Well then, how about you give me some proof? Remember, you can't use anything having to do with radiometric dating because it's totally inaccurate and based on assumptions. The fossils can only be satisfactorily explained by a global flood (I can give backing for this if you feel like reading a really long post). As far as I know those are the two strongest arguments for evolution. Both of them not having much going for them.
dinosaurs? they lived before humans and have no mention in the bible, and we know they lived before us cos there berried deeper. so why does the bible not mention them?
The entirety of the bible could simply state "jello jello monkey diaper halleluja" and people would still defend it as fact. In fact, even though it directly contradicts itself multiple times people still try to explain it in any number of ways. This argument is like two blind people trying to figure out if the sky is blue. Sure, everyone says that it's blue but they can't really be sure can they?
I'll ignore the "half a brain" and "learn to read" comments. Perhaps if you read without blinders on you would realize that the quote you are using is from a scientist who in no way, no matter how you read it, is suggesting the earth is only ten thousand years old. The field is created by a "self-sustaining " dynamo. Thats what is keeping it from being completely gone, and how it has lasted so long. As for me proving the earth is billions of years old, I once again bring up all the fields of science that point to this being the case. Of course according to you none of the dating techniques are accurate, so it's useless to try and tell you otherwise. Perhaps you should write to all the scientists on the planet using these techniques and tell them they are wasting their time. I'm sure all the geologists, paleontologists, etc..etc...... would abandon their sciences and spend their time on more meaningful pursuits. I reiterate the point that most all fields of mainstream science would have to be pr oven wrong for us to believe the world is not billions of years old. For instance since you mentioned half-life of the earths core, lets look at uranium. U-238 decays very slowly, its half-life being the same as the age of the earth (4500 million years). This means that it is barely radioactive, less so than many other isotopes in rocks and sand. Nevertheless it generates 0.1 watts/tonne and this is enough to warm the earth's core. I guess we have to throw out nuclear physics. Regarding the guy and his offer, who decides if he wins the debate? I'm guessing he does, which invalidates the win. Here is your Dobzansky quote; 'The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapienc was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man. Cranial capacity and brain size are, however, not reliable criteria of 'intelligence' or intellectual abilities of any kind1." Explain to me where that says neanderthal was a human with rickets. Dobzhansky wasn't an anthropologist, he was a geneticist. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on what he says about Neanderthal. Since you are fond of his quotes though, here's another:"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" I honestly believe the "part" of Leakey you want to focus on is in fact not even a quote from Leakey. Seeing as how he devoted his life to the study of mans evolution. I feel hard pressed to give you "non-evolution biased" scientific facts, considering your insistence that all dating techniques are completely inaccurate, and almost every field of science would be invalidated by your refusal to accept that the world is more than ten thousand years old. I find your statement,"If anything dismisses your religion, you won't even consider it." , reflects your position more than mine. I don't view evolution as my religion, for all you know I could be a christian who, like most, don't see the bible as a historical document, and who don't feel that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.
they aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible, but neither are cats, and we have them. the Bible says "and every beast after it's kind" there's a lot of things that can fit into the section of "every" and if the dinosaurs lived so long before people, why is it that there's fossilized dinosaur footprints with fossilized HUMAN footprints inside of them? as in the dinosaur print has a human print inside of it. you can't make footprints in a solid fossilized rock... so that can only mean that they were made BEFORE the mud turned into rock, and thus means that dinosaurs and people were alive TOGETHER. EDIT: fossils of this type must be made quickly or they will get messed up by outside factors (rain, other's stomping on them, etc.). this rules out the "well, during the millions of years it took the this fossil to form, a person might have stepped in it" excuse. try again.
