Science Disproves Evolution

Well, I certainly think these theories should be taught in schools. I just think kids need to understand them as theories based on what we know so far. Certainly, we need scientists to study. We just shouldn't project that all sorts of stuff must be possible based on what we've discovered so far. Again, educating children about theories should never be blocked.

So you're going to accept evolution as a fact in every possible area all the way back to infinity after what you just said? Because what you just said is absolutely true!

Thank you so much for this valuable post, Pahu!

He's showing you evidence. Cutting and paste abilities? That's the ultimate strawman argument. Is the evidence invalidated when it's cut and pasted? If it was even that? He's got all the references listed. Good grief. Is that the best you can do?

CD010: Radiometric Dating
CD011: Carbon dating.

lol talkorgins

67. You cte "Talkorigins.org" as a reliable source.
69. You write an article like one on Talk Origins which is basically says "Creationists say....Creationists say....Creationists say.....and they're wrong."

Dating methods from a Christian's perspective.
Radiometric Dating

This article is actually linked from talk origins.

You might be more convincing if you actually demonstrate
what's wrong with the evidence they present. Even some
Christians believe in an old earth as shown in my link
above.

Oh, so some Christians believe in billions of years, therefore I should too. What a brilliant and logically sound argument.

Radiometric dating gives unreliable results (Talk.Origins)

(Redirected from Radiometric dating gives unreliable results)

Response ArticleThis article (Radiometric dating gives unreliable results (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CD010:

Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.Source: Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.

CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
Such consistency can be explained by two main factors:

• Accelerated nuclear decay which can be proportional and is supported by evidence.
• The fact that radiometric dating is calibrated to the geologic column.

First of all, according to Talk.Origins' own source, the "dates" are not linear with distance as plate tectonics would predict. There is a definite upward curve in the data. Furthermore, the dates given are the "Best Kr dates" this indicates that they had other K-Ar that are not included. It could be that they do fit the theory, but there is no way to know since only the best ones are given. It is known that 40Ar from the source material can remain in lava after it hardens so the pattern may just represent the distribution of 40Ar in the mantle under the Pacific Ocean. Reference: Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating There are also several factors (such as volcanoes not following a consistent pattern,missing heat, the chemistry of the basalt, and many others) that call into question the interpretation of Hawaii even being formed by a hot spot. So Isaak's argument is highly suspect.
Talk Origins' source article is actually talking about the calibrating of radiometric dating to the Milankovitch cycles. So once again we have consistent dates resulting from calibration. Furthermore, the chart the article uses to demonstrate the calibration process has no hint of objective matching between the layers and the Milankovitch cycles.
Contrary to Talk.Origins' claim, luminescence dating is not independent of radiometric dating, and neither is electron spin resonance (also mentioned in the article). They both rely on the absorption of radiation, from radioactive decay. In the article the author uses 3 uranium methods as well as luminescence and electron spin resonance. A loss of uranium would affect all 5 methods causing them to give excessively old ages and it could do so in a manner that would produce consistent ages, but consistently excessively old ages. The author alludes to the possibility of a loss of uranium but ignores the possible affect on luminescence and electron spin resonance. The simple fact is that consistency between mutually dependent dating methods is no surprise. References

• Luminescence & Radiometric Dating
• Luminescence Dating
• Electron Spin Resonance Dating
• The dating game

According to the secular time line, Indians came to the America's around 11,000 years ago. This largely based on interpretation and carbon dating. In 2005, human footprints ,using the luminescence methods among others, were dated at 40,000 years old. Even more interesting, an other study dated the rocks at 1.3 million years old. [1]
First of all, the calibrating of radiometric dating to the geologic column would tend to produce an artifcal deeper-is-older pattern.
Second, it is not absolutely true.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TH]Rock formation[/TH]
[TH]K-Ar[/TH]
[TH]Rb-Sr[/TH]
[TH]Rb-Sr Isochron[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Uinkaret Plateau[/TD]
[TD]0.01 - 3.67 My[/TD]
[TD]1230 - 1440 My[/TD]
[TD]1300 - 1380 My[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cardenas Basalt[/TD]
[TD]771 - 877 My[/TD]
[TD]920 -1190 My[/TD]
[TD]1000 - 1140 My[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Diabase Sills[/TD]
[TD]874 - 984 My[/TD]
[TD]680 - 1440 My[/TD]
[TD]1000 - 1140 My[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The formations are in order of depth.

