The Theory of Evolution

[IGotTheCottons]

I'm on break at work so I can't say very much. I just wanted to point out that these supposed "Christians" who make these sites must not really believe the Bible - as scripture teaches a young earth. You can't have both, man. May I dare state that those "Christians" may not actually be Christians at all.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

I'm on break at work so I can't say very much. I just wanted to point out that these supposed "Christians" who make these sites must not really believe the Bible - as scripture teaches a young earth. You can't have both, man. May I dare state that those "Christians" may not actually be Christians at all.

Exactly what i was thinking. The theory of evolution completely contradicts the bible. Why would they continue to be christian after believing in an old earth?

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Well i have been a Catholic for about 16 years of my life and i've never heard of the earth being 10,000 years old until about 4 months ago when I started debating evolution. Faith doesn't depend on your intepretation of the bible. You maintain that the bible is to be taken literally, but i disagree. The Old Testament is filled with metaphors in my opinion. I think the whole story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor.

The bible no where says the earth is 10,000 years old. You just assume it is since they counted the generations after adam and eve and came up with that number.

Wow cottons you sure do sound like those fanatics... saying they COULDN'T be christians since they don't believe the same thing as you. Why are there so many denominations of Christianity if the bible is supposed to be interpretted one way. Martin Luther made a break from the Catholic Church by saying faith alone can lead to salvation. Obviously he interpretted the bible differently.

Opivy how about you come up with something original to say...

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Well i have been a Catholic for about 16 years of my life and i've never heard of the earth being 10,000 years old until about 4 months ago when I started debating evolution. Faith doesn't depend on your intepretation of the bible. You maintain that the bible is to be taken literally, but i disagree. The Old Testament is filled with metaphors in my opinion. I think the whole story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor.

The bible no where says the earth is 10,000 years old. You just assume it is since they counted the generations after adam and eve and came up with that number.

Wow cottons you sure do sound like those fanatics... saying they COULDN'T be christians since they don't believe the same thing as you. Why are there so many denominations of Christianity if the bible is supposed to be interpretted one way. Martin Luther made a break from the Catholic Church by saying faith alone can lead to salvation. Obviously he interpretted the bible differently.

Opivy how about you come up with something original to say...

Exactly - they counted the generations, and the ages of the people who were given in those lists of generations. This would lead to the 10,000 years (approximately) that the earth has been around. The Bible is pretty specific when it comes to generations and ages.

Also, the Bible makes it's metaphors pretty clear. If it's meant to be taken figuratively, it is indicated by the surrounding scripture.

You use the example of Martin Luther interpreting scripture differently... Only problem with that is when Martin Luther taught that salvation is obtained by faith alone, he was quoting Jesus. He also had a literal interpretation of the scriptures, because the Bible is VERY CLEAR that it's not by works, but by faith in Christ alone. I can give you scripture out the butt to back up those claims if you don't believe me.

And I never said they COULDN'T be Christians... I said "<b>May</b> I dare state that those "Christians" <b><u>may not</u></b> actually be Christians at all." - as in they MIGHT not be. The Bible teaches that a lot of lost people will claim Christianity as their religion, but not be Christians (see Matthew 7). - So PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Well look at how you said it... it sounds like you were trying to say they weren't christian b/c they didnt believe the earth was 10,000 years old. So sorry.

Well the Catholics believed that good acts would lead to heaven, not just faith alone. So obviously the Catholics interpretted the bible a different way. The bible is the basis of Catholicism and Christianity and there many different denominations so bible has had to be interpretted differently otherwise we'd still have one or a couple of denominations.

But this thread isn't about the bible, but about evolution. You claim the dating techniques are flawed. I recently put up some excerpts from two articles. What is your response to those articles?

[IGotTheCottons]

I think you know what my response it going to be. I'm not saying the half-lives are changed, although the decay process can be slightly sped up.

There's also the possibility that the daughter isotope was present when the rock was created. This has been shown to happen in nature, and I talked about it in the "Why Evolution Is Wrong" thread.

