[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Milk-Drops]

Hey Dave, how about you address Adam's point and stop trying to derail every time something doesn't fit? That would be nice dude. He already retracted the "created" thing, Can we move past this?

 

[stovebolts]

I've left this open to interpretation, but so long as you have made a point backed with evidence and then explained that evidence well, then I shan't take quarrel with it (that's not to say I might not counter it though). Let me give a bad example as to help with this.

There is a God. The Old and New Testament state this (with a quote). Everything in the Bible is true, therefore there must be a God.

This is a poor response because it is based too much on assumptions. I would like to see HARD EVIDENCE to support claims please.

Ossie

While I agree that the above argument would be a bad argument, I would also state that Evolution has it's assumptions as well.

I would even go as far as to say that Science can affirm the Creation account, and even Noah's flood. Though you and I would disagree on the assumptions.

It is an axiom that scientific facts change about every 60 years. Ironic isn't it? The Medical industry almost killed our first President by bleeding him when he was sick, yet the Bible says that the life is in the blood. Pretty bold assumption from the medical industry back then huh?

Willard Libby is the guy who figured out Carbon 14 dating and he made a lot of assumptions. First he believed that the earth was 4.6 Billion years old and in his calculations for equalibriam (sp) he assumed the earth was at equalibriam. It's not.

He also assumed that once something dies, it can no longer take in Carbon 14. However, we find C14 in diamonds, oil and coal beds. If one says that there are alternative ways for C14 to enter diamonds, then they admit that Willard Libby's assumption was false and his fact is now put to rest as false. Or, perhaps Libby was correct which would show that the earth isn't as old as he thought. Do you see the delima? I really should check up on how the Scientific community is dealing with soft tissue in fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old, and yes, this is a recent finding and not that of years past.

The list of assumptions Scientists view as fact is incredible, yet a true scientist will drop a fact once it is proven wrong quicker than he'd drop a hot potato. However, an atheist and a creationist won't drop the fact, because in doing so they admit something they touted as fact, was indeed just a fancy.

 

[Barbarian]

While I agree that the above argument would be a bad argument, I would also state that Evolution has it's assumptions as well.

One, actually. Uniformitarianism. Not what most people think it is. It means that the rules by which the universe works have been the same since the beginning. So far, it's been that way, every time we check. So, seems pretty likely. Science is mostly inductive, inferring the rules by observing the particulars. It works really well.

I would even go as far as to say that Science can affirm the Creation account, and even Noah's flood.

The creation account precedes the physical universe, and so is beyond reach of science. However, we can confidently know that there was never a worldwide flood after land creatures appeared.

It is an axiom that scientific facts change about every 60 years.

Atoms have been a fact since Democritus, about 2300 years. So no.

Ironic isn't it? The Medical industry almost killed our first President by bleeding him when he was sick, yet the Bible says that the life is in the blood.

It's in the cells of the body. Every one of them. So that's not scientifically accurate.

Pretty bold assumption from the medical industry back then huh?

Willard Libby is the guy who figured out Carbon 14 dating and he made a lot of assumptions. First he believed that the earth was 4.6 Billion years old and in his calculations for equalibriam (sp) he assumed the earth was at equalibriam. It's not.

Um, no. C-14 dating does not depend on the age of the Earth at all. It depends on the understanding that about half of the C-14 in living materal will decay every 5730 years (give or take a decade or so). This is very testable, and has been confirmed. Now, the actual amount of C-14 in living tissue is another issue, and has to be accounted for. For example, mollusks get a lot of their carbon from geologic sources, and so can't be accurately dated by C-14 methods. Nor can organisms that eat a lot of mollusks.

And there are small variations in the amount of C-14 being produced in the atmosphere over the ages. How do we know this? Because we can calibrate that with material from lake varves of known age. Known, because varves (unlike many other lamina) occur in two layers a year, every year. The organic material is then checked and the result compared to a theoretical line. It turns out there are small variations. The varve data can then make them more accurate.

