|
Creation vs Evolution (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
I refuted every one of occriders "errors". Even occrider said this. Try to keep reading. ;) |
The point of all those posts was not to prove wrong the word of God. It was to eliminate the belief that the bible is completely error free or infallible ;). |
|
|
| igottaknow |
Can anyone verfy that Seventil is just getting our goat or he really disputes all of this?
Btw, Seventil I believe what they're saying about dinosaur fossils is that they don't jive with a 6,000 year time frame. How do you explain their existence? Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time? If so why aren't they mentioned in the bible or for that matter any other historical text of that time? If they lived before man that would make the earth older and thus contradict the bible. Or did god create dinosaur bones and fossils just for the fun of it? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
wow cool flash site love the dinosaur sounds and animation |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
If you want to classify "assumptions" as uncertainty in the sense that inductive arguments derived from empirical evidence can never be classified as an absolute truth than you would be correct. However, in that event there really are no deductive arguments with the possible exception of logic or mathematics. As such, since all of science is derived from inductive arguments in one form or another, one would have to similarly look upon every other discovery, such as atomic theory, gravitational theory, the Earth being round, etc., as being derived from "assumptions" in a similar fashion as say radiometric dating. Therefore if one were to maintain consistency with that outlook on the world, you should regard every other scientific observation and, in fact, EVERY observation in itself with a measure of doubt. |
I agree to a point, occrider - and I agree with Opus that evolutionary theory based on evolutary assumptions is the best "reasonably logical" solution from that point of view. I've been stressing the point about these assumptions because they are treated as fact. Replace said assumptions with Biblical ones and you get "evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions". It's a whole new theory. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong - that is up to the person to believe - however, I think they should both be taught equally and as a theory with assumptions, not how it is now where evolutionary theory with evolutionary assumptions is taught as fact and evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions is taught as divine faith.
I'm using simple logic in my request: we have no empirical evidence for either; why is one taught as fact and the other as a belief? |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The point of all those posts was not to prove wrong the word of God. It was to eliminate the belief that the bible is completely error free or infallible ;). |
Aye ;) -- and as a reasonable being, I have to at least entertain the idea that man could have slightly modified said text. I think if this would have happened, however, we would have seen many more errors than we see today.
I do back up TTA's claim to refute any "error" in the Bible - I ask that you do a simple google search first, however - because that's all I'm going to do to refute it, probably. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Can anyone verfy that Seventil is just getting our goat or he really disputes all of this?
Btw, Seventil I believe what they're saying about dinosaur fossils is that they don't jive with a 6,000 year time frame. How do you explain their existence? Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time? If so why aren't they mentioned in the bible or for that matter any other historical text of that time? If they lived before man that would make the earth older and thus contradict the bible. Or did god create dinosaur bones and fossils just for the fun of it? |
I suggest you read up on Creation science. There are perfectly reasonable explanations (from a Biblical assumption point of view, of course!) - to explain dinosaur fossils.
Mainly, it has to do with a pre-Flood world, between the Fall of Man and the Flood. Keep in mind one thing also: the word "dinosaur" was invented in the 1800's, or around there. There are many ancient texts, many not Christian in origin (in fact most aren't) that mention "dragons" or huge lizards.
As far as fossils, these can be explained by 1500 years of a higher atmospheric pressure and oxygen levels, which is theorized (in Creation science) because of a layer of ice/water in the high atmosphere. (I forgot what Genesis verse, but it mentions that water was in the earth and out of the earth). These living conditions explain many things; the enormous size of people and creatures of the time, the longer lifespans (900+ years some times). In the Biblical Flood, water rose from the fountains of the deep and fell from the heavens (the ice/water layer).
Anyway, this is all been explained much better than I could. Look at some popular creation sites like http://www.trueorigins.org - and such.
Do me the favor of reading up on the science I believe in before questioning you on it; I've done the respects of being familiar with evolutionary theory (though occrider and Opus have taught me a thing or two!). Thanks. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Can anyone verfy that Seventil is just getting our goat or he really disputes all of this?
|
I made reasonable replies to every problem you had with evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions.
