-
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.
L
This may be too much for our woody literalists to comprehend - Of course poor Ol' Roger is a tool of satan.
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The cosmogenic dating clocks work somewhat differently than the others. Carbon-14 in particular is used to date material such as bones, wood, cloth, paper, and other dead tissue from either plants or animals. To a rough approximation, the ratio of carbon-14 to the stable isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-13, is relatively constant in the atmosphere and living organisms, and has been well calibrated. Once a living thing dies, it no longer takes in carbon from food or air, and the amount of carbon-14 starts to drop with time. How far the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio has dropped indicates how old the sample is. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is less than 6,000 years, it can only be used for dating material less than about 45,000 years old.
Dinosaur bones do not have carbon-14 (unless contaminated), as the dinosaurs became extinct over 60 million years ago. But some other animals that are now extinct, such as North American mammoths, can be dated by carbon-14. Also, some materials from prehistoric times, as well as Biblical events, can be dated by carbon-14.
The carbon-14 dates have been carefully cross-checked with non-radiometric age indicators. For example growth rings in trees, if counted carefully, are a reliable way to determine the age of a tree. Each growth ring only collects carbon from the air and nutrients during the year it is made. To calibrate carbon-14, one can analyze carbon from the center several rings of a tree, and then count the rings inward from the living portion to determine the actual age. This has been done for the "Methuselah of trees", the bristlecone pine trees, which grow very slowly and live up to 6,000 years. Scientists have extended this calibration even further. These trees grow in a very dry region near the California-Nevada border. Dead trees in this dry climate take many thousands of years to decay.
Growth ring patterns based on wet and dry years can be correlated between living and long dead trees, extending the continuous ring count back to 11,800 years ago. "Floating" records, which are not tied to the present time, exist farther back than this, but their ages are not known with absolute certainty. An effort is presently underway to bridge the gaps so as to have a reliable, continuous record significantly farther back in time. The study of tree rings and the ages they give is called "dendrochronology".
Tree rings do not provide continuous chronologies beyond 11,800 years ago because a rather abrupt change in climate took place at that time, which was the end of the last ice age. During the ice age, long-lived trees grew in different areas than they do now. There are many indicators, some to be mentioned below, that show exactly how the climate changed at the end of the last ice age. It is difficult to find continuous tree ring records through this period of rapid climate change. Dendrochronology will probably eventually find reliable tree records that bridge this time period, but in the meantime, the carbon-14 ages have been calibrated farther back in time by other means.
Calibration of carbon-14 back to almost 50,000 years ago has been done in several ways. One way is to find yearly layers that are produced over longer periods of time than tree rings. In some lakes or bays where underwater sedimentation occurs at a relatively rapid rate, the sediments have seasonal patterns, so each year produces a distinct layer. Such sediment layers are called "varves", and are described in more detail below. Varve layers can be counted just like tree rings. If layers contain dead plant material, they can be used to calibrate the carbon-14 ages.
Another way to calibrate carbon-14 farther back in time is to find recently-formed carbonate deposits and cross-calibrate the carbon-14 in them with another short-lived radioactive isotope. Where do we find recently-formed carbonate deposits? If you have ever taken a tour of a cave and seen water dripping from stalactites on the ceiling to stalagmites on the floor of the cave, you have seen carbonate deposits being formed. Since most cave formations have formed relatively recently, formations such as stalactites and stalagmites have been quite useful in cross-calibrating the carbon-14 record.
What does one find in the calibration of carbon-14 against actual ages? If one predicts a carbon-14 age assuming that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air has stayed constant, there is a slight error because this ratio has changed slightly. Figure 9 shows that the carbon-14 fraction in the air has decreased over the last 40,000 years by about a factor of two. This is attributed to a strengthening of the Earth's magnetic field during this time. A stronger magnetic field shields the upper atmosphere better from charged cosmic rays, resulting in less carbon-14 production now than in the past.
(Changes in the Earth's magnetic field are well documented. Complete reversals of the north and south magnetic poles have occurred many times over geologic history.) A small amount of data beyond 40,000 years (not shown in Fig. 9) suggests that this trend reversed between 40,000 and 50,000 years, with lower carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios farther back in time, but these data need to be confirmed.
What change does this have on uncalibrated carbon-14 ages? The bottom panel of Figure 9 shows the amount
of offset in the uncalibrated ages. The offset is generally less than 1500 years over the last 10,000 years, but grows to about 6,000 years at 40,000 years before present. Uncalibrated radiocarbon ages underestimate the actual ages. Note that a factor of two difference in the atmospheric carbon-14 ratio, as shown in the top panel of Figure 9, does not translate to a factor of two offset in the age. Rather, the offset is equal to one half-life, or 5,700 years for carbon-14. This is only about 15% of the age of samples at 40,000 years.
