Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 27, 2006 13:54:09 GMT -5
Carbon dating is less reliable than potassium dating, but it only works for things close to the present. The petrified trees thing ought to be fairly obvious - deposition continues around the dead tree. Please point out an example of an "old" fossil in a "young" layer, as I am not aware of any such circumstances. Layers formed quickly exhibit sorting, as what you would see when you shake a glass with water and various sizes of rocks. Layers formed slowly in depositional environments exhibit little to no sorting, as is seen in most rock layers. That's how we can recognize different depositional environments, which is another reason geology is fun! As to how we know the age, there is both relative dating and precise dating. Precise is only available in some endowments, but can be correlated to less precise environments. As for the 55% of scientists - speaking from personal experience. I'm at a university. I'm working with all stripes of geologists, paleontologists, physicists, chemists, and biologists. They all support the advanced age of the earth... About 4 billion years, give or take .5 billion. I'd like to see the source for the 55% of scientists. 1820s? Before anyone knew anything, heh? ... I guess the foundations of modern chemistry and physics are just ignorance. Like physics and chemistry, geology has been refined a lot since then, and I resent the implication that geology is a stagnant science. The geologic column doesn't exist anywhere outside of textbooks, heh? Perhaps not completely, but, looking out of my dorm window, I can see a column extending from the Ordovician to the beginning of the Triassic. A nice one, with clearly delineated, unsorted layers and fossils right where one could expect them. It's pretty! Where will I be? Greeting my ancestors, all the way back through Deep Time to the first life on Earth, and standing before my God, where I will explain that my life was lived well and I added to humanity's knowledge of the universe, past, present and future. However, arguing theology is legendarily fruitless, so I won't bombard you with my religious beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2006 18:05:12 GMT -5
Ha ha well ok then I guess I do think the earth is a different age to what the majority of you seem to!! With regards to the geologic layer let me ask a couple of questions: 1. How do we know how old the layers are? 2. Why can't the layers have been formed, for example, in a worldwide flood as is described in the Bible and pretty much every other culture around the world - if I put grit, mud and sand in a glass of water and shake it around, in about 5 mins everything will have settled - I'm sure you're aware that if there were a global flood the tides would all synchronise, causing matter to be pulled out into layers 3. Why do we find petrified trees passing through several layers? 4. Looking at the fossils in the layers, how come we see fossils that are apparently very young appearing in much "older" layers, and vice versa?! And carbon dating I'm afraid I have no confidence in - I recently saw a riverbed that was published as being dated 300,000 years old, give or take 300,000 years!! I also saw a live organism carbon dated as 62,500 years old!! I know carbon dating can only be used for things 50,000 or less years old, but I'm intrigued as to where the ages of the layers came in . . . the original geologic column was dreamt up, along with the layers, in the 1820s I think, which was WAAAAAAY before anyone really knew anything, yet we still use this as "evidence"!! And as a side note the geologic column doesn't actually exist anywhere except in the textbooks so no actual help from that anywhere!! A detailed explanation of the geologic column is really something I should leave to the experts. And in regards to "how did God create the species?!" - all I can say is "yer what?!!!" He's God!!! He just spoke them into being - I have seen God do awesome miracles in my own life, from financial gifts to physically seeing peoples legs grow in front of me, as well as seeing the blind see and the deaf and dumb speak and hear - God is ALL-POWERFUL, our laws don't apply to Him - He is outside of time and space, yet can inhabit it at the same time in a way we don't understand. Jesus came to save us literally when He wanted to, which happened to be about 2000 years ago - which was about 2000 years after the global flood, which was about 2000 years after the creation of the universe. This is what is written in the Bible, which I believe to be the Word of God - now all the evidence available to us points to one of two things . . . a) evolution b) Biblical creation - as far as I'm concerned, a lot of the Bible was written 3000 years ago, and to write a theory that works about evidence that won't be discovered for millennia is pretty clever, you have to admit!! I also believe that if you are being misled by something that COULD - I say could because I know you think what I believe is rubbish - be of Satan, you are just completely throwing away God's awesome gift of eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ - I don't wanna throw that away for anything, which is why I lean more to the side of creation . . . when only 55% of scientists in America believe in evolution I have to say I'd prefer to worship an all-powerful God who saved me, rather than get depressed that I just came here by chance after a stupidly long time of everything else dying!! First, since you didn't provide a source for the poll you referenced I did a quick search, and while it does list the percentage of scientists who accept evolution as being 55%, it also contained some other interesting statistics (source here: www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm): Percentage of scientists who believe that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" (Naturalistic Evolution): 55% Percentage of scientists who believe that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation" (Theistic Evolution): 40% Percentage of scientists who believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"(Creationism): 5% So really, 95% of scientists accept that Evolution occured in some form or another. Now, secondly, you state that there are only two possible explanations, when in reality there are a plethora of religions, each with there own version of how the world came to be. Just as a warning, straight out of the Bible: "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." - 2 Peter 3:3-7 I put forward that evolutionists are scoffers, who scoff at God's Word. They say everything is continuing in the same way as it always has. They deliberately make themselves ignorant of God's power and need some kind of biological explanation for everything. Now either Peter was a inspired by God when he wrote that, or he's really lucky . . . if he's really lucky then none of this matters and when you and I die we'll both have hopefully passed on our genes to the next generation, and possibly go towards creating new fossil fuels. However, if he was actually writing the Word of God then we're in big trouble, we need a saviour and we have one through Jesus Christ, who's the only One who can protect us from that fire!! Which means that when we die, we will have passed on our genes, our bodies will be dead in the ground BUT I will be in paradise worshipping my almighty God!!! Where will you be? I really don't want to get into an argument over religion when the likely result will end in bitter feelings. I do not wish to denigrate the sincerely held beliefs of anyone, and since it seems unlikely that either of us will concede I don't see much of a chance that this will have a positive outcome.
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 28, 2006 10:07:08 GMT -5
More on the layers - even in well sorted, rapidly formed deposits, the process of lithification itself is very slow.
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 29, 2006 9:51:06 GMT -5
Please explain this to me?!! I don't understand what it's on about but I'm sure you are and can make it a bit easier for us layfolk!! Fank oo!!
"Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known rates that increase with temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found. Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals. Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old."
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 29, 2006 14:06:12 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure. From what I understand - lead escapes predictably (and has been used to date rocks billions of years old from Canada, but that's niether here nor there. However, I note that the article deliberately neglected to mention that lead supports Deep Time). Therefore, it must be predicatble for helium, because one can also find helium in zicron crystals - which is BS. Helium doesn't get trapped so well in zicron. It's rather small, as atoms go.
So, essentially, it consists of either faulty logic or deliberate skewing of facts. Could I see the source for this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2006 18:35:15 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure. From what I understand - lead escapes predictably (and has been used to date rocks billions of years old from Canada, but that's niether here nor there. However, I note that the article deliberately neglected to mention that lead supports Deep Time). Therefore, it must be predicatble for helium, because one can also find helium in zicron crystals - which is BS. Helium doesn't get trapped so well in zicron. It's rather small, as atoms go. So, essentially, it consists of either faulty logic or deliberate skewing of facts. Could I see the source for this? If I may be of some help, I have some references to the topic at hand that may be of some use. Here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html, and here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 29, 2006 20:33:40 GMT -5
Would love to give you the source but I'm afraid have lost the website, think that was pretty much all that was on there but I'm sure it's on google - maybe try just copy-pasting a part of the paragraph in2 google and see what's at the top?!! Sorry again!!
