Evolution... good, bad or ugly?

[outside looking in]

16. WRITTEN RECORD

The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

Well, I'm throwing in my towel on that one. I tried my best, but when presented with such an airtight argument, I must admit that there is simply no refutation.

 

[Luis G]

damn OSLI, you are really devoted to arguing

 

[unclehobart]

now theres a good "chicken and the egg" type of loop. i understood the thread to apply to life here on earth.

the egg came first.

 

[Scanty]

lol

 

[unclehobart]

I wrote a long diatribe proving that the egg came first, many many a-day in the past. It was a nice piece of work. I can't recall what I ever did with it. I think I sent a Readers Digest version to Spirit via email about a year ago. I wonder if she still has it. I dont want to have to sit here for two hours trying to type out that long winded treatise.

 

[Scanty]

don't worry....i lean more to the 'egg' thing as well. Taking into account the fact that the animal 'chicken' had to have evolved into a chicken and the first 'chicken' as we know it, was born from a parent that wasn't a chicken as we know it so it came from the egg and blah blah *dies*


and that, my friends, was an excerpt from 'Learning to be Scientific' - the new playschool tape available from Tomy, priced £6.99.

 

[freako104]

unc: a chicken and an egg are laying in bed the chicken is smoking a cigarette and says "that was fantastic!" the egg sits up and says "well glad we answered that one." sorry couldnt resist.

 

[freako104]

unc: a chicken and an egg are laying in bed the chicken is smoking a cigarette and says "that was fantastic!" the egg sits up and says "well glad we answered that one." sorry couldnt resist.

 

[Scanty]

^lol



even better the second time, freako.

 

[Gato_Solo]

How come you keep saying that creationists say the Earth is only 10,000 years old? I've never heard that one before. The written record may only be that old, but the rest sounds like a bit of hooey.

 

[Jeslek]

How come you keep saying that creationists say the Earth is only 10,000 years old? I've never heard that one before. The written record may only be that old, but the rest sounds like a bit of hooey.

Some Creationists do say that, including me. Some don't. I for one studied carbon-14 dating and I don't trust it at all.

OLI, I'm going to read all that stuff tonight. I'd like to do that now, but my boss will keeell me if he sees me arguing about this when I'm supposed to be working on the database.

 

[unclehobart]

Forget about carbon 14. I dont trust it either. What I do trust is when they cross section a piece of earth down about 20 feet. You can see the sedimentary layers that are as easily counted as tree rings. When you find a mixing bowl and arrowheads down in a soil layer that is known to be 40,000 years old... Thats a good indicator for more than 10,000 years of human existence.

 

[outside looking in]

How come you keep saying that creationists say the Earth is only 10,000 years old? I've never heard that one before. The written record may only be that old, but the rest sounds like a bit of hooey.

You can divide Creationists into two major camps: old Earth, and young Earth.

Young Earth Creationists use the Biblical creation account as their timeline, and insist that the Earth was created in its current form less than 10,000 years ago (I believe 6,000 is the popular figure). All of the arguments against radoimetric dating, dust on the moon, contraction of the Sun, weakening of the Earth's magnetic field, slowing of the Earth's rotation rate, fast oil and coal formation, etc. are championed by young Earth Creationists in support of their insistance in a less than 10,000 year old Earth.

Old Earth Creationists accept that the Earth is billions of years old, but reject evolution as the process which created all life on this planet. They walk some shaky middle ground where they believe part of the Bible, but not all, or somehow interpret it to fit their beliefs.

Did you not read LL's cut-n-past post though with the 16 individual arguments? Most were clearly stating that the Earth couldn't be more than several thousand years old. So, you have 'heard that one before' in this very thread.

 

[outside looking in]

Carbon-14 dating does indeed have to be adjusted to take into account the amount of carbon isotopes present in the atmosphere at the time the organism was alive. These adjustments are usually small, and only affect the accuracy in the recent past. Carbon-14 dating is typically accurate to better than +/- 10%.

However, carbon-14 dating isn't used to date rocks and other inorganic substances. Potassium-Argon and other dating techniques are used, which do not need any environmental adjustments, do not need a reference sample for calibration, and do not rely on the initial ratios of parent/daughter elements.

Some of the oldest rocks on the Earth have been dated by five separate dating techniques, and all agreed with amazing accuracy.

 

[PT]

OSLI, just got done reading all your counter-arguments. Well said.

 

[Jeslek]

When you find a mixing bowl and arrowheads down in a soil layer that is known to be 40,000 years old...

How is it known to be 40,000 years old?

 

[unclehobart]

geology 101

 

[Jeslek]

Carbon-14 dating does indeed have to be adjusted to take into account the amount of carbon isotopes present in the atmosphere at the time the organism was alive. These adjustments are usually small, and only affect the accuracy in the recent past. Carbon-14 dating is typically accurate to better than +/- 10%.

However, carbon-14 dating isn't used to date rocks and other inorganic substances. Potassium-Argon and other dating techniques are used, which do not need any environmental adjustments, do not need a reference sample for calibration, and do not rely on the initial ratios of parent/daughter elements.

Some of the oldest rocks on the Earth have been dated by five separate dating techniques, and all agreed with amazing accuracy.

While the science behind these are sound, it has never been proven to be accurate. They may all give the same age, relatively speaking, but that doesn't negate the point that none of these are proved to be totally accurate.

For example, if you take three scales that tell you a box weighs 10 pounds, 9 pounds, and 11 pounds, that is by no means enough to sufficiently prove that the box weighs about 10 pounds. For all we know it could weigh 20 pounds and all three scales are inaccurate or defective.

 

[Jeslek]

geology 101

If you're not going to bother explaining it more than that, your argument isn't valid. Just referring to a course isn't a valid argument. Tell me HOW you know for a fact that the given strata is 40,000 years old. HOW did they get that age?

 

[outside looking in]

When you find a mixing bowl and arrowheads down in a soil layer that is known to be 40,000 years old...

How is it known to be 40,000 years old?

Radiometric dating is one very reliable method.