The initial portion of the calibration curve in Figure 9 has been widely available and well accepted for some time, so reported radiocarbon dates for ages up to 11,800 years generally give the calibrated ages unless other wise stated. The calibration curve over the portions extending to 40,000 years is relatively recent, but should become widely adopted as well.
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
[A PDF version of this document is also available.]
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
[A PDF version of this document is also available.]
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The cosmogenic dating clocks work somewhat differently than the others. Carbon-14 in particular is used to date material such as bones, wood, cloth, paper, and other dead tissue from either plants or animals. To a rough approximation, the ratio of carbon-14 to the stable isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-13, is relatively constant in the atmosphere and living organisms, and has been well calibrated. Once a living thing dies, it no longer takes in carbon from food or air, and the amount of carbon-14 starts to drop with time. How far the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio has dropped indicates how old the sample is. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is less than 6,000 years, it can only be used for dating material less than about 45,000 years old.
Dinosaur bones do not have carbon-14 (unless contaminated), as the dinosaurs became extinct over 60 million years ago. But some other animals that are now extinct, such as North American mammoths, can be dated by carbon-14. Also, some materials from prehistoric times, as well as Biblical events, can be dated by carbon-14.
The carbon-14 dates have been carefully cross-checked with non-radiometric age indicators. For example growth rings in trees, if counted carefully, are a reliable way to determine the age of a tree. Each growth ring only collects carbon from the air and nutrients during the year it is made. To calibrate carbon-14, one can analyze carbon from the center several rings of a tree, and then count the rings inward from the living portion to determine the actual age. This has been done for the "Methuselah of trees", the bristlecone pine trees, which grow very slowly and live up to 6,000 years. Scientists have extended this calibration even further. These trees grow in a very dry region near the California-Nevada border. Dead trees in this dry climate take many thousands of years to decay.
Growth ring patterns based on wet and dry years can be correlated between living and long dead trees, extending the continuous ring count back to 11,800 years ago. "Floating" records, which are not tied to the present time, exist farther back than this, but their ages are not known with absolute certainty. An effort is presently underway to bridge the gaps so as to have a reliable, continuous record significantly farther back in time. The study of tree rings and the ages they give is called "dendrochronology".
Tree rings do not provide continuous chronologies beyond 11,800 years ago because a rather abrupt change in climate took place at that time, which was the end of the last ice age. During the ice age, long-lived trees grew in different areas than they do now. There are many indicators, some to be mentioned below, that show exactly how the climate changed at the end of the last ice age. It is difficult to find continuous tree ring records through this period of rapid climate change. Dendrochronology will probably eventually find reliable tree records that bridge this time period, but in the meantime, the carbon-14 ages have been calibrated farther back in time by other means.
Calibration of carbon-14 back to almost 50,000 years ago has been done in several ways. One way is to find yearly layers that are produced over longer periods of time than tree rings. In some lakes or bays where underwater sedimentation occurs at a relatively rapid rate, the sediments have seasonal patterns, so each year produces a distinct layer. Such sediment layers are called "varves", and are described in more detail below. Varve layers can be counted just like tree rings. If layers contain dead plant material, they can be used to calibrate the carbon-14 ages.
Another way to calibrate carbon-14 farther back in time is to find recently-formed carbonate deposits and cross-calibrate the carbon-14 in them with another short-lived radioactive isotope. Where do we find recently-formed carbonate deposits? If you have ever taken a tour of a cave and seen water dripping from stalactites on the ceiling to stalagmites on the floor of the cave, you have seen carbonate deposits being formed. Since most cave formations have formed relatively recently, formations such as stalactites and stalagmites have been quite useful in cross-calibrating the carbon-14 record.
What does one find in the calibration of carbon-14 against actual ages? If one predicts a carbon-14 age assuming that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air has stayed constant, there is a slight error because this ratio has changed slightly. Figure 9 shows that the carbon-14 fraction in the air has decreased over the last 40,000 years by about a factor of two. This is attributed to a strengthening of the Earth's magnetic field during this time. A stronger magnetic field shields the upper atmosphere better from charged cosmic rays, resulting in less carbon-14 production now than in the past.
(Changes in the Earth's magnetic field are well documented. Complete reversals of the north and south magnetic poles have occurred many times over geologic history.) A small amount of data beyond 40,000 years (not shown in Fig. 9) suggests that this trend reversed between 40,000 and 50,000 years, with lower carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios farther back in time, but these data need to be confirmed.
What change does this have on uncalibrated carbon-14 ages? The bottom panel of Figure 9 shows the amount
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
Figure 9. Ratio of atmospheric carbon-14 to carbon-12, relative to the present-day value (top panel). Unlike long-term radiometric dating methods, radiocarbon relies on knowing the fraction of radioactive carbon-14 in the atmosphere at the time the object being dated was alive.
