800-1801 Hualalai flow, Hawaii, resided in fluid and gaseous inclusions in olivine, plagioclase, and pyroxene in ultramafic xenoliths in the basalt, and was sufficient to yield "ages" of 2.6 Ma to 2960 Ma.” (Sean D. Pitman M.D.) Since these materials come from the mantle… the Ar must initially be there.

“Many recent studies confirm the mantle source of excess 40Ar. Hawaiian volcanism is typically cited as resulting from a mantle plume, most investigators now conceding that excess 40Ar in the lavas, including those from the active Loihi and Kilauea volcanoes, is indicative of the mantle source area from which the magmas came. Considerable excess 40Ar measured in ultramafic mantle xenoliths from Kerguelen Archipelago in the southern Indian Ocean likewise is regarded as the mantle source signature of hotspot volcanism.14 Indeed, data from single vesicles in mid-ocean ridge basalt samples dredged from the North Atlantic suggest the excess 40Ar in the upper mantle may be almost double previous estimates, that is, almost 150 times more than the atmospheric content (relative to 36Ar).15 Another study on the same samples indicates the upper mantle content of 40Ar could be even ten times higher.16
Further confirmation comes from diamonds, which form in the mantle and are carried by explosive volcanism into the upper crust and to the surface. When Zashu et al. obtained a K-Ar isochron "age" of 6.0±0.3 Ga for 10 Zaire diamonds, it was obvious excess 40Ar was responsible, because the diamonds could not be older than the earth itself.14 These same diamonds produced 40Ar/39Ar "age" spectra yielding a ~5.7 Ga isochron.17 It was concluded that the 40Ar is an excess component which has no age significance and is found in tiny inclusions of mantle-derived fluid.” (Sean D. Pitman M.D.)

So we see that pressure can influence the initial presence of daughter isotopes. And, we see results from many test recording daughter isotopes initially being in the rocks from formation. Argon is being produced in the earths crust all of the time… “Potassium is about 2.5% of the earth's crust. About 1/10,000 of potassium is 40K, which decays into 40Ar with a half-life of 1.25 billion years. Actually, only about 1/10th of the40K decays to Argon, and the rest decays to calcium. Argon is about 3.6 x 10-4 % of the earth's crust. We can assume then that the magma is probably about 2.5% potassium and about 0.00025% of the radioactive form, Potassium-40 (40K). Now, Lets say we are trying to date a one billion year old rock. How much of it would be 40K? Starting with 0.00025% as the modern concentration of 40K in magma, we would have to divide by roughly two (About one half-life). This would leave us with a 0.000125% of 40K. Now, about 90% of the decay product is calcium and only about 10% is Ar-40. This gives about 0.0000125% 40Ar in the total make-up of the rock. This is about one ten millionth of the mass of the rock, a very tiny fraction. If the rock weighed one gram, the Ar-40 in the rock would weight one ten millionth of a gram. And yet, with a relatively large amount of argon in the air, argon filtering up from rocks below, excess argon in lava, the fact that argon and potassium are water soluble, and the fact that argon is mobile in rock and is a gas, we are still expecting this wisp of argon gas to tell us how old the rock is? The percentage of 40Ar is even less for younger rocks. For example, it would be about one part in 100 million for rocks in the vicinity of 50-60 million years old. However, to get just one part in 10 million of argon in a rock in a thousand years, we would only need to get one part in 10 billion entering the rock each year. This would be less than one part in a trillion entering the rock each day, on the average. This would suffice to give a rock an average computed potassium-argon age of over a billion years.” (Sean D. Pitman)

However, leaching also occurs :

“Leaching also occurs, releasing argon from rocks. Heating of rocks can also release argon. Argon is released from lava as it cools, and probably filters up into the crust from the magma below, along with helium and other radioactive decay products. All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere. But, we know that some minerals absorb argon (“correction factors” are applied for this when using K-Ar dating). So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The various pressures, temperatures, moisture, nature of the materials and a variety of other factors all play together to challenge the validity of K-Ar and/or Ar-Ar dating.”(Sean D. Pitman M.D.)

