*Resurrects old thread*

Apologies for not responding in... hell, almost a month now. This stuff can get pretty time consuming. Where were we?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I know I've stated this in my most recent reply, but I want to make sure you do not use this argument again - how life arose from non-life is not a part of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis has interesting, and there's a great field of research involved with it, but evolution is only concerned with how life moved forward/sideways/etc. after that point. There are a good healthy number of deists that believe in God intervention at some point, whether it be the start of the Big Bang, the start of our Galaxy, our SS, our sun, earth, or even the start of life from non-life. You choose your flavor, it doesn't really matter because it does not pertain to biological evolution. Agreed?

Agreed. If we are discussing abiogenesis, I will state so clearly.

quote:

I really don't know what you are referring to with your 1st sentence (I haven't seen any debunking on creationist part), but I think it's immaterial unless you wish to present those arguments forward. As to Germ Theory, 2 microbiol. classes and a class in virology certainly doesn't give me very much expertise, but the problem with the alternative theory presented (information theory) is that there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Germs can and do evolve as a direct result of mutation and natural selection - this is the very act of what creationists agree to on microevolution. Stegner's ideas that there is some information somewhere (though he certainly can't say where) located within DNA that somehow (though he certainly can't say how) allows germs to act and survive the way they do is so farfetched that it really didn't need another response by Max or anyone else. Everything we know about DNA, RNA, or any types of replication proteins and their agents clearly shows otherwise. Again, most creationists really don't have too much trouble with this basic tenet of microevolution. And as you have stated that you agree to microevolutionary processes (because they are readily observed), you apparently do not have much disagreeance with it either.

I agree that Germ Theory is interesting, and explains what is called variation.

As far as the debunking of evolutionary theories - I am referring to the ones that clearly defy Biblical fact - or at least what I consider fact.

We've debated dating-techniques before. I stand that many arguments against *any* dating method that clearly shows the age of the earth have been debunked from a Creationist point of view. We can discuss these again if you wish, but I think we've covered them enough in the past. It's hard to find arguments on this case that are not littered with logical fallacies.

Any dating method used uses principles that are based on assumptions. Example: radiocarbon dating *assumes* that levels were the same throughout time, that a constant has remained constant, etc. While I agree the methods and techniques used are extremely good, and the people that do it are extremely capable of doing so - it stands that there are just certain unknowns that have to be taken into consideration.

quote:

Okay, so kind = species? Alright, could you give me a simple linean classification of any organism, based on this definition? You can use any organism you wish.

I am reluctant to say "kind = species". I'm not sure what kind of example you want - we can go into a "Noah's Ark" debunking session if you want - or are you curious as to the Biblical classification of "kind"?

quote:

Directly, they wouldn't necessarily requireit for their particular research. Indirectly there could very well be some implications in examining the lineage of a particular organism, as well as that relationship of that organism in the geneological sense towards another organism. The noticeable changes in morphological features over time and the comparison of those changes with related organisms within a genus, order, class, etc. etc. could very well be of importance to observing and understanding certain characteristics of the particular organism in question at present. This is a pretty general explanation, and admittedly I'd have to examine some specific references on this to explain it in more detail. If you would like for this, give me a little bit of time and I'll do a little digging. For paleontologists, however, that is a completely different story, as it is directly related to their research.

See dating methods, above.

quote:

Even if I or anyone did not observe the evidence for evolution on a broader scale (which I'll discuss later), why would you allow anyone to believe your alternative if it's not deemed acceptable?

quote:

This will likely lead to the bigger "macroevolutionary" question. So let's examine the evidence you have against macroevolution and go from there.

Ok, that's a good place to start. Evidences against macroevolution.

I'll do you a favor and just get this out of the way, hehe:

quote:

Creationist says: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented. Source: Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: Evolutionists say: We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence [Theobald 2004]. (See also evolution proof.) As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism. [Shapiro et al. 2004]. There are many transitional forms which show that macroevolution has occurred.

I'll actually agree with evolutionists on part of this point. Although I am skeptical of "microevolution leading to macroevolution" argument - none of the responses from evolutions are anti-Biblical. There isn't a list of kinds taken on to the ark. So we don't know what has evolved from what, from a Biblical standpoint. However - if you're going to argue that this also means humans evolved, that is where we are going to have problems.

So, we can debate on the subject of ape to human evolution - since, if that was true, would be clearly heathenistic. Agreed?

Creationism is the way to go Baby!

___________________

[

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil *Resurrects old thread* Apologies for not responding in... hell, almost a month now. This stuff can get pretty time consuming. Where were we?

Oh Seventil, what are you doing? Why resurrect that which cannot be resurrected? I thought you only believe in One true resurrection?

quote:

We've debated dating-techniques before. I stand that many arguments against *any* dating method that clearly shows the age of the earth have been debunked from a Creationist point of view. We can discuss these again if you wish, but I think we've covered them enough in the past. It's hard to find arguments on this case that are not littered with logical fallacies.

And therein lies the problem with our discussion. To be honest I'm too lazy today to go back over this thread, but I'm really not quite sure it would really do a whole lotta good at this point regardless. You seem fixated on your point that dating methodology is based on unsupported assumptions, I felt that Occ and I have clearly demonstrated otherwise with verifiable and consistent evidence.