There's really no possible way of telling how old something is by radioactive dating because it's impossible to tell what whatever it is that's being dated has been through. You don't know if the daughter isotopes were present when the rock was formed. You don't know if some were added or lost throughout the "lifespan" (so to say) of whatever it is that's been dated, and you can't tell for sure if the decay rates have always been constant.

So with all these unknowns, how is it possible to get an accurate date? How can you "take into account" for something you weren't there to measure? You can't. No one can. Sorry man... Your arguments for the dating methods have no ground to stand on.

I point back to the analogy I used with the candle... If you were to walk into a room and see a candle burning, would you be able to tell me how big the candle was to start with, or how long it's been burning without ASSUMING anything? Not a chance. You'd have to assume it's been burning at the same rate, and you'd have to guess how big you thought it was to begin with. The same thing goes with dating a rock.

EDIT: And just so you know, the Catholics DO have a different way of interpreting the scriptures. They find the interpretation that puts more money into their bank accounts. They also teach things that directly contradict the Bible. They teach confessing your sins to a priest, when Jesus taught that sins should be confessed straight to God. They teach that you can pay money for them to pray and have a loved-one's soul taken from purgatory and placed in heaven, when Jesus taught that you make your choice here on earth, and in death it's too late. Also, there's no where in scripture that says anything about purgatory. They also teach that you should praise the virgin Mary and pray to her, when Jesus taught that you should only pray to God. Maybe if the Catholics actually taught what the scriptures said, there wouldn't be a million different denominations.

EDIT AGAIN: Also... Don't we already have a thread for debating evolution? Why'd you start another?

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

I felt like starting another thread.

I thought that was the whole basis of your arguement, that the decay rate doesn't remain constant? I'll find more articles to show why dating techniques aren't as flawed as you claim.

Where is your proof cottons? You said that the decay rates were assumed and i've found no where, except on creationists sites, that the rates were assumed to remain constant.

Regardless of whether radioactive dating techniuqes are right, ice core sampling shows that the earth is greater than 10,000 years old. So you keep living in your fantasy 10,000 year old world. I guess ignorance is bliss.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

I felt like starting another thread.

I thought that was the whole basis of your arguement, that the decay rate doesn't remain constant? I'll find more articles to show why dating techniques aren't as flawed as you claim.

Where is your proof cottons? You said that the decay rates were assumed and i've found no where, except on creationists sites, that the rates were assumed to remain constant.

Regardless of whether radioactive dating techniuqes are right, ice core sampling shows that the earth is greater than 10,000 years old. So you keep living in your fantasy 10,000 year old world. I guess ignorance is bliss.

It's not the whole basis. They can be changed (as in the ACTUAL decay rates), but they won't be sped up a whole lot, so this can fall into the margin of error... A big argument though is no one knows how much of the daughter isotopes were originally in the rock (or whatever) when it was created. If there were high amounts of the daughter isotope to begin with, this would give the tests a much older age, don't you think?

Ice core dating doesn't prove the world to be more than 10,000 years old. If there was a flood, the glaciers would have formed very rapidly. Again - you're ASSUMING that these layers were layed down over millions of years. A global flood would have caused an iceage that only lasted only very briefly.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Well you see cottons... this is how ice core sampling works

A continuous count of layers exists back as far as 160,000 years. In addition to yearly layering, individual strong events (such as large-scale volcanic eruptions) can be observed and correlated between ice cores. A number of historical eruptions as far back as Vesuvius nearly 2,000 years ago serve as benchmarks with which to determine the accuracy of the yearly layers as far down as around 500 meters. As one goes further down in the ice core, the ice becomes more compacted than near the surface, and individual yearly layers are slightly more difficult to observe. For this reason, there is some uncertainty as one goes back towards 100,000 years. Ages of 40,000 years or less are estimated to be off by 2% at most. Ages of 60,000 years may be off by up to 10%, and the uncertainty rises to 20% for ages of 110,000 years based on direct counting of layers http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page.%2016

So its kinda like tree rings. I'm not assuming that these layers are layed down over millions of years, I know they were laid down for at least the past 100,000. This is certainly many more years than your young earth theory.