this is just the beginning… the other methods have even more flaws… this is considered the best one.
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
but that synthetic virus development doesn’t cut the mustard. They have the DNA sequences already there for them… an enzyme is used to convert the DNA to RNA… the RNA is added to a group of human cells, (already made), which allows the RNA to form proteins which complete the virus. Everything that makes up the miracle of creation is/was already there for them.
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
“Essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals... In terms of their basic biochemical design... no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.” (Denton, 1986, p. 250)
The evidence is lacking… the affects of pressure are many and significant here as well. As a matter of fact all naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If this decaying process has been going on for billions of years then there should be a WHOLE lot more helium in the atmosphere than there is. The rate of helium loss from the atmosphere is minute and easily calculated. When one goes through the calculations he finds that there is only .05% of the amount of helium in the atmosphere than there should be if it has been accumulating for billions of years. (D. Russell Humphreys, Ph. D)
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
the affects of pressure are many and significant here as well. As a matter of fact all naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If this decaying process has been going on for billions of years then there should be a WHOLE lot more helium in the atmosphere than there is. The rate of helium loss from the atmosphere is minute and easily calculated. When one goes through the calculations he finds that there is only .05% of the amount of helium in the atmosphere than there should be if it has been accumulating for billions of years. (D. Russell Humphreys, Ph. D)
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
56
Visit site
✟37,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
"Our zircon data agree with recently published data from another site,9 and both agree with our 'Creation' model. The data allow us to calculate how long diffusion has been taking place—between 4,000 and 14,000 years! The diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the 'Evolution' model could allow. That leaves no hope for the 1.5 billion years. For most of that alleged time, the zircons would have to have been as cold as liquid nitrogen (196ºC below zero) to retain the observed amount of helium. Such a 'cryogenic Earth' model would not help uniformitarians, because it would violate uniformitarianism! ..."
Humphreys the :( scientist :(


-------------------------------------
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm
---------------------------------------
(Notice the reference for my cut and paste - hint, hint)

Well, there's just one little problem, and it's been making for bellows of laughter all over the Internet. Basically, Humphreys claims that helium just leaks right out of zircons (little crystal minerals incuded inside igneous rocks) at temperatures above a frosty 196° below zero (C), or about 321° below freezing (Fahrenheit). Thus, he says, if rocks were warmer than this (and they certainly were) over earth's "alleged" history of billions of years, all that helium would have escaped. So, he says, if the Earth was really all that old, there wouldn't be helium in zircons, but there is helium, and so the Earth is Young. Humphreys concludes that for the observed levels of helium in the rocks, evolutionists would need the earth to be cooler than -200°C, and thus would need a "cryogenic Earth."

The "problem" in all this is a simple minus sign. If you go to the reference Humphreys cites (9, P. W. Reiners, K. A. Farley, and H. J. Hickes, "He diffusion and (U-Th)/He thermochronometry of zircon: Initial results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte, Nevada," Tectonophysics 349(1-4):297-308, 2002), and read the abstract, you'll quickly learn the authors "...tentatively suggest that the minimum Ea [activation energy] for He [helium] diffusion in zircon is about 44 kcal/mol, and the minimum closure temperature (Tc, for a cooling rate of 10°C/Myr) is about 190°C. ... Together with constraints from other thermochronometers and a geothermal gradient derived from them in this location, the age-depth profile suggests a He Tc of about 200-230°C for zircon, in reasonable agreement with our interpretation of the laboratory measurements. ..."

In other words, the authors state that it needs to be HOT for helium to leak from zircons: at least 190°C, and probably in the range 200°C to 230°C (about 390°F to 440°F ).
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
Well in regards to the helium in the earth’s atmosphere… The question still remains… the rate at which helium accumulates in the atmosphere is know… as is the rate at which it leaves… (which changes as a function of altitude km)

And by the calculations… the earth is billions of years younger… than what most on this board propose
 
Upvote 0

Sauron

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2002
1,390
7
Seattle
✟2,482.00
Originally posted by fieldsofwind
Blah

FYI - Folks, I already had this debate with FOW earlier. Here's a synopsis of how it went:

-----------

1. Here's the post where he admits to just starting to read about science "off the web", on the 7th of October:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383903#post383903

2. Here's the post where he & his source misunderstand varve chronology and dating methods - they seem to think that fossils found in varves is how we extract dates:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383327#post383327

3. Here's the post where I explain to him that he's wrong:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383971#post383971

4. And in this thread, he also sees his claim that "sequoia ages closely correlate to the end of the Flood" shot down:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383327#post383327

5. In the post that contains my response here, WOF has just got through asking for proof of transitional fossils, even though I gave him such proof in this thread two weeks ago:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383244#post383244

6. And incidentally, in that same thread, I responded to his claim that spider silk and web making was "irreducibly complex":

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383244#post383244

7. Here's a list of (at least some of) the websites where he cut/copy/pastes these long diatribes from:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383327#post383327

8. And in this post of his own, he admits that he DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE what he's posting about - he's just doing it for fun:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383263#post383263

Heck... I just cut and posted a bunch of junk on all of these so called dating techniques... so do what you want reading them...

 

9.  And here is where I tell him that not all sources are equal, so copying the names of 20 creationists isn't going to have the same weight as the names of 20 biologists and geologists:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383661#post383661

10.  And in this post, he asks me to read all the papers and stuff for him, and summarize the findings.  Why?  Because he's too busy to do so; he's writing a paper in college and doesn't have the time. 

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=383971#post383971

--------------------

So basically, what we have is a perfect creationist:  someone who:

  • doesn't understand science;
  • relies on christian junk-science websites for his ideas;
  • cut/copy/pastes without understanding what he's doing;
  • is too lazy to actually do self-education or research; and
  • expects others to make up for the deficiencies in his education, by spoon-feeding him the information, one bite at a time.
 
Upvote 0