If you fail to acknowledge this evidence that supports our arguments, then I really don't see how we can continue this discussion much further.

quote:

Any dating method used uses principles that are based on assumptions. Example: radiocarbon dating *assumes* that levels were the same throughout time, that a constant has remained constant, etc.

See what I mean?

There's no assumption being made here. Radioactive decay has always been a constant rate. It is a physical atomic principle, just like any other physical principle involved on the nuclear level. There has been no evidence to substantiate your claim that the rate has NOT been constant, so why should we assume as much? If there was evidence to support an inconsistent rate of decay, then nuclear physicists, astronomers, chemists, geophysicists, biologists, paleontologists, etc. would certainly have to take that into consideration in their work.

Scientists go by what they know and utilize materials which have the strongest evidence supporting it/them/whatever. As of yet they know the rates to be constant, just like they know the exact count of electrons for given elements for example. If there was any evidence to support the notion that the rates were inconsistent, scientists would have no choice but to take that into consideration. This hasn't been the case, however.

So if you do have scientific evidence of inconsistent rates, you can be the first to present it to the scientific community (and probably receive a Nobel Prize as well).

quote:

While I agree the methods and techniques used are extremely good, and the people that do it are extremely capable of doing so - it stands that there are just certain unknowns that have to be taken into consideration.

Again, those "unknowns" you continue to refer to have a weight of evidence to support them, which we've covered ad nauseum here. They really aren't "unknown" anymore, esp. to those folks who utilize them in their work everyday.

But it's highly unlikely that you will acknowledge this in any manner, not because of the supposed "lack of evidence" supporting it ("assumptions"), but because it strongly goes against the grain of your strict interpretation beliefs in biblical historical events. I'm quite aware that your belief is an obstacle that I cannot climb over with you, and I'm no longer willing to try. Most Christians out there do not see such a conflict with historical events, but then again those particular Christians do not hold onto a strict interpretation of Biblical historical account.

But hey, each Christian to their own. It just seems pretty clear with your beliefs that we are at an impasse with this discussion, so what's the point in floggin' this dead horse further?

quote:

Ok, that's a good place to start. Evidences against macroevolution. I'll do you a favor and just get this out of the way, hehe: I'll actually agree with evolutionists on part of this point. Although I am skeptical of "microevolution leading to macroevolution" argument - none of the responses from evolutions are anti-Biblical. There isn't a list of kinds taken on to the ark. So we don't know what has evolved from what, from a Biblical standpoint. However - if you're going to argue that this also means humans evolved, that is where we are going to have problems. So, we can debate on the subject of ape to human evolution - since, if that was true, would be clearly heathenistic. Agreed?

I'm not sure if I really have the heart to even try right now. We can't even get past the first point of dating methodology, which completely renders any further discussion of evolution pointless, considering we have to consider the evolutionary timescale in terms of millions of years rather than thousands. Not to say that changes on the evolutionary time scale haven't occurred in that very small window of thousands of years, but that's really just a blip on the radar when we are referring to the grand accumulation of all life changing/evolving/going extinct/etc. over time, and that includes human evolution.

So again, I see an impasse here with this discussion, and I do not see much of a forward movement as a result of our differences in timescales. I'm sorry if it seems that I'm coping out or something, but given what we've covered so far I really don't know how we could take this conversation much further at this point.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'm not sure if I really have the heart to even try right now. We can't even get past the first point of dating methodology, which completely renders any further discussion of evolution pointless, considering we have to consider the evolutionary timescale in terms of millions of years rather than thousands. Not to say that changes on the evolutionary time scale haven't occurred in that very small window of thousands of years, but that's really just a blip on the radar when we are referring to the grand accumulation of all life changing/evolving/going extinct/etc. over time, and that includes human evolution. So again, I see an impasse here with this discussion, and I do not see much of a forward movement as a result of our differences in timescales. I'm sorry if it seems that I'm coping out or something, but given what we've covered so far I really don't know how we could take this conversation much further at this point.

Ok, let's keep this simple then. You say I have to prove that the rates have NOT always been the same? You are using a logical fallacy that you are quite aware of, Opus: Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). You can't ask me to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that they HAVE been the same? You can't. While I agree that there are interesting methods used to try and do this - such as using radio emmisions from stars and whatnot to test said radiocarbon values - you once again you are making an *assumption* that things such as the speed of light have been, yet again, constant. And you can't ask me to prove that it has NOT been constant. Simple logic says that things *might* have been different in the past. I concede that it is quite possible said constants have remained constant throughout time; however, that is speculation on my part just as it is speculation that they have changed. Either way, we cannot know without being there or having some other yet to be discovered way of measuring said constants. It's societies and scientists duty to base scientific facts on facts, and NOT speculation, and that is where they have failed - but only in some parts of evolutionary theory.

We agree on many parts - the evolutionary theory has some valid points that have made leaps and bounds in different fields; however - it's the distortion of the theory to try and "disprove" the Bible where I have problems.

Do you agree or disagree?

Holy shit this thread is still alive! Don't tell me Seventil you're a Creationist. *smacks my forehead* Doh!