well, i didn't say they said the earth is only 10,000 years old. i said that the site said the life-span of the magnetic field of a planet such as earth's is several tens of thousands of years (which is a big difference from several billions of years). the statement on the site says that the movement of the outer-core is what generates and sustains our magnetic field. it also says that because the earth is billions of years old there must be something keeping it going (otherwise it would have died out after several tens of thousands of years). if the movement of the outer-core is what's causing our magnetic field, than as the earth cools (which it has been doing from day 1) this movement will slow down (because as things get colder they get slower), and because it is slowing down, the magnetic field is degenerating. this goes hand-in-hand with the second law of thermodynamics. the earth is dying, not becoming more organized. NOW, you can ignore my previous comments all you want, but if you know how to read things properly you should be able to see that what that article is saying is that because of this cooling and slowing down of the outer-core, the magnetic field should have died out long ago if the world was in-fact billions of years old, but because they believe the world to be billions of years old, they believe that there's something maintaining the field other than just the movement of the outer-core. perhaps tomorrow i'll give you my proof of the flaws of radiometric dating, and then you can try to find some other proof of the world being billions of years old. what? i didn't mention the half-life of the earth's core (unless you're referring to the half-life of the magnetic field). in either case, what does that have to do with 0.1 watts warming the earth's core? his offer isn't for someone to beat him in a debate. his offer is for anyone to offer him solid, hard, scientific proof of macro evolution. his debates are public and there are judges. i have seen several debates and more often than not the evolutionist is left speechless, or rambling on about everything but evolution. they usually admit their own defeat. this guy was a science teacher for 15 years, and a former evolutionist. i'm sorry. i got my quotes mixed up. it was science digest that said they had rickets. and science digest is a secular science magazine with evolution biases. it's a quote from Leakey. in his study of man's evolution, he found evidence that showed we couldn't have evolved from the line of ape-like ancestors that everyone thought we evolved from. that didn't change his mind that we evolved. he just said that we couldn't have evolved from those ancestors because evidence of modern-man existed prior to these ancestors. go ahead and show me some of your dated stuff. i promise you i can give enough evidence to shake your confidence that our dating techniques are as accurate as science claims them to be. i also find it ammusing that science doesn't publish the dates unless they support their theory. you can think it reflects my position more than yours all you want. it's no secret that i used to be an evolutionist. i once stood on your side of the fence. i once did what i could to argue AGAINST Christianity. i used to believe the world was billions of years old. i eventually stumbled across overwhelming evidence for a young earth, and unlike you i was open enough to at least give it a chance. i didn't accept it at first, but i didn't totally dismiss it just because i didn't want to hear it. the more i read and learned, the more i saw that i was wrong. also, evolution, no matter how much you don't want to believe it, is a religion. it takes faith. either matter appeared out of nowhere (breaking scientific laws), or God created it. either matter was eternal, or God is eternal. either way it takes faith. and by definition that makes evolution a religion. especially seeing as how you have no hard scientific backing to prove it.
what facts? all you've given me is THEORY. i've given a couple facts though (ex. the second LAW of thermodynamics). i still haven't seen a good explaination as to how evolution manages to defy this law.
well, i got impatient, and found a nice article about radiometric dating from that guy's website (Dr. Kent Hovind). here's the article... IT'S LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!! Doesn't carbon dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? Carbon dating: Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon. Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating. The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field. Potassium Argon dating: "Potassium Argon dating is based on many of the same assumptions and gives wild dates shown below. Since so many wrong dates are found, how would we know which dates are "correct?" For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266 Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old. Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999 Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old. Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999 Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999 Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999, See: www.icr.org for lots more on dating methods. In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased. For more information, see video tape #7 of the CSE video series on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, or Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris (all available from CSE). A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating: Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61 Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637 A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211 "One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30 "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124 The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively." --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124 "A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years- a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52. "Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O'Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54 the website is: http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.j...lution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp if that isn't enough i have pleanty more.
I'll just respond to the latest info you posted with this link. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creationist_frauds.htm Quite an interesting read, it would seem Mr. Hovind isn't much of a scientist considering he got his PHD from a Christian correspondence School which now operates out of a house. He is well known for his "challenge" being rigged, as well as misquoting and not having a full grasp of any of the science he is trying to disprove. I'd also like to point out that his "independent" judges are hand-picked by him. Not so independent, huh? The link also leads to info about the Senior VP of IRC. Duane Gish, he's also well known for misquotations of evolutionists, taking misleading statements out of context, and even outright plagiarism in at least one of his books. Can you find any credible sources to support your arguments? I haven't seen one yet. By the way, I've been to all the links you posted and some other scientific creationism sites and I still don't buy it. I also went Theology today and found an article that pertains to this debate. It is by Richard W. Berry.Richard W. Berry is Professor of Geology, San Diego State University, California. He has also taught at the University of Baghdad, the University of Oslo, and the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama. The author of numerous technical articles on geology, mineralogy, and off-shore petroleum research, Dr. Berry also serves on the ministerial candidates committee of his local Presbytery. This article, he says, began "as a means for pulling my own thoughts together and now I hope it will have a positive and healing effect on the controversy." Here's a sample: "Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "bow" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable. As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified. Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story. At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete. Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil. Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "bow" of creation separate from the "who" and "why" of creation. In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God. Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God.
