Evolution/geology

[rheins2000]

zian:

There is additional discussion in the top half of this page by Tim Thompson.

These references from Thompson all support the expectations from plate tectonics theory and subducting continental plates. Brown is wrong. Subduction is not impossible.

Glenn Morton provides some additional comment on Brown’s hydroplate theory here.

MY SOURCES HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS. YOU PROBABLY DONT EVEN KNOW THAT PLATE TECTONICS IS STILL A THEORY(albeit widely accepted…and I am not discrediting it here, like your subsequent attack will probably claim.)

HARD TO PROVE A CORELLARY OF A THEORY.

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Please provide references to the mainstream scientific literature for the points you dispute:

MAINSTREAM!!!..oh, so I can only use evolutionary evidence…yeah that sounds smart…Please.

What is the education level of this room?

-- The decay constants used in radiometric dating have been determined by direct laboratory counting experiments and with the possible exception of 187Re, are known to within an accuracy of about 2%. The decay constants of 87Rb, 147Sm, 176Lu, and 187Re are known to 2% accuracy, while the decay constants of 40K, 232Th, 235U, and 238U are known to an accuracy of better than 1%. These small uncertainties do not significantly affect the values for the ages of the Earth, Moon, or meteorites.

Its not the decay constants I have a problem with…Its the Predetermined assumptions…Please refer to my Posts and actually read them…I will not address this again, because you really have made no attempt to analyze the flaws of dating methods.

– Isochron slopes, concordia-discordia intercepts, and other relevant quantities are not determined graphically but are calculated by appropriate formulae and statistical methods. The numbers themselves are still the most rigorous way to determine how well a set of data fit or do not fit an isochron…

Already address this as well…once again, for you…here are only 2 of the 5 problems with isochron dating

Wikipedia:All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element.

tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html Also, When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well. Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited.

-- – The use of different decay schemes on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results.

Not if every one of your methods uses gross assumptions

 

[zian]

rheins2000:

Written records from BEFORE the flood dont mention the flood?..Wow, thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. OF COURSE THEY DONT

Read rossum’s statement again

rossum:

We even have written records from China and Egypt dating back before the usual dates for the flood and neither mention such an event…the Biblical flood story is a reworking of an old Sumerian flood story. The evidence here does not support a global flood.

What he was saying was that since there are written records in other parts of the world prior to the flood, then how come they don’t mention it in their written records in later years, when the flood is supposed to have occured, and to have been a worldwide phenomenon. Two points - (a) We know they had writing (earlier records exist) and (b) these cultures don’t record a global flood.

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Now deal with the serious material on radiometric dating, or other pertinent questions from the “evolution regulars” in here. Quotes from “In Six Days” from so-called creation-scientists to follow soon. Young-earth creationism has nothing to do with science as this book shows.

Phil P

Already have…please deal with my points…of which you still havent…Please discredit especially these(plagiarized from an earlier plagiarism whose source was given by another) Otherwise, you have no science supporting your position

12 - Oxygen problem: Life could not originate where there is oxygen

13 - Life could not survive without continual oxygen

15 - Life can not originate without water. But there can be no water without oxygen

16 - A reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) would produce life-killing peroxides

25 - Extremely complicated chemical combinations not found in nonliving material exist in living tissue

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

Read rossum’s statement again

What he was saying was that since there are written records in other parts of the world prior to the flood, then how come they don’t mention it in their written records in later years, when the flood is supposed to have occured, and to have been a worldwide phenomenon. Two points - (a) We know they had writing (earlier records exist) and (b) these cultures don’t record a global flood.

Sure, right after you give me your cultural proof for evolution.

And by the way, that is not true. You just made a pretty great claim with no proof. The entire Judeo-Christian History is flooded with accounts of this flood(sorry for the pun)

 

[PhilVaz]

Rheins << No, whats frustrating is where you still think evolution is a FACT, and not a theory. I have given MASSIVE evidence, of which only a few have been even attempted to be answered, of the great possiblity of creation and the great flaws of evolution. >>

Evolution is a fact and a scientific theory.

We aren’t arguing the possibility of creation. That God is the Creator is a FACT to a Catholic like myself. What we are talking about is your evidence for young-earth Creationism and whether Creationism fits the definition of a scientific theory.