The production of carbon-14 by cosmic rays was up to a factor of about two higher than at present in the timescales over which radiocarbon can be used. Data for the last 11,800 years comes from tree-ring counting, while the data beyond that age comes from other sources, such as from a carbonate stalagmite for the data shown here.
The bottom panel shows the offset in uncalibrated ages caused by this change in atmospheric composition. Tree-ring data are from Stuiver et al.,
Radiocarbon 40, 1041-1083, 1998; stalactite data are from Beck et al., Science 292, 2453-2458, 2001.
[/TD]The production of carbon-14 by cosmic rays was up to a factor of about two higher than at present in the timescales over which radiocarbon can be used. Data for the last 11,800 years comes from tree-ring counting, while the data beyond that age comes from other sources, such as from a carbonate stalagmite for the data shown here.
The bottom panel shows the offset in uncalibrated ages caused by this change in atmospheric composition. Tree-ring data are from Stuiver et al.,
Radiocarbon 40, 1041-1083, 1998; stalactite data are from Beck et al., Science 292, 2453-2458, 2001.
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
of offset in the uncalibrated ages. The offset is generally less than 1500 years over the last 10,000 years, but grows to about 6,000 years at 40,000 years before present. Uncalibrated radiocarbon ages underestimate the actual ages. Note that a factor of two difference in the atmospheric carbon-14 ratio, as shown in the top panel of Figure 9, does not translate to a factor of two offset in the age. Rather, the offset is equal to one half-life, or 5,700 years for carbon-14. This is only about 15% of the age of samples at 40,000 years.
The initial portion of the calibration curve in Figure 9 has been widely available and well accepted for some time, so reported radiocarbon dates for ages up to 11,800 years generally give the calibrated ages unless other wise stated. The calibration curve over the portions extending to 40,000 years is relatively recent, but should become widely adopted as well.
I do understand that evolution is not your point, but it can't be part of the package.
Unless, of course, it is true, and you can show me how it is not an attempt to remove God from our thoughts.
Evolution (if it were true, and I'm definitely not saying it is) would be more openly discussed, if it didn't seem to be a very attack on God and the stories we see in the bible. Satan is crafty. He can get us arguing over nothing and avoiding the important.
Yes, I did read your paper. I do have a question. If I were to heat a sample before it was carbon dated, would that "contaminate" the sample? I mean even if it were heated 2000-6000 years previously. Would that "contaminate" the sample?
Unless, of course, it is true, and you can show me how it is not an attempt to remove God from our thoughts.
Evolution (if it were true, and I'm definitely not saying it is) would be more openly discussed, if it didn't seem to be a very attack on God and the stories we see in the bible. Satan is crafty. He can get us arguing over nothing and avoiding the important.
Yes, I did read your paper. I do have a question. If I were to heat a sample before it was carbon dated, would that "contaminate" the sample? I mean even if it were heated 2000-6000 years previously. Would that "contaminate" the sample?
L
Lets face it TM, we don't really have a clue from the bible the "mechanics" of how he created the universe and the earth - that is not the intent of Genesis given to a pre-scientific people - but there is no doubt that he used a scientific method to create all things physical - we know this because the laws are understandable by using scientific principles - to state that "satan" is using this knowledge to "subvert" the truth is totally bogus - the device you are using to communicate with us on here is part of these scientific principles - are we to believe that satan is behind the way we are able to communicate?
There's a demon behind every door...did we not learn anything from the RC church and Galileo?, Copernicus - these men showed us the mysteries of the physical universe as part of the glory of God - the indoctrinated denied it.
Ken Ham and his ilk are right up there with Galileo's persecutors - in fact they are worse as they did not have the scientific knowledge we have now.
You explain to me how science is trying to "attempt to remove God from our thoughts" - if anything science gives us a far greater understanding of the complexity of creation not seen by previous generations - this should bring us into a deeper awe of the Creator.
Thomas A Kempis wrote and I'm paraphrasing here "if the creation is beautiful - how beautiful is the creator".
Science shows us an incredibly complex creation which is a reflection of the creator.
(Rom 1:20 KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
This statement of Paul is being proven true by every step of science even though those discovering the deeper insights are still not necessarily near to the truth - but for the Christian they just establish the truth even further - not that we of faith need that - they are aids in revealing greater truths.
"If I were to heat a sample before it was carbon dated, would that "contaminate" the sample? I mean even if it were heated 2000-6000 years previously. Would that "contaminate" the sample?"
I'm sure that scientists take all things into consideration - the peer review process takes care of that or we'd still be thinking the phlogiston theory still holds "water".
There's a demon behind every door...did we not learn anything from the RC church and Galileo?, Copernicus - these men showed us the mysteries of the physical universe as part of the glory of God - the indoctrinated denied it.
Ken Ham and his ilk are right up there with Galileo's persecutors - in fact they are worse as they did not have the scientific knowledge we have now.
