Evolution True or False?

Word · Post by **Word** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 8:40 pm

@VD- I find your argument to be quite interesting and true. However i find that I must believe in Creationism as I can think of no natural occurance where NOTHING , absolutly nothing exists. Therefore I believe that there was always something because you cannot have nothing in the natural world(forgive the double negative). I don't know what this god is and was (I'm still deciding) but I believe that HE/SHE/IT has left the world to its own devices to reward those who have led a complete life. Therefore I believe in Creationism but only as substitute of the BIG BANG and other such theories. I do simply because of the questions you raise but they may be easily answered by saying that history is often distorted and the past changes over time but then I'm not a die hard creationist of a traditional cast.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 8:45 pm

@Word, I think it is possible to believe in a "divinely created universe" without necessarily believing in Creationism. Unless I'm much mistaken, the latter is a term used to apply to a Christian-specific system which denies commonly accepted theories of evolution, among other things.

Word · Post by **Word** » Sat Mar 16, 2002 9:04 pm

@Fable -i guess that would be true but in my (unique and rather strange) way of thinking if a deity created anything it would be Creationism but its only a name.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 1:09 pm

Originally posted by Word
@Fable -i guess that would be true but in my (unique and rather strange) way of thinking if a deity created anything it would be Creationism but its only a name.

So it is. But names have power over people, and the names we give to things control how they, and we, are perceived. Names have started wars. Luther insisted that transubstantiation meant one thing; the RCC stated it meant another. The RCC split, Catholic Spain fought Protestant Low Countries, the French held their Bartholomew's Day Massacre of the Huguenots, the Calvinists won in the cantons of the Swiss...yes, names have power.

In the case of Creationism, the thing being named isn't simply "a God-creator of the universe," but a very specific god, believed by one group of people, along with a whole range of beliefs that deny scientific theories which have in turn generated a fair amount of what we know about the planet. Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Jews and Christians (among other groups) might well agree on a universal Creator. Nearly all of them would be severely affronted if they were addressed as believers in Creationism.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:49 pm

Voodoo has posted a long post with many interesting questions. I hope some of the SYMers who believe in creationism will explain how they view the events and concepts Voodoo has described and how the questions are answered within the creationsim frame of reference.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:03 pm

3. How can a rock be dated as being billions of years old by the use of radioisotope analysis, if the world (and the rock) was created less than ten thousand years ago? If you believe that radiometric dating is erroneous, then you would have to conclude that various scientific analysis methods are in error by a factor of perhaps a million times.

I believe that Carbon dating is not very accurate, they conclude that a being has so much Carbon, yet how could they know how much there was originally, it is circular logic. Also you can not get accurate readings about the creatures of a specific time since there were creatures without exoskeletons.

There are quite a few indications of the floods, you seem to know more of the technical aspects than me, i know of things like Cave paintings in North America that show a flood. There are also other indications around the world.

Although how does one account for the Bible, if they are both concentric is it just coincidence that something from across the world could be similar in subject?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:10 pm

Re C14 dating

As I posted previously in this thread, remember though that carbon dating is not used for things older than appr. 30 000 years. For explanation of this, and what methods are used, see previous post.

For explanation how C14 dating works and why it isn't a circle reasoning, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Here are the scientific answers to some common creationist claims:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ndex.shtml

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:49 pm

Re: Re C14 dating

Originally posted by C Elegans
For explanation how C14 dating works and why it isn't a circle reasoning, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Here are the scientific answers to some common creationist claims:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ndex.shtml

looks like a late night of reading for me!

I will see what i can do. Could you tell me where they start there dating from, when do they begin the process and so create the timeline?

EDIT: I keep trying to read it but my mind keeps slipping

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 6:05 pm

Re: Re: Re C14 dating

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I will see what i can do. Could you tell me where they start there dating from, when do they begin the process and so create the timeline?

EDIT: I keep trying to read it but my mind keeps slipping

My mind is slipping too tonight, but briefly: the dating of the earth and our solar system is derived basically from calculations of lead (Pb) found in rocks at earth and in meteorites. Taken together, the dating of some 80-100 (I don't remember the exact figure) meteories and some earth-rocks found at different places around the earth, all data converge at the point 4.5 billion years. I can go into a more detailed explanation later if you wish (not today though).

