[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[cupid dave]

Gen 5:1 ... In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

I agree it is not immediate but it took within 1 day.

Fine.
It only took 9 months in my opinion, but in that day when Adam was born, man appeared.
Not as he looks now, and certainly not how God will see him looking in that day yet to come.

 

[felix]

Fine.
It only took 9 months in my opinion, but in that day when Adam was born, man appeared.
Not as he looks now, and certainly not how God will see him looking in that day yet to come.

Adam was never "born" but created. A baby Adam wasn't looking for a mate or helper. Nor is a baby naming all animals. Adam and Eve were created on the same day, i.e, 6th. It didn't took Eve 9 months from another ape family for Adam to call her as "my bones".

It is better to call yourself an atheist and truly live who you are than to call yourself a Christian and deny His creation to live a false faith.

 

[lordkalvan]

I didn't mention anything about "proving" my point to show evidence. As I even said before I merely pointed out that the assumption is invalid to begin with and no effort is made to make that assumption valid.

As there is nothing other than assertion on your part to show that either 'the assumption is invalid' or that no efforts are 'made to make that assumption valid', you 'merely' seem to be making stuff up to try and validate your arguments.

I also pointed out that if that is based on observation, how ironic you want to believe that on evolution when none of the species getting evolved is observed.

If by 'observation' you mean gathering, measuring and analysing data and evidence, then both RM dating and evolution are, indeed, validated by observation.

 

[lordkalvan]

I am not speaking about radio active decay but radio isotope "creation" on earth.

Well, they were either deceptively created with just the amounts of decay required to attribute a great age to Earth or they were created as physicists suggest they were - during stellar evolution or cosmogenically.

 

[felix]

As there is nothing other than assertion on your part to show that either 'the assumption is invalid' or that no efforts are 'made to make that assumption valid', you 'merely' seem to be making stuff up to try and validate your arguments.

If by 'observation' you mean gathering, measuring and analysing data and evidence, then both RM dating and evolution are, indeed, validated by observation.

Assumption is assumption irrespective of how you use your words to trick. Go and read how isotopes are generated on this earth.

You mean, your definition of observation is without end result? Sorry, in science, any observation without expected result is called "failure".

 

[felix]

Well, they were either deceptively created with just the amounts of decay required to attribute a great age to Earth or they were created as physicists suggest they were - during stellar evolution or cosmogenically.

Many radioisotopes are naturally occurring. They originated during the formation of the solar system and by interaction of cosmic rays with molecules in the atmosphere.

A quick search gives: http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/readingroom/radiation/radioisotopes.cfm

Here is the miracle: The amount is decay of radioisotopes is miraculously equal to the amount of it's creation in atmosphere. Wow! and you call this miracle as Science?

 

[lordkalvan]

Assumption is assumption irrespective of how you use your words to trick.

And yet you are still unable to offer us any reasoned critique to show that the observations and evidence on which the assumptions are based are erroneous.

Go and read how isotopes are generated on this earth.

Which isotopes are you referring to in particular?

You mean, your definition of observation is without end result? Sorry, in science, any observation without expected result is called "failure".

I don't know what you are referring to. Can you be more explicit, please? Thanks.

 

[lordkalvan]

Many radioisotopes are naturally occurring. They originated during the formation of the solar system and by interaction of cosmic rays with molecules in the atmosphere.

A quick search gives: http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/readingroom/radiation/radioisotopes.cfm

Here is the miracle: The amount is decay of radioisotopes is miraculously equal to the amount of it's creation in atmosphere. Wow! and you call this miracle as Science?

Only some radioisotopes are cosmogenic in origin. I can see nothing in your link that supports your 'miracle' claim. Indeed, I am not even clear what it is you are referring to. Can you elaborate your argument, please? Thanks.

 

[Arch Angle]

felix,

I'll let lord take it from here.

And Science does not say a thing. It is a possess of datacollection. Scientist then look at the data to draw a conclusion. A story, if you will, that comes from the observations.

Please man. When I defend the stance "there is a god", I use the data collected by science. The data that I use is the same data they use. It just makes the truth more true-ey.

I learnt from Jesus. Take what you know, or is known, to help yourwill to align with the will of god. And change if you must. Jesus went to thegentiles (the scientist) and tried to talk with them (not to)them. It is whenwe twist gods "rock records" to match what we want that we tend toalign our will with our will, and not god's will. In essence, the flesh becomesthe focal point and not "Christ". Christ is the truth, not the flesh.

It's not about a book, itis about life. The book is a guide. Christ is the goal. Time is irrelevant,only life matters. "Christ".

 

[felix]

Only some radioisotopes are cosmogenic in origin. I can see nothing in your link that supports your 'miracle' claim. Indeed, I am not even clear what it is you are referring to. Can you elaborate your argument, please? Thanks.

There are two three ways radio isotopes are generated.