I recently caught Moyer's interview of Cambell on myths. It's real eye opener when you learn of the similarities between religions are not concidental but inner human need to contruct a god and write stories to explain the world, one of which is the inevitable story of creation.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Sep-02-2004 at 18:08

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Ok, let's keep this simple then. You say I have to prove that the rates have NOT always been the same? You are using a logical fallacy that you are quite aware of, Opus: Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). You can't ask me to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that they HAVE been the same? You can't. While I agree that there are interesting methods used to try and do this - such as using radio emmisions from stars and whatnot to test said radiocarbon values - you once again you are making an *assumption* that things such as the speed of light have been, yet again, constant. And you can't ask me to prove that it has NOT been constant.

Seventil, you're quite incorrect in your assessment in our argument here. I really can't tell if you're being disingenuous or not at this point, but I'll outline the crux of our problem here briefly.

-Dating methodology relies on a constant rate of radioactive decay (i.e. it relies on event "X" being true)

-You contend that the rates are not constant (event "X" is NOT true)

Since it is YOU who is contending that event "X" is NOT true, the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders to clearly demonstrate evidence supporting this assertion that event "X" is not true.

This is what you have not done yet.

But you want to somehow wiggle out of this and say that I have to demonstrate a known atomic physical characteristic being true. Well, I did do that:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=9

quote:

1. Evidence of consistency: -The radioactive decay rates of nucleotides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments which attempt to change decay rates [Emery 1972]. Extreme pressure can cause electron capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2%), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates. -Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes [Nomoto et al. 1997; Thielemann et al. 1998]. These isotopes produce gamma rays whose frequencies and fading rates are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light years away [Knodlseder 2000]. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is 60 million light years away [Prantzos 1999], and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light years away [Perlmutter et al. 1998]. -The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost 2 billion years. [Shlyakhter 1976; Fujii et al. 2000]. 2. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth. [Meert 2002] (Note - this pertains to the argument that the rates are faster than predicted, not that they have fluctuated. As of yet, no one has shown any evidence that they fluctuate, which is exactly what I am asking of you over and over and over.....) 3. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records [e.g. Renne et al. 1997]. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism. [Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987] References: Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202. Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nucl. Phys. B 573: 377-401. Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of alpha decay. http://www.phys.jyu.fi/research/gam...sis/node26.html Knodlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astron. Rev. 44: 315-320. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131 Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley. Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam and Eve toast? http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm Nomoto, K. et al., 1997. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025 and Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024 Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9712212 Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9901373 Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280. Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~ilya_shl/al...r_constants.pdf Thielemann, F.-K. et al., 1998. Nucleosynthesis basics and applications to supernovae. In: Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics, J. Hirsch and D. Page, eds., Cambridge University Press, p. 27. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9802077

And here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=5

quote:

4. Constant radioactive decay. The half-life of the radioactive isotope(s) involved has not changed. Premise 4 is common to all radioisotope dating methods, and nobody has ever come up with a method that checks it within the context of radioisotope dating. Outside that context, physicists have checked it six ways from Sunday: •Observations of nuclear reactions in distant stars and distant galaxies (for which the reactions took place thousands or millions of years ago). •Inferences about nuclear processes in the very early universe before galaxy formation. •Cross checking of dates against other non-radiometric dating methods. •Cross checking of radically different radiometric methods. •Study of residues from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, active nearly two billion years ago. •Theory of quantum mechanics, which is itself one of the most precisely studied and tested models in physics. Radioactive decay is a process that is well understood. We know a great deal about the relevant forces and the structure of atoms, and how and why they decay. In fact, I would say radioactive decay is substantially better understood than gravity. This illustrates the principal that confidence in scientific models is related also to how well the underlying principals are understood. •Testing of a range of conditions in which decay might vary. If decay rates have varied, then can we reproduce the conditions under which this occurs? In some cases, yes; and none of them make any difference to dating techniques.

And Occ did so as well here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=4

quote:

First, one must believe that if the decay properties of said dating element does not hold true perpetually, than ALL elements do not hold true. This is clearly false for the simple reason that ALL the half lives for ALL elements would have to be changing in sync with one another. Even IF such a thing were to occur one would have to assume that such a change would have not been noticeable in the past 100 years of dating. However, those 100 years are approximately 5% of the time since christ's passing. This is not some insignificant percentage. Essentially, one must assume that radioactive decay for ALL elements increased exponentially and suddenly decreased some time in the past 100 years to escape our notice. Furthermore, even if one were to adopt such rediculous theories, that still doesn't discount the constant decay observed by astronomers of elements millions of light years in distance and therfore million of years in the past. Each observation of various ages is consistent with current decay rates.

So again, the physical property of the constant rate of decay is pretty sound based on the above evidence. I am willing to entertain the reverse, however, if you are so willing to present any documentation that would indicate an inconsistent rate of decay.

quote:

Simple logic says that things *might* have been different in the past.

Logic would say such a thing with supporting evidence. So let's see some of that evidence that we have not discussed so far and go from there.

quote:

I concede that it is quite possible said constants have remained constant throughout time; however, that is speculation on my part just as it is speculation that they have changed. Either way, we cannot know without being there or having some other yet to be discovered way of measuring said constants. It's societies and scientists duty to base scientific facts on facts, and NOT speculation, and that is where they have failed - but only in some parts of evolutionary theory.

