Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222271 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120340 Aug 18, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Yet when a technique was used in error (C14 dating of dinosaur remains) it wasn't believed.
I would certainly hope not! If the technique is used in error, it would not give correct results.
I think that multiple tests should be done to confirm, either the correct dating or that one or more of the methods is faulty.
And that has been done. In particular, we know the limiting cases of when the various techniques work. For example, C14 dating should not be used for marine organisms that get their carbon from ancient sources instead of from the air: it will give artificially old dates. C14 should not be used on samples that were exposed to radioactivity for long periods of time (especially beta radiation) and that have nitrogen sources: they will give artificially young dates. K-Ar dating should not be used in rocks that are too porous: it will give artificially young dates. No method should be used for ages that are past about 10 half-lives of the isotope being tested.

These are all common sense conditions based on the way that the methods work. They are also easy-to-check conditions to see if the method is valid or not.

And yes, within these parameters, multiple dating methods *have* been used and give consistent results.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120341 Aug 18, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
More on Dr. Schwitzer....

<begin cut/paste>

Rhetoric like this has put Schweitzer at the center of a raging cultural controversy, because she is not just a pioneering paleontologist but also an evangelical Christian. That fact alone has prompted some prominent paleontologists to be even more skeptical about her scientific research. Some creationists have questioned her work from the other direction, pressing her to refute Darwinian evolution. But in her religious life, Schweitzer is no more of an ideologue than she is in her scientific career. In both realms, she operates with a simple but powerful consistency: The best way to understand the glory of the world is to open your eyes and take an honest look at what is out there.

Reticent by nature, Schweitzer rarely grants interviews and shies away from making grand pronouncements about her scientific research or her religious faith.

Schweitzer's first forays into paleontology were "a total hook," she says. Not only was she fascinated by the science, but to her, digging into ancient strata seemed like reading the history of God's handiwork. Schweitzer worships at two churches—an evangelical church in Montana and a nondenominational one when she is back home in North Carolina—and when she talks about her faith, her bristly demeanor falls away. "God is so multidimensional," she says. "I see a sense of humor. I see His compassion in the world around me. It makes me curious, because the creator is revealed in the creation." Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating: "That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop."

While scientists struggled to make sense of the bones, another community had no doubt about how to interpret the results. The reports were quickly embraced by biblical literalists who believe God created life on Earth less than 10,000 years ago. For decades they have been working to place a scientific patina on their ideas. The Institute for Creation Research runs a graduate school near San Diego with 11 instructors who hold doctorates in biochemistry, geology, and other sciences. Conferences offer papers on topics like the physics of the Genesis flood. "Any time there's empirical evidence, that's gold for them," says Ronald Numbers, a professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."

Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer's faith. "My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."

<end cut/paste>

more of this article at: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120342 Aug 18, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
What is random is the environment required for the chamical reactions to take place to form the needed components for life. What are the chances of this happening?
We do not know. The reason we do not know is that we do not know the specific conditions required.