• Data from: Radioactive Dating Explained - Part 2

Finally, accelerated nuclear decay during the Flood would produce such a pattern since volcanic rock would tend to form time horizons in such an order

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]3. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. They ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

First off, creationists don't ignore consistent dates, but present several reasons why their consistency does not prove accuracy. Creationists refer to inconsistent dates simply to show that they exist. Yes, the vast majority of published dates do show a degree of constancy, but the question remains as to how often inconsistent dates are filtered from publication. Talk Origins is assuming that no filtering goes on, but theirown comments not only suggest that it does happen, but with a good degree of frequency. To answer this question would take a well-sampled objective study that would take a lot of time and money. What is needed is a totally objective sample of radiometric dates from all over the world.

And Then there is that case of the KBS Tuff - which exposes radiometric dating as a pseudo-science that is neither objective nor accurate -- and that the "dates" obtained are very often manipulated in order to (attempt to) fool people into believing in evolution (by promoting the idea of a "mythions of years" old earth).


Radiometric dating gives unreliable results (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Carbon dating gives inaccurate results (Talk.Origins)

(Redirected from Carbon dating gives inaccurate results)

Response ArticleThis article (Carbon dating gives inaccurate results (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
[TABLE="width: 570"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Claim CD011:


Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results.

Source: Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982).



CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


This rebuttal is problematic before Talk.Origins even starts it, given that it is supposed to be a rebuttal to a creationist claim, yet the claim was originally published in a secular journal. Talk.Origins has not shown that it is (originally) a creationist claim, yet in its rebuttal criticises "creationists" for supposedly getting the claim wrong. This shows that Talk.Origins' disagreement is ideological rather than evidence-based.

This works both ways. Uniformitarian geology and Flood geology are two totally different theoretical systems of geology, and so the limitations of Radiocarbon dating in one are not necessarily the same as the limitations of the other. According to modern Flood geology there was a rapid increase in [SUP]14[/SUP]C following the Flood. Therefore extrapolating dates much beyond about 1,000 B.C. on the basis of Uniformitarian assumptionswill result in measurements that exceed the limitations of [SUP]14[/SUP]C dating under Flood geology, and which are therefore invalid under that theoretical system, but will be within its limitations under the assumptions of Uniformitarian geology.

This is begging the question since the only way to know if an object is too old to date by radiocarbon dating is to date it by another method within the same theoretical system. An object interpreted as too old for radiocarbon dating by Uniformitarian geology may not be interpreted as too old for radiocarbon dating by Flood geology. If an object is really a million plus years old as interpreted by Uniformitarian geology then it should not have any [SUP]14[/SUP]C left. On the other hand Flood geology interprets these objects as only a few thousand years old and so predicts that they will still have [SUP]14[/SUP]C. The fact that [SUP]14[/SUP]C has been found in objects interpreted as a million plus years old by Uniformitarian geologydemonstrates a successful prediction by flood geology.

Thank you Talk Origins for proving the point of the claim. They are once again begging the question since the way to determine if an object is contaminated with "younger" or "older" carbon is by dating it with some other method.

No kidding! This just shows the importance of initial [SUP]14[/SUP]C and how it can influence date calculations. According to Flood geology, the Flood was followed by a rapid increase in [SUP]14[/SUP]C, causing the same situation just after the Flood.


