-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
G
C
Actually, macro-evolutions case is largely a historic one: These are the fossils/remains that we have and this is how we interpret them. In order for macro-evolution to be a scientifically proven thesis, it must be observable and repeatable. The closest thing that proponants of macro-evolution have to scientific evidence is cases of narrowing and fracturing of species. What is essential is to find a natural force that will widen the genetic spread of a species. The theory that I hear proposed most lately is that of beneficial mutations--very sudden and massive changes in the genetic spread of species.
the fact is that the geology and the fossils, when viewed objectively support the Bible including the great flood
1.[FONT="] [/FONT]Objectively? You mean through the lenses of the Protestant interpretation of the Bible? For someone stating such an obvious and universal fact, you sure have done a nice job of not backing it up.
carbon dating is known to be based on faulty assumptions
2.[FONT="] [/FONT]By who? The Creation Museum?
1.[FONT="] [/FONT]Objectively? You mean through the lenses of the Protestant interpretation of the Bible? For someone stating such an obvious and universal fact, you sure have done a nice job of not backing it up.
carbon dating is known to be based on faulty assumptions
2.[FONT="] [/FONT]By who? The Creation Museum?
Yeah that's not quite correct. There are different dating methods around using different techniques that don't have the same assumptions as the next, and they all agree with each other. In any case, a million year figure even within 1 standard deviation is still a very large number and you can never get a 6000 year figure even accounting for error due to assumptions.
G
the first assumption that is behind carbon14 and a bunch of other dating methods is that the speeed of light is constant
it is not
it has been slowing down exponentially and this affects the speed at which things have been seen to be decaying
geological layers are dated by their fossils
fossils are dated by their geological layers
see the circular reasoning? if i assume a fossil is 10 years old then that is the age of the geological layer ; if i assume 10 billion then that is what I get
like I said, have you got any specific questions?
it is not
it has been slowing down exponentially and this affects the speed at which things have been seen to be decaying
geological layers are dated by their fossils
fossils are dated by their geological layers
see the circular reasoning? if i assume a fossil is 10 years old then that is the age of the geological layer ; if i assume 10 billion then that is what I get
like I said, have you got any specific questions?
C14 dating is only one of a number of different methods developed and now days scientists have more reliable and proven methods.
That the speed of light has been slowing down at said rate is also an assumption.That argument is trying to counterclaim assumption with yet another assumption.
Even so, the amount of change in the speed of light would not result in an error of x million years. Accounting for any changes in speed of light might still give you a 100 to 500 thousand year figure which is still much more than 6000 years. Do the maths, you cannot get a 6000 year figure even accounting for errors in assumptions.
That the speed of light has been slowing down at said rate is also an assumption.That argument is trying to counterclaim assumption with yet another assumption.
Even so, the amount of change in the speed of light would not result in an error of x million years. Accounting for any changes in speed of light might still give you a 100 to 500 thousand year figure which is still much more than 6000 years. Do the maths, you cannot get a 6000 year figure even accounting for errors in assumptions.
G
you just pulled that off the top of your head snail
the decay rate is actually exponential and demonstrably is still happening
the red shift indicates this but there is also another issue
God stretched out the heavens
when He did this time dilation would have applied so that, from an atomic point of view, the edges of the universe aged billions of years while the earth, near the centre of the universe, aged just days
the earth itself is very young and there are a bunch of things that back this up
anyone can google 'evidence of a young earth'
the decay rate is actually exponential and demonstrably is still happening
the red shift indicates this but there is also another issue
God stretched out the heavens
when He did this time dilation would have applied so that, from an atomic point of view, the edges of the universe aged billions of years while the earth, near the centre of the universe, aged just days
the earth itself is very young and there are a bunch of things that back this up
anyone can google 'evidence of a young earth'
By the way, they really only use C14 dating for up to 60,000 years, so you're talking about the wrong method if talking about the million year evolution figures.
re: fossil and geological layer. The obvious assumption is that the earth around the fossil has decayed about the same time as the fossil itself, both having been subjected to the same sorts of events. They will adjust the calculations and use the right technique for whatever type of material they are dating. They cross test radiometric dates using different isotope pairs, which removes any "one off" error or circular reasoning that you talk about. The accuracy of these techniques has been reduced to 1-2% (a thousand or so years), and they are pretty hard to argue against. Since radiometric dating was invented we now have a range of different techniques, 10's of thousands of calculations done and compared and cross-checked with other researchers in the area, and no one is coming up with 6000-10000 year figures.
re: fossil and geological layer. The obvious assumption is that the earth around the fossil has decayed about the same time as the fossil itself, both having been subjected to the same sorts of events. They will adjust the calculations and use the right technique for whatever type of material they are dating. They cross test radiometric dates using different isotope pairs, which removes any "one off" error or circular reasoning that you talk about. The accuracy of these techniques has been reduced to 1-2% (a thousand or so years), and they are pretty hard to argue against. Since radiometric dating was invented we now have a range of different techniques, 10's of thousands of calculations done and compared and cross-checked with other researchers in the area, and no one is coming up with 6000-10000 year figures.
I underlined the following in bold just for you greatkraw
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-decay
There is no support for c-decay in the mainstream scientific community and, in fact, little support for it among leaders in the young Earth creationist community. For example, both the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AiG), two of the most prominent young Earth creationist organizations, say that this proposal has a number of problems that have not been satisfactorily answered and advise young Earth creationists against advocating the idea. (AiG currently advocates a competing proposal published by D. Russell Humphreys in 1994, which advocates a kind of relativistic time dilation in the region of the Milky Way galaxy, as a possible explanation for how light from distant sources in the universe, millions or billions of light-years from Earth, can reach the Earth in less than 10,000 years in the Earth's frame of reference. However, Humphreys' proposal also has found no support in the mainstream scientific community.)