If you truly believe what you just wrote here, you really do not understand science very well at all. Scientists go by what they reasonably understand to be accurate. They do not go by speculations, nor do they continue their work on unsupported ones. They also cannot simply "insert" notions that "may" or "may not" be true just because they feel inclined to do so based on a certain religious belief or the like. If the evidence simply does not support a notion or idea, then that idea is thrown out for the premises and conclusions that have a much greater and more accurate reliability and verifiability.

We've talked about this before Seventil, do you really think this is going to go much further?

quote:

We agree on many parts - the evolutionary theory has some valid points that have made leaps and bounds in different fields; however - it's the distortion of the theory to try and "disprove" the Bible where I have problems. Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree because you are painting evolutionary research as a means of trying to disprove the Bible. That is patently false and here's why:

Evolutionists could give two craps about what the Bible says or doesn't say. They are fundamentally driven by the evidence that either confirms or discredits their everyday questions and hypothesis'. What the Bible states about life, what Buddha states about life, what Allah states about life, or any other religion for that matter states about life is completely immaterial to scientific research. You really need to dissociate these two in order to understand science better. This is simply because the Bible and other religions invoke the supernatural (miracles), which science clearly cannot test or verifiably observe. Science therefore cannot concern itself with that which it cannot test, retest, verify, and observe, nor is it allowed to simply "insert" such supernatural events whereever it chooses into observed ones based on subjective and arbitrary spiritual beliefs.

Now you must also consider that there are a good portion of Christians that have no difficulty reconciling their religious beliefs with evolutionary research. Some 40% of evolutionists believe in a deity of sorts,

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

many are Christians. Hell, the Pope himself has acknowledged evolution as a sound explanation and is compatible with faith. So I think you need to avoid the idea that evolution is somehow out to "disprove" the Bible.

We have discussed this before, haven't we?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Seventil, you're quite incorrect in your assessment in our argument here. I really can't tell if you're being disingenuous or not at this point, but I'll outline the crux of our problem here briefly. -Dating methodology relies on a constant rate of radioactive decay (i.e. it relies on event "X" being true) -You contend that the rates are not constant (event "X" is NOT true) Since it is YOU who is contending that event "X" is NOT true, the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders to clearly demonstrate evidence supporting this assertion that event "X" is not true. This is what you have not done yet.

Ahh Opus, how clever you are with words. You are twisting my statement around, yet again.

I did not say, or mean - that current tested rates are erroneous. For example - say we've tested the decay rate of X for 100 years. I am not debating the fact that these test results are bonifide, well done, and empirical.

I'm not questioning modern dating methods. They're great. The problem is, however, with the assumption of the rate of X being constant from the beginning of time (what, 20 billion years ago?) to now. That, in my opinion, is one hell of an assumption to have made - even though (let me finish) - it is within reason to *assume* that they have been the same. I don't have a problem with science *assuming* that X has been the same - I have a problem with science and society using this assumption to *disprove* the Biblical account.

I can see where you are coming from, completely. It would be illogical to give up using dating X because of an *assumption* - however - it needs to be made damn clear that there is indeed, an assumption, made in said dating method. Example: This rock was dated using method X, at approximately 100 million years, if said constant X was indeed constant throughout the 100 million years. But, children, this constant has only been observed for the past 100 - things in the past (such as global temperature changes, ice ages, meteor impacts, etc) could have changed this.

I know you, and a lot of people - may have good intentions when you think about evolutionary theory as a scientific and factual way of looking at life.

Can you argue that said arguments (that I've mentioned above) have not been skewed into fact in today's educational system?

quote:

But you want to somehow wiggle out of this and say that I have to demonstrate a known atomic physical characteristic being true. Well, I did do that: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=9 And here: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=5 And Occ did so as well here: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=4 So again, the physical property of the constant rate of decay is pretty sound based on the above evidence. I am willing to entertain the reverse, however, if you are so willing to present any documentation that would indicate an inconsistent rate of decay.

I agree, you've proven that the constant rate has been measured impecably over the past. You've failed to prove to me that it's been the same since day 1 of the universe.

I cannot provide evidence, of course, against said decay rate because of my own logic. If any of us could observe the constant of X 2 million years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

quote:

If you truly believe what you just wrote here, you really do not understand science very well at all. Scientists go by what they reasonably understand to be accurate. They do not go by speculations, nor do they continue their work on unsupported ones. They also cannot simply "insert" notions that "may" or "may not" be true just because they feel inclined to do so based on a certain religious belief or the like. If the evidence simply does not support a notion or idea, then that idea is thrown out for the premises and conclusions that have a much greater and more accurate reliability and verifiability. We've talked about this before Seventil, do you really think this is going to go much further?