Care must be taken to also sample where contamination can be ruled out. For example, ancient campfires that have been contaminated by rising groundwater can be contaminated and unreliable.

But of course, C-14 dating is not used by paleontologists, because the half-life is too short and existing equipment could only say "over 50,000 years." Not useful for most fossils.

He also assumed that once something dies, it can no longer take in Carbon 14. However, we find C14 in diamonds, oil and coal beds.

Coal beds are a good example of such contamination. There is groundwater, and even bacterial growth in many such beds. Diamonds have nitrogen inclusions in the crystals. All you need is a source of radiation to change some of the nitrogen to C-14. And in the "pipes" that carry diamonds, there are many radioactive materials like thorium and uranium. So it's not surprising that a little C-14 gets produced by that process.

If one says that there are alternative ways for C14 to enter diamonds, then they admit that Willard Libby's assumption was false and his fact is now put to rest as false.

It merely shows that one has to be careful to avoid cases where contamination or production of C-14 happens.

Or, perhaps Libby was correct which would show that the earth isn't as old as he thought.

C-14 doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth.

Do you see the delima? I really should check up on how the Scientific community is dealing with soft tissue in fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old, and yes, this is a recent finding and not that of years past.

Actually, soft tissue from plants and invertebrates has been found from millions of years ago. Some biological reactions, in the absences of enzymes, take millions of years to happen. It was surprising to find it in a dinosaur, but there's nothing impossible about it.

The list of assumptions Scientists view as fact is incredible, yet a true scientist will drop a fact once it is proven wrong quicker than he'd drop a hot potato.

It's why evolution was so quickly accepted by scientists after the evidence was discovered. The last creationist biologist of any stature died in the early 1900s.

However, an atheist and a creationist won't drop the fact, because in doing so they admit something they touted as fact, was indeed just a fancy.

In many cases, (certainly not all cases) this is true. However, most scientists are neither creationists nor atheists.

 

[stovebolts]

Barbarian,

Evolution is a theory based on historical science which is not observable. Thus a number of assumptions and inferences have to be made from observable science.

Even Willard Libby openly states his assumption:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1960/libby-lecture.pdf

To return to radiocarbon dating - knowing that there are about 2 neutrons formed per square centimeter per second, each of which forms a carbon-14 atom, and assuming that the cosmic rays have been bombarding the atmosphere for a very long time in terms of the lifetime of carbon-14 (carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,600 years) - we can see that a steady-state condition should have been established, in which the rate of formation of carbon-14 would be equal to the rate at which it disappears to reform nitrogen-14. This allows us to calculate quantitatively how much carbon-14 should exist on
earth

Willard Libby also assumes that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

But he also goes on to say,

These conclusions could be false if errors in the very different quantities - the intensity of the cosmic rays and the mixing rate and depths of the oceans - should happen just to cancel one another. Being so unrelated, we believe this to be very unlikely and conclude that the agreement between the predicted and observed assays is encouraging evidence that the cosmic rays have indeed remained constant in intensity over many thousands of years and that the mixing time, volume, and composition of the oceans have not changed either.

Willard Libby has the humility not to cross theory into fact while giving support for his theory. Modern apologists are quick to turn a theory into fact.

We are in the radiocarbon-dating business as soon as this has been said, for it is clear from the set of assumptions that have been given that organic matter, while it is alive, is in equilibrium with the cosmic radiation; that is, all the radiocarbon atoms which disintegrate in our bodies are replaced by the carbon-14 contained in the food we eat, so that while we are alive we are part of a great pool which contains the cosmic-ray produced radiocarbon.

I would like to note again the specific language that Libby uses: Please take note.

At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies. Therefore, at the time of death the radioactive disintegration process takes over in an uncompensated manner and, according to the law of radioactive decay, after 5,600 years the carbon that is in our bodies while we are alive will show half the specific carbon-14 radioactivity that it shows now.

