Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216623 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.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82490 Mar 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You know I think that 'problem' with the age of rocks top and bottom was resolved pretty quickly, by geologists, after creationists brought it up
"Why does radiometric dating repeatedly result in very old dates (such as billions of years)? While one explanation is that these dates show the specimens’ true age, another is that one or more of these large assumptions associated with this method of dating is wrong.

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 the Canadian 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 of unknown age? "

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82491 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
That source does have the documentation that backs up the dating errors.
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]
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
why does everyone else in the world use these techniques properly?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82492 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>If you are calling yourself an atheist, then you should already know that's not true. The post I'm replying to demonstrates that you at least need more education.
Look before you leap!
Just an advice. She asked a question about education and i gave her what she deserves. Both Atheist and Theist are educated, are you against that?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82493 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but everyone who is educated and intelligent disagrees with you.
No. True educated Christians in the field of sciences, arts, social and management sciences, will never disagree to that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82494 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
That source does have the documentation that backs up the dating errors.
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]
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
No, that is a lie.

They do not have links to proper sources. At least not for the first claim that I checked out. The claim about the Mt. St. Helens dome quoted an article for Answers in Genesis. That is not a valid scientific source.

For an article to e valid it must ultimately link to the peer reviewed science that it is based upon.

Your article made another error. It said the the amount of daughter product had to be known when the rock solidified. That is not true for all dating methods. The lead isochron method of dating allows rocks that had an indeterminate original level of lead to be dated.

If possible rocks are usually dated with more than one means. Rarely is there a disagreement. You do not base science upon explainable anomalies. You base it upon the repeatable science. Occasionally you will get an obviously wrong answer when using a dating method. The thing to do then is to see why the dating method is wrong and if it applies to all materials that have been dated. That has found not to be the case.

For example if you look at the cases where a rock has "excess argon
usually you will see that phenocrysts are involved. Pehnocrysts are large crystals that had previously cooled and were carried by the magma. You can have two different dates for a rock if you date it carefully. The mass in the background that carried the larger crystals always dates as younger than the phenocrysts, which could have crystalized long ago in another event.

Without links to the original works that they got their claims from there is no way to tell why the date was off, or if they were even telling the truth in the first place.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82495 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but everyone who is educated and intelligent disagrees with you.
Then atheist would have been the only educated in the earth.
You and some others here are liars.
Theist are also very educated and intelligent.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82497 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why does radiometric dating repeatedly result in very old dates (such as billions of years)? While one explanation is that these dates show the specimens’ true age, another is that one or more of these large assumptions associated with this method of dating is wrong.
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 the Canadian 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 of unknown age? "
have you read any of the critiques about those datings of Austin and the lab that did them and the equipment they used?

I know others have pointed them out to you previously, yet you continue to post these lies. why do you have to lie for your cult?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82498 Mar 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles, I keep pointing out to you the absurdity in debating your view of creation. You don't have evidence. You have a book. There's no point to debating you.
...and I don't feel like indulging any bizarre fantasy you may have about being in and being "penetrated" within that fantasy. It's not healthy, nor does it add to this discussion. Get some real facts and stop worrying about anyone's clues. OK?
Good advice for you.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82499 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Here are three verses that all can only happen on a flat Earth:

Daniel 4 10-11. Matthew 4:8. And Revelation 1:7.

Try to explain those with a spherical Earth.

This is just a start.
You're just play dumb now.

"11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"

Today most people would agree the earth is round yet the term "the four corners of the earth" and "ends of the earth" are still in use today. But of course you know this. You've simply lowered yourself down to a child's argument.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82500 Mar 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, the animators are cool, Scrat is a fool continually chasing a nut he'll never get, and even harming himself and others in his chasing after an unattainable myth...much like langoliers, as I pointed out...
Really? LOL

I know of 3 big myths but I don't believe or chase any of them.

1) The Big Bang
2) spontaneous self generating life
3) evolution

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82501 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? LOL
I know of 3 big myths but I don't believe or chase any of them.
1) The Big Bang
2) spontaneous self generating life
3) evolution
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!

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82502 Mar 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why does everyone else in the world use these techniques properly?
Do you really think a bunch of Christians ran in and took over these
Labs and did the testing themselves?

These test were done by Scientist the same people that test dating and use these machines everyday. It's just that it take some groups to stand up and hold science to a level of reliability so fools like you don't swallow their crap hook line and sinker.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82503 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just play dumb now.
"11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"
Today most people would agree the earth is round yet the term "the four corners of the earth" and "ends of the earth" are still in use today. But of course you know this. You've simply lowered yourself down to a child's argument.
regardless of whether the bible said the Earth was flat or not, we know that the people who claimed divine inspiration from the bible and god thought the sun moved around the Earth...what happened with that? what else did that 'divine inspiration' get wrong..(besides all the other instances you have already been shown to be wrong...)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82504 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just play dumb now.
"11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"
Today most people would agree the earth is round yet the term "the four corners of the earth" and "ends of the earth" are still in use today. But of course you know this. You've simply lowered yourself down to a child's argument.
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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82505 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think a bunch of Christians ran in and took over these
Labs and did the testing themselves?
These test were done by Scientist the same people that test dating and use these machines everyday. It's just that it take some groups to stand up and hold science to a level of reliability so fools like you don't swallow their crap hook line and sinker.
you mean the lab that said on their own that at that time they couldn't accurately date rocks younger than 2 million years with their equipment and techniques?

why do yu have to openly lie for your cult? you have been shown these things before about this lie of yours...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82506 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? LOL
I know of 3 big myths but I don't believe or chase any of them.
1) The Big Bang
2) spontaneous self generating life
3) evolution
If things don't evolve, then how do you look different than your parents?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82507 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, that is a lie.

They do not have links to proper sources. At least not for the first claim that I checked out. The claim about the Mt. St. Helens dome quoted an article for Answers in Genesis. That is not a valid scientific source.
first place.
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]

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82508 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
That source does have the documentation that backs up the dating errors.
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]
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
Oboy.

You think solidified magma is somehow "new"?

Here, just for exercise: ever wonder how old the friggin' magma was before it surfaced?

“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?

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 1 min Bezeer 83,165
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 2 min Bezeer 22,154
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 3 min Bezeer 5,272
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 30 min wichita-rick 206,907
News Weird substance discovered in new A 5 notes - a... 1 hr Mila Beaujolais 33
2words into 2new words (May '12) 1 hr wichita-rick 6,759
News Museum to auction wax figures of presidents, fi... 1 hr Christsharian Col... 1
News Church fined $12,000 for helping homeless new 2 hr Knock off purse s... 40
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 3 hr WasteWater 978
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 4 hr greymouser 43
More from around the web