I understand your point of "scientists go by what the reasonably understand to be accurate." - And that's fine. I admit it would be counterproductive to play devil's advocate with every new dating find made - "Scientists have found a rock they believe to be 100 million years old, according to dating method X." -- this is a completely valid statement (even though some of the dating methods they use are debatable, but, like you said - it is what they find reasonably accurate) - but it needs to be socially understood that this number they are using is not, indeed, factual. It is, as I've said before, speculation due to unmeasurable constants of the past.

quote:

I disagree because you are painting evolutionary research as a means of trying to disprove the Bible. That is patently false and here's why: Evolutionists could give two craps about what the Bible says or doesn't say. They are fundamentally driven by the evidence that either confirms or discredits their everyday questions and hypothesis'. What the Bible states about life, what Buddha states about life, what Allah states about life, or any other religion for that matter states about life is completely immaterial to scientific research. You really need to dissociate these two in order to understand science better. This is simply because the Bible and other religions invoke the supernatural (miracles), which science clearly cannot test or verifiably observe. Science therefore cannot concern itself with that which it cannot test, retest, verify, and observe, nor is it allowed to simply "insert" such supernatural events whereever it chooses into observed ones based on subjective and arbitrary spiritual beliefs. Now you must also consider that there are a good portion of Christians that have no difficulty reconciling their religious beliefs with evolutionary research. Some 40% of evolutionists believe in a deity of sorts, http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm many are Christians. Hell, the Pope himself has acknowledged evolution as a sound explanation and is compatible with faith. So I think you need to avoid the idea that evolution is somehow out to "disprove" the Bible. We have discussed this before, haven't we?

Although I dislike the common attempt to throw the "Pope" into yet another pro-Christian supporting evolution argument (Argumentum ad verecundiam - argument or appeal to authority) -- and I have to believe that the 40% of scientists who do believe in God probably denounce part of the evolutionary theory - anyone that does not believe in the Creation (which might be considered abiogenesis, so I'll let you have it) - but more importantly - that we, as humans, decended from apes and not the hand of God - is not a Christian.

And, as I've said before, I'm not against evolutionary research. I'm not against anything in the name of science - the truth.

What I am against is the attempt for scientists (not all, but you must concede that some) - distort a factual theory (which evolutionary theory is partially, or maybe even mostly) - into a crusade against religion.

I know you, Opus, are probably not on a "crusade against God". You are simply being analytical, discovering the "truth". That's fine. I'm not telling you what to believe. However, in doing so, you've factualized a theory laced with facts and non-facts that need to be taken into consideration. These considerations are not taught in schools; they are rarely discussed in forums (the Creation vs. Evolution argument is fringe at best). That is my problem. I'm not campaigning to teach Creation as fact - or Evolution as downright heresy - I think a happy medium can be reached where people should be able to make an informed and unbiased as possible decision regarding what I believe to be the most important topic in life. It just saddens me to see so many intelligent, young people embrace a God-less existance because there is a "factual theory" that disproves a Christian God, when it indeed is not. I agree it is the "best theory we have" to what happened, scientifically. It needs to be treated like that, and not as fact.

In my opinion, evolution deifies itself at the expense of truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Ahh Opus, how clever you are with words. You are twisting my statement around, yet again.

You know, I'm really not trying to be clever. I was simply tryin' to dissect our discussion done to the bare bones. Evidently that was missed.

quote:

I did not say, or mean - that current tested rates are erroneous. For example - say we've tested the decay rate of X for 100 years. I am not debating the fact that these test results are bonifide, well done, and empirical. I'm not questioning modern dating methods. They're great. The problem is, however, with the assumption of the rate of X being constant from the beginning of time (what, 20 billion years ago?) to now. That, in my opinion, is one hell of an assumption to have made - even though (let me finish) - it is within reason to *assume* that they have been the same..

The timescale of discovering the dating methodology is not equivalent to the timescale of the phenomena which that methodology measures.

As an analogy, consider the discovery of a planet. Just because we discovered the existence of that planet does not logically correlate to the fact that the planet did not exist prior to that point of discovery, does it?

This is kinda falling once again into that story of a tree falling in the forest and whether or not it truly occurred based on whether or not someone heard it fall.

quote:

I don't have a problem with science *assuming* that X has been the same - I have a problem with science and society using this assumption to *disprove* the Biblical account

As I've said before, science cares very little about Biblical accounts, just as it cares very little about Hindu accounts, Bushmen accounts, or any other religious account of historical events. Science is entirely driven by the evidence which presents itself, nothing more. You really need to understand this.

quote:

I can see where you are coming from, completely. It would be illogical to give up using dating X because of an *assumption* - however - it needs to be made damn clear that there is indeed, an assumption, made in said dating method. Example: This rock was dated using method X, at approximately 100 million years, if said constant X was indeed constant throughout the 100 million years. But, children, this constant has only been observed for the past 100 - things in the past (such as global temperature changes, ice ages, meteor impacts, etc) could have changed this.

Those type of phenomena do not change the constant rates of ALL measured isotopes that are utilized in dating methodology. In fact, I'm not sure any of those events change any isotope rates period. Don't quote me on that, and I might have to invoke Occ's opinion to verify this, but I'm going to go out on a limb and state that these events cannot change the radioactive decay rates.

Wait a sec., did you just say ice age? You do know that the most recent ice age has been measured to 10,000 yrs. ago, right? That's before your Biblical account of events occuring. How do you figure this?

Regardless, if you take a look at the evidence I presented on the consistency of decay rates a little closer, you'd see that it's not merely our discovery of the methodology of the decay rates, but the long history of the decay rates themselves, i.e. millions/billions of years, that account for its consistency. Take the Supernovae example:

quote:

-Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes [Nomoto et al. 1997; Thielemann et al. 1998]. These isotopes produce gamma rays whose frequencies and fading rates are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light years away [Knodlseder 2000]. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is 60 million light years away [Prantzos 1999], and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light years away [Perlmutter et al. 1998].