[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Talk Origins clearly does not understand that Uniformitarian geology and Flood geology are two totally different theoretical systems. Misuse inUniformitarian geology may not be misuse in Flood geology and vice versa. Since creationists assume that there are no objects so old that they cannot be expected to contain any [SUP]14[/SUP]C, it is reasonable to test objects that uniformitarians believe should contain no [SUP]14[/SUP]C, such as coal. On the other hand, it would be misuse, under the creationist system, to attempt to get accurate dates of objects believed to be over say 3000 years old, whereas uniformitarian assumptions would not preclude that.


Attempting to date samples that are supposedly millions of years old is not a "misuse" of the method as claimed. First, it is good science to test rather than assume, so even if one does believe that the sample is outside the range of the method, it is appropriate to test this belief with empirical measurement. Second, if the sample was really outside the range of the method, the result should be no measurable C14, and therefore an "infinite" age or an unspecified age greater than the method allows, not a specified-but-incorrect age. The "misuse" claim is an excuse to explain away a result that doesn't fit the evolutionary orthodoxy.


[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #f0f0ff"]2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Correlating Radiocarbon dating to historical dates is not at issue since both Uniformitarian geology and Flood geology agree that this is valid, but calibrating it by tree-ring data is problematic.

1. Beyond living trees, tree-ring data is based on matching tree rings from fragments of dead trees.
2. The match is rather subjective in that it requires a visual match of patterns,
3. Ring patterns are not unique but tend to repeat themselves.
4. Ring patterns are not consistent even within the same tree.
5. Trees can grow more than one ring per year
6. Ring patterns are often matched by radiocarbon dating, even over better statistical matches.

All of these factors raise doubts about tree-ring dating, but the use of radiocarbon dating in matching rings disqualifies tree-ring dating as an independent way of calibrating radiocarbon dating. Furthermore, it means that both methods are calibrated to each other and so a match of dates between the two methods does not prove that the dates are accurate.

• Reference: Carbon 14
• Reference: Tree Rings
• Reference: Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
• Reference: The Oldest Tree in the World
• Reference: Rings and Biblical Chronology
• Reference: Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?
• Reference: Compatibility of Biblical Chronology with C-14 Age
• Reference: Dendrochronology

Carbon dating gives inaccurate results (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Megaman that wasn't an argument, he was pointing out that old earth isn't some exclusively atheistic belief

Well, if it wasn't an atempt to convince us of an old earth, what was it for then? Apparently it was completely pointless.

And this isn't the first time you guys have said "other Christians believe it." You keep spouting that over and over, like if you say it enough times it'll mean something to us. "Other Christians believe it, other Christians believe it, other Christians believe it." Your argument of "other Christians believe it, therefore you should too," isn't even an implied argument anymore, it's blatently obvious that's where you're going with it. Until you get called out on it, then you pretend it doesn't mean anything, but then you'll later start referring to it again.

Why do evolutionists deny God and Darwin? All of their energy seems to go to preserving and protecting species destined for extinction.
Do they wish to be ‘gods’? Their need to protect the survival of doomed species seems to overlook true evolution. Why deny humanity for the sake of a ‘snail darter’ or some other form of life that must be unable to adapt.
If you wish to believe, in Darwin, then believe. Quit pretending that good intentions are proof of ‘your chosen god’.

A bit of a ramble, but Darwin didn't command adherence to survival of the fittest to the people in a religious manner, it was an observation.

No he was pointing out the flaw in previous claims by young earthers here who say "evolutionists believe the earth is billions of years old... etc.", in addition to the 'evolutionists', quite a few Christians do as well, this isn't some battle of absolutes, although on this forum it at times appears to be.

And so what if some Christians believe in billions of years? You haven't presented any meaning to that other than, "other Christians believe it, so you should too."

so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Ephesians 4:14

So what if other Christians believe doctrines of the world? You seem to think that makes it more valid, but it doesn't.

It never had anything to do with credibility, its pointing out that it isn't exclusive, thats it.

Again, so what? Telling us over and over again that "other Christians believe it" doesn't mean anything to us, yet every time someone doesn't believe it, that's the first thing you atheists spout. "Other Christians believe it, it's not exclusive (therefore you should believe it too)."