At the time of this writing, Libby only understood that C14 was created in the atmosphere and as such states that there in no longer ANY process which C14 can enter the body.... from the atmosphere. Why? Because his understanding of C14 was not complete.

The reason I bring this up is that even Willard Libby understood his assumptions, and he was ready to reevaluate his stance based on observable science. Willard Libby spoke openly of his assumptions, yet apologists, school teachers and arm chair scientiest take those assumptions and tout them as fact. And that's a fact, and that is my point.

I would end saying that "facts" change about every 60 years in the Scientific community. Perhaps if we stopped touting theory as fact, only the theory would change, and facts would be facts again...

 

[Grazer]

Sorry to be pedantic but evolution is not a theory, its a fact. The premise that life evolved from single cell/basic organisms to what we have today is the theory.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

Sorry to be pedantic but evolution is not a theory, its a fact. The premise that life evolved from single cell/basic organisms to what we have today is the theory.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

I'm sorry, but evolution is indeed a theory. Even Darwin understood that it was theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You have made my point though. You don't know the difference between a theory and a fact. Facts, if they are true facts don't change. Fact is, if an apple falls off a tree, it will fall toward the earth and not the sky. We can observe this and through observation, we call this observational science, but even observational science has it's assumptions. Evolution falls under Historical Science and is a theory based on observational assumptions.

 

[Grazer]

I'm sorry, but evolution is indeed a theory. Even Darwin understood that it was theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You have made my point though. You don't know the difference between a theory and a fact. Facts, if they are true facts don't change. Fact is, if an apple falls off a tree, it will fall toward the earth and not the sky. We can observe this and through observation, we call this observational science, but even observational science has it's assumptions. Evolution falls under Historical Science and is a theory based on observational assumptions.

Spieces change, they adapt, they evolve. This is a proven observed scientific fact.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Adam]

I'm sorry, but evolution is indeed a theory. Even Darwin understood that it was theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

.

So is germ theory and the theory of gravity.

 

[stovebolts]

Spieces change, they adapt, they evolve. This is a proven observed scientific fact.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

What you speak of is not entirely evolution. Evolution states in theory that we evolved from a single cell organism. I believe it was the History Channel that did a show last month on our existence. Evolution states that we were once these tube like sea creatures, then fish like creatures as we lived in the sea. Through the billions of years, we have evolved into what we are today.

The above falls into historical science. Observational science has absolutely no proof, only theory that we were once tube like creatures. Furthermore, there is no observational proof that one species can evolve into another species. In other words, a dog will not evolve into a cat etc. Dog's and Cats may adapt / evolve to their environment etc, but they will not evolve into another species all together. Yet that is what the theory of evolution suggests.

 

[stovebolts]

So is germ theory and the theory of gravity.

The theory of gravity can be directly observed. We can see something drop. However, there are theories as to why gravity exists, thus the theory of gravity. The fact is that when you drop something, it falls. The theory is why.

 

[Grazer]

What you speak of is not entirely evolution. Evolution states in theory that we evolved from a single cell organism. I believe it was the History Channel that did a show last month on our existence. Evolution states that we were once these tube like sea creatures, then fish like creatures as we lived in the sea. Through the billions of years, we have evolved into what we are today.

The above falls into historical science. Observational science has absolutely no proof, only theory that we were once tube like creatures. Furthermore, there is no observational proof that one species can evolve into another species. In other words, a dog will not evolve into a cat etc. Dog's and Cats may adapt / evolve to their environment etc, but they will not evolve into another species all together. Yet that is what the theory of evolution suggests.

There's a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution though. Evolution can simply mean change over time and that has been observed in spieces.

I did a thread on the varying definitions of evolution;

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44862

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

There's a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution though. Evolution can simply mean change over time and that has been observed in spieces.

I did a thread on the varying definitions of evolution;

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44862


Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

I noticed that you yourself referred to Evolution as a theory. Why then do you call it fact?