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 29, 2006 20:39:30 GMT -5
On a slight tangent here - I notice you always seem to post stuff from talk-origins.org or whatever it is and the creationists seem to stick to answersingenesis, carm.org, creationscience.org etc . . . does anyone know of any actually genuine UNBIASED website where you can actually find information instead of opinion?!! I'm not slating anything said by any of the mentioned websites here, it's just the same evidence is very harshly viewed one way or the other on these particular sites and it'd be great 2 find one that simply tries to find the truth FROM the evidence and not the other way around, which whatever anyone says is just as true for the evolution theory as it is for creationism!! Thanks in advance!!
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 30, 2006 1:15:25 GMT -5
Ouch. I was just wrong on that. Eh, that's what I get for napping in geology class.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Mar 30, 2006 5:21:34 GMT -5
I'm not slating anything said by any of the mentioned websites here, it's just the same evidence is very harshly viewed one way or the other on these particular sites and it'd be great 2 find one that simply tries to find the truth FROM the evidence and not the other way around, which whatever anyone says is just as true for the evolution theory as it is for creationism!! Thanks in advance!! If you want a source that gets "truth" as you say it (though I have a bit of a problem with it since it's a rather loaded word) from the evidence, then you ought to hear what science has to say about evolution. Here is a nice introduction to the basic principles underlying science. As an aside, a brief glance at your characterizations of science as a religion seem rather odd. What justifies this statement of yours? Not to mention your ideas of what evolution entails. I suggest that you explore Wikipedia (yes, not the best source on the net, but sufficient enough in the basics of science to be fairly accurate) and see what it has to say about evolution, among other things. - Aric
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 30, 2006 16:08:12 GMT -5
Nope sorry, think you've got the wrong end of the stick there - I don't think at all that science is a religion, merely that evolution is . . . SCIENCE should be theories created as a result of evidence, which ISN'T what evolution is - fossils of footprints are found with a trilobite inside them and the evolutionist "scientist" says, "this must be an anomaly, everyone knows trilobites died out millions of years ago" - that's NOT science in any way!!! Just denying something exists because it doesn't line up with your theory isn't science so I wish people would stop pretending it is!! The whole evolution=religion thing is this: I say creation is a theory where it is said all life on earth came from God - the question therefore is where did God come from?! Answer = I guess he's always been there, we don't really know. Fair enough?! Evolution is a theory where it is said all life on earth came from dirt - the question therefore is where did dirt come from?! Answer = We don't really know. So in the Christian faith we believe "In the beginning God . . ." Evolutionists believe "In the beginning dirt . . ." Just as much a religion until that question's answered I'm afraid, and again I don't mean "lots of theories, we don't really know" - the one thing that made me seriously contemplate committing my life to Christ 2 years ago was the fact that all Christians have this hope and 100% faith in everything the Bible says, whereas everyone else in the world seems not to have confidence in pretty much anything - my thought was "how can this actually be real? There must be more to life than this!" - thankfully I found out what that was and how I could fill that hole in my life, praise God!! More info click www.carm.org/index/Jesus_saves.htm!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2006 18:21:05 GMT -5
Nope sorry, think you've got the wrong end of the stick there - I don't think at all that science is a religion, merely that evolution is . . . SCIENCE should be theories created as a result of evidence, which ISN'T what evolution is - fossils of footprints are found with a trilobite inside them and the evolutionist "scientist" says, "this must be an anomaly, everyone knows trilobites died out millions of years ago" - that's NOT science in any way!!! Just denying something exists because it doesn't line up with your theory isn't science so I wish people would stop pretending it is!! If they were denying that it existed why would they have an explanation as to what it is? (See here: www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC102.html)The whole evolution=religion thing is this: I say creation is a theory where it is said all life on earth came from God - the