• Naturally or already existing (some fools say it is Big bang even though none had seen or observed anything)
• At the atmosphere by collision of cosmic rays
• man made.. atomic bomb and nuclear reactors

Reaction products of primary cosmic rays, radioisotope half-lifetime, and production reaction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Changes_in_atmospheric_chemistry

Carbon-14 is generated in atmosphere when hit by cosmic rays, thus radio carbon dating assumption that constant generation of C14 is flawed.
Chlorine-36 is generated in atmosphere when hit by cosmic rays, thus radiometric dating assumption that constant generation of Cl 36 is flawed.
Argon 40 is generated in atmosphere when hit by cosmic rays, thus K-Ar radiometric dating assumption that all A-40 in the sample is decayed only from K-40 is flawed. For this reason Ar-Ar dating is also flawed.
1% of cosmic rays consists of heavier nuclei of elements which includes lead. Hence, any dating that uses lead is flawed.

Also, cosmic rays contains nuclei of nearly all elements in periodic table. Thus, any cosmic shower in anytime in the past alters the isotope concentration of earth's atmosphere.


An excellent video with references is here: Radiometric Dating Flaws (Potassium-Argon)
[video=youtube;gDQHGotojGM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDQHGotojGM[/video]
Even though the above video discuss many points, my point is very different which I mentioned above.

 

[felix]

felix,

I'll let lord take it from here.

And Science does not say a thing. It is a possess of datacollection. Scientist then look at the data to draw a conclusion. A story, if you will, that comes from the observations.

Please man. When I defend the stance "there is a god", I use the data collected by science. The data that I use is the same data they use. It just makes the truth more true-ey.

I learnt from Jesus. Take what you know, or is known, to help yourwill to align with the will of god. And change if you must. Jesus went to thegentiles (the scientist) and tried to talk with them (not to)them. It is whenwe twist gods "rock records" to match what we want that we tend toalign our will with our will, and not god's will. In essence, the flesh becomesthe focal point and not "Christ". Christ is the truth, not the flesh.

It's not about a book, itis about life. The book is a guide. Christ is the goal. Time is irrelevant,only life matters. "Christ".

You speak like a Christian but why you had mentioned as "no" for Christian?

 

[Arch Angle]

the truth holds up under many conditions. the more changes it can hold up to the true-er it is. That doesn't mean it is always pretty. I refer to the crucifixionas a lesson for us.

There are different types of angles Felix. They all don't run around in sheets with their asses hanging out. You come to spank them, they just might punch you in the mouth. But they know their place. They wash the feet of the lil' ones in sheets. They clean the toilets in time of peace.

Remember Felix, The devil looks like us, dresses like us, and uses the same words. They carry the same flags. The intentions give them away. Do they offer the truth or do they offerdeception? Look at how they present the "truth". Focus on Christ for decrements.

Look at the world as god made it. Not as how "they" tell you. We can never be sure, but we can walk with Christ. God hides nothing from you. It is the devil that offers apples. And just because it is an apple, doesn't mean you have to reject it. You can eat it as fruit, a god given fruit of the garden. Smile at the snake, and thank him. Walk in Christ, my friend,the apple, as it was offered, is meaningless.

It is how you use the apple that changes things. I learnt that from christ.

I know it was off topic. and deep. But if you understand, you are in good shape.

 

[lordkalvan]

There are two three ways radio isotopes are generated.
[*]Naturally or already existing (some fools say it is Big bang even though none had seen or observed anything)

We do not need to be able personally to witness something in order to be able to understand the evidence that tells us what happened and how it happened.

[*]At the atmosphere by collision of cosmic rays
[*]man made.. atomic bomb and nuclear reactors


Reaction products of primary cosmic rays, radioisotope half-lifetime, and production reaction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Changes_in_atmospheric_chemistry

Carbon-14 is generated in atmosphere when hit by cosmic rays, thus radio carbon dating assumption that constant generation of C14 is flawed.

Given that we have a record of atmospheric C14 concentrations stretching back several tens of thousands of years, and given that that record shows a variation no greater than around 10% during that time and given that C14 ages are dated only from the time that C14 take-up by the dated object ceases (it dies), perhaps you can explain how C14 dating is flawed as a result?

Chlorine-36 is generated in atmosphere when hit by cosmic rays, thus radiometric dating assumption that constant generation of Cl 36 is flawed.

Well, until you explain the range of variability in atmospheric Chlorine 36 production and further explain why and how this results in flawed dates, all you seem to be doing is offering your assertions as irrefutable facts.

Argon 40 is generated in atmosphere when hit by cosmic rays, thus K-Ar radiometric dating assumption that all A-40 in the sample is decayed only from K-40 is flawed. For this reason Ar-Ar dating is also flawed.

How are these two methodologies flawed? Can you explain the how and why by reference to specific examples?

1% of cosmic rays consists of heavier nuclei of elements which includes lead. Hence, any dating that uses lead is flawed.

Again, simply making vague generalised assertions isn't very convincing. Reference to specific examples with an explanation ofvhe how and why would give some meat to these generalities.

Also, cosmic rays contains nuclei of nearly all elements in periodic table. Thus, any cosmic shower in anytime in the past alters the isotope concentration of earth's atmosphere.