You explain to me how science is trying to "attempt to remove God from our thoughts" - if anything science gives us a far greater understanding of the complexity of creation not seen by previous generations - this should bring us into a deeper awe of the Creator.
Thomas A Kempis wrote and I'm paraphrasing here "if the creation is beautiful - how beautiful is the creator".
Science shows us an incredibly complex creation which is a reflection of the creator.
(Rom 1:20 KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
This statement of Paul is being proven true by every step of science even though those discovering the deeper insights are still not necessarily near to the truth - but for the Christian they just establish the truth even further - not that we of faith need that - they are aids in revealing greater truths.
"If I were to heat a sample before it was carbon dated, would that "contaminate" the sample? I mean even if it were heated 2000-6000 years previously. Would that "contaminate" the sample?"
I'm sure that scientists take all things into consideration - the peer review process takes care of that or we'd still be thinking the phlogiston theory still holds "water".
Evolution and uniformitarianism are completely unrelated. That would be as asinine as saying Christianity is nothing without guns. It's a completely ridiculous statement.
You're trying to vilify the theory of evolution by associating it with uniformitarianism. This is a total strawman and completely dishonest.
You're trying to vilify the theory of evolution by associating it with uniformitarianism. This is a total strawman and completely dishonest.
Didn't Darwin reject evolution before he died?
It doesn't really matter. I don't see how big bang and evolution "establish truth even further" for Christians (or anyone for that matter). They are "theories" to explain how we could be here without God's existence. The only reason, in my opinion, that evolution isn't extinct is because it is the closest thing to an explanation of our existence without God's existence.
It doesn't really matter. I don't see how big bang and evolution "establish truth even further" for Christians (or anyone for that matter). They are "theories" to explain how we could be here without God's existence. The only reason, in my opinion, that evolution isn't extinct is because it is the closest thing to an explanation of our existence without God's existence.
No, he didn't.
One woman claimed he accepted Jesus right before passing away, but Darwin's children stated that this was a bunch of nonsense and that his last words were about how he didn't fear death and how wonderful his wife had been.
A scientific theory is not a hunch or an educated guess. This is a common misconception.
Furthermore, the theory of evolution does not describe anything relating to God what-so-ever. It's not about how we can exist without God's existence, but how species evolve and how we end up with different animals.
That's like claiming the science behind rainbows exists only because it's the closest explanation we have to the existence of rainbows without God - or literally every single verified scientific theory out there.
The reality is, the theory of evolution is accepted because it's been confirmed time and time again by science. It doesn't exist because it's an explanation that sounds right, so we treat it that way. It exists because it's what we have verified to be true using the scientific method.
One woman claimed he accepted Jesus right before passing away, but Darwin's children stated that this was a bunch of nonsense and that his last words were about how he didn't fear death and how wonderful his wife had been.
A scientific theory is not a hunch or an educated guess. This is a common misconception.
Furthermore, the theory of evolution does not describe anything relating to God what-so-ever. It's not about how we can exist without God's existence, but how species evolve and how we end up with different animals.
That's like claiming the science behind rainbows exists only because it's the closest explanation we have to the existence of rainbows without God - or literally every single verified scientific theory out there.
The reality is, the theory of evolution is accepted because it's been confirmed time and time again by science. It doesn't exist because it's an explanation that sounds right, so we treat it that way. It exists because it's what we have verified to be true using the scientific method.
Is that like the gravity theory. Oh, wait, it is not called the gravity theory because it is not a theory. A theory is an idea that cannot be proved. Now you can get all technical here, but the fact is evolution still has theory attached to it because of the lack of proof.
If what I am saying isn't true, then theory would be attached to every scientific thought.
If what I am saying isn't true, then theory would be attached to every scientific thought.
L
From a source that I can't remember right now:
OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get either of us in trouble. Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, of course. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?
Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."
In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.
We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.
While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.
So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other
OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get either of us in trouble. Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, of course. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?
Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."
In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.
We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.
While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.
So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other
Gravitation, also known as theory of gravitation. I'm assuming you have also never heard of germ theory?
This is not what a theory means, ESPECIALLY in science. In fact, without proof, you can't have a scientific theory.
Wrong. Wrong a million times over. Evolution is strongly supported by mountains of evidence. Almost all scientists accept the theory of evolution due to this evidence. These scientists would be the last people to refer to evolution as a baseless assumption, or an unsupported hunch, as you seem to think it is.
Sure, you can try to argue that the science behind evolution is wrong. But don't attack things evolution isn't and claim that's what evolution is. This is called a strawman, and it's the bane of every intellectual's existence.
You're skeptical of evolution, fair enough. But don't let your skepticism of evolution get in the way of your reasoning. If you want to actually learn about the theory of evolution, stop trying to poke holes in it and pay attention to what me and Larry have to say. We may not be able to convince you, but at least we can teach you what the theory of evolution is and isn't so you're not attacking a phantom (or strawman) when you debate.