Cotton there has been many ice ages and climatic changes, where does this fit into your young earth theory?

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

A continuous count of layers exists back as far as 160,000 years. In addition to yearly layering, individual strong events (such as large-scale volcanic eruptions) can be observed and correlated between ice cores. A number of historical eruptions as far back as Vesuvius nearly 2,000 years ago serve as benchmarks with which to determine the accuracy of the yearly layers as far down as around 500 meters. As one goes further down in the ice core, the ice becomes more compacted than near the surface, and individual yearly layers are slightly more difficult to observe. For this reason, there is some uncertainty as one goes back towards 100,000 years. Ages of 40,000 years or less are estimated to be off by 2% at most. Ages of 60,000 years may be off by up to 10%, and the uncertainty rises to 20% for ages of 110,000 years based on direct counting of layers http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page.%2016

Okay i see how it works. They even have a bench mark from an eruption 2000 years ago . How does this prove the earth to be at least 100,000 years old?

-The ice gets more compact the further you go down? Really, no shit. There is only a bunch of ice ontop of it, that ofcourse has weight adding pressure ontop of everything under it. -This could be something to do with that Theory of Gravity you were talking about earlier.... eh i'm just messin with ya at the end

[IGotTheCottons]

You used a very key word in your argument about this... Ready for this one?

Ages of 40,000 years or less are estimated to be off by 2% at most.

Can you guess what this key word is? I'll give you a hint. It starts with esti and ends with mated. Ages of 40,000 years or less are ESTIMATED to be off by 2% at most. How did they arrive at this estimation?

You see, you have a bookmark of a 2,000 year explosion. Ok... Give me any bookmark that's not an estimate, that is older than 10,000 years.

And by the way... Trees can make more than 1 ring in a year. But I bet you don't take that into consideration when you mention tree-ring dating - as most people think trees only make 1 ring a year.

EDIT: Maybe if you can find me some dating methods without estimations and assumptions, THEN maybe I'll concede that the world is older than 10,000 years. So far you have failed though.

EDIT AGAIN: If billions of gallons of water erupted from 10 miles under the crust, the pressure would send this water/steam HIGH into the atomosphere, rapidly chilling it and turning it into - uh... what's that word again? SNOW. Now, imagine billions of gallons of water, some of which is turned into snow, and then dumped across the world. There's your ice-age. Only problem is is that it doesn't last very long because a global flood would kinda melt a bunch of that ice in warmer climates.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Well of course its estimated because they can't tell the age down to months and days.... This is pointless... you just cant open your eyes to the fact that these dating methods are widely accepped by the scientific community.

Just because it isn't 100% fool proof, that doesn't make it innaccurate or flawed. There is just too much evidence for an old earth, for a handful of scientists to claim that it is wrong. Like I've said, if these techniques were flawed then evidence would have been put forward to disprove these techniques.

GUESS WHAT COTTONS??!?!?! IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET! Radioactive techniques have been around since the 1950's and they are still being used! That says something!

I said ice core sampling is kinda like tree rings, read a bit more closely.

You aren't going to concede to an old earth until we invent a time machine b/c we will have to assume things and estimate ages b/c we cant 1be 00% for sure know the true date.

You still haven't provided any links proving that dinosaurs roomed the earth during the times of man and cave man drew dinosaurs in their caves. I still can't believe you tried to use the loch ness monster to try and back up your claim. How many pictures do they have of this "dinosaur"? Aren't the few pictures they have all fuzzy?

You still haven't explained to me how we have had multiple ice ages within the time span of 10,000 years.

It just sounds to me like the creationists try to use and flaw or whatever and twist it so they can try to back up their bible. Cottons you present all these theories and arguements that most scientist don't agree with. That doesn't mean these theories or agruements are wrong, but it makes them a lot more likely wrong.