This is your answer? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
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. |
Well I kind of feel like you stepped right over my points and did not address what I stated. And again, I kinda feel like you've done this throughout our entire thread, and it's why I'm pretty pessimistic at this point and do not believe we're going to get much further.
For example, I mentioned about your example of using the ice age, and I asked you how you work with the discrepancy of the last known ice age was 10,000 yrs. ago, which is approx. 4,000 yrs. longer than the young earth creationist view of the age of the earth. Why attempt to utilize a given event that does not even correlate to your own beliefs?
I then also went on to explain on my example of the supernova that if you're going to try to demonstrate somehow that the decay rates are not constant at some point here, then you'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. Drug_Tito essentially outlined the same problem when he stated:
| quote: | 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. |
So if you have a problem with the constancy of the decay rates, then you’re also going to have to explain the direct correlation to the measurement of the speed of light and how that poses a problem with your theory of inconsistent rates as well.
But as I said I feel like you didn’t address these points and went on to your questions on the dating assumptions. This outline of assumptions wouldn’t by chance be Judah Etinger’s, would they?:
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio.asp
So again you’re bringing up someone else’s work that really was not related to my above questions toward you, and again you failed to link your questions on assumptions to their rightful author. It’s these types of patterns that continue to pop up that really kinda disheartens me with this conversation as a whole.
Nevertheless, I’ll address the assumptions anyway:
Firstly if 1) is true we don't need 2) to be true. We can just count the number of remaining "parent" atoms. We don't even need to consider "daughter" atoms.
If 2) is true we don't need 1) to be true because we can calculate the original number of parent atoms from the number of "daughter" atoms and the remaining "parent" atoms.
What is more isochron methods account for the number or "daughter" atoms in the original state so we don't need 1) OR 2) to be true.
The first three of the alleged assumptions are not assumptions that need to be made in all cases of radiometric dating. If the unit to be dated is heterogenous (for example, it contains crystals of different minerals) then isochron dating (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/iso...g.html#isoreset) can be used. Isochron dating completely eliminates the need for the first two assumptions. Furthermore, it also puts into place a diagnostic that allows the investigator to tell whether assumption 3 is warranted. I know I’ve linked a website on isochron dating before, and I feel very repetitive having to do it again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
3) is true but can be checked for by inspecting the rock for signs of chemical or thermal alteration or other damage that might affect the results.
It is currently, and has been in the past, to discover when and how the sample may have been contaminated by the parent or daughter materials, or when some of the daughter materials may have been lost. There is a body of knowledge now that allows a researcher to determine which dating methods will not be accurate based on the composition and physical state of the sample in question.
Also, several different dating methods are often employed. Each isotope has a different half-life, the decay mechanisms are often different, and, most importantly, each of the parents and each of the daughters have different chemical properties, making it unlikely that each of them will be added or lost in just the right amount to make the different dating methods give consistent results. So consistency of dates by different methods is an indication that there has been little or no addition or subtraction of the parent or daughter materials.
4) is true but there is as yet no relible evidence of a change in radioctive decay rates nor any plausible mechanism by which the decay rates would change significantly and still give consistent results over all the different methods of radiometric dating.
Finally, as far as your fourth assumption, there is no reason to believe that decay rates have changed. Decay rates are constant despite any change in chemical or physical environment -- the only exception is that for some nucleotides beta decay is slightly affected by physical conditions (like complete ionization of the atom) that are simply not met in a terrestrial geologic setting.
To change decay rates would require changes in the laws of physics themselves. But there is no indication that the laws of physics, particularly the ones involved in radioactive decay, have ever substantially changed. This is born out by astronomical observations -- the further we see in distance, the further back in time we observe. We see no evidence that the laws of physics have changed – such an assumption is not warranted by physical data, but by a need to preserve certain a priori religious beliefs.