Creationism is a not a scientific theory. So says the founders of modern-day Creationism (Henry Morris, Duane Gish). You have not successfully fitted Creationism into the definition of science. God creating something from nothing is not testable nor falsifiable. Miracles are not testable nor falsifiable. Therefore they are not science, they are not scientific hypotheses, nor are they scientific theory. Here I will spell this out further, with two quotes from scientists who have written extensively on the subject:

Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy and zoology, writes:

“…‘scientific’ Creationism fails to be a science not because of what it says…about a Divine Creator, but because of what it does not say about the natural world. The theory has no infrastructure, no ways of articulating its vague central idea, so that specific features of living forms can receive detailed explanations.” …“Creation ‘science’ is spurious science. To treat it as science we would have to overlook its intolerable vagueness. We would have to abandon large parts of well-established sciences (physics, chemistry, and geology, as well as evolutionary biology, are all candidates for revision). We would have to trade careful technical procedures for blind guesses, unified theories for motley collections of special techniques. Exceptional cases, whose careful pursuit has so often led to important turnings in the history of science, would be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Nor would there be any gains. There is not a single scientific question to which Creationism provides its own detailed problem solution. In short, Creationism could take a place among the sciences only if the substance and methods of contemporary science were mutilated to make room for a scientifically worthless doctrine.” (Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], pages 126, 164)

Evangelical geologist Keith Miller has similarly written, from a Christian perspective:

“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)

Biological evolution deals with matter and life once it is here. It does not deal with the origin of life, nor the origin of the universe. God could have created the Big Bang, and the first cell, and evolution takes over from there. But God creating the universe or the first cell from nothing (or coal from nothing, or coal from a one year Flood) is not a scientific theory since that is not testable nor falsifiable. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Therefore, Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Rheins << ENOUGH TO CONVINCE REASONABLE PEOPLE?!?! >>

I corrected myself in a later post to “enough to convince everyone.” My mistake, point of logic. What I meant to say is there are some people who simply won’t be convinced of evolution or an ancient earth, no matter how many mistakes they make on science, and no matter how good the scientific evidence for evolution and an ancient earth is. Like yourself.

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

God created the universe and sustains it. God is ultimately responsible for all matter that exists. And all the scientific evidence shows us that biological evolution is how life developed and diversified, and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

At leasst you’ve got the first part right. You are welcome to believe that…I, unlike you, do not have the audacity to claim that I am 100% right, like you are doing…just because we disagree about time, doesnt mean yours is a fact and mine is without evidence. YOU KEEP MAKING THAT CLAIM, BUT HAVENT ADDRESSED ANY SCIENCE EXCEPT “UHhhh, Everything shows this…”

PhilVaz:

God created the universe. He created it not because of need but out of love…

agreed.

PhilVaz:

There are trees that are 11,000 years old.

WRONG…look at my post that addresses this.

Now what is your source for “no trees over 5,000 years old?” Whatever it is, it appears to be wrong.

Ahhh, there you go, tying tree rings in with carbon dating

answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.aspTree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion. Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ — see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?.\

Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

Whatever you have appears to be wrong

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

This game of “I know you are but what am I” is amusing, but I am wondering if you really have any valid scientific evidence to present?
Phil P

Just to be clear, do you have any scientific evidence to present?

Youre playing the same game, but a little more stubborn.

ANOTHER EVOLUTIONIST PRESENTED WITH HUNDREDS OF FACTS AND DISMISSING EVERY ONE OF THEM AS NOT SCIENCE.

LEARN WHAT SCIENCE IS.

 

[zian]

rheins2000:

Sure, here’s some evidence. But you wont accept it…

Ill beat you to the punch…you say they are frauds…Others say they are not…you dont know…I dont know…but according to some of your sources, they claim that the iron pot was left there by a worker a short time back and due to coal processing, it found its way into the deposit…Good idea, but the pot looks a little older than 1948. …

creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/ironpot/ironpot.html

homestead.com/davidgoliathministries/Thegeologiccolumndebunked.html

Older than 1948? Um, yeah. Mr. Kennard said he found it in 1912.

This is claim cc131 at talk.origins.

I agree with the talk.origins assessment. The find was not evaluated within a short time of being discovered - attestation to its origin occured 36 years after the fact. If it had been found in situ, and promptly reported, then the circumstances of the find could have been investigated and theories to the contrary of its purported origin could have been then refuted. Perhaps other artifacts, if they existed, could have been found at the same location. As concluded, this result is not very compelling.

You are right; I do not know if it is a fraud. But I do know that it is not compelling scientifically.

 

[Jason_Meyers]

rheins2000:

from: answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/plesiosaur.asp

"If there really was a global Flood, just as the Bible says, then what would we expect to find? We would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. The fossilized land and sea animals all over Queensland are exactly what we would expect from the global Flood described in the Bible.4 Their bones are an outstanding testimony to the reality of that event."