Which would seem to imply that we should see younger rather than older RM dates that are in contradiction to the dates that would be expected if this 'contamination' was greater than physicists take account of. Do you have examples and explanatory accounts to offer?

An excellent video with references is here: Radiometric Dating Flaws (Potassium-Argon)
[video=youtube;gDQHGotojGM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDQHGotojGM[/video]
Even though the above video discuss many points, my point is very different which I mentioned above.

Your link doesn't seem to work. Maybe you should choose one or two of the points you regard as most relevant and support an argument with them here?

 

[felix]

the truth holds up under many conditions. the more changes it can hold up to the true-er it is. That doesn't mean it is always pretty. I refer to the crucifixionas a lesson for us.

There are different types of angles Felix. They all don't run around in sheets with their asses hanging out. You come to spank them, they just might punch you in the mouth. But they know their place. They wash the feet of the lil' ones in sheets. They clean the toilets in time of peace.

Remember Felix, The devil looks like us, dresses like us, and uses the same words. They carry the same flags. The intentions give them away. Do they offer the truth or do they offerdeception? Look at how they present the "truth". Focus on Christ for decrements.

Look at the world as god made it. Not as how "they" tell you. We can never be sure, but we can walk with Christ. God hides nothing from you. It is the devil that offers apples. And just because it is an apple, doesn't mean you have to reject it. You can eat it as fruit, a god given fruit of the garden. Smile at the snake, and thank him. Walk in Christ, my friend,the apple, as it was offered, is meaningless.

It is how you use the apple that changes things. I learnt that from christ.

I know it was off topic. and deep. But if you understand, you are in good shape.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

When you say: Look at the world as god made it. Not as how "they" tell you.

Who are "they" ?

 

[felix]

We do not need to be able personally to witness something in order to be able to understand the evidence that tells us what happened and how it happened.

Given that we have a record of atmospheric C14 concentrations stretching back several tens of thousands of years, and given that that record shows a variation no greater than around 10% during that time and given that C14 ages are dated only from the time that C14 take-up by the dated object ceases (it dies), perhaps you can explain how C14 dating is flawed as a result?

Well, until you explain the range of variability in atmospheric Chlorine 36 production and further explain why and how this results in flawed dates, all you seem to be doing is offering your assertions as irrefutable facts.

How are these two methodologies flawed? Can you explain the how and why by reference to specific examples?

Again, simply making vague generalised assertions isn't very convincing. Reference to specific examples with an explanation ofvhe how and why would give some meat to these generalities.

Which would seem to imply that we should see younger rather than older RM dates that are in contradiction to the dates that would be expected if this 'contamination' was greater than physicists take account of. Do you have examples and explanatory accounts to offer?

Your link doesn't seem to work. Maybe you should choose one or two of the points you regard as most relevant and support an argument with them here?

Every radiometric dating assumes that the isotope to stable ratio is constant. However, it is not the case if that ratio is disturbed when isotopes are generated at a higher or lower rate in atmosphere. I also had already proved that 10% variation for C14 for 5000 years will give you 30000 years difference which you seem to conveniently ignore.

 

[Arch Angle]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

When you say: Look at the world as god made it. Not as how "they" tell you.

Who are "they" ?

I guess you dont.


C-14 is not 'formed" in the atmosphere. If it is, it is such a small amount that Iwouldn't even worry about it. I hope you are not running around teaching this stuff.

 

[felix]

I guess you dont.


C-14 is not 'formed" in the atmosphere. If it is, it is such a small amount that Iwouldn't even worry about it. I hope you are not running around teaching this stuff.

Sorry, I am not teaching this stuff. It is your scientists who teach this stuff and you are not aware of it.

How is Carbon-14 formed?

Carbon-14 is created from nitrogen-14 in the upper atmosphere of the earth. Radiation from the sun collides with atoms in the atmosphere. These collisions create secondary cosmic rays in the form of energentic neutrons. When these neutrons collide with nitrogen-14 in the atmosphere carbon-14 can be created. Nitrogen normally occurs in a seven proton, seven nuetron, nitrogen-14 state. When it collides with an energetic neutron it becomes carbon-14, with six protons and eight neutrons and gives off a hydrogen atom with one proton and zero neutrons.

How do we know Carbon-14 dating is accurate?
:
When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been constant over the last 10,000 years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has changed. Carbon dates reported in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned, because those studies were conducted before carbon dating was calibrated by comparision with other dating methods.

Ref: http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/pages/carbondatingback.html

 

[Arch Angle]

Yes, collision form it, I was thinking about from the elementaryparticles. Sorry.

I would recheck any data from 50 years ago. I'll let lord take it from here..


I offer the great carol reef as evidence for an older earth.

 

[felix]

Yes, collision form it, I was thinking about from the elementaryparticles. Sorry.

I would recheck any data from 50 years ago. I'll let lord take it from here..


I offer the great carol reef as evidence for an older earth.

FYI, plants were created even before Sun was created on earth. So, I don't have a problem with old earth as long as the earth is just 4 days old, but each day may not be 24 hrs.

 

[Arch Angle]

what evidence do you have that plants came before the sun?