• 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???

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
well prax... you may want to scroll back and answer some questions and data that I posted earlier... noone else has been up to it...

And probably I'm not either.  There was an awful lot of stuff in one hit there.  A bit daunting to tackle a whole lot at once.  Particularly for a layperson such as yours truly! :)

and proponents of evolution say that comets are 4.5 billion years old.. which they're apparently not

take care

FOW

They do? 

I know that this is going to sound disingenuous (and, I'll admit, I am being a bit petty), but why on earth are biologists making statements about comets?

Astronomers and cosmologists, however, do not say any such thing about comets.  They all know that they are short term entities.

I'm curious to know what kind of statement you think that short term comets make about the age of the universe.

Cheers,

Prax
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
well prax... according to the national geographic magazine...they are spin offs of the original big bang thing... being billions of years old according to them...I posted info contrary to their opinions...

I believe that God created the world as He said He has...

I simply believe Him... regardless!
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by fieldsofwind
well prax... according to the national geographic magazine...they are spin offs of the original big bang thing... being billions of years old according to them...I posted info contrary to their opinions...

Is there an online link to this article?  I'd like to read it, and don't have access to Nat Geo in hard format.

If indeed that's what they said, I'm very surprised, since it has long been accepted that short term comets are icy bodies that have been jostled loose from the Kuiper Belt.  The Kuiper Belt itself is a remnant of the original accretion disk of the sun, so does not date back to the Big Bang.



I believe that God created the world as He said He has...

I simply believe Him... regardless!

Well, fair enough.  It's no-one's right to disavow you of your beliefs.  However, I do hope that you can accept that scientific evidence is not in harmony with a literal reading of Genesis.

If you choose to believe a literal Genesis, fine.  It's your decision.

Cheers,

Prax
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
well prax... the evidence is not needed... as for me... I believe in my God...not in men's wisdom...

But... I did post quite a bit of info pertaining to how the evolutionary theory is very flawed to say the least... along with its age guesstimations

as for the link...www.planetpapers.com
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by fieldsofwind
well prax... the evidence is not needed... as for me... I believe in my God...not in men's wisdom...

Great!  Again, your choice.



But... I did post quite a bit of info pertaining to how the evolutionary theory is very flawed to say the least... along with its age guesstimations

as for the link...www.planetpapers.com

I wasn't able to find that article - if it's ok, could you please post a direct link?

As for the "flaws" in the ToE, I have seen plenty of what is claimed to be flaws.  I've yet to see any that has not been debunked/answered.

Honestly, if the ToE were indeed flawed, it would have been overturned years ago.  That's how science works.

 

Cheers,

Prax
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
I found the "comet" article in question: http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/2002.php

It says nothing that comets are billions of years old (unless you want to count the fact that the material they are made up of could very well be billions of years old). The comets themselves (by the very definition of what comets are) are not.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by fieldsofwind
well prax...... thanks anyways... but I don't buy it... so maybe you should attempt the sell... give me some reasons...

Why?  You've already stated that you've decided to believe in a literal Genesis, and that everything else is secondary.  What would be the point of my going to the time and effort to direct you to scientific evidence from a wide range of fields if you're just going to dismiss it out of hand?

If you want the information, it's there to be found.   There is evidence from biology, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics etc.  I don't have either the time or the inclination to gather this into one neat package for you. However, allow me the opportunity to make the observation that you aren't interested in the information. 

As you have said, if it clashes with your interpretation of Genesis, it's irrelevant.  Fine.  But science does not support you.

If, however, you present one of these "flaws" then we can look at it.

look at google... type in age of comets

I don't want to find out about the age of comets.  I already know about the age of comets.  What I asked of you was a link to the article which you claimed said that scientists think that comets were formed by the big bang.

Can you link to it, please?

Cheers,

Prax
 
Upvote 0

lithium.

