Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 210266 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82509 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]
One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to theCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences,“It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]
But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks ofunknown age?
http://www.oocities.org/stuball127/dating.htm...
"Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is.
Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate."[2]
You're underthinking again.

If those results were accurate and repeatable, they'd be accepted as the norm.

They're not, so...

That's how it works, see? See?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82510 Mar 24, 2013
Langy, using a bogus article twice does not make it any less bogus the second time around.

And if we know why dates are off at times we can still use the dating method as long as we avoid using it in situations that give incorrect answers.

When looking at cases when radiometric dating gives the wrong date you have to look at why it is wrong. You do not throw out a dating method because it is wrong one time out of a thousand. You figure out what was wrong that thousandth time and fix your errors.

Look at you, your Bible has many errors in it. Do you throw it out?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82511 Mar 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not myths at all.. tons of evidence pointing to them as truth or at least part of the truth.

as yet, not one shred of evidence for your myth and tons of evidence shoeing it is a lie...

go scrat, go!
Bible, Tons and Tons of evidence.

Pop goes the tick.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82512 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Langy, using a bogus article twice does not make it any less bogus the second time around.
And if we know why dates are off at times we can still use the dating method as long as we avoid using it in situations that give incorrect answers.
When looking at cases when radiometric dating gives the wrong date you have to look at why it is wrong. You do not throw out a dating method because it is wrong one time out of a thousand. You figure out what was wrong that thousandth time and fix your errors.
Look at you, your Bible has many errors in it. Do you throw it out?
I chased that quote of his all over the place.

It popped up often - but significantly only on creationist sites.

'Nuff said.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82513 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Bible, Tons and Tons of evidence.
Pop goes the tick.
Again ... where is this evidence?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82514 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Bible, Tons and Tons of evidence.
Pop goes the tick.
No.

In order to accept the bible as "evidence" of anything other than its own existence, you must prove it reliable.

It's not.

It's woefully self-contradictory, horribly internally inconsistent, miserably translated, and subject to (apparently) infinite and mutually exclusive interpretations.

Got anything a bit more, well, useful?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82515 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Hardly. Yes, we know now that the Earth is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid if you want to nitpick.

There was a time in the past when that was not the case. Please note that I did not have to use the "four corners of the Earth".

One more time, how much of the Earth could you see from a tree that was very very very high if the Earth was flat? You could see all of it theoretically. How much of the Earth could you see if tree was very very very tall and we had our spherical Earth? You could see at the very most half, and you are well out of the atmosphere and halfway to the Moon before you start to approach the one half limit.

According to Bible scholars if an idea is important it is in the Bible several times. There are more verses than the three groups I listed that describe the Earth as flat. I am just playing by your own rules here.

I am still waiting for verses that apply to a spherical Earth.
"Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle”(חוגchuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”

“The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it:‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing’(Job 26:7).”(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)]

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.[JSM]

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.[JSM]"

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c0...

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82516 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>If things don't evolve, then how do you look different than your parents?
Because I'm not a clone.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82517 Mar 24, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oboy.

You think solidified magma is somehow "new"?

Here, just for exercise: ever wonder how old the friggin' magma was before it surfaced?
So then all lava flows cannot be dated.
Dust thrown up by eruption cannot be dated because it was lava from a volcano lave dome. In fact all rock on earth was molten as the earth formed so it can't be dated either. Dust from space can't be dated because it came from a molten star.

No rocks can then be dated.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82518 Mar 24, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You're underthinking again.

If those results were accurate and repeatable, they'd be accepted as the norm.

They're not, so...

That's how it works, see? See?
Who's in charge of throwing out incorrect dating data?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82519 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I'm not a clone.
But if you didn't have mutations in your DNA you would be a clone.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82521 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>But if you didn't have mutations in your DNA you would be a clone.
So everything is a mutation of it's mother source of DNA? LOL

Ok. Next.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82522 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Bible, Tons and Tons of evidence.
Pop goes the tick.
Nope, all you have is the Bible, and you don't even follow that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82523 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle”(חוגchuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”
“The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it:‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing’(Job 26:7).”(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)]
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.[JSM]
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.[JSM]"
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c0...
Nope, not good enough. If a word can have two meanings then you need to show that by context it means what you want it to.

By context all of the verses in the Bible are of a flat Earth.

Plus the Hebrews were not known as seafarers. They were local fisherman at best. Their is no evidence of the discovering that the world is round.

I asked for a verse that clearly describes a spherical Earth, not apologetics. Apologetics are used when the facts of the world don't match up with the Bible. In other words they are attempts to weasel out of a space Christians don't want to be in.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82524 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So everything is a mutation of it's mother source of DNA? LOL
Ok. Next.
Reading fail. Try again.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82525 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So everything is a mutation of it's mother source of DNA? LOL
Ok. Next.
How else do you explain the differences?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82526 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So then all lava flows cannot be dated.
Dust thrown up by eruption cannot be dated because it was lava from a volcano lave dome. In fact all rock on earth was molten as the earth formed so it can't be dated either. Dust from space can't be dated because it came from a molten star.
No rocks can then be dated.
Wrong. Some rocks cannot be dated. They are the exception rather than the norm. Finding out why the dating failed allows us to not make the same mistake again.

Are you saying that if I find one error in the Bible the whole Bible is worthless? Hmm, you might have a point in that case.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82527 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Some rocks cannot be dated. They are the exception rather than the norm. Finding out why the dating failed allows us to not make the same mistake again.
Are you saying that if I find one error in the Bible the whole Bible is worthless? Hmm, you might have a point in that case.
Well, dating rocks has never claimed to be infallible. the bible on the other hand...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82528 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So then all lava flows cannot be dated.
Dust thrown up by eruption cannot be dated because it was lava from a volcano lave dome. In fact all rock on earth was molten as the earth formed so it can't be dated either. Dust from space can't be dated because it came from a molten star.
No rocks can then be dated.
this is what happens when you try to talk about subjects you do not understand...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82529 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So then all lava flows cannot be dated.
Dust thrown up by eruption cannot be dated because it was lava from a volcano lave dome. In fact all rock on earth was molten as the earth formed so it can't be dated either. Dust from space can't be dated because it came from a molten star.
No rocks can then be dated.
*sigh*

No, ya halfwit.

Of course it can be dated.

And, of course, creationist nutters like your Steve Austin (is that REALLY his name?) can mismeasure and misinterpret and force-to-fit all they want.

The point remains - if they were doing it right, it'd be the accepted norm, and they'd be in the forefront of geological research.
Instead of out on the loonie fringe.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min River Tam 20,366
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min It aint necessari... 152,334
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner 13 min Demon Finder 7
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Into The Night 45,575
Science News (Sep '13) 18 hr Voyeur 3,629
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
More from around the web