Just so we are using the same nomenclature, let us use this Wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago.

Is the above quote fact or theory?

 

[Grazer]

I noticed that you yourself referred to Evolution as a theory. Why then do you call it fact?

Just so we are using the same nomenclature, let us use this Wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution



Is the above quote fact or theory?

I referred to the theory of evolution which is that life evolved from single cell/basic organisms to what we are now. I also referred to the fact of evolution which is that changes have taken place within spieces. See the difference?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

I referred to the theory of evolution which is that life evolved from single cell/basic organisms to what we are now. I also referred to the fact of evolution which is that changes have taken place within spieces. See the difference?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Instead of re-defining Evolution, why don't we just stay with the standard Micro and Macro Evolution nomenclature?

 

[Grazer]

Instead of re-defining Evolution, why don't we just stay with the standard Micro and Macro Evolution nomenclature?

I haven't redefined anything. I've taken dictionary and scientific definitions of evolution.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

I haven't redefined anything. I've taken dictionary and scientific definitions of evolution.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

But what you have explained is already named as micro and macro evolution.

 

[Grazer]

But what you have explained is already named as micro and macro evolution.

True

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

True

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Great! Now we are using the same nomenclature. Less chance of confusion. You won't find much opposition from me on micro, as it falls under obsevational science. However, those observations are carried into macro evolution, and that's based on historical science.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is a theory based on historical science which is not observable.

No. First, evolution is quite observable. We see speciations, we see natural selection, and we can test hypotheses about related taxa by DNA (which we know works, since we test it on populations of known descent) We can also make hypotheses about what we should find in the fossil record, or in anatomical, genetic, or biochemical features, and then test the hypotheses by checking those.

So far, validated every time. This is compelling in itself.

Thus a number of assumptions and inferences have to be made from observable science.

You've been misled about that, as you were misled about C-14 being about evolution. It's far too short in half-life to be used for that.

Even Willard Libby openly states his assumption:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...by-lecture.pdf
Quote Originally Posted by Willard Libby
To return to radiocarbon dating - knowing that there are about 2 neutrons formed per square centimeter per second, each of which forms a carbon-14 atom, and assuming that the cosmic rays have been bombarding the atmosphere for a very long time in terms of the lifetime of carbon-14 (carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,600 years) - we can see that a steady-state condition should have been established, in which the rate of formation of carbon-14 would be equal to the rate at which it disappears to reform nitrogen-14. This allows us to calculate quantitatively how much carbon-14 should exist on
earth

Interesting, but it doesn't involve evolution, since paleontologists don't use C-14. And scientists have since found a way to calibrate C-14 using lake varves, something Libby didn't anticipate.

Willard Libby also assumes that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Concludes from evidence. Would you like to learn about that?

Willard Libby has the humility not to cross theory into fact while giving support for his theory. Modern apologists are quick to turn a theory into fact.

Turns out, it was a remarkably accurate determination:

I would end saying that "facts" change about every 60 years in the Scientific community.

Atoms have been in science for about 2000 years. So, no. Science is updated constantly; Darwin's theory has been added to over many years, most notably by genetics, which explained something Darwin could not; how new changes in a population can persist instead of being swamped by all the "normal" features.

But of course, Darwinian theory stands stronger now, than it did in Darwin's time, just as chemistry is far stronger now than when Dalton correctly supposed that the mass of atoms had something to do with their activity.

Perhaps if we stopped touting theory as fact, only the theory would change, and facts would be facts again...

"Theory" is as strong as it gets in science. Only after a hypothesis has been repeatedly verified by evidence does it become an accepted theory. Theories are stronger than laws in science.

People are often misled by the colloquial use of the word, which means the opposite of the formal meaning.

 

[Barbarian]

Remember, microevolution is the variation found within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new species. We have seen both, as well as populations in the process of moving from one to another. So that's not an issue for science, either.