question therefore is where did God come from?! Answer = I guess he's always been there, we don't really know. Fair enough?! Evolution is a theory where it is said all life on earth came from dirt - the question therefore is where did dirt come from?! Answer = We don't really know. So in the Christian faith we believe "In the beginning God . . ." Evolutionists believe "In the beginning dirt . . ." Just as much a religion until that question's answered I'm afraid, and again I don't mean "lots of theories, we don't really know" - the one thing that made me seriously contemplate committing my life to Christ 2 years ago was the fact that all Christians have this hope and 100% faith in everything the Bible says, whereas everyone else in the world seems not to have confidence in pretty much anything - my thought was "how can this actually be real? There must be more to life than this!" - thankfully I found out what that was and how I could fill that hole in my life, praise God!! More info click www.carm.org/index/Jesus_saves.htm!! Evolution doesn't say anything about life coming from dirt, in fact, it doesn't say anything about the origin of life itself, only how species adapt and change. Also, I could have sworn that it was the Bible that said something about life coming from dirt: Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 31, 2006 6:17:11 GMT -5
Yes that's right - the Bible does say that!! Question is, where did the dirt come from? Answer = GOD. Either that, or "I don't know", so boils down to the same thing - life can't just appear without God I'm afraid (imho)!! And again saying evolution is just adaptation of species - no it isn't!! Variations within what the Bible calls a KIND happen (micro-evolution) and so if that's what you say evolution is then great whatever, I agree that happens. But that's not where it stops - evolution says the following: MACRO-EVOLUTION: Evolution happens outside of kinds, e.g. reptiles (dinosaurs) becoming birds - never been seen ORGANIC EVOLUTION: Life came from the primordial soup (a wet rock) millions of years ago STELLAR EVOLUTION: Stars, planets etc formed from random bits of matter in the universe CHEMICAL EVOLUTION: All the elements appeared (out of nowhere apparently - from hydrogen and helium you can only get as far as iron so not sure where the rest came in) COSMIC EVOLUTION: Beginning of the universe = big bang (I'm sure you're aware that's been proved wrong) If you ARE saying all you agree with is variations within a kind then great we're agreed, let's talk about something different - otherwise what are these other things if not evolution?!! You see, creationists have the answer to every single one of the above areas - where did the universe/elements/stars + planets/life/kinds/species come from? Answer - intelligent designer. Evolutionists so far (as far as I can tell) have said this: "either it all came from nothing, which exploded and made everything, OR um . . . something else but can't possible have God in it cos He doesn't exist", yup nice and scientific there - "that answer can't be right because it doesn't add up with my theory" And by the way that sandal print link - not seen the picture for that one (dunno why lifeorigins didn't post it) but the others I've seen look a whole lot like real footprints 2 me . . . again they're saying "it can't possibly be a footprint because we know trilobites died out millions of years ago so there must be some explanation" - translation="that can't be right because it doesn't add up with my theory" )
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 31, 2006 9:25:29 GMT -5
And again saying evolution is just adaptation of species - no it isn't!! Variations within what the Bible calls a KIND happen (micro-evolution) and so if that's what you say evolution is then great whatever, I agree that happens. But that's not where it stops - evolution says the following: ... I've said this before and I'll say it again, apperantly - Macroevolution and Microevolution are exactly the same thing. The only difference is Deep Time. It seems, from your posts, that you believe in evolution, but dislike the idea of Deep Time. All 13.7 billion years of it. Kind (and the divisions used by biologists) are artificial, human creations. vORGANIC EVOLUTION: Life came from the primordial soup (a wet rock) millions of years ago Seriously, this isn't evolution. The is biogenesis theory, which is for the biochemists and is a different matter. STELLAR EVOLUTION: Stars, planets etc formed from random bits of matter in the universe Ayup. That's how gravity works for you! (Not evolution as the term is commonly understood.) CHEMICAL EVOLUTION: All the elements appeared (out of nowhere apparently - from hydrogen and helium you can only get as far as iron so not sure where the rest came in) I'm going to call bs on this. Heavy elements, all the way down to Uranium (and