Now, this sounds almost like a testable predication that might be able to distinguish between evolutionary theory and your model of creation. If the fossils in Queensland were based on a flood, which caused water to rapidly come over land in the modern era, one should expect to find modern animals (e.g. cows, sheep, koalas) buried alongside (or actually below) the Pleiosaurs (water dwellers) that were buried from the flood.
If the fossils were based on evolution over hundreds of millions of years, the prediction would be that no modern animals would be found in any layers below or near those of the Pleiosaurs. Instead, there would be a progression of fossils through the layers that reflect changes of species and environment, and species most closely resembling modern species would only be found in the uppermost layers, substantially after the aquatic species.
Does this sound like an appropriate test to distinguish between the evolution model and your creation/flood model?
JRM

 

[PhilVaz]

Rheins << The fact is you should have billions of transitional fossils if your theory is correct. YET YOU STILL HAVE TO CLING TO 2 or 3 FRAUDS >>

Nope, all we need is one transitional fossil. Dozens are listed below. OK, I see you aren’t giving up any time soon. Then I’ll have to include this into the thread also:

From Carroll’s Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (W.H. Freeman, 1988):

“During the past 20 years, our knowledge of fossil vertebrates has increased immensely. Entirely new groups of jawless fish, sharks, amphibians, and dinosaurs have been discovered, and the major transitions between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and dinosaurs and birds have been thoroughly studied. Evidence from both paleontology and molecular biology provides much new information on the initial radiation of both birds and placental mammals.” (Carroll, page xiii preface).

Cambrian fossils between invertebrates and vertebrates: Pikaia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella, Conodonts, Cathaymyrus, Myllokunmingia, Haikouichthys

also The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms by Keith Miller
also Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla by Glenn Morton

Fish-to-Amphibian (tetrapod) intermediate fossils: Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Kenichthys, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton, etc

Dinosaur (Reptile)-to-Bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps: represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among others

Reptile-to-Mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops

All from my page here, with references to paleontologist Robert Carroll, James W. Valentine, Jenny Clack, Gregory Paul, and others. And I address the Piltdown forgery at the end.

Phil P

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Classic creationist error.

The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota by Glenn Morton

Classic Evolutionist error.

nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Geologic_column
The fact is that the geologic column is not found complete any place on Earth, except in books, and on web sites. While the geologic column consists of 10 basic layers, all 10 layers are found in very few places making up less than 1% of Earth’s surface. The theory says it should be 100 miles thick. On average world wide, the sediment layers are only 1 mile thick. The entire geologic column was patched together from various locations.
Now there are places claimed to have the entire geological column. What they mean is that they have found layers that they can assign to all 10 geologic ages. This list is as found at “The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota”

1. 
   *]The Ghadames Basin in Libya.
   *]The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco.
   *]The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia.
   *]The Oman Interior Basin in Oman.
   *]The Western Desert Basin in Egypt.
   *]The Adana Basin in Turkey.
   *]The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey.
   *]The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria.
   *]The Carpathian Basin in Poland.
   *]The Baltic Basin in the USSR.
   *]The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR.
   *]The Farah Basin in Afghanistan.
   *]The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan.
   *]The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran.
   *]The Manhai-Subei Basin in China.
   *]The Jiuxi Basin China.
   *]The Tung t’in - Yuan Shui Basin China.
   *]The Tarim Basin China.
   *]The Szechwan Basin China.
   *]The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska.
   *]The Williston Basin in North Dakota.
   *]The Tampico Embayment Mexico.
   *]The Bogata Basin Colombia.
   *]The Bonaparte Basin, Australia.
   *]The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
   
   Of the 25 claimed locations stratagraphic information was available on only 6 of them. There is little if any mention of fossils other than micro fossils such a pollen. Often the rocks seem to have been assigned their geologic age by comparing them with rocks from other locations. Most of these are 100’s of miles away and there is no direct observation of a physical connection. In some cases the “ages” are assigned to a rock layer based on the strata above or below it.These 6 do provided some interesting information.
   
   Yeah, I know of those bogus columns, too. Good try, though…When evolutionists claim to find proof, it is always them assigning predetermined conclusions to observations.
   
   
   PhilVaz:
   

   You called me the liar earlier, looks like the creationists are lying to you. Don’t believe them. You are not a liar, just grossly misinformed and mistaken.
   Phil P

   Whos lying to who…sounds like the shepard has herded another sheep. You’re not a liar, you’ve just had the wool pulled over your eyes.

 

[zian]

rheins2000:

Sure, right after you give me your cultural proof for evolution.

And by the way, that is not true. You just made a pretty great claim with no proof. The entire Judeo-Christian History is flooded with accounts of this flood(sorry for the pun)

In what year did the flood occur?

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

You are wrong. There is one main assumption:

(1) half-life decay rates are constant

For C-14, yes, and here it is.

nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Carbon-14_dating
**Constant C-14 to C-12 proportion **

There is one fact that makes it highly unreasonable to believe that the proportion of C-14 to C-12 was the same in the past as it has been in recent history: It is not in equilibrium.

