Evolution and Creationism

[rossum]

Well, the current understanding is that the World pre-Flood was much warmer than present, like a greenhouse.

Then you have an even bigger problem. If the earth was warmer, then the seas were a bit closer to boiling and it would not have needed so much excess heat to boil the water.

I suggest that you have a look at the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps. See how many cubic miles of volcanic lava was need to form them. Then calculate the excess heat given off. You have a big problem.

The formation of limestone (calcium carbonate) is an exothermic reaction – it gives off heat. Do you know how much limestone there is on earth? That is another source of heat that is not a problem spread over billions of years but is a big problem compressed into merely 6,000 years.

The heat problem kills YEC scientifically, just as surely as it would sterilise the earth.

 

[Gigantals]

This is due to the decay of the magnetic field. There would be less C14 production the further back you go, whereas the current rate of C14 production is 30-32% faster than the rate it is leaving the atmosphere. So for those fossils that formed during the Flood, they were living in a World where there was a lower C14 concentration in the atmosphere.

 

[rossum]

You have avoided my question. Are those dates correct or are they incorrect? You cannot have it both ways.

Correct or incorrect?

 

[Hume]

You think the Earth was ok after the Flood?

This doesn’t mean anything. The Earth is never “ok” or “not ok”. It just is.

Where’d the water go? Deep underground.

Where? Where are these underground oceans that account for all that water?

In fact, you don’t have to go very far underground before it’s too hot for liquid water to exist. 20 miles underground is easily hot enough to boil away water.

Where underground is this water? Since they’d need to contain at least as much water as we know of on the Earth, these underground oceasn would be enormous.

And they’re no where to be found.

They can carbon dated dinosaur fossils and soft tissue found in creatures millions of years old.

Carbon dating uses Carbon 14 with a half life of 5000 years - roughly the age of written history.

Ten half-lives puts us at roughly 50,000 years.

No, they do not use Carbon dating for objects millions of years old. They can’t.

You’ve been misinformed.

Evolution has facts to support it? Then why is it still a theory?

It is a theory. Just easily the best one out there.

And the difference between real rationalists and mere ideologues is that when data comes out that invalidates previously held views, we’re happy to change because our views are data-driven.

Transitional forms switch out faster than dresses at a fashion show.

Every species is a transitional form. You are a transitional form. It never stops.

(and a faster decay rate supports the Flood model and the following Ice Age perfectly).

Another problem.

The last ice age ended over 10,000 years ago.

You’ve been misinformed.

abiogenesis was disproven, by the way

No it wasn’t…

A protein will break down in water as the peptide bonds are broken through hydrolysis

Some will, yes. But it’s not an issue. Membranes had evolved by then.

Those can already be lab-created from non-living material.

Moreover, life did not spontaneously generate in a pot of clean, pure H2O. It began in water that was probably brackish in some mineral-rich littoral on some long-gone coast.

If God can’t be observed or tested through scientific means, then why are you trying to understand His Miracles like this?

The God of the Gaps loses more territory every day. I’d switch to a presentation of a god that doesn’t need the gaps if I were you.

just violations of the laws of thermodynamics on a photonic level…

…because Newtonian Physics does not cover the same arena as Quantum Physics, which explains things at the “photonic level”.

When you get smaller than an atom, the rules change. We’ve known this since about WWI.

You’ve been grossly misinformed.

 

[Hume]

You have avoided my question. Are those dates correct or are they incorrect? You cannot have it both ways.

Correct or incorrect?

It makes me so sad to see people that believe stuff like this… super-ancient “flesh”, underground oceans we just can’t find, nuclear decay being alterable on Earth somehow. Invoking magnetic fields, the “photonic level”, other space magic.

Hurts me. Really. It’s like a child with eyes tightly shut, fingers in ears, shaking her head saying “No, no no No NO!!!”.

 

[rossum]

Carbon dating uses Carbon 14 with a half life of 5000 years - roughly the age of written history.

Ten half-lives puts us at roughly 50,000 years.

No, they do not use Carbon dating for objects millions of years old. They can’t .

They can, or at least YECs waste their money trying, but the measurements are useless. It is like buying a set of kitchen scales that weigh up to 20 pounds max, standing on the scales, which inevitably show 20 pounds, and claiming that you have lost a whole lot of weight.

Yes folks. The patented guaranteed rossum weight loss plan can be yours for only $499.95 (plus p&p). Order now and lose weight quickly!!! (Three exclamation points show that everything I said is true. The Bellman guarantees it.)

 

[Gigantals]

@Hume @rossum Could the two of you please slow down? There’s only one of me and I (unfortunately) can’t dedicate my whole time to answering you both at the same time.

 

[Hume]

One last for now,

To use carbon dating to date something just a million years old, the percent of carbon 14 remaining would be roughly 6.22*(10^-61) *100 (to make a percentage). So, what would remain would be:
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000622%

If we were dealing with some odd organic sand, in order to have a chance of having 1 single, solitary atom of carbon 14 left, you’d need a sample that weighed;

71000000000000000000000000000000000000 tons.

The earth doesn’t weigh that much.

Feel free to check the math.
Atoms in a grain of silica sand = 3*(10^22)
Carbon 14 half-lives over 1Mil years equals (roughly) 1mil/5k=200
Percent Carbon 14 remaining = 1/(2^200) = 6.22*(10^-61), multiplied by 100 to yield percent

In order to have a sample that has some chance of carbon 14 remaining, you’d need an astronomically large sample - to find 1 single atom of it. That’s even allowing I screwed up a few zeros there (which I probably did).