Um, he taught secular science before he got his degree from the Christian school, so try again. People who say his challenge is rigged are those who give him examples of micro-evolution and call it proof of macro evolution. And that is who? I don't believe I've quoted from him seeing as how I have no idea who he is. This argument is irrevelant. Wow. I say the same thing about you. Where's your credible sorces proving the world is billions of years old? Radiometric dating is flawed, mainly because it's based on assumptions. You can't assume how much of those elements were originally in what you're dating, and you certainly can't say that they decay at a constant rate. Certain enviornmental factors speed up the decay process, and give the appearance of an older age. And all your last quote goes to show is that some presbyterian doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Big whoop. Where's his evidence backing up his belief? Oh wait... he has none.
Originally posted by IGotTheCottons "Um, he taught secular science before he got his degree from the Christian school, so try again. People who say his challenge is rigged are those who give him examples of micro-evolution and call it proof of macro evolution." Odd that he taught "secular" science at a Christian school.Here is a Direct quote from him:"I taught math and science in Christian schools for the next 15 years" How secular is that? Do they allow the teaching of " secular" science in Christian schools? I doubt it. I say his debate is rigged because:Hovind does not have the $250,000 prize money. He claims a "rich friend" does. The Committee remains anonymous. Even a selected challenger is not allowed to know their identities. The Committee is selected by Kent Hovind himself. There is no evidence the Committee has even been selected. The Committee is allowed to reject evidence without reason. There is no defined criteria for how the Committee will decide success or failure. Hovind reserves the right to reject any material, without reason, prior to submission to the Committee. (Looks rigged to me.) What the challenger has to do is provide proof "the universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes so there is no appeal to the supernatural needed". Notice Hovind is expecting evidence that eliminates all other possibilities. The challenger is being expected to prove a universal negative. The challenger is expected to prove that an undefined, unlimited deity was not involved in the formation of the Universe as we know it today. This would mean Hovind has yet another loop hole to reject the challenger. Hovind uses a lot of definitions of "evolution", yet when it comes down to actually describing the challenge none of these definitions are relevant. The challenge effectively is to prove that a supernatural deity was not involved in the history of the Universe. As the supernatural is beyond the realm of the scientific method no argument for or against said deity can be made by science. Science is neutral on the existence of the supernatural due to the criteria of the scientific method. "And that is who? I don't believe I've quoted from him seeing as how I have no idea who he is. This argument is irrevelant." Duane Gish is the VP of the IRC, you know, the other link you posted. You don't even know your own sources, or the people behind them. "Wow. I say the same thing about you. Where's your credible sorces proving the world is billions of years old? Radiometric dating is flawed, mainly because it's based on assumptions. You can't assume how much of those elements were originally in what you're dating, and you certainly can't say that they decay at a constant rate. Certain enviornmental factors speed up the decay process, and give the appearance of an older age." The fact that you, and Mr. hovind,( note the lack of DR., a 101 page thesis for a doctorate that doesn't exist in any archive isn't worth recognizing), neither of which are scientists, have ruled out all known dating techniques, narrows my options considerably. I'll once again point out that almost no known field of science operates on the idea of an earth that isn't billions of years old. What science can I use that won't be seen as completely invalid by you? None that would prove my point without you,( a non-scientist), claiming they are flawed. "And all your last quote goes to show is that some presbyterian doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Big whoop. Where's his evidence backing up his belief? Oh wait... he has none." The Presbyterian is an actual scientist, unlike Hovind, I listed his credentials, and what he is saying is," Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God." That's why it wouldn't matter how much science I come up with. As for evidence for his beliefs, I would wager they are based on his being a geologist, which means he probably uses the dating techniques you have ruled out based on the opinions of a non-scientist. On a side note , I hope you aren't taking any of this personally. I have nothing against you on a pesonal level , I just enjoy a good debate.