BUT, for the initial steps, such as producing amino acids and spherical double-layered containers, the conditions are common.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120343 Aug 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, when a technique was used in error, NOBODY takes its results seriously, indeed.
The multiple tests WERE done to date dinosaur fossils a HUNDRED times or more. As many as there are fossil sites of it.
They ALWAYS yielded an age older than 65 million years. The specimen Schweitzer took in her soft tissue research was 68 million years old.
I notice that you only read YEC creationist's website.
DON'T DO THAT.
As you noticed with C14 dating, you basically will get misinformed.
If you want to know what REALLY happens in geology pertaining dating of rocks and specimen, read these ones:
- http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta... and scroll it next pages (button lower right).
FROM THERE you are STILL entitled to criticize if you want. But, when criticizing, start from a valid point of reference.
There ARE scientifically reliable sources written by creationists, who not constantly distort the science. For instance: http://www.oldearth.org/ , especially the sections:
- http://www.oldearth.org/geology.htm
- http://www.oldearth.org/floodlist.htm
- http://www.oldearth.org/grandcanyon.htm
- http://www.oldearth.org/radiometricdating.htm
Start FROM THERE.
.
What is the explanation for proteins to remain after 65 million years?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120344 Aug 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know. The reason we do not know is that we do not know the specific conditions required.
BUT, for the initial steps, such as producing amino acids and spherical double-layered containers, the conditions are common.
.
If the conditions are so common, do we find this happening in the field?
.
Additionally, why don't we know the conditions, we are all alive under conditions that support life. Are you saying there were conditions to animate proteins but now those conditions do not exist?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120345 Aug 18, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
More on Dr. Schwitzer....
<begin cut/paste>
Rhetoric like this has put Schweitzer at the center of a raging cultural controversy, because she is not just a pioneering paleontologist but also an evangelical Christian. That fact alone has prompted some prominent paleontologists to be even more skeptical about her scientific research. Some creationists have questioned her work from the other direction, pressing her to refute Darwinian evolution. But in her religious life, Schweitzer is no more of an ideologue than she is in her scientific career. In both realms, she operates with a simple but powerful consistency: The best way to understand the glory of the world is to open your eyes and take an honest look at what is out there.
Reticent by nature, Schweitzer rarely grants interviews and shies away from making grand pronouncements about her scientific research or her religious faith.
Schweitzer's first forays into paleontology were "a total hook," she says. Not only was she fascinated by the science, but to her, digging into ancient strata seemed like reading the history of God's handiwork. Schweitzer worships at two churches—an evangelical church in Montana and a nondenominational one when she is back home in North Carolina—and when she talks about her faith, her bristly demeanor falls away. "God is so multidimensional," she says. "I see a sense of humor. I see His compassion in the world around me. It makes me curious, because the creator is revealed in the creation." Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating: "That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop."
While scientists struggled to make sense of the bones, another community had no doubt about how to interpret the results. The reports were quickly embraced by biblical literalists who believe God created life on Earth less than 10,000 years ago. For decades they have been working to place a scientific patina on their ideas. The Institute for Creation Research runs a graduate school near San Diego with 11 instructors who hold doctorates in biochemistry, geology, and other sciences. Conferences offer papers on topics like the physics of the Genesis flood. "Any time there's empirical evidence, that's gold for them," says Ronald Numbers, a professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."
Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.
These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."
Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer's faith. "My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."
.
This is a science forum, what do you have to explain the presence of proteins after 65 million years. As far as I can see no one disputes what's there.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120347 Aug 18, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
This is a science forum, what do you have to explain the presence of proteins after 65 million years. As far as I can see no one disputes what's there.
Explanation here:

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-t...
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120348 Aug 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would certainly hope not! If the technique is used in error, it would not give correct results.
<quoted text>
And that has been done. In particular, we know the limiting cases of when the various techniques work. For example, C14 dating should not be used for marine organisms that get their carbon from ancient sources instead of from the air: it will give artificially old dates. C14 should not be used on samples that were exposed to radioactivity for long periods of time (especially beta radiation) and that have nitrogen sources: they will give artificially young dates. K-Ar dating should not be used in rocks that are too porous: it will give artificially young dates. No method should be used for ages that are past about 10 half-lives of the isotope being tested.
These are all common sense conditions based on the way that the methods work. They are also easy-to-check conditions to see if the method is valid or not.
And yes, within these parameters, multiple dating methods *have* been used and give consistent results.
.
<quoted text>
I would certainly hope not! If the technique is used in error, it would not give correct results.
.
The statement was tongue in cheek. The reason you don't use C14 dating on fossils is that no C14 is expected to be there after 65 million years.
.
But if someone where to use C14 dating on something that was really 65 million years old, then we would expect a result of no C14 present.
.
This method of science is call falsification. Here we had someone use this method and behold it didn't produce the expected data. So we label the dating method in error, but that is all based upon the assumption that the sample is in fact 65 million years old. This is the problem. When an assumption is challenged by a method which shouldn't produce any indication of C14 and does it leaves us with three conclusions:
1. Someone is lying (easy enough to check)
2. The sample was contaminated (easy enough to repeat)
3. The sample isn't 65 million years old.
.
Is there a problem with my reasoning?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120349 Aug 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
This (also) was already addressed to an earlier post to you.
We DON'T need to recreate a living cell in order to understand the origin of life.
We DON'T need to rebuild a complete human body to understand how it works and to validly apply this in medicine.
We DON'T need to recreate an atom to understand atoms in atom theory.
We DON'T need to recreate stars to understand astrophysics.
Your post is utterly irrelevant.
.
Then why are they doing it? If they know all the answers already, why waste money researching and trying to recreate a living cell?
.
I think this is good science. If we can create a cell then it shows at least it is possible thru ID. Then we can try to see if this can come about by natural means, but if we can't show that it can occur if we help it along, how can someone actually believe it can happen by chance?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120350 Aug 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Next, the different dating techniques are calibrated.
For instance, radiocarbon dating is calibrated against tree ring counting (dendrochronology).
It is also calibrated by dating objects whose exact age a re historically known.
Radiometric dating techniques differ by the sort of specimen applicable and the age time frame. But different techniques overlap each other as such.
Hence, you can take the very same specimen and date it using the different techniques. This has been done. And the results were the same within the normal statistical error ranges of those different techniques. That is called calibrating.
.
What data are you providing that shows a different radiometric dating?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120351 Aug 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, he said "And elephants are probably more loving and moral than many of us." which is a different thing than intelligence as such. His other claim was that animals can think - not precisely the way we do - but they can think.
So to compare the crane volume of elephants is just not answering his point.
The 90 million genetic differences pertaining the time frame since the human-chimp split I already rather extensively addressed in SEVERAL of my own posts:#119954 nd #119983 for instance. Why asking again?
I accept that you can't answer all posts and select some.
But to repost the very same question that has been addressed several times, is not quite very fruitful in debate.
I shall repost my answers again though after this one.
.
<quoted text>
Well, he said "And elephants are probably more loving and moral than many of us.
.
Firstly, I don't think you can prove elephants are moral.
Secondly, it has nothing to do with the line of reasoning. Maybe he couldn't follow the line of reasoning.
Thirdly I didn't see you chirp in that it was off topic.
.
<quoted text>
His other claim was that animals can think - not precisely the way we do - but they can think.
.
Well whoop tee do, does anyone disagree with that. What a contribution to a discussion. He might as well have said "rocks aren't alive".
.
I will look over your referenced posts.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120352 Aug 18, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
I would certainly hope not! If the technique is used in error, it would not give correct results.
.
The statement was tongue in cheek. The reason you don't use C14 dating on fossils is that no C14 is expected to be there after 65 million years.
.
But if someone where to use C14 dating on something that was really 65 million years old, then we would expect a result of no C14 present.
.
This method of science is call falsification. Here we had someone use this method and behold it didn't produce the expected data. So we label the dating method in error, but that is all based upon the assumption that the sample is in fact 65 million years old. This is the problem. When an assumption is challenged by a method which shouldn't produce any indication of C14 and does it leaves us with three conclusions:
1. Someone is lying (easy enough to check)
2. The sample was contaminated (easy enough to repeat)
3. The sample isn't 65 million years old.
.
Is there a problem with my reasoning?
The REAL reason that C14 isn't used on fossils, is that C14 testing can ONLY be done on samples that contain CARBON (organic material).