This is not what a theory means, ESPECIALLY in science. In fact, without proof, you can't have a scientific theory.
Wrong. Wrong a million times over. Evolution is strongly supported by mountains of evidence. Almost all scientists accept the theory of evolution due to this evidence. These scientists would be the last people to refer to evolution as a baseless assumption, or an unsupported hunch, as you seem to think it is.
Sure, you can try to argue that the science behind evolution is wrong. But don't attack things evolution isn't and claim that's what evolution is. This is called a strawman, and it's the bane of every intellectual's existence.
You're skeptical of evolution, fair enough. But don't let your skepticism of evolution get in the way of your reasoning. If you want to actually learn about the theory of evolution, stop trying to poke holes in it and pay attention to what me and Larry have to say. We may not be able to convince you, but at least we can teach you what the theory of evolution is and isn't so you're not attacking a phantom (or strawman) when you debate.
Last edited:
How do scientists explain that we have monkeys (I don't really care which species) and we have men, but we are missing all of the other intermediates. And this is just monkeys and men. But all creatures.
There should be all of the changes exhibited today, walking, creeping, slithering around us. But there are not. Just individual species that scientists say have similar DNA.
Scientists (Darwin) looked at animals that existed, saw similarities (I don't really care on what level) and decided that they might be linked. Never considering, seriously anyway (as he introduced the hunch), that all of the "in between species were missing - Because they never existed.
Now if you want to discuss an older earth, I will listen and discuss, but big bang and evolution are scientists answer to how we are here without God. Cause if they believed in God then there wouldn't be a big bang theory at all.
You know this is true. Because you have allowed yourself to believe that there is no God. Knowledge makes arrogant. And that is True knowledge. False information from people who are studying God's Work and making poor assumptions that He doesn't exist is even worse.
Here's a challenge for you (as atheists are always asking for evidence) provide us with evidence that evolution is real. And since I have little to no interest in it, make it easy to reference with indisputable evidence that I can't shoot down by referencing a much more trustworthy Bible.
There should be all of the changes exhibited today, walking, creeping, slithering around us. But there are not. Just individual species that scientists say have similar DNA.
Scientists (Darwin) looked at animals that existed, saw similarities (I don't really care on what level) and decided that they might be linked. Never considering, seriously anyway (as he introduced the hunch), that all of the "in between species were missing - Because they never existed.
Now if you want to discuss an older earth, I will listen and discuss, but big bang and evolution are scientists answer to how we are here without God. Cause if they believed in God then there wouldn't be a big bang theory at all.
You know this is true. Because you have allowed yourself to believe that there is no God. Knowledge makes arrogant. And that is True knowledge. False information from people who are studying God's Work and making poor assumptions that He doesn't exist is even worse.
Here's a challenge for you (as atheists are always asking for evidence) provide us with evidence that evolution is real. And since I have little to no interest in it, make it easy to reference with indisputable evidence that I can't shoot down by referencing a much more trustworthy Bible.
cepi, I was going to wait for you response, but you page says that you haven't done anything in 59 minutes, so I am assuming that you are not there.
I will check back later, though I imagine that I am probably done posting on this subject as I don't plan to invest very much of my time in a "theory" that seems so implausible.
Seriously, if you want me to take it seriously, catch my attention, and don't suggest that I read a book - probably not going to happen. I am a slow reader. I hate reading. I do read the bible. I do listen to the bible.
And just so you know, I did very well in all my classes, especially science and math. But it has been almost 20 years, so I probably won't be reciting anything back to you.
I will check back later, though I imagine that I am probably done posting on this subject as I don't plan to invest very much of my time in a "theory" that seems so implausible.
Seriously, if you want me to take it seriously, catch my attention, and don't suggest that I read a book - probably not going to happen. I am a slow reader. I hate reading. I do read the bible. I do listen to the bible.
And just so you know, I did very well in all my classes, especially science and math. But it has been almost 20 years, so I probably won't be reciting anything back to you.
T
Where did they pull millions and billions of years then? From the geological strata. It's an assumption based on uniformitairianism. Evolution is a ridiculous belief that requires massive ages to sound anywhere near plausible. Uniformitairnianism provides that framework for such a belief. Still, billions of years is too short a time for evolution.
The intermediate species that linked us to other apes are extinct. But they do exist and we have a very impressive collection of fossils to prove it.
The reason we don't see more intermediate species alive today is because they have become extinct.
1. Your statement is untrue. There's no reason to believe we should see many more variations of species of all kinds. Species evolve in groups, not individually.