I'd like to start by saying that no offence has been taken. I was actually about to say the same to you. I don't mean to come off as offensive, and I have nothing against you personally as well. I, like you, love a good debate (which this one is looking to be). And by the way, I'm not here to debate on Hovind's credentials. That's irrevelant (although I may have been wrong about the secular science thing). I watched a few of his debates and on one of them he mentioned being a former evolutionist. So yeah, enough said. Now... on to the debate. the article I posted was from Hovind's site. The link was included in the article. I didn't post it as one of my sources. Secondly, if you can give me any evidence that radiometric dating is accurate, feel free to do so. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to figure out that it's flawed. You have to assume a starting amount of these elements in the thing you're dating, and you have to assume that the decay rate was constant and not affected at all by outside factors. You can't give an accurate date when you're going based on assumptions. Now if you can prove otherwise, feel free to do so. "What the challenger has to do is provide proof "the universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes so there is no appeal to the supernatural needed". Notice Hovind is expecting evidence that eliminates all other possibilities." Well, evolution teaches that the universe formed itself. That life came from non-life, and God didn't create it. What other possibilities are there? Either God created it or He didn't. I fail to see the point you're trying to make by this. "The challenger is expected to prove that an undefined, unlimited deity was not involved in the formation of the Universe as we know it today. This would mean Hovind has yet another loop hole to reject the challenger." Well, yeah... Wouldn't that be accomplished by giving hard scientific proof for evolution? How is there a loop hole? Either the guy can prove that we evolved, and God didn't create, or he can't. I don't see much of a loop hole. "The fact that you, and Mr. hovind,( note the lack of DR., a 101 page thesis for a doctorate that doesn't exist in any archive isn't worth recognizing), neither of which are scientists, have ruled out all known dating techniques, narrows my options considerably. I'll once again point out that almost no known field of science operates on the idea of an earth that isn't billions of years old. What science can I use that won't be seen as completely invalid by you? None that would prove my point without you,( a non-scientist), claiming they are flawed." So, are you a scientist? Or are you just some cocky highschool/college student who took some physics classes? Not to be offensive, but I know of several people who think that just because they've taken physics in highschool and/or college that they know everything. Feel free to give me your "proof" of evolution. I'll give my counter, and we'll see whose makes more sense. I really don't care what that presbyterian has to say about creationists. He comes from an apostate church who turned their backs on their beliefs (which include creation) long ago. Again, this argument is irrevelant. From now on lets just try to keep this down to the facts. Not what one group of people has to say about another group of people. Just your proof against my proof. Deal?
Originally posted by IGotTheCottons "I'd like to start by saying that no offence has been taken. I was actually about to say the same to you. I don't mean to come off as offensive, and I have nothing against you personally as well. I, like you, love a good debate (which this one is looking to be)." I figured as much, I just wanted to make sure. " And by the way, I'm not here to debate on Hovind's credentials. That's irrevelant (although I may have been wrong about the secular science thing). " Since almost all your posts have contained material from his site, and others like it , I feel his credentials are quite relevant. All the sources of info I have used have been scientists with degrees from accredited universities, who are directly involved in fields of science relevant to the debate. "Now... on to the debate. the article I posted was from Hovind's site. The link was included in the article. I didn't post it as one of my sources." But the article is your source, and apparently the link was Hovinds source. I feel both these sources to be quite suspect as far as being able to discredit accepted scientific procedure and theories. "Secondly, if you can give me any evidence that radiometric dating is accurate, feel free to do so. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to figure out that it's flawed. You have to assume a starting amount of these elements in the thing you're dating, and you have to assume that the decay rate was constant and not affected at all by outside factors. You can't give an accurate date when you're going based on assumptions. Now if you can prove otherwise, feel free to do so." The first place your argument against radiometric dating goes awry, is the 'assumptions" involved. First assumption: "starting amount of elements" within a given sample. This is found by calculating, ( not assuming), the amount of parent isotopes, in relation to the amount of daughter isotopes present in the sample. You see, when a radioactive isotope decays it "*changes",( or dare I use the word evolves, just playing with words, a little humor never hurts a debate does it?), into something else. For example the daughter isotope of U-238 is Lead-206. The ratio of these two isotopes tells you how many " decays" have taken place. If our measurements of these " decays" is flawed, then we should shut down all our nuclear power plants and stop relying on atomic clocks because both are dependant upon the decay rates being constant.Most of the decay rates used for dating rocks are known to within two percent. Uncertainties are only slightly higher for rhenium (5%), lutetium (3%), and beryllium (3%) Also there are over 40 different types of radiometric dating and several are usually used when testing the age of samples.Not only do the different techniques give the same dates for given samples but they also agree with other dating methods such as, counting tree rings and glacier ice core layers. As far as outside factors changing the decay rates, this is not true in the context of dating rocks. Radioactive atoms used for dating have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions far beyond anything experienced by rocks, without any significant change. The only exceptions, are not relevant to dating rocks. The only thing I have to say about his "challenge is what I stated above:Hovind does not have the $250,000 prize money. He claims a "rich friend" does. The Committee remains anonymous. Even a selected challenger is not allowed to know their identities. The Committee is selected by Kent Hovind himself. There is no evidence the Committee has even been selected. The Committee is allowed to reject evidence without reason. There is no defined criteria for how the Committee will decide success or failure. Hovind reserves the right to reject any material, without reason, prior to submission to the committee. "So, are you a scientist? Or are you just some cocky highschool/college student who took some physics classes? Not to be offensive, but I know of several people who think that just because they've taken physics in highschool and/or college that they know everything. Feel free to give me your "proof" of evolution. I'll give my counter, and we'll see whose makes more sense." Nope, not only am I not a scientist, but I'm way too old to be a "cocky" high school student, nor have I ever attended college or taken a physics class. I also make no claims to "know" everything. On the other hand I am more well read than most people with my level of education, and I know enough not to have to copy/and paste all my arguments directly from internet articles. See above about my sources, and might I say the only info used in this particular post that isn't in my own words are the three isotopes, and the number in "Lead-206", and of course where I've quoted your and my earlier posts. That's not to say I didn't do some serious reading before posting in this thread. In fact I've researched not only my arguments , but your own as well. I have to thank you for this thread since it has inspired me to broaden my knowledge on several subjects. As for sticking to proof against proof, that's fine, as long as the proof doesn't come from extremely questionable sources, or from outside the generally accepted fields of science. I gave my proof above as to why dating techniques are reliable, let's see your scientific proof that they aren't. What you have posted so far in this regard is far from scientific. Just judging by the title of this thread I feel the burden of proof lies with you."Why Evolution is Wrong" * this is a simplified explanation of course, u-238 actually decays producing subatomic particles, energy, and lead.
I think KraziHare's reply to my post was very apt. cos also, this happend with children. They Are so sure santa exsists, they have proof in books and they fact he eats the pie and leaves presents, they can even tlak to him. Also, this happens whenever science finds something new. God created the earth, wiat theres a universe?, god made that too. Science is ever changing, and maybe yourp icking out floors we can look at and find new brakethrus. BUT you have to be biased to have an opinoin. So this WILL go on forever if we let it. But dino&human prints? how come i never heard of this? i'll be back after a serch
I don't have a whole lot of time at the moment (sorry for the delay in a response. my computer crashed), but I would like to comment about the dino-human tracks... They have been found in several places in Texas. I know people who have personally seen them. These prints caused a pretty big commotion when they were found because they brought into question the validity of the evolutionary theory.
Sorry to hear,(read),about your puter trouble, wondered what happened to ya. The "several places" are in and around Dinosaur Valley State Park, they are in the Paluxy riverbed, not far from me actually.The so-called "man tracks" have been found to be nothing more than "metatarsal" dinosaur prints, and vague depressions, which when filled with water or other substances resemble human prints. Some of the ones photographed and displayed on websites easily found with the help of google, are actually fakes carved by locals and sold to the public back in the 30's. The photos I saw that weren't obvious fakes were always filled with water to "highlight' the print. What these photos show is misleading because if the frame was widened and the water removed you can see the vague outline of three-toed clawed feet. Perhaps these men had tree-toed clawed feet?Scientists have had almost 100 years to study these prints, they were first discovered in 1909, and the general concensus among "scientists" is, that they are not human footprints at all. If time and money allow, I'll take the wife and kids there this summer and post pics of some "unhighlighted" prints so you can see them yourself.