For a sample just 1 million years old…

So for a 65 million year old dinosaur bone? Fuggedaboutit

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Not since you told us that you believe the planet to be 6,000 years old. That kinda removes any and all options for any sensible discussions on the subject.

1. I don’t believe in a young earth or old earth, i believe reality is a creation of consciousness and in this world view, time means nothing…

If time means nothing then what does 6,000 years represent? Can we agree that the 6,000 is the number represnting the number of times the planet has orbited the sun? In which case you are waaaay too far out in your estimation for a reasonable discussion to take place.

 

[Michaelangelo]

I think it is a misunderstanding when you claim to observe darkness. To us, darkness is the absence of any electrical impulses from our eyes to our CNS. This is however not a true representation of our surrounding since there are always a great number of photons around us, as well as in the deepest region of space or inside a mountain Our eyes can only detect a tiny, tiny fragment of the photonic spectrum. And most photons are outside that fragment of the spectrum.

 

[Freddy]

I think it is a misunderstanding when you claim to observe darkness. To us, darkness is the absence of any electrical impulses from our eyes to our CNS. This is however not a true representation of our surrounding since there are always a great number of photons around us, as well as in the deepest region of space or inside a mountain Our eyes can only detect a tiny, tiny fragment of the photonic spectrum. And most photons are outside that fragment of the spectrum.

It’s a question akin to a child asking ‘where does the fire go when the fire goes out’. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with anything at all that’s being discussed.

And now we’re on to the flood and why language disproves evolution and time on one planet is different to time somewhere else.

I really need to take a break from this thread. It’s a lot of fun, but I can feel my IQ slowly dropping with every post I read…

 

[Pattylt]

(Three exclamation points show that everything I said is true. The Bellman guarantees it.)

Thanks for the link! I love that poem by Carroll!

 

[Chet1]

True! Before the modern scientific era, in the12th
century, Aquinas tells us that there are three sciences, physics, philosophy, and theology, and t h e queen of the sciences was/is theology. Now of the three, physics, modern science, is the weakest, as it is restricted to empiricism, to what can be seen, repeated, quantified. The other two theology and philosophy employ empiricism, but go far beyond limitations of the tactile.

Another thing, history, archeology, and paleontology, in the end, come down to story telling. You look at these fossils, thes artifacts, and tell a story, as I might find a rusty sword on a battlefield and weave it into the sory of a battle, so the practicioners of these soft, or semi-soft sciences, are modern day myth-makers, story-tellers. And their stories, like the stories of the ancients who saw the same fossils and wove stories of cyclops, dragons, and the older Greek heroes like Hercules.

 

[Michaelangelo]

It’s a question akin to a child asking ‘where does the fire go when the fire goes out’. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with anything at all that’s being discussed.

And now we’re on to the flood and why language disproves evolution and time on one planet is different to time somewhere else.

I really need to take a break from this thread. It’s a lot of fun, but I can feel my IQ slowly dropping with every post I read…

Well considering this is the philosophy section and concepts like light and darkness tends to be slaughtered rather brutally when it comes to our modern understanding of them. It is like we can’t get past the medieval understanding of them. Therefore I felt an urge to make this clarification.

 

[Michaelangelo]

True! Before the modern scientific era, in the12th
century, Aquinas tells us that there are three sciences, physics, philosophy, and theology, and t h e queen of the sciences was/is theology. Now of the three, physics, modern science, is the weakest, as it is restricted to empiricism, to what can be seen, repeated, quantified. The other two theology and philosophy employ empiricism, but go far beyond limitations of the tactile.

I would strongly disagree with Aquinas here, to put it mildly. And what do you mean by limitations of the tactile?

 

[Freddy]

…so the practicioners of these soft, or semi-soft sciences, are modern day myth-makers, story-tellers.

What’s your alternative, Chet? If you think that some theory or other (and bear in mind that theories are simply the best explanation we currently have for evidence as presented), then which ones would they be and what are your alternative explanations?

 

[Freddy]

Chet1:

True! Before the modern scientific era, in the12th
century, Aquinas tells us that there are three sciences, physics, philosophy, and theology, and t h e queen of the sciences was/is theology. Now of the three, physics, modern science, is the weakest, as it is restricted to empiricism, to what can be seen, repeated, quantified. The other two theology and philosophy employ empiricism, but go far beyond limitations of the tactile.

I would strongly disagree with Aquinas here, to put it mildly. And what do you mean by limitations of the tactile?

I’m a little confused by this myself. Physics would have been described as being one of the philosophical disciplines, not separate from it. It would have been described as natural philosophy.

And ‘limitations of the tactile’? Well, there’s lots of things I can’t touch…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m a little confused by this myself. Physics would have been described as being one of the philosophical disciplines, not separate from it. It would have been described as natural philosophy.

Thankfully science and philosphy have parted ways

Although science and theology do seem to be confused quite often on this forum.

 

[buffalo]

The dating of rocks is essentially based on nuclear decay - which can vary due to outside forces, but those forces are not to be found on our planet Earth.

Fiddling with decay rates requires pressure that our planet could not survive.

As the decay rate of some isotopes of Uranium are measured in the billions of years, it provides a good basis from which to date on these time scales.

We have found light speed is not constant in the past. Decay rates are partly based on this.

 

[Hume]

Great. I’d love to read something that demonstrates this!