If we're going to try to demonstrate somehow that the decay rates are not constant at some point here, then we're going to have to demonstrate somehow a multitude of other events not being possible, such as the measurement of light years, gamma ray detection, and so forth.

Again, the timescale of discovering the dating methodology is not equivalent to the timescale of the phenomena which that methodology measures. We may have only discovered how to measure decay rates 100 yrs. ago (and have become more precise since then), but that does not necessitate that the decay rates have only been constant during that point in time.

If they are not constant somehow, then we need to examine evidence of some sort that would show that decay rates could possibly be inconsistent. So again, if there's evidence that the decay rates are not consistent, that needs to be presented.

We simply cannot run on mere "possibilities" that they are not. Hey, I can contend that there's a possibility that the Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks created all life just 20,000 yrs. ago, but without evidence to support my possibility I doubt too many scientists (or anyone for that matter) would take me too seriously.

quote:

I know you, and a lot of people - may have good intentions when you think about evolutionary theory as a scientific and factual way of looking at life. Can you argue that said arguments (that I've mentioned above) have not been skewed into fact in today's educational system?

Science merely bases itself on the best supporting evidence to explain natural phenomena. We ask our kids in the science classrooms to understand this idea about science. What more should we ask of them?

quote:

I agree, you've proven that the constant rate has been measured impecably over the past. You've failed to prove to me that it's been the same since day 1 of the universe. I cannot provide evidence, of course, against said decay rate because of my own logic. If any of us could observe the constant of X 2 million years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

We've discussed this issue before about science observing events explaining past historical phenomena and how it relates to forensic science. Again I see an impasse here with your personal Biblical beliefs in historical events so I really don't see much use in trying to rehash this any further.

quote:

I understand your point of "scientists go by what the reasonably understand to be accurate." - And that's fine. I admit it would be counterproductive to play devil's advocate with every new dating find made - "Scientists have found a rock they believe to be 100 million years old, according to dating method X." -- this is a completely valid statement (even though some of the dating methods they use are debatable, but, like you said - it is what they find reasonably accurate) - but it needs to be socially understood that this number they are using is not, indeed, factual. It is, as I've said before, speculation due to unmeasurable constants of the past.

Okay, what are those unmeasurable constants, and what is the mechanism of function that enables an inconsistency in the decay rates? I really think this needs to be clarified.

quote:

Although I dislike the common attempt to throw the "Pope" into yet another pro-Christian supporting evolution argument (Argumentum ad verecundiam - argument or appeal to authority) -- and I have to believe that the 40% of scientists who do believe in God probably denounce part of the evolutionary theory - anyone that does not believe in the Creation (which might be considered abiogenesis, so I'll let you have it) - but more importantly - that we, as humans, decended from apes and not the hand of God - is not a Christian.

Says who?

If the Pope says it's compatible to faith, why not take his word for it? Granted that is an appeal to authority, but sheesh how more authoritarian can you get when talking about spirituality and the Christian Deity?

There are many interpretations of Christianity, many which are not similar to your own. Why would you think your interpretation of Christianity is more righteous than any other, including those that accept evolutionary theory?

quote:

And, as I've said before, I'm not against evolutionary research. I'm not against anything in the name of science - the truth. What I am against is the attempt for scientists (not all, but you must concede that some) - distort a factual theory (which evolutionary theory is partially, or maybe even mostly) - into a crusade against religion.

Well those that pervert any science towards their own personal beliefs should be condemned, regardless of those beliefs, I agree.

quote:

I know you, Opus, are probably not on a "crusade against God". You are simply being analytical, discovering the "truth". That's fine. I'm not telling you what to believe. However, in doing so, you've factualized a theory laced with facts and non-facts that need to be taken into consideration. These considerations are not taught in schools; they are rarely discussed in forums (the Creation vs. Evolution argument is fringe at best). That is my problem. I'm not campaigning to teach Creation as fact - or Evolution as downright heresy - I think a happy medium can be reached where people should be able to make an informed and unbiased as possible decision regarding what I believe to be the most important topic in life. It just saddens me to see so many intelligent, young people embrace a God-less existance because there is a "factual theory" that disproves a Christian God, when it indeed is not. I agree it is the "best theory we have" to what happened, scientifically. It needs to be treated like that, and not as fact. In my opinion, evolution deifies itself at the expense of truth.

I get the distinct impression that you are afraid of what science has revealed to us so far. You really shouldn't be. Besides, as I've said before, science is merely a cold hard pursuit of an explanation of observed, natural events, nothing more. You really shouldn't be afraid of science attempting to pursue a godless world, nor should you be afraid of children believing that this is the attempt of science.

This is utterly wrong.

Don't worry so much. Science is not out to invoke and pursue answers of the spiritual and the supernatural. Oh sure, some atheists utilize it to their advantage, but that is not it's purpose in any way. Please understand that it is not out to debunk your beliefs. If you want to invoke the supernatural and believe in the Biblical account of events, that's great. Most people believe in the supernatural of some sort as well. But since science cannot measure or verifiably observe supernatural events, it cannot include them in any way.