The rate of C-14 production today is 18% higher than the rate of decay (Whitelaw). This means that today we are experiencing a net increase in the proportion of C-14 in the atmosphere. It is impossible to determine whether it has always been increasing (as argued by some creationists) or whether it has undergone cycles of increase and decrease (as argued by other creationists and evolutionary scientists). But one thing is certain: there is no reason to believe that the C-14:C-12 proportion has been constant throughout time, and good reason to believe it has been different, and often lower, in the past than it is today.

If the C-14 content of the atmosphere was lower in the past, that means that Carbon dating results today are inflated, because the calculations will mistake the absence of C-14 in the original sample as years which passed by causing the C-14 to decay.

Recognizing this, many uniformitarian scientists calibrate their dating efforts to the early 19th century, in the belief that today’s C-14 increase is due to the industrial revolution. This assumes, however, that today’s C-14 increase is only the result of the industrial revolution (which is unfalsifiable) and that the proportion was in equilibrium prior to the 19th century (which is also unfalsifiable). In other words, while acknowledging the problem posed by the increasing C-14, the uniformitarian scientists have failed to solve it, and yet continue to use the methodology.

 

[rheins2000]

Oh, and also this…

nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Carbon-14_dating
**Speculative uniformitarian explanations for the excess C-14 **

Evolutionists have speculated that the C-14 may be due to contamination from other radioactive elements in the surrounding rock. However, they have not backed these speculations with experiment or observation, which is, of course, what good scientists do.

Other evolutionists have speculated that the excess C-14 might be due to contamination in the sample. However, John Baumgardner, Andrew Snelling, Russell Humphreys, and Steven Austin, after noticing that C-14 abundances quoted in secular scientific journals consistently were higher than expected for certain organic materials, performed an experiment in which 10 pieces of coal were tested in a secular, high precision lab. These scientists had noticed that the distribution of abundances of C14 in substances derived from living animals (such as coal) was a different distribution from material that was from non-biological pre-cambrium specimens. This would suggest that the abundances being found by labs were not all do to a uniform contamination.

They report that the coal was measured as having an abundance well above the blank used by the laboratory representing unknown contamination. Their report can be found here.

Critics suggest that coal could have had carbon created by bacteria or fungus in the coalTalk Origins. However, this does not explain the C-14 found in diamonds, and creationists found that the labs themselves cannot explain the level of “contamination” that is found in the carbon they use for their “blanks.”

There have also been more sensationalistic claims of C-14 anomalies in other materials, such as claims made that C-14 dating gave different dates for the inside and outside of a seashell, etc. Anti-creationists tend to have little problems finding explanations for these types of observations.

 

[rheins2000]

zian:

In what year did the flood occur?

Somewhere about 5,000 years ago would be the typical answer.

If you are trying to prove something by this, you tell me what year the last ice age occurred.

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Nope, all we need is one transitional fossil. Dozens are listed below. OK, I see you aren’t giving up any time soon. Then I’ll have to include this into the thread also:

One, is that your new number…That doesnt raise any questions to you…what happened to the billions of transitional species?..you give me 12 frauds and misidentifications when there should be billions…HAHAHAHAA…someone who can hold on to a position staring that in the face either doesnt care or doesnt know any better.

I wont even waste my time…you look it up yourself here: Your transitional fossils have been dealt with scientifically and refuted for what they are…

answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp

And this site easily discredits your bogus claim…

nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Transitional_fossils

Do you know the difference between macro- and micro-evolution? It appears you dont.

 

[zian]

rheins2000:

Somewhere about 5,000 years ago would be the typical answer.

If you are trying to prove something by this, you tell me what year the last ice age occurred.

Just wanted to know what you thought - no need to get testy.

And ice ages last more than one year.

 

[PhilVaz]

Rheins << I wont even waste my time…you look it up yourself here: Your transitional fossils have been dealt with scientifically and refuted for what they are… >>

There have been attempts to deal with some of them by AnswersInGenesis and the CreationWiki, yes. Thanks for the links. Of course they attempt to deal with them, since young-earth creationists cannot allow ANY transitional fossil to exist.

But scientifically, No. And refuted, No. You won’t find claims of “no transitional fossils” advanced in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature. What you will find there are the exact transitional fossils I have listed explained in detail (examples: fish with fingers, whales with feet, snakes with legs, dinosaurs with feathers, and the hominid fossils, etc) . Such publications as Science and Nature for example.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Rheins << Now there are places claimed to have the entire geological column. What they mean is that they have found layers that they can assign to all 10 geologic ages. >>

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks for the admission. The geologic column does exist, and all 10 geologic ages have been assigned to them in locations around this earth. Thank you. But I will check out more of that CreationWiki. They haven’t produced a “scientific theory of creationism” yet, but we’ve been through that already on why that is.

Phil P