Fossils contain NO organic or carbon material (the Swieitzer possibly being an exception).

This has been explained to you more than once.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120353 Aug 18, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The REAL reason that C14 isn't used on fossils, is that C14 testing can ONLY be done on samples that contain CARBON (organic material).
Fossils contain NO organic or carbon material (the Swieitzer possibly being an exception).
This has been explained to you more than once.
.
You have just admitted there is at least one fossil with organic material in it. Since this is so then it is not in error to use C14 dating on it or any other sample like it. But the dating was less than 50,000 years so why would we believe they are 65 million years old?
.
If you have explained this over and over why is it you cannot figure out:
1. The dating method was not in error.
2. The dating wasn't even close (it isn't possible to C14 date the sample at 65 million years).
3. There is a problem here.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120354 Aug 18, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Explanation here:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-t...
.
from your link
Schweitzer THINKS she has the answer: Iron.
.
This doesn't sound very positive to me.
.
from your link
They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid
.
Did this simulate the conditions in which the fossil was formed? If so we should expect to find this in every dinosaur fossil as every dinosaur fossil has blood. Was the surrounding area tested for iron content? There is no mention of this.
.
From your link
Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, MAY explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier.
.
Another less than positive answer.
.
Conclusion:
There is nothing solid here. Science would demand this be tested as close to the original environment as possible and be tested for falsification with other samples. We should also see high iron content in non-soft tissue samples. There are no mentions of any such things in the article.
.
Additionally this doesn't deal with the C14 dating.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120355 Aug 18, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You have just admitted there is at least one fossil with organic material in it.
I made no such admission. Please have yourself tested for reading comprehension.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>Since this is so then it is not in error to use C14 dating on it or any other sample like it. But the dating was less than 50,000 years so why would we believe they are 65 million years old?
The T-rex was chipped out of rock in the field. Limestone rocks do not form in 50,000 years. The rocks were independently dated at 68 million years old, as well as anything found within it, including the T-rex fossil being discussed.
.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>If you have explained this over and over why is it you cannot figure out:
1. The dating method was not in error.
I trust the professionals (geologists) who dated the strata at 68 million years. You have wishful thinking, clouded by a YEC mindset.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>2. The dating wasn't even close (it isn't possible to C14 date the sample at 65 million years).
You would have to provide evidence that the strata is NOT (as described) 68 million years old, but < 50,000 years old.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>3. There is a problem here.
What this appears to show is that we do not yet have a full understanding of the decay of organic material(s).