You bitch and moan and say evolution and dating techniques are wrong because they are based on assumptions. Well guess what!? Your whole freaking religion is based on assumptions. You have to assume that god made the animals come to noah. You have to assume God exists for your religions. That is a pretty big assumption for a man who claims things to be incorrect when they are assumed. However, your religion is right when you assume God is real. Like most Christians, you are a hypocrite. You can't bash evolution's assumptions when your faith is based on an assupmtion.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Well of course its estimated because they can't tell the age down to months and days.... This is pointless... you just cant open your eyes to the fact that these dating methods are widely accepped by the scientific community.

We dont need the age down to months and days. Its not needed. You need to open your eyes to the fact that these dating techniques are very flawed. It is impossible to tell how old these things are, cottons candle example was great.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

GUESS WHAT COTTONS??!?!?! IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET! Radioactive techniques have been around since the 1950's and they are still being used! That says something!

Somehow we always end up back to "Well they still use the techniques! They have to work!". Does the fact that they still currently use these techniques make them accurate? HELL NO. It has nothing to do with it so stop bringing it up.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

You aren't going to concede to an old earth until we invent a time machine b/c we will have to assume things and estimate ages b/c we cant 1be 00% for sure know the true date.

Concede to an old earth? You wont even consider a young earth.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

You bitch and moan and say evolution and dating techniques are wrong because they are based on assumptions. Well guess what!? Your whole freaking religion is based on assumptions. You have to assume that god made the animals come to noah. You have to assume God exists for your religions. That is a pretty big assumption for a man who claims things to be incorrect when they are assumed. However, your religion is right when you assume God is real. Like most Christians, you are a hypocrite. You can't bash evolution's assumptions when your faith is based on an assupmtion.

Well these are not exactly assumptions. The incidents (IF they actually happened) have been written down for us to forever share and learn. I am not using the Bible as proof of anything but I do want to point out how extremely accurate it is in every aspect. The control of certain regions, the geography, architecture, all very accurate.


-Now these assumptions that evolution has came up with ; ie. A chemical reaction creating the universe; all living things today deriving from a common ancestor; and an old earth. The earth was thought to be around 10,000 years old until the theory of evolution came around. Ofcourse since a young earth couldn't possibly fit with evolution as for it to have happened a huge abundance of time would be needed, the age of the earth was pushed back. in 1905 the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970 it was declared to be 3.5 billion years old... By the 1990's the earth was thought to be 4.6 billion years old.

[IGotTheCottons]

This is gonna be fun... First off, I thought I saw somewhere where Opivy said he had links to the cave drawings... So if he does, I hope he'll post them. If he didn't say that - I must have been a little too off my rocker that day, and I apologize

ANYWAYZ, About how you keep saying "They're still used by scientists, so they must be right." Guess what - Remember when everyone thought that the earth was flat??? Can you guess who it is who told everyone that? THE SCIENTISTS! But wait... The Bible talks about how the earth is ROUND... AND, it was written way before 1492

Also... Remember when everyone thought that the earth was the center of the universe? Guess what... THAT was the scientists' doing, too. Until a lucky scientist discovered that we weren't, and all the other big bully scientists couldn't stand him because of it Over time he proved his findings, but it didn't sit too well at first.

So yeah... Here we are in the modern day. Scientists are telling us that the earth is 4.6 billion years old - when they can't know for sure. Dating a rock is much like trying to tell how tall and how long that candle from my previous example has been burning.

My faith is all based on assumptions? I don't think so. There's written documentation, there's the VERY SPECIFIC prophecies that have all LITERALLY come true (ie, there's nothing vague about the prophecy), and then there's the many miracles that I've seen and heard of during the years. So my faith isn't all based on assumptions. It's actually based more on what I can see and hear and actually observe happening.

You have it the other way around. The evolutionists do all the assuming without hard evidence backing any of it up. And you know what happens when you assume. You make and ASS out of U and ME

Multiple ice-ages? Again, that's an assumption. How can you know for sure there was more than one? Because the layers of ice tell us that? What about the layers of rock that were layed down by a flood... Don't you think it's possible the layers of ice could have happened the same way? Uniformitarianism = bullshit.

[RobBob]

Hmm if the Bible really does say for definite that the Earth is 6000 years old, then the Bible must be....wrong.

If that's what you want.