2. Scientists don't just "say" we have similar DNA. We have observed DNA and tested thousands of samples.
No, they're answers to how we are here through observed evidence. Scientists aren't trying to concern themselves with whether or not God played a role or not. Again, you can just as easily argue that light refraction is a scientific theory used to explain how rainbows exist without God, or how germ theory is used to explain how people get sick without the cause being God, Satan, or demons.
Not true. Many Christian scientists believe God was behind the Big Bang theory. The reason these scientists don't talk about God when they're discussing science is because God can't be tested through the scientific method, and therefore can't be scientifically verified.
What you said isn't true. Don't tell me what I do and do not know - especially if it's in complete contradiction with everything I've said.
So we should abstain from knowledge as to remain humble?
The reality is, arrogance is a personality trait. Knowledge is just as likely to trigger arrogance as it is to trigger humbleness.
Science doesn't assume. In fact, science exists so we don't have to assume.
This is like saying, "Find evidence that evolution is real that doesn't contradict my statement: Evolution isn't real."
You're essentially telling me to find evidence that evolution is real, evidence that does not contradict the Bible. But that's the problem! The evidence DOES contradict the Bible, at least a literal interpretation. You say the Bible is more trustworthy, but the Bible isn't a book that gains authority through science - it gains authority through the assumption that it is the word of God.
Me and Larry just explained to you what a scientific theory is. If you still insist a theory is just an educated guess or a hunch, then you're merely revealing your lack of interest in what science really is and what science really suggests and that you're going to believe whatever you want, even if it's untrue (such as your false definition of a scientific theory), as long as it validates your belief in the Bible.
If you're not willing to learn what evolution is, then stop talking as if you do understand evolution.
~~
Imagine if I came on this site stating, "The Bible isn't true. Just look at the story of Noah. Noah built a giant wooden boat that sailed on a sea of lava. A wooden boat can't sail on a sea of lava!"
You would probably respond, "Before you criticize Noah and the great flood, make sure you actually understand the story first. Noah didn't sail on a sea of lava, he sailed on an ocean of water."
Now, imagine if I responded, "Well, convince me Noah's boat survived the sea of lava. And don't suggest I read stuff about Noah's flood since I have no interest in wasting my time learning about it."
This is what you're essentially doing to me with the theory of evolution.
No, it's not an assumption. It's based off of a scientific method. How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated? | BioLogos
You're trying to argue that scientists accept these as facts to conform with what other scientists accept as facts. That's completely untrue. Scientists base their knowledge off of what the evidence suggests.
It doesn't sound plausible to you because you already believe man was made as is by God. To me, believing a magical entity created man from dirt and woman from his rib is quite asinine - but it was a very reasonable answer when I was a Christian.
Furthermore, it would take more than billions of years for evolution to occur? Why not trillions? You're making up a purely arbitrary number and stating it as a fact, just like how you're making up the claim that evolution is based off of uniformitarianism.
Darwin was already an atheist before his daughter died.
There is always conjecture in science. This is why we resort to multiple means of testing. We have verified the theory of evolution through the fossil record, DNA, observation of existing species, testing of micro-evolution, etc. We know species evolved because we have successfully used science to make predictions about the fossil record that turned out to be true.
The reason we don't see more intermediate species alive today is because they have become extinct.
1. Your statement is untrue. There's no reason to believe we should see many more variations of species of all kinds. Species evolve in groups, not individually.
2. Scientists don't just "say" we have similar DNA. We have observed DNA and tested thousands of samples.
No, they're answers to how we are here through observed evidence. Scientists aren't trying to concern themselves with whether or not God played a role or not. Again, you can just as easily argue that light refraction is a scientific theory used to explain how rainbows exist without God, or how germ theory is used to explain how people get sick without the cause being God, Satan, or demons.
Not true. Many Christian scientists believe God was behind the Big Bang theory. The reason these scientists don't talk about God when they're discussing science is because God can't be tested through the scientific method, and therefore can't be scientifically verified.
What you said isn't true. Don't tell me what I do and do not know - especially if it's in complete contradiction with everything I've said.
So we should abstain from knowledge as to remain humble?
The reality is, arrogance is a personality trait. Knowledge is just as likely to trigger arrogance as it is to trigger humbleness.
Science doesn't assume. In fact, science exists so we don't have to assume.
This is like saying, "Find evidence that evolution is real that doesn't contradict my statement: Evolution isn't real."
You're essentially telling me to find evidence that evolution is real, evidence that does not contradict the Bible. But that's the problem! The evidence DOES contradict the Bible, at least a literal interpretation. You say the Bible is more trustworthy, but the Bible isn't a book that gains authority through science - it gains authority through the assumption that it is the word of God.
Me and Larry just explained to you what a scientific theory is. If you still insist a theory is just an educated guess or a hunch, then you're merely revealing your lack of interest in what science really is and what science really suggests and that you're going to believe whatever you want, even if it's untrue (such as your false definition of a scientific theory), as long as it validates your belief in the Bible.