So in conclusion, I'd say just let science continue to observe natural phenomena, and let religions attempt to explain supernatural phenomena. No attempts at mixing the two are necessary, and we all live happily ever after.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The timescale of discovering the dating methodology is not equivalent to the timescale of the phenomena which that methodology measures. As an analogy, consider the discovery of a planet. Just because we discovered the existence of that planet does not logically correlate to the fact that the planet did not exist prior to that point of discovery, does it?

No, not at all. You can make a reasonable assumption and say it was logically there before you saw it. However, I find this logic unrelated as far into assuming a constant factor in dating. I'll explain more below.

quote:

Those type of phenomena do not change the constant rates of ALL measured isotopes that are utilized in dating methodology. In fact, I'm not sure any of those events change any isotope rates period. Don't quote me on that, and I might have to invoke Occ's opinion to verify this, but I'm going to go out on a limb and state that these events cannot change the radioactive decay rates. Wait a sec., did you just say ice age? You do know that the most recent ice age has been measured to 10,000 yrs. ago, right? That's before your Biblical account of events occuring. How do you figure this? Regardless, if you take a look at the evidence I presented on the consistency of decay rates a little closer, you'd see that it's not merely our discovery of the methodology of the decay rates, but the long history of the decay rates themselves, i.e. millions/billions of years, that account for its consistency. Take the Supernovae example:

Ok. Would you agree that:

The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions.[69] To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:

- What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.
- That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.
- That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
- That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.

If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? We'll move on from there.

quote:

If they are not constant somehow, then we need to examine evidence of some sort that would show that decay rates could possibly be inconsistent. So again, if there's evidence that the decay rates are not consistent, that needs to be presented.

We'll get to that after you respond to the above statement regarding dating methods. I warn you though, all the evidence I will put forth makes *gasp* assumptions based on Biblical events. Keep in mind that evolutionary theory is making assumptions in their data and evidence, just like I will. I think it's only fair isn't it?

I won't post any "Dr. Bob from 1971 Geographic dated a live baby seal at 130 million years using carbon dating" type stuff though. And I won't quote any evolutionists.

quote:

If the Pope says it's compatible to faith, why not take his word for it? Granted that is an appeal to authority, but sheesh how more authoritarian can you get when talking about spirituality and the Christian Deity? There are many interpretations of Christianity, many which are not similar to your own. Why would you think your interpretation of Christianity is more righteous than any other, including those that accept evolutionary theory?

I was referring to the argument of authority in regards to the Pope is an expert in the field of Creation science or evolutionary science. It's like quoting Einstein on his religious beliefs - they are interesting but he was a brilliant physicist, not a theologian. Maybe a bad example, but I believe the Pope embracing evolution is just another fallacy of orginized religion as a whole.

About my interpretation of Christianity and it being more righteous than others; certainly not. I respect anyone's beliefs as long as they don't infringe on mine. However, I would be glad to discuss my interpretations if you so wish. I have a feeling that you don't, though.

quote:

Well those that pervert any science towards their own personal beliefs should be condemned, regardless of those beliefs, I agree.

Glad to hear you say that!

quote:

I get the distinct impression that you are afraid of what science has revealed to us so far. You really shouldn't be. Besides, as I've said before, science is merely a cold hard pursuit of an explanation of observed, natural events, nothing more. You really shouldn't be afraid of science attempting to pursue a godless world, nor should you be afraid of children believing that this is the attempt of science. Don't worry so much. Science is not out to invoke and pursue answers of the spiritual and the supernatural. Oh sure, some atheists utilize it to their advantage, but that is not it's purpose in any way. Please understand that it is not out to debunk your beliefs. If you want to invoke the supernatural and believe in the Biblical account of events, that's great. Most people believe in the supernatural of some sort as well. But since science cannot measure or verifiably observe supernatural events, it cannot include them in any way. [quote] Not afraid of what science is revealing - but the human interpretations of said revelations is what scares me. I love science - I love astronomy especially - I can think of few things better than a warm spring night under a bright starry night. I see where you are coming from and I honestly respect the scientific merits of evolutionary theory. I am not attacking the science used (for the most part) - but the human twist it has received in the last century. I'm also not asking for evolutionary theory to measure supernatural events (such as the Flood) - I am merely asking that evolutionary theory with evolutionary assumptions be taught along with evolutionary theory with creationist assumptions (commonly refered to as "Creation Science"). Do that, and I'm happy because people are taught both sides of a story. [quote] So in conclusion, I'd say just let science continue to observe natural phenomena, and let religions attempt to explain supernatural phenomena. No attempts at mixing the two are necessary, and we all live happily ever after.

Agreed - however - there is nothing wrong with examining scientific evidence in a different light, from a Creationists point of view. And, since Christianity is the "main" religion of America (with Atheism fast approaching) - I believe a Biblical outlook on an evolutionary theory is *quite* relevant.

Opus you should just give up you'll never convince a creationist, if you could then he would no longer be one (catch 22).