What’s more, we see strong positive evidence that the rate of decay of at least some elements hasn't changed in a few billions of years now. Most of the visible light from a supernova is powered by the electron capture decays of nickel 56 to cobalt 56 and then on to iron, with (earthly) half lives of 5.9 and 77 days, respectively. And, imagine that! The light decay curve of a supernova nine billion LY away looks just like one you would calculate using these ground (= present day) radiodecay rates.
Additionally, isotopes used for dating come in several flavors - both alpha and beta decay are used. These, as I understand it, are governed by different forces - on by the Strong and one by the Weak Nuclear Force. It's a rather big coincidence to have ages from four or more different isotopes match up, like for example in the Isua rocks from Greenland, if they all have been tinkered with by some deity......
Lastly, quantum mechanics shows us that certain conservation laws are tied to the invariance of physical laws. If the laws of physics change, then energy would not be conserved. So far, we have never seen a violation of the law of conservation of energy, which again is something we’ve discussed already in pretty good detail.
So I do disagree with the assumptions outlined, and the description of why I disagree that follows renders the rest of Etinger’s chapter incorrect based on faulty assumptions. But you know we’ve discussed Isochron dating before, and again we’re flogging a dead horse here, so why continue further?
| quote: | 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. |
I thought it was 1300 yrs., not 130 million?:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/A_f..._1300_years_old
Regardless, is there any physical evidence of such an event of inconsistent rates occurring? As I’ve said, I haven’t run across any.
| quote: | 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. ;) |
Well it kinda seems like you have been discussing your Biblical interpretations here, which is fine. They do not, however, sit with many other Christian interpretations, which tend to interpret early books like Genesis differently and less strict on the timescale. What was apparent by our current Pope and the Pope before him was that they could no longer ignore the scientific data that clearly demonstrated an old earth account, and that they conceded to the fact that strict interpretation of a Biblical historical account is very faulty. They also realized that it wasn’t the whacko atheist scientists who discovered this problem, but Christian creationists over 200 yrs. ago when they were attempting to correlate data from the rock strata with the Great Flood depicted in the Bible, and consequently ran into some snags. I only utilized the Pope here to demonstrate that they should have a pretty good authoritative account of what the Bible says and doesn’t say (at least that’s what I’m told).
| quote: | | 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. |
Well I think I’ve mentioned that I have no problem indulging in the beliefs and ideas of creationism/intelligent design from any religion or belief system, and would be an appropriate place of discussion in either a philosophy class, religious studies, or the like. I fail to understand why these types of discussions belong in the science room, where we try to teach our kids the study and observation of natural phenomena. Whether you agree to it or not, evolutionary theory does fall into this realm, because it is entirely derived by testing, observation, and verification of natural events, just like any other scientific field. You’ve continued to try to demonstrate otherwise, but as I’ve said before it’s apparent that your pursuit to knock evolution out of the science room is not warranted by physical data, but by a need to preserve certain a priori religious beliefs. I really wish this weren’t the case, and I think I’ve mentioned before that it’s not religious folks like yourself that are in this pursuit, but evolutionists also try to disprove evolution everyday. It is the long undying desire of any scientist to come up with something HUGE and monumental, and there would be nothing more monumental than to disprove evolutionary theory. Scientists test evolutionary theory in their work every single day, and if there were any retestable discrepancies in their work that do not correlate with evolution, you have to realize that it would be THAT actual scientist who would be the FIRST to come out in every newspaper and scientific journal and state their discovery. This is a scientist’s wet dream to have a discovery going against the grain.
But the simple truth of the matter is, this hasn’t happened yet. Who knows, it very well might. The beauty of evolutionary theory is that it allows for potential falsifications, and if any one of those falsifications turns out to be valid, well there goes the theory (or at least it will need to be heavily modified to fit that current data). These falsifications have not been met, but like every other theory those falsifications are out there to be challenged everyday.