If you're not willing to learn what evolution is, then stop talking as if you do understand evolution.
~~
Imagine if I came on this site stating, "The Bible isn't true. Just look at the story of Noah. Noah built a giant wooden boat that sailed on a sea of lava. A wooden boat can't sail on a sea of lava!"
You would probably respond, "Before you criticize Noah and the great flood, make sure you actually understand the story first. Noah didn't sail on a sea of lava, he sailed on an ocean of water."
Now, imagine if I responded, "Well, convince me Noah's boat survived the sea of lava. And don't suggest I read stuff about Noah's flood since I have no interest in wasting my time learning about it."
This is what you're essentially doing to me with the theory of evolution.
No, it's not an assumption. It's based off of a scientific method. How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated? | BioLogos
You're trying to argue that scientists accept these as facts to conform with what other scientists accept as facts. That's completely untrue. Scientists base their knowledge off of what the evidence suggests.
It doesn't sound plausible to you because you already believe man was made as is by God. To me, believing a magical entity created man from dirt and woman from his rib is quite asinine - but it was a very reasonable answer when I was a Christian.
Furthermore, it would take more than billions of years for evolution to occur? Why not trillions? You're making up a purely arbitrary number and stating it as a fact, just like how you're making up the claim that evolution is based off of uniformitarianism.
Darwin was already an atheist before his daughter died.
There is always conjecture in science. This is why we resort to multiple means of testing. We have verified the theory of evolution through the fossil record, DNA, observation of existing species, testing of micro-evolution, etc. We know species evolved because we have successfully used science to make predictions about the fossil record that turned out to be true.
A
There are no proven intermediate species that birthed modern humans. There are sans-Imago Dei animal hominids possessing biological similarities and significant differences with the greatest distinctions between modern humans and the hominids seen in their cognitive capacity, behavior patterns, technological development, and culture, especially artistic and religious expression.
The data available to paleoanthropologists and ultimately to teachers remain insufficient to formally demonstrate human evolution to be a fact despite percepi falsely asserting it as such. These scientists have limited understanding of the number of hominid species that existed, their geographical distribution, and the range of their biological variation. Without greater understanding, it's impossible to determine hominid evolutionary relationships and the pathway that might have led to modem humans.
Paleoanthropologists struggle with a sparse record and with fossils that are damaged, deformed, and incomplete. The craniodental features of the fossils (the primary morphological traits available for study) are biologically inadequate to construct reliable evolutionary trees.
The hominid fossil record's defining feature further exacerbates this problem. Instead of hominids emerging from a single species and diversifying in a treelike fashion, an explosive diversity of hominids occurred at the time of their first appearance in the fossil record. This explosion of coexisting species persists throughout their history. The pattern and timing of the hominids' first appearance directly contradicts evolution's scenarios for their origins. Moreover, calculations made by astrophysicists indicate the high improbability that evolutionary processes could ever produce modem humans from bacterial life in the brief time available in earth's history.
For example, astrophysicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter,and Frank Tipler restricted their count to just the known problem steps for the evolution to Homo sapiens sapiens and the probability figure for the emergence of humans from a suite of bacterial species in 10 billion years or less was 10 to the negative 21,000,000 (a decimal point 24 million places to the left of 1).
But note that it's actually far worse than this because natural selection operates only during an animal's lifetime. A portion of the genome cannot be selected with the intent of using it 1, 2, or 3 billion years later. Obviously, such incredibly tiny probabilities warrant the conclusion from a naturalistic perspective that no physical intelligent life should exist at all anywhere in the universe.
Paleoanthropologists cannot be disparaged because their discipline lacks robust data. However, given that these scientists cannot reasonably map out the naturalistic route that produced modem humans (and argue with each other over radically different routes) to consider human evolution anything more than a theory (e.g. that human evolution occurred is as much a theory as how it occurred).
The pattern of the hominid fossil records can, however, be readily explained within the framework of progressive creationistic human origins models which regard the hominids as animals created by God. The explosive initial diversity of hominids in the fossil record and their persistent diversity for the past 7 million years is the very feature expected in the fossil record if the hominids were formed by the Creator's hand.
DNA assertions for human evolution face even more problems. But when you look at Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 5:1-2 in the original Hebrew, it leads to the expectation that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities exist between humans and animals, including chimpanzees exist.
God created male and female in an 'asa fashion. He made them from previously existing designs, presumably biological in nature. These biblical passages also state that humans possess unique qualities compared to animals including characteristics that reflect the Creator's "image."
Emerging genetic data, when viewed from a creation model perspective, provide some understanding of how God may have created humanity. It appears that when the Creator made humanity's physical component, He employed similar design features and the same building blocks (genes) as He used to fashion the great apes and other animals. It also appears that
God redesigned certain building blocks or revised their function via genetic changes. He introduced new building blocks (gene duplications followed by genetic changes), cast aside other building blocks (gene deletions), and used the building blocks in radically different ways (gene expression and gene regulation) to produce humanity's unique features.