Even *IF* you could somehow prove that this T-rex lived only 50,000 years ago --- and you cannot -- this would only show that T-rexs lived considerably longer than we have initially thought. This alone would have NO bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

BTW, the study of this T-rex fossil showed evidence of T-rex evolutionary relation to birds on a genetic level.

You lose.

Again.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120356 Aug 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't. Do you understand how C14 dating is done? One of the first steps is determining the amount of C14 in your sample. If there is a background level of C14 in the environment due to local radioactivity, that will mean there is MORE C14 in the sample than would be appropriate for the actual age of the sample. That would mean you get a a younger age than is correct.
So, for example, if a sample starts out with 1 milligram of C14 and the background produces a constant level of 1 microgram of C14, you can get very accurate ages for the first 5 or 6 half-lives, but no date for 10 half-lives would be accurate. That is because the amount from the original sample would be about the same as the amount from background when 10 half-lives have passed.
So the C14 continues to decay, but it is also made by the background radioactivity, so an equilibrium is reached. Once the amount of C14 from the original sample is comparable to the background amount, the results will be 'bogus', even though they will be quite fine previously.
<quoted text>
You asked for an example of 'regression' and I provided it. There are other examples of increased complexity.
.
Is there any evidence of background radiation present at the site of the soft tissue sample?
.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120357 Aug 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place they weren't scientists because scientists will not use C14 on specimen older than 50,000 years. It is 101 level of understanding when you study these methods on university as a geologist. NO scientists has EVER applied C14 on any fossil EVER. Because those "scientists" were creationists. Who tried to discredit the method. Only creationists are that stupid and ignorant. C14 is only used in archaeology and at most in very young
<quoted text>
Well, what do you think will happen when you apply a method on a specimen that is not suited for it? Answer: you get false readings. Secondly, C14 is not used on fossils. The reason for it is that the method requires the original carbon from the died organism still to be in place. In >99% of the fossils this is not the case. Fossils are re-mineralizations by replacement of the original tissue by minerals from the surrounding soil.
Apart form their age, also the absence of the original carbon is a no-go for C14.
Hence, is someone dated a fossil, it should have been someone who has no idea of the method. For instance and particularly creationists.
Now it is PERFECTLY possible to find C14 in very old, former organic remnants. For instance, coal and oil. Both coal and oil are buried dead organisms after anaerobic decomposition, compression and geothermal heating. They do contain the original organic carbon but they tend to lay in underground pockets where there is natural radioactivity around. C14 is formed in the atmosphere by nitrogen isotopes being bombarded by cosmic radiation. Underground the nitrogen in the coal and oil layers is bombarded by the natural radioactive radiation.
THEREFORE, when taking samples for C14 dating, one of the methodological prerequisites is to measure the natural radioactive radiation on that spot. when it exceeds the average, natural radioactive background radiation, the specimen is discarded.
<quoted text>
Again you have reading issues.
"Evolution is not an upward moving" is not an equivalent of "devolution is not occurring".
.
<quoted text>
Again you have reading issues.
"Evolution is not an upward moving" is not an equivalent of "devolution is not occurring".
.
If it is not upward moving (I think you are playing with words) then how do we get from a single celled organism to life as we know it without life getting more complex?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120358 Aug 18, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I made no such admission. Please have yourself tested for reading comprehension.
<quoted text>
The T-rex was chipped out of rock in the field. Limestone rocks do not form in 50,000 years. The rocks were independently dated at 68 million years old, as well as anything found within it, including the T-rex fossil being discussed.
.
<quoted text>
I trust the professionals (geologists) who dated the strata at 68 million years. You have wishful thinking, clouded by a YEC mindset.
<quoted text>
You would have to provide evidence that the strata is NOT (as described) 68 million years old, but < 50,000 years old.
<quoted text>
What this appears to show is that we do not yet have a full understanding of the decay of organic material(s).
Even *IF* you could somehow prove that this T-rex lived only 50,000 years ago --- and you cannot -- this would only show that T-rexs lived considerably longer than we have initially thought. This alone would have NO bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution.
BTW, the study of this T-rex fossil showed evidence of T-rex evolutionary relation to birds on a genetic level.
You lose.
Again.
.
Are you disputing they have found soft tissue in a T-Rex and a Brachylophosaurus canadensis?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120359 Aug 18, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I made no such admission. Please have yourself tested for reading comprehension.
<quoted text>
The T-rex was chipped out of rock in the field. Limestone rocks do not form in 50,000 years. The rocks were independently dated at 68 million years old, as well as anything found within it, including the T-rex fossil being discussed.
.
<quoted text>