I would like to see your pictures if you get to go, because like I said... I have friends who have personally seen them and say they are human tracks. Whether or not they saw one of the fake man-made carvings I'm not sure of (it could be a possibility).
Dude, I know I'm jumping into this thread way late, but you don't know shit about evolution! Maybe I'll explain when I have time someday, but just so everyone else doesn't go around believing what this guy is saying. BTW, I only read the first post so I dunno about the rest.
Well maybe you should try reading the rest of the thread if you don't think I know anything about evolution. I think you'll find I do know a thing or two about what I'm talking about, so how about next time you actually read the whole thread before you make such an assuming post. And by the way, there's pleanty of proof of God's existance. It's not my fault you're to blind to see it. Ok, now back to the debate... Sorry for the delay, I've been quite busy the last week or so. I'm going to go through a couple posts and post my response... This could be quite lengthy, so be patient. "Since almost all your posts have contained material from his site, and others like it , I feel his credentials are quite relevant. All the sources of info I have used have been scientists with degrees from accredited universities, who are directly involved in fields of science relevant to the debate." First off, physics is physics, the laws of nature, the laws of nature, etc. Scientific law is scientific law no matter where it's taught, or by whom. That's the beauty of it being law, you can't break scientific law. It's proven, observable, rock hard FACT. Not a theory with "a lot of evidence but still not proven." When you take courses like physics, biology, etc, in a Christian school, you're still going to learn the same LAWS of science as you would in a secular school. I know of a non-accredited CHRISTIAN school whose credits are accepted by accredited IVY LEAGUE schools, so the fact that your sources are from accredited schools means nothing. I also know of actual scientists who are very active in the same areas of science that your sources are in, who don't believe in evolution, and this has no affect on how they do their jobs. So I ask again, how does a belief in creation dismiss these areas of science? It doesn't, because evolution isn't proven fact, it's a theory and a religion. You want it, you got it... This should be VERY long... A lot of this comes from a book, but this is only because I haven't read it enough to have fully memorized all the details. I think it states things better than I would be able to. But yeah, Here's your proof. As far as the age of geological formations and of the earth itself are concerned, only radioactive decay processes are considered useful today by evolutionists. There are a number of these, but the most important ones are: (1) the various uranium-thorium-lead methods; (2) the rubidium-strontium method, and (3) the potassium-argon method. In each of these systems, the parent (e.g., uranium) is gradually changed into the daughter (e.g., lead) component of the system, and the relative proportions of the two are considered to be an index of the time since initial formation of the system. For these or other methods of geochronometry, one should note carefully that the following assumptions must be made: 1.) The system must have been a closed system. That is, it cannot have been altered by factors extraneous to the dating process; nothing inside the system could have been removed, and nothing outside the system added to it. 2.) The system must initially have contained none of its daughter component. If any of the daughter component were present initially, the initial amount must be corrected in order to get a meaningful calculation. 3.) The process rate must always have been the same. Similarly, if the process rate has ever changed since the system was established, then this change must be known and corrected for if the age calculation is to be of any significance. Other assumptions may be involved for particular methods, but the three listed above are always involved and are critically important. In view of this fact, the highly speculative nature of all methods of geochronometry becomes apparent when one realizes that not one of the above assuptions is valid! None are provable, or testable, or even reasonable. 1.) There is no such thing in nature as a closed system. The concept of a closed system is an ideal concept, convenient for analysis but non-existent in the real world. The idea of a system remaining closed for millions of years becomes an absurdity. 2.) It is impossible to ever know the initial components of a system formed in prehistoric times. Obviously no one was present when such a system was first formed. Since creation is at least a viable possibility, it is clearly possible that some of the "daughter" component may have been initially created along with the "parent" component. Even apart from this possibility, there are numerous other ways by which daughter products could be incorporated into the systems when first formed. 3.) No process rate is unchangeable. Every process in nature operates at a rate which is influenced by a number of different factors. If any of these factors change, the process rate changes. Rates are at best only statistical averages, not deterministic constants. Thus, at best, apparent ages determinded by means of any physical process are educated guesses and may well be completely unrelated to the true ages.