This speculation seems most plausible when it comes to human brain biochemistry relative to the great apes. Because the brain is the primary physical component that supports humanity's spiritual nature, this idea makes sense. With the physical framework of the brain in place, God created male and female as unique spiritual creatures, in His image.
And because God created, the timeframe finally resolves as does the process.
The data available to paleoanthropologists and ultimately to teachers remain insufficient to formally demonstrate human evolution to be a fact despite percepi falsely asserting it as such. These scientists have limited understanding of the number of hominid species that existed, their geographical distribution, and the range of their biological variation. Without greater understanding, it's impossible to determine hominid evolutionary relationships and the pathway that might have led to modem humans.
Paleoanthropologists struggle with a sparse record and with fossils that are damaged, deformed, and incomplete. The craniodental features of the fossils (the primary morphological traits available for study) are biologically inadequate to construct reliable evolutionary trees.
The hominid fossil record's defining feature further exacerbates this problem. Instead of hominids emerging from a single species and diversifying in a treelike fashion, an explosive diversity of hominids occurred at the time of their first appearance in the fossil record. This explosion of coexisting species persists throughout their history. The pattern and timing of the hominids' first appearance directly contradicts evolution's scenarios for their origins. Moreover, calculations made by astrophysicists indicate the high improbability that evolutionary processes could ever produce modem humans from bacterial life in the brief time available in earth's history.
For example, astrophysicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter,and Frank Tipler restricted their count to just the known problem steps for the evolution to Homo sapiens sapiens and the probability figure for the emergence of humans from a suite of bacterial species in 10 billion years or less was 10 to the negative 21,000,000 (a decimal point 24 million places to the left of 1).
But note that it's actually far worse than this because natural selection operates only during an animal's lifetime. A portion of the genome cannot be selected with the intent of using it 1, 2, or 3 billion years later. Obviously, such incredibly tiny probabilities warrant the conclusion from a naturalistic perspective that no physical intelligent life should exist at all anywhere in the universe.
Paleoanthropologists cannot be disparaged because their discipline lacks robust data. However, given that these scientists cannot reasonably map out the naturalistic route that produced modem humans (and argue with each other over radically different routes) to consider human evolution anything more than a theory (e.g. that human evolution occurred is as much a theory as how it occurred).
The pattern of the hominid fossil records can, however, be readily explained within the framework of progressive creationistic human origins models which regard the hominids as animals created by God. The explosive initial diversity of hominids in the fossil record and their persistent diversity for the past 7 million years is the very feature expected in the fossil record if the hominids were formed by the Creator's hand.
DNA assertions for human evolution face even more problems. But when you look at Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 5:1-2 in the original Hebrew, it leads to the expectation that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities exist between humans and animals, including chimpanzees exist.
God created male and female in an 'asa fashion. He made them from previously existing designs, presumably biological in nature. These biblical passages also state that humans possess unique qualities compared to animals including characteristics that reflect the Creator's "image."
Emerging genetic data, when viewed from a creation model perspective, provide some understanding of how God may have created humanity. It appears that when the Creator made humanity's physical component, He employed similar design features and the same building blocks (genes) as He used to fashion the great apes and other animals. It also appears that
God redesigned certain building blocks or revised their function via genetic changes. He introduced new building blocks (gene duplications followed by genetic changes), cast aside other building blocks (gene deletions), and used the building blocks in radically different ways (gene expression and gene regulation) to produce humanity's unique features.
This speculation seems most plausible when it comes to human brain biochemistry relative to the great apes. Because the brain is the primary physical component that supports humanity's spiritual nature, this idea makes sense. With the physical framework of the brain in place, God created male and female as unique spiritual creatures, in His image.
And because God created, the timeframe finally resolves as does the process.
A
You're right about some of what you're stating (especially with respect to SDA); however, the truth is that this idea the earth was created 6,000 years ago in six 24 hour periods was actually popularized by Archbishop James Ussher who published his calculations (or should we say miscalculations) assuming no gaps in the Genesis genealogies and six “days” (Hebrew: yôm) of creation as consecutive 24-hour periods.
Such was his influence that beginning in the early 1700s, many editions of the King James Bible incorporated Ussher’s chronology into their marginal annotations and cross-references, including the important Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, which held popularity among fundamentalists and evangelicals throughout much of the twentieth century.
So from the early 1700s...
Such was his influence that beginning in the early 1700s, many editions of the King James Bible incorporated Ussher’s chronology into their marginal annotations and cross-references, including the important Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, which held popularity among fundamentalists and evangelicals throughout much of the twentieth century.
So from the early 1700s...