theoritcally past this) can be formed in novas and supernovas. Not out of nowhere, either - out of subatomic particles condensing after the Big Bang. (Still not evolution.) COSMIC EVOLUTION: Beginning of the universe = big bang (I'm sure you're aware that's been proved wrong) Ah. Proved in the same sense that evolution has been proved wrong. Proved in the sense that the vast majority of scientists support it, and new, compelling evidence is found every year to further back it up... I'm sorry, that was a bit snarky, but my point remains. What's your evidence? It still isn't evolution. And by the way that sandal print link - not seen the picture for that one (dunno why lifeorigins didn't post it) but the others I've seen look a whole lot like real footprints 2 me . . . again they're saying "it can't possibly be a footprint because we know trilobites died out millions of years ago so there must be some explanation" - translation="that can't be right because it doesn't add up with my theory" Do you see the irony here? You already know that the deep water trilobite and the fact that that the "sandal impressions" have the wrong depressions to belong to a human (or even to have an organic origin), plus the fact that this is easily explained by spalling, a common geological phenomena that is frequently observed, discounts this. But it doesn't add up to your theory, so you dismiss it, just like the photos on the other thread. I refer you to your link to the sandal picture and the associated article.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2006 18:25:11 GMT -5
Yes that's right - the Bible does say that!! Question is, where did the dirt come from? Answer = GOD. Either that, or "I don't know", so boils down to the same thing - life can't just appear without God I'm afraid (imho)!! Actually, the the formation of dirt is a fairly well understood process, though I suspect you are attempting to argue about something other than erosion. And again saying evolution is just adaptation of species - no it isn't!! Variations within what the Bible calls a KIND happen (micro-evolution) and so if that's what you say evolution is then great whatever, I agree that happens. But that's not where it stops - evolution says the following: MACRO-EVOLUTION: Evolution happens outside of kinds, e.g. reptiles (dinosaurs) becoming birds - never been seen ORGANIC EVOLUTION: Life came from the primordial soup (a wet rock) millions of years ago STELLAR EVOLUTION: Stars, planets etc formed from random bits of matter in the universe CHEMICAL EVOLUTION: All the elements appeared (out of nowhere apparently - from hydrogen and helium you can only get as far as iron so not sure where the rest came in) COSMIC EVOLUTION: Beginning of the universe = big bang (I'm sure you're aware that's been proved wrong) Those other areas belong to separate branches of science. The Theory of Evolution deals with the process by which species adapt and change over time. It does not attempt to explain anything else, there are other Scientific Theories that deal in those areas. If you ARE saying all you agree with is variations within a kind then great we're agreed, let's talk about something different - otherwise what are these other things if not evolution?!! You see, creationists have the answer to every single one of the above areas - where did the universe/elements/stars + planets/life/kinds/species come from? Answer - intelligent designer. Evolutionists so far (as far as I can tell) have said this: "either it all came from nothing, which exploded and made everything, OR um . . . something else but can't possible have God in it cos He doesn't exist", yup nice and scientific there - "that answer can't be right because it doesn't add up with my theory" Simply resorting to "God-did-it" isn't an explanation. Do we explain the weather by blaming Poseidon or the coming of winter on Demeter being depressed over Persephone going to the underworld? Now, as to the Big Bang, the idea that it states everything came from nothing and exploded is a common misconception, though there is still alot of research being done in that area and quite a few idea have been put forward based on new observations and advances in physics. And by the way that sandal print link - not seen the picture for that one (dunno why lifeorigins didn't post it) but the others I've seen look a whole lot like real footprints 2 me . . . again they're saying "it can't possibly be a footprint because we know trilobites died out millions of years ago so there must be some explanation" - translation="that can't be right because it doesn't add up with my theory" ) So, you're simply disregarding the explanation proposed by scientists because you think it looks a little bit like a footprint? Unless you have more of an explanation than "it looks like a footprint" it sounds as if you're simply dismissing them out of hand.
|
|