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2002
4,662
4
nowhere
✟30,036.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
From nasa.gov.

age of the Universe
__________________
We do not know the exact age of the Universe, but we believe that it is around 13 billion years - give or take a few billion. Astronomers estimate the age of the Universe in two ways: (a) by looking for the oldest stars; and (b) by measuring the rate of expansion of the Universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang

Question.
How did comet Hale-Bopp form?

Answer.
Comets such as Hale-Bopp are made of ice and dust, left over from the beginning of our solar system. These chunks of ice and dust form the Oort cloud, outside the orbit o f Pluto. Sometimes the pull from a star changes the orbit of the chunks, sending them near the sun. They begin to evaporate, and pieces of gas and dust fall off and form the tail.
________________________________________________________

Question.
What is the oldest thing in the solar system.

Answer.
The oldest objects in our solar system, to be 4.57 billion years old.

______________________________________________________-

So what does this mean. Well if oldest object in our solar system is 4.57 billion years old. So the solar system is probably around 11-6 billion years old i believe that is right. So comets are Billions of years old.
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
55
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟44,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
Originally posted by fieldsofwind

hey... anyone out there can scroll back to my earlier questions and give them a go.... that is what this is right... a debate forum???

What page are they on?

 
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
52
Bloomington, Illinois
✟19,375.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by fieldsofwind
Ok… then someone explain why you believe in evolution when there are no transitional fossils found in the earth, and these should be the most numerous of the fossils.


In Evolution every fosil is transitional. You are transitional between your parents and your children. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

Can you tell me why, scientificaly, you do not think there are any transitional forms?

When the ages for the fossils that you find can be easily refuted by affects shown in tests such as pressure, leaching, and the daughter isotopes by which the age is measured already being present when the rocks are formed. These tests are done by scientists, and are published in the sources that frequent the bottom of my earlier “pastings”.

Yes there are some things that can affect radiometeric dating. That is why we have over a dozen different types of radiometric tests, what contaminates one does not cantaminate another. It is called cross checking.

No scientist has ever been able to create a cell… not this simplest of living things… and they have all of the cards in their favor compared to what the ‘early earth’ would have had.

But we have been able to make a virus from scratch. Now we are getting closer and closer to being able to make even more complex things, when we do make that first cell will you then believe? Science has only this ability for the last ten to twenty years, the universe has been kicking around for billions of years. 20 years of tinkering and we make a virus vs 1 billion years of nature tinkering to make a simple cell. I think we are doing pretty good.


Also… comets are suppose to be the same age as the solar system. However, they lose such large amounts of material each time they orbit close to the sun that they couldn’t be any more than 100,000 years old… many studies indicate that they could be about 10,000 years old (D. Russell Humphreys)
The geological columns contain a lot of evidence of a ‘young earth’… but more on that later

Meat left out over a day spoils, this is a known fact. Now with this fact to you believe that all the meat in your grocery store was alive less than a day ago?

Ofcourse not, we have refregeration and freezing!

Now when close to the sun Comets boil away, this is true, but out beyond pluto there is a belt of comets in the deep freeze. Not evaporating at all. Every once in a while one gets knocked out of its orbit and we get a cool light show for a few thousand years before it boils away.
 
Upvote 0

lithium.

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2002
4,662
4
nowhere
✟30,036.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
In Evolution every fosil is transitional. You are transitional between your parents and your children. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

Can you tell me why, scientificaly, you do not think there are any transitional forms?



Yes there are some things that can affect radiometeric dating. That is why we have over a dozen different types of radiometric tests, what contaminates one does not cantaminate another. It is called cross checking.



But we have been able to make a virus from scratch. Now we are getting closer and closer to being able to make even more complex things, when we do make that first cell will you then believe? Science has only this ability for the last ten to twenty years, the universe has been kicking around for billions of years. 20 years of tinkering and we make a virus vs 1 billion years of nature tinkering to make a simple cell. I think we are doing pretty good.




Meat left out over a day spoils, this is a known fact. Now with this fact to you believe that all the meat in your grocery store was alive less than a day ago?

Ofcourse not, we have refregeration and freezing!