You know, I look back on what I wrote and I realize that it’s pretty damn similar to much of what I’ve already written before in this thread. I really don’t know why I continue writing. As I’ve said before, it’s pretty obvious that you’ve made up your mind on your particular beliefs, and that’s perfectly fine to me. I’ve had debates with numerous creationists throughout the years, both in person and on the internet, and the one thing I’ve realized is there just is simply no way, no matter what I say or bring to the table, that I can change their minds. It truly rarely ever happens. I think I’ve only seen maybe 2 occasions where a creationist has truly understood evolutionary principles and have realized that, regardless of their religious beliefs, they have to accept the data and theory as the best explanation. Unfortunately, it was not in any of my debates, but that’s okay. Outside of these 2 rare instances, it’s just not gonna happen. Religious and spiritual beliefs are extremely strong for most people, and it’s quite unshakeable for most hardcore believers. They really see evolution as a serious threat to their beliefs, or actually I think they see it as a threat to other “potential” Christians or recruits, which is where I think the central problem lies.
I really wish they wouldn’t see it this way. As I’ve stated so many times, science and evolution never once gave a hoot about the many religious interpretations of how life started and moved forward. It was entirely driven by discovery, observation and verification, nothing more. If people would simply accept it as such and not try to expound on it further as some sort of satanic ploy to dissolve the fundamentalist Christian beliefs, I would personally feel a lot better about our society as a whole.
Of course that ain’t gonna happen, so oh well.
I’ll tell you that this is my last post in regards to this subject with you, Seventil, and I believe I’ve mentioned why already – I feel that there really isn’t any reason to try. You are quite steadfast in your religious beliefs, and are quite steadfast that evolution, somehow, must be wrong as a result. With such an a priori premise, I fail to see how any of what I state would ever make a difference. And as it’s been pretty darn apparent throughout this thread, this has certainly been clearly demonstrated: you’ve brought up a wealth of refuted arguments in hopes to support your case, and I also feel that you’ve evaded a great many of my points and websites that clearly define my points even further. I’ve repeated myself and answers to your questions a myriad of times, only to find myself repeating them all over again and again. This is not a debate that is constructive by any means, and I really don’t see the use of it anymore. I’m sorry if this is disappointing in any way, but personally I feel I’ve disappointed myself by somehow deluding myself that it would actually make a difference to you or any other creationist in what I say. It’s quite noticeable in reading this thread, and looking back at my other attempts with creationists, that it just ain’t gonna happen.
So it. There’s more greater things worth debating right now IMO. We’ve got an election to rap over, which quite honestly is a helluva lot more interesting to me right now. Perhaps I’ll become a little more heartened in a few months after this election and pick this topic back up, who knows. Maybe I’ll somehow delude myself again into thinking that rational arguments make a difference in people’s lives, but hell man, who needs rational arguments right now when there’s an election comin’ up? So grab your mud and join me in the other threads if you wanna.:D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
I agree to a point, occrider - and I agree with Opus that evolutionary theory based on evolutary assumptions is the best "reasonably logical" solution from that point of view. I've been stressing the point about these assumptions because they are treated as fact. Replace said assumptions with Biblical ones and you get "evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions". It's a whole new theory. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong - that is up to the person to believe - however, I think they should both be taught equally and as a theory with assumptions, not how it is now where evolutionary theory with evolutionary assumptions is taught as fact and evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions is taught as divine faith.
I'm using simple logic in my request: we have no empirical evidence for either; why is one taught as fact and the other as a belief? |
Your logic is incorrect because there IS empirical evidence for one and not the other. The whole science of evolution is based upon empirical evidence. All of science is based on empirical evidence. THe question you need to ask yourself is do you not believe in the validity of empirical evidence to support a theory?
Actually let me pose a question to you: Do you think the Earth is round? Would you support education of both theories that the Earth is round and flat? Would you treat both theories equally? Essentially your argument that radiometric dating is prone to assumptions is anallagous to me saying the Earth is flat because every theory proving the earth is round is prone to assumptions. For example:
Theory: The earth is round as seen by pictures from space.
My Response: No it just looks round because the gravitational field of Earth distorts reality.
Scientists: You're crazy, nothing about field theory indicates that it has any effect whatsoever on vision.