The dating of the universe, if you are interested in that too, is based on the big bang model. Galaxy movement from the point of the big bang is estimated based on observations of velocity and redshift. Am I making any sense at all? I think I'd better continue on this tomorrow...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 6:17 pm

Re: Re: Re: Re C14 dating

Originally posted by C Elegans
The dating of the universe, if you are interested in that too, is based on the big bang model. Galaxy movement from the point of the big bang is estimated based on observations of velocity and redshift. Am I making any sense at all? I think I'd better continue on this tomorrow...

I had forgotten about red shift, i think you are right, and i will do the same

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 7:48 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
There are quite a few indications of the floods, you seem to know more of the technical aspects than me, i know of things like Cave paintings in North America that show a flood. There are also other indications around the world.

There is some evidence that there was a flood in the Black Sea basin, which dried out during one of the ice ages... It's pretty controversial, but possible. While there isn't (and never will be) anything to link that flood to the Biblical story, it's possible that the various mythical flood stories had their basis in such an event, which could well have been retold by the survivors as the flooding of the entire known world.

Interestingly, there are quite a few parallels between the story of Noah's flood and the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh - an Ancient Sumerian tale which dates back to somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE.

Although how does one account for the Bible, if they are both concentric is it just coincidence that something from across the world could be similar in subject?

The question I am inclined to ask is if various flood stories all originated from one event which actually happened, why would one necessarily accept one version as the truth over other (older) myths? If it was an event that occurred in living memory, and it developed into different stories within the different traditions it was passed down through, then what (aside from belief in the Bible as the Truth) makes the Noah story more historically accurate than the others?

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 2:01 am

I want to add that one of the reasons I put so much info about the Flood topic (and specifically the Biblical Flood) is that one of the reasons that creationists do not agree with carbon-dating is that they believe a world-wide catastrophic flood actually did occur, and that it changed the carbon levels world-wide, which they in turn believe negates the validity of carbon-dating.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:13 am

Originally posted by Georgi

There is some evidence that there was a flood in the Black Sea basin, which dried out during one of the ice ages... It's pretty controversial, but possible. While there isn't (and never will be) anything to link that flood to the Biblical story, it's possible that the various mythical flood stories had their basis in such an event, which could well have been retold by the survivors as the flooding of the entire known world.

Interestingly, there are quite a few parallels between the story of Noah's flood and the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh - an Ancient Sumerian tale which dates back to somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE.

Apparently there is a theory that states the Earth had a cloud cover thicker than the current atmosphere (sort of like Venus) and a meteor hit the earth causing the polar ice caps and causing the great flood....i don't endorse this, it is just something i heard.

The question I am inclined to ask is if various flood stories all originated from one event which actually happened, why would one necessarily accept one version as the truth over other (older) myths? If it was an event that occurred in living memory, and it developed into different stories within the different traditions it was passed down through, then what (aside from belief in the Bible as the Truth) makes the Noah story more historically accurate than the others?

Nothing makes it more accurate. Do you suppose that the individual floods found around the world are from an older time, rather than the creation year theory and the Bible is merely a vessel for that story?

@VDali, a lot of your previous questions are based on faith, since i am not part of any organised religion it isn't my right to speak categorically on faith based issues, i couold surmise but i doubt that i would be speaking the truth of what creationists believe to be true, i would be merely stating my opinion on their faiths.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:31 am

Radiocarbon dating.

A small fraction of normal carbon in living organisms is a radioactive isotope of carbon, C14. This isotope has a half-life of 5730 years. If you reduce an organic sample to gas and count the beta emissions, the relative quantities of C14 to C12 can be measured. Since C12 is stable, the remaining undecayed C14 will give an indication of the years elapsed since the death of the organism. This method has a certain advantage: it can directly date organic materials – bone, wood, charcoal, shell, etc.

This method can produce accurate, absolute dates from biological carbon from one hundred years to approximately 45,000 years Before Present (B.P.) (‘present’ is always assumed to be A.D. 1950 for radiocarbon purposes). The precision of this dating method generally ranges typically from 30 to 80 years for samples less than 10,000 BP and typically 1%-2% for samples older than 10,000 years. For example, if I had a radiocarbon result of 4,000 B.P. + or – 60, I would get a one-sigma date range of 4,060 to 3,940 B.P. My sample would have a 67% probability of falling within that range. It would have a 95% probability of falling within the two-sigma range (4,120 to 3,880 B.P.). This is actually too simplistic. Atmospheric Carbon varies from decade to decade, which reduces the precision. Current precisions are attained through a calibration curve that compares radiocarbon data to tree-ring (dendrochronology) data. Thus, calibrated results can have some pretty strange probability ranges, but are highly accurate. I have attached a sample calibrated result from a sample that I had processed some time ago.