<sup>1</sup> Now, as for the nuclear powerplants and atomic clocks, these are closed, controlled envirornments, not nature. Thus your argument regarding the changability of these components becomes void. All the extremes of heat and cold you've talked about were done in a closed system under controlled conditions. That's why they don't change. Now I'll talk about how these decay rates can change in nature. The most important method is uranium dating, of course, since it not only is the first one used historically, but also the one against which others have been calibrated. The uranium method has been used to assign a so-called "absolute time" date to the earth's supposed oldest rocks, and thus is the main support for the widely accepted idea that the earth is about 4.5 to 5 billions years old. Such radiometric ages are used especially for Precambrian rock, since there is no paleontologic control on the dating in these rocks. 1.) The Uranium Methods. Actually, the uranium method is a whole family of dating methods, all based on the decay of uranium and its sister element thorium through long decay chains into lead and helium. The process is called "alpha decay," in which the alpha particles (which are really positively charged atoms of helium gas) escape the nuclei of the parent atoms at rates which seem statistically to be constant. Three decay chains are involved: (a) Uranium 238 decays into Lead 206 plus 8 helium atoms, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years; (b) Uranium 235 decays into Lead 207 plus 7 helium atoms, with a half-life of 0.7 billion years; (c) Thorium 232 decays into Lead 208 plus 7 helium atoms, with a half-life of 14.1 billion years. In a given deposit containing these elements, it is usual to find all of these isotopes together (this is not always true, but is typical), in conjunction with a fourth isotope of lead, Lead 204, which is believed to have no radioactive parent and is therefore called "common" lead. Furthermore, many or all of the intermediate products in the three decay chains will be present, ideally in equilibrium amounts. Some of these include radium, radon gas and another important lead isotope, Lead 210. Without entering into the technical details of the use of various lead age methods from these data, it is immediately obvious that the three assumptions discussed are invalid for these methods. There are, therefore, serious difficulties, if not outright fallacies, in the lead age determinations, and some of these are discussed briefly below. 1.) Uranium minerals always exist in open systems, not closed. Uranium is easily leachable by groundwater, for example. The intermediate element, radon gas, can easily move in or out of a uranium system. There are, in fact, various ways by which the components of this type of system can enter or leave it.<sup>2</sup> One of the chief authorities on radioactive dating, Henry Faul, said: "Uranium and lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, and detailed analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them. Similar difficulties prevail in attempts to date pitchblende veins. Here again much chemical activity is known to take place and widely diverging areas can be measured on samples from the same spot." <sup>3</sup> Remember, that unless the system is known to have been a closed system through all the ages since its formation, its age readings are meaningless. With so many factors pressing to upset the balance of components in such a system, it is no wonder that the several age-calculation methods available for each system much more than not yield "discordant" ages. An even more important phenomenon by which these balances can be upset is that of "free neutron capture," by which free neutrons in the minderal's environment may be captured by the lead in the system to change the isotopic value of the lead. that is, Lead 206 may be converted into Lead 207, and Lead 207 into lead 208 usually constitutes over half the lead present in any given lead deposit. Thus, the relative amounts of these "radiogenic" isotopes of lead in the system may not be a function of their decay from thorium and uranium at all, but rather a function of the amount of free neutrons in the environment.<sup>4</sup> That this problem is quite serious has been shown conclusively by Dr. Melvil Cook,<sup>5</sup> who has analyzed two of the world's most important uranium bearing ores (e.g., in Katanga and Canada) with this in view. These ores contain no Lead 204, so presumably no common lead. They also contain little or no Thorium 232, but do contain significant amounts of Lead 208. The latter could therefore have come neither from common lead contamination, nor from thorium decay, and so must have been derived from Lead 207 by neutron capture. But then the calculations for such neutron reactions to make this correction, according to Dr. Cook, in effect will show that literally all of the so-called radiogenic isotopes of lead found in uranium-thorium systems anywhere can be accounted for by this process alone. Thus, none of them need have been formed by radioactive decay at all, and consequently the minterals may all be quite young, with essentially zero age!