My response: You're simply assuming that field theory is constant everywhere.
Scientists: We've taken innumerable readings and NOTHING indicates it's ever changed.
My response: Can you prove it never has nor will it ever change?
Scientists: Ummmmm no.
Me: exactly! I win.
Now this statement goes against all empirical evidence that supports the knowledge of field theory, that gravitational fields would have NOTHING to do with creating illusions, but technically my response cannot be disproven because we cannot prove an absolute truth. According to all evidence gathered do we know how gravity and fields have behaved on Earth? Yes. Has all evidence gathered indicate that they have remained constant? Yes. Is it an absolute truth that they have been always constant? Very probable but impossible to say with absolute certainty. Therefore do we treat both theories equally? Of course not, one resides on the presumption of fact rather than the presumption of doubt.
Let me use a different example: The bible was actually written by aliens. How do I know? Well you can't PROVE that it wasn't written by aliens. Yea you have a wealth of empirical evidence throughout history indicating that the bible was written by men who existed, but were you THERE? No? Ok well I think they should teach both theories that the bible was written by men and that it was written by aliens. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
I don't get how you can call Christianity the main religion of America or any country. Most people that claim to be Christians are not really Christians, they don't attend church, they just claim it on a census. The main religion of the world is the following, I call it the buffet table religion, you take a little from this, a little from that, a little from there and you have a religion. I've always viewed Christianity to be in the minority in terms of religion, just because you claim to be something, does not mean you are. A Christian by the TTA definition is someone that has given their lives to Christ, attends Church on a regular basis, reads the bible daily or nearly every day and lives by examples. I find you could claim to be a Christian, yet never attend church and do what I want, that's not a christian, either you believe it all or none at all, the faith never made a maybe or iffy category. Either you are a Christian or you are'nt, there is no in between in my view. Judging by what I've seen in Canada with the all the new laws and new things, Christianity is a minority and so is organized religion.
My offer still stands btw and I nor Seventil are going away, it's nice to see another true Christian on these forums. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I’ll tell you that this is my last post in regards to this subject with you, Seventil, and I believe I’ve mentioned why already – I feel that there really isn’t any reason to try. You are quite steadfast in your religious beliefs, and are quite steadfast that evolution, somehow, must be wrong as a result. With such an a priori premise, I fail to see how any of what I state would ever make a difference. And as it’s been pretty darn apparent throughout this thread, this has certainly been clearly demonstrated: you’ve brought up a wealth of refuted arguments in hopes to support your case, and I also feel that you’ve evaded a great many of my points and websites that clearly define my points even further. I’ve repeated myself and answers to your questions a myriad of times, only to find myself repeating them all over again and again. This is not a debate that is constructive by any means, and I really don’t see the use of it anymore. I’m sorry if this is disappointing in any way, but personally I feel I’ve disappointed myself by somehow deluding myself that it would actually make a difference to you or any other creationist in what I say. It’s quite noticeable in reading this thread, and looking back at my other attempts with creationists, that it just ain’t gonna happen.
So it. There’s more greater things worth debating right now IMO. We’ve got an election to rap over, which quite honestly is a helluva lot more interesting to me right now. Perhaps I’ll become a little more heartened in a few months after this election and pick this topic back up, who knows. Maybe I’ll somehow delude myself again into thinking that rational arguments make a difference in people’s lives, but hell man, who needs rational arguments right now when there’s an election comin’ up? So grab your mud and join me in the other threads if you wanna.:D |
I'm going to quote myself here and you can give yourself a big pat on the back:
| 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.
|
MisterOpus and occrider have educated me to a point where I can state something as I did above and still be quite secure in my religious beliefs, and with science supporting it.
So, I wouldn't consider what you've done in this thread a waste at all; you've helped turn me into a crusader against evolution to a crusader against distorting evolutionary theory as a crusade against religion. (and trying to get a "evolutionary theory with Biblical assumptions theory going") -
So, if you have the time, I'd really like to get back to discussing dating methods. ;)
Let me know, Father Opus! |
|
|
|
|