Coming soon: K-A dating and other geological methods!

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:41 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
This isotope has a half-life of 5730 years.

May i ask how this was established?

@Gwally nice to have you in the fold again, now all i need it to be arguing against you and Waverly and i would get such a feeling of nostalgia

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:05 am

Did anyone address the exoskeleton dilemma?

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 2:07 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
May i ask how this was established?

Well, actually I figured it out! I sat in a dark room with a few carbon isotopes and a watch. After 5770 years I realized that half my life was gone and I called it there!

I wouldn’t know exactly how its done, you would have to ask a physicist. I imagine that if you have a known quantity of a radioactive isotope, you can measure its rate of decay over a period of time, then simply compute its half-life based on your observation. I am positive that half-lives are established through rigorous scientific control (i.e. multiple, repeatable experimentation), so the fact can be considered incontrovertible.

A bigger version of above attachment:

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:19 pm

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
Well, actually I figured it out! I sat in a dark room with a few carbon isotopes and a watch. After 5770 years I realized that half my life was gone and I called it there!

Sound scientific method

I wouldn’t know exactly how its done, you would have to ask a physicist. I imagine that if you have a known quantity of a radioactive isotope, you can measure its rate of decay over a period of time, then simply compute its half-life based on your observation. I am positive that half-lives are established through rigorous scientific control (i.e. multiple, repeatable experimentation), so the fact can be considered incontrovertible.

That is what i thought, i just wondered if you could confirm my assumptions

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:24 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

Nothing makes it more accurate. Do you suppose that the individual floods found around the world are from an older time, rather than the creation year theory and the Bible is merely a vessel for that story?

@VDali, a lot of your previous questions are based on faith, since i am not part of any organised religion it isn't my right to speak categorically on faith based issues, i couold surmise but i doubt that i would be speaking the truth of what creationists believe to be true, i would be merely stating my opinion on their faiths.

I got the information about what young creationists believe, esp. regarding carbon-dating from this website:
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
Please note that I am neither a conservative Christian (Liberal Quaker! LOL), nor a creationist, so I don't claim to be able to say categorically what they believe...
Here's a quote from that site regarding the Flood:
"Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages."

The research that is used to back up that statement is from here:

B.J. Taylor, "Carbon Dioxide in the Antediluvian Atmosphere," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1994, 30(4):193-197.

R.H. Brown, "Correlation of C-14 Age with Real Time," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 1992, 29:45-47.

I leave it to CE or Gwally to examine the above quote for scientific validity.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:51 pm

Regarding the idea of a World-wide Flood:
About 300 cultures around the world have stories of a massive flood.
There is evidence of a flood of the Black Sea which occurred circa 5600 BCE. (William Ryan and Walter Pitman, "Noah's Flood: The new scientific discoveries about the event that changed history," Sinon & Schuster, (!998)
The Biblical flood is calculated to have taken place in 2350 BCE. The area covered by the flood is wrong. The Noahic flood was universal -- it covered the entire world to a level above that of the tallest mountains. The Black Sea merely enlarged the borders of the lake to its present size, and raised it level by only a few hundred feet. The Genesis account states that God's intention was to exterminate the entire human race in the most complete act of genocide ever performed; he left only 8 people alive: Noah, his wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law. In order to accomplish this, then entire world must have been submerged in water.

There seem to be two different kinds of flood stories--one where god is punishing humanity. The other type (the majority) are creation stories. Some people do not have a flood story--the !Kung bushpeople find the idea ludicrous.

While the fact of so many flood stories is compelling, and can lead one to conclude that there may indeed have been a global flood, this is not borne out by geologic evidence. Besides the lack of geologic evidence, the simple question of where the water came from ruins any hope of a global flood. Put simply, for Gen 7:19 to be correct in stating " all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered", the amount of rain needed would be impossible. It would have amounted to 6 inches of rain per hour non-stop for 40 days and nights! There is certainly not enough water in the atmosphere or on the entire planet for this.