This whole idea of creation/god is a murky idea. For example does god make the wind blow? Both the creationist and scientist would say no. Ok how about our sun or for that matter any star. Both again would agree no. We know the process to create a star and can view it in various stages of development around the universe. Now for the 65 million dollar question did god create the universe? All of a sudden we have a disagreement. So at what point in between the creation of a star and the universe does god intervene? Do we need to consult our bible or does god only magically enter into the picture when we cannot use science to explain? For example when science didn't exist early man used gods to explain the workings of world they didn't understand like the sun, moon, fire, etc. So today the last great mystery is the creation of the universe. Of course it's no great surprise to find god here to explain this great unknown. Here is where all religious people and especially creationist should rejoice; it's impossible to comprehend the beginning or end to the universe. Nothingness or infinity, take your pick god is safe from science.

As far as the bible being equivalent to science that's pretty funny. Using a story written by a bunch of people as a reference point to draw scientific conclusions? What ever makes you happy.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Sep-03-2004 at 03:24

Science has to prove to me that radio dating works, why should the proof be on Christians to prove why it does not work. We are not the ones touting it as proof of an older age. Radio dating has major issues and even the people who believe in it tell you that. They simply can't prove to me that they know how much of the original substance was in something and they can't prove to me, they know how much lives an organism after death over the years. The way I look at it, the evolutionists are constantly changing their theories to fit their most recent discovery, always changing the theory. The Bible's account has not changed, it is not changing on the most recent discovery.

Futhermore, no anti creationist has ever given me a valid argument to why what I believe is wrong, you can reason all you want but it is just opinion in my view. It gets worse with you anti creationists, always trying to prove Christians wrong by science, but all the science that I've looked into, has led me to question the evolutionist view. See you could come up with any argument you wanted but no one has ever proven a Biblical error to me, so why should I believe any different. Your approach is flawed, see if the Bible is error free, then why should I believe any different?. I also look at the life of CS Lewis and Josh McDowell, both hardened atheists that questioned the Bible for years and finally came to the conclusion that the Bible was error free. As I've happily put out to everyone since the age of 10 and no one yet has even had the balls to attempt it, I'll put it out again for anyone with enough balls. Even if you have read the Christian Bible once or a few times, I dare any of you anti religious people to read the entire bible from Genesis to Revelation, jot down every single "supposed error" you find then come back to me and I'll be happy to cover every single point with you. I put that as a challenge to you anti christians or anti creationists. As I've stated before, no one has ever taken me up on my offer and I don't think that will change. The Bible stands for itself anyway, it does not need my input to prove it. The Bible stands for itself and it's reliability is unmatched by any other written work in history. So there is my challenge, I doubt any of you will actually bother taking me up on my offer, it seems to me that most anti religious people talk a good game but when you dare them to do something to back their opinion up by reading the Bible and trying to find all the errors then coming back to me. Surely one of you might actually attempt it, I don't think any of you have the balls nor do I think you would find an error, but as I said the Bible speaks for itself and the historical finds have backed up it's version of history.

Now about my own view, even if you put all science and religion aside, I've looked at the two opinions of how our world was created. I don't think that we could have happened by random chance from a big bang, the human body for one is so complex, everything works in tandem, leading me to believe that there was a higher creator. I've always thought that because the world is so big, with so many things and so many complex objects, the earth was not created by chance, I reasoned.

So to conclude my little rambling here, I know people want Christians to see the evolutionist view and if you can prove one error in the Bible, then I will believe your view because if one error is proven then the Bible falls apart. Tho no one has proven an error and I rarely use the world never but I'll use it here, the Bible will never be proven to have one error and until that day, which won't happen but some of you can dream about it, I will be a Christian and a firm believer in Creationism and the Bible, so maybe I took this debate a little off course but it all comes back to the same thing.

About my little challenge, remember if anyone wishes to take me up on my offer, my pm box and my email box are always open and if you wish to ramble on to me in pm about anything I said, feel free, I always welcome different opinions because it gets a discussion going.

Well, my pretty long reply just got erased, so I'll post it in short.

For the Earth to be 6500 years old you would have to assume:

1) That the speed of light in vacuum has been millions of times greater in the past few thousand years than it is now, and that it hasn't changed one bit since we started measuring it. (otherwise we couldn't explain how any object that's more than 6500 light years away can shine on us)

2) That the radioactive decay time which has no connection whatsoever with the speed of light has also followed exactly the same path.

3) That the continent movement speed has also been several billion times faster in the past than it is now (otherwise we couldn't explain animal life fossils on Antarctica or glacial rocks in Africa)

4) That all the archeological evidence older than 6500 years is fake

5) That dinosaur and early hominid bones are just random calcium formations

Furthermore, to accept the biblical story, we would have to assume that:

1) There is a solid firmament seperating waters in the sky from oceans down below (meaning that spaceships would either hit a solid barrier or puncture it and end up in one huge ocean

2) A 400 meter long ship managed to get inside it a mass several million times greater than a normal weight allowance for such a ship would be

3) Noah travelled to Australia, America and Antarctica prior to the flood and then redistributed all those animals and plants back to where they were originally situated.

4) The bible is true, and every single other self-proclaimed religious truth is false, although the reasons to believe what the bible says are exactly the same as those posted by all the other religious scriptures. It is the holy truth written by god, and if you don't believe it you will burn in some sort of a hell.

Have you ever considered that if you were born somewhere else, like Egypt for example, that you would have been introduced to kuran like you have been to the bible, and that you would believe that kuran is the flawless truth presented by god, while the bible and all the other religious scriptures are merely pagan nonsenses?

___________________
1+1=10