<sup>6</sup> 2.) The uranium decay rates may well be variable. Writers on this subject commonly stress the invariability of radioactive decay rates, but the fact is these rates, as well as all others, are subject to change. Since they are controlled by atomic structure, they are not as easily affected as other processes, but factors which can influence atomic structures and processes can also influence radioactive decay rates. The most obvious examples of such a factor is cosmic radiation and its production of neutrinos. Another would be the free neutrons discussed above. If anything happens to increase the incidence of these particles in the earth's crust, there is no doubt that radioactive decay rates would be accelerated. Phenomena such as these would be generated by such events as the reversal of the earth's magnetic field or supernova explosians in nearby stars. Since such phenomena are commonly accepted now as having occured in the past, even by uniformitarian astronomers and geologists, there is a very real possibility that radioactive decay rates were much higher at various intervals in the past than they are at present. That this possibility is being considered seriously is evident from the following comment by Dr. Fred Jueneman, who is director of research for the Innovative Concepts Association.<sup>7</sup> "Being so close, the anisotropic neutrino flux of the super-explosion must have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks. This would knock our Carbon-14, Potassium-Argon, and Uranium-Lead dating measurements into a cocked hat! The age of prehistoric artifacts, the age of the earth, and that of the universe would be thrown into doubt."<sup>8</sup> 3.) The daughter products were probably present from the beginning. There is no way of being sure that the radiogenic daughter products of uranium and thorium decay were not present in these minerals when they were first formed. This possibility is most evident in the case of modern volcanic rocks. Such rocks, formed by lava flows from the earth's interior mantle, commonly contain uranium minerals and these, more often than not, are found to have radiogenic, as well as common, leads with them when the lava first cools and the minerals crystallize.<sup>9</sup> Sidney P. Clementson, a British engineer, has recently made a detailed study<sup>10</sup> of such modern volcanic rocks and their uranium "ages," as published in the Soviet geophysical journals and other papers, and has shown that in all such cases the uranium-lead ages were vastly older than the true ages of the rocks. Most of them gave ages of over a billion years, even though the lava rocks were known to have been formed in modern times. This is clear, unequivocal evidence that, as Clementson says: "Calculated ages give no indication whatever of the age of the host rocks."<sup>11</sup> Now, wait a minute... Doesn't evolution teach that at one time the whole earth was molten, and then eventually cooled? Now, if this were so, wouldn't the same processes that have taken place in these lava flows that have tested to be over a billion years old (when they were known to have formed in recent history) also have taken place during the cooling of the earth? And wouldn't this give the earth a much older apparant age? Seems plausable to me. Since, in those cases of igneous rocks whose age is actually KNOWN, the uranium method gives ages which are aeons too large, and since other uranium minerals are normally found in igneous rocks formed by the same kind of process, therefore it is very probable that their uranium "ages" also will be aeons too large, for the same reasons. Why should uranium ages be assumed correct when applied to rocks of unknown age when they are ALWAYS tremendously in error when calculated on rocks of known age?<sup>12</sup> Here I have given extremely convincing evidence that radiometric dating is flawed. Anyone can see that. I have backed it up with scientific facts, not assumptions or theories. Everything I have stated has been observed to happen in nature by actual scientists. Now, give me PROOF that I'm wrong... That is ofcourse, if you can find any. Would you like me to go into the Potassium-Argon and Rubidium-Strontium dating methods? They are both calibrated to the Uranium-Lead method, and therefore are just as unreliable. If you wish I can give you the details. <hr width="45%"> 1.) Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. Scientific Creationism. (Twenty-second printing: September 2001), pp. 138-139. 2.) Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. Scientific Creationism. (Twenty-second printing: September 2001), pp. 139-140. 3.) Henry Faul, Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1966), p.61 4.) Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. Scientific Creationism. (Twenty-second printing: September 2001), pp. 141-142. 5.) M.A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish and Co., Ltd., 1960), pp. 53-60. 6.) Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. Scientific Creationism. (Twenty-second printing: September 2001), p. 142. 7.) Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. Scientific Creationism. (Twenty-second printing: September 2001), pp. 142-143. 8.) Frederick Jueneman, "Scientific Speculation," Industrial Research (September, 1972), p.15. 9.) Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. Scientific Creationism. (Twenty-second printing: September 2001), p. 143. 10.) S.P. Clementson, "A Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol7 (December 1970), pp. 137-141. 11.) Ibid. 12.) Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. Scientific Creationism. (Twenty-second printing: September 2001), p. 144.