Now when close to the sun Comets boil away, this is true, but out beyond pluto there is a belt of comets in the deep freeze. Not evaporating at all. Every once in a while one gets knocked out of its orbit and we get a cool light show for a few thousand years before it boils away.


Great post.
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
Sorry bud… 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.
Transitional Fossils: These are fossils that should be present between evolutionary forms. For example: something representing intermediate traits between one phylum to another. We simply have fossils… Set A of complete fossils and then another completely different group of fossils comprising set B that supposedly evolved from the fossils in set A. However, in this evolutionary process one can’t imagine that one creature just becomes another in one reproductive cycle. There would be many gradual changes over millions of years to achieve the set B fossils. These things do not exist. Evolutionist will frequently grab at any similar trait between fossils, and then call it an intermediate form. The problem is that nothing else in the fossil resembles anything else in its predecessor. These are obviously not the transitions that scientists are still looking for… and it’s a wonder they haven’t found any, because there should be 10 times more of them than the complete sets of different taxa that we have.
The radiometric dating processes, (all of them), are affected by pressure, leaching has been observed, and the daughter isotopes by which they are all measured have been observed to be initially present in the formation of igneous rocks. This completely throws out the validity of any of their measurements. I will post again my little composition taken from various documented sources pertaining to the MOST RELIABLE of scientific radiometric dating:
The entirety of the radiometric dating procedures is flawed and circular at best. This is many times used for approximate age dating of fossils in the earth… (Saying that they are as old as the layer of earth they are in) For example… a few things that radiometric dating needs to be used are the following:
Beginning Conditions Known
Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known
Constant Decay Rate
No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes

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.)
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
43
Visit site
✟24,595.00
Faith
Christian
This is just the beginning… the other methods have even more flaws… this is considered the best one.


No… scientists have yet to even imagine coming close to creating (from scratch) their own living organism even though we have all of the elements to do it with, and the perfect conditions based on the current evolutionary hypothesis. But, this creation supposedly just happened in some primordial soup a long time ago with no laboratory or perfect conditions… whatever… its all chance right. Remember… even if they do… I believe my God… regardless of the evidence.
I will believe… the evidence on either side really doesn’t seem convincing to me… because I believe in a voice. Foolishness to men… but I still believe
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Originally posted by fieldsofwind
This is just the beginning… the other methods have even more flaws… this is considered the best one.

FYI fieldsofwind, but argumentum ad nauseum ain't a good way to try to support yourself. You've yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the radiometric dating process such that you would even understand what you're arguing against.

Until you do so, all you're doing is blindly copying and pasting a bunch of text.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
The entirety of the radiometric dating procedures is flawed and circular at best. This is many times used for approximate age dating of fossils in the earth… (Saying that they are as old as the layer of earth they are in)

   How is it circular? Claiming that fossils are as old as the layer of earth they're in seems relatively straightforward, unless you know of a way to insert fossils into layers without leaving visible marks. I mean, how would you go about getting a fossil from one layer, and melding it into another so that there's not the slightest hint of a seam? Not the tiniest change in rock?

For example… a few things that radiometric dating needs to be used are the following:
Beginning Conditions Known
Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known

   Actually, you don't need to know either for isochron dating. But since that's only been used for a few decades, it's understandable how Creationists haven't caught up.

Constant Decay Rate

  How would you change it? Seriously, the constancy of radiometric decay is rather fundamental to things like...quantum mechanics. The sun still shines, right? Your computer works?

   Well, then decay rates are a fundamental constant.

   You will be happy to know that some decay rates can, through application of intense heat and pressure (at levels not found on or in Earth) can vary by almost 2%.

 

No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes

   It's rather noticable, you know. And using multiple methods neatly gets rid of this problem anyways.

All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes

   What assumptions? The only assumption needed for radiometric decay is that decay rates are constant. As this is a fundamental (and well tested) notion, central to the most precise and accurate portions of physics, it's not exactly an assumption. More like a "well tested fact of nature".

  As for measuring small amounts of isotopes, it's not that hard. Scientists are suprisingly good at that sort of thing.

 
 
Upvote 0