I trust the professionals (geologists) who dated the strata at 68 million years. You have wishful thinking, clouded by a YEC mindset.
<quoted text>
You would have to provide evidence that the strata is NOT (as described) 68 million years old, but < 50,000 years old.
<quoted text>
What this appears to show is that we do not yet have a full understanding of the decay of organic material(s).
Even *IF* you could somehow prove that this T-rex lived only 50,000 years ago --- and you cannot -- this would only show that T-rexs lived considerably longer than we have initially thought. This alone would have NO bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution.
BTW, the study of this T-rex fossil showed evidence of T-rex evolutionary relation to birds on a genetic level.
You lose.
Again.
.
<quoted text>
The T-rex was chipped out of rock in the field. Limestone rocks do not form in 50,000 years. The rocks were independently dated at 68 million years old, as well as anything found within it, including the T-rex fossil being discussed.
.
from a link used to support the old age of the T-Rex.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-t...
The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in SANDSTONE, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.
.
Who do I believe you or this article? Maybe this is why the dates are off, they were dating limestone!
.
<quoted text>
BTW, the study of this T-rex fossil showed evidence of T-rex evolutionary relation to birds on a genetic level.
.
Is this you NOT admitting they have found soft tissue? Can you get DNA from a 65 million year old fossil?
.
Secondly, I earlier referenced a DNA comparision between, cattle, chimps, dogs, humans and mice. Interestingly cattle had more in common with man than the chimp did and all the other "kinds" showed a similarity of about 70%. So why would it surprise me if dinosaurs and birds had a similarity?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120360 Aug 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what they (creationists) did was using C14 dating on oil and coal.
They said: if we do that, there should be no C14 traces left in the specimen because "evolutionists say that oil and coal are a remnant of ancient life and the original organic carbon is still in it". And indeed they found substantial traces of C14. See? These samples aren't that old as evolutionist think. Hence the earth is not that old. Or, else, C14 dating is invalid and can't be trusted. And if C14 isn't valid, the old age of the earth is hereby refuted.
As follows:
- these invalid measurements yielded the oil and coal to be 40,000 years old, if I recall well. That's STILL older than 6,000 years, but gee, who cares. They just debunked their bible but there is always an apologist who finds some bible quotes to babble it away.
- "That's because C14 is invalid" some little bit smarter ones answered. But if C14 is invalid, the results on the coal and oil samples are AS WELL. But gee who cares about circular reasoning.
- C14 isn't used for dating the earth because of its methodological restraints. Its main appliance is in archaeology. In palaeontology it is only used for specimen of the Tarantian and Holocene. There must have been a creationist who once set his eyes on C14 dating and all misunderstood it to be used for dating the age of the earth. Since than all creationists think that. Hence they are busy debunking a dating technique pertaining a purpose that in reality isn't applied. How idiot idiocy can be. But, again, gee, who cares.
- C14 is formed in the atmosphere by bombardment of nitrogen isotopes by cosmic radiation. But C14 is also formed by bombardment of nitrogen by natural radioactivity in geological layers. Coal and oil layers mostly contain nitrogen. Mostly it is about a slightly 1%( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac00298a0... ). There are oil and coal layers that contain considerable amounts of radioactivity. Sometimes its concentration urges to take protection measures especially for the on-site oil company workers. Hence, C14 will be formed in those oil and coal layers. But gee, who cares about ignorance.
- hence, if a palaeontologist applies C14 dating, he always will measure the natural background radiation at the site of the specimen. This will lead to corrections in the calculations or the specimen to be dated in other ways. But gee, who cares about a methodologically valid application of techniques.
-
.
<quoted text>
But C14 is also formed by bombardment of nitrogen by natural radioactivity in geological layers. Coal and oil layers mostly contain nitrogen. Mostly it is about a slightly 1%( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac00298a0 ...). There are oil and coal layers that contain considerable amounts of radioactivity. Sometimes its concentration urges to take protection measures especially for the on-site oil company workers. Hence, C14 will be formed in those oil and coal layers.
.
Where has this been tested. Have they subjected diamonds and coal to radioactivity to see if the amount of C14 is increased?

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 Game (Sep '13) 1 min Crazy Jae 13,645
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 1 min quilterqueen 10,238
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 2 min Crazy Jae 21,008
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 3 min quilterqueen 62,200
Things That Are Solid,... 5 min quilterqueen 58
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 10 min quilterqueen 83,961
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 13 min Doug77 37,091
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 18 min T Bone 5,522
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min wichita-rick 222,237
Cyber Friendships real or not? (Nov '11) 1 hr honeymylove 1,309
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 2 hr Parden Pard 9,344
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr Paisley_Posey 25,525
More from around the web