[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[felix]

To salvage a flood/Ark legend that is already deeply problematic as history.

And yet some monkey species can interbreed. How do you figure this in terms of your blanket denial of evolution?

The issue was not about interbreeding. Even sons of God can interbreed with daughter of men to produce a difference race of men. That's no problem for any true Christian.

 

[felix]

What would be science is for you to provide some evidence that the claim that 'low radio-isotopes by itself is evidence that radiations were extremely less' has any basis in reality.

Ref: http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/course...rseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

Fourth, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere is not constant. Although it was originally thought that there has always been about the same ratio, radiocarbon samples taken and cross dated using other techniques like dendrochronology have shown that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 has varied significantly during the history of the Earth. This variation is due to changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth, and changes in the effectiveness of the Van Allen belts and the upper atmosphere to deflect that bombardment. For example, because of the recent depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere, we can expect there to be more C-14 in the atmosphere today than there was 20-30 years ago. To compensate for this variation, dates obtained from radiocarbon laboratories are now corrected using standard calibration tables developed in the past 15-20 years. When reading archaeological reports, be sure to check if the carbon-14 dates reported have been calibrated or not.

Just to note dendrochronology does not say anything about dates in it (if we are to verify only the C14 concentration using rings). dendrochronology gives you a period from A to B and it is found C14 is not constant. If C14 is not constant, how good is other isotopes having the same error ratio in similar proportions?

 

[lordkalvan]

Gerard De Geer did not count in any continuous and it is not 17000. With several gaps and break, he made a chronology and it is till 14000 bp.
Ref: http://eos.tufts.edu/varves/History/history1.asp

Well, let's not quibble over 17,000 or 14,000. In either case, both are greater than your previously claimed number, both also suggest a minimum age for Earth between two and three times that of 'young' Earth chronologies, and both invalidate your claim that '...there is not a single dating method that does not use RM dating to measure.'

Also, as I already mentioned, 10% variation in C14 will explode the date to 4-5 times the value.

Yes, I know you've already mentioned this. What you have failed to mention, however, is either any evidence to support your speculations or any rebuttal of the citation that shows your speculations are wholly erroneous.

Also, lake sediments cannot be dated independently to verify RM dating.

Well, apart from having this backwards -RM dating is used to confirm dating metrics from varve sequences - varve sequences can be anchored by known historical events which leave particular markers in the record, such as climactic change, changes in how water flow impacts the lakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. its best to learn something about a subject before pronouncing so confidently and yet wrongly on it.

Rather, they date it using RM and other isotopes it to calibrate C14 concentrations, which will anyway be false.

Passing lightly over this garbled understanding of varve chronologies, as you have done nothing at all to establish that 'C14 concentrations...will anyway be false', your continued handwaving on this subject is approaching the status of risible.

I did not say radioisotopes were absent but rather, extremely low as the light of the sun does gets through and so does limited cosmic rays.

Whatever you say and however you try to change the claims of your ad hoc speculations, you have failed either to present any evidence at all to support them or to answer any of the points raised that indicate they are entirely spurious. So perhaps you can tell us why we should credit your ill-informed, unsubstantiated comments with any value at all?

 

[lordkalvan]

The issue was not about interbreeding. Even sons of God can interbreed with daughter of men to produce a difference race of men. That's no problem for any true Christian.

But not half-a-dozen posts ago and on this very page you told us that monkey species are not related to one another at all:

Absolutely not! Why should I even suggest that? Each of them are different genus. They are in no way related to each other. Microevolution is within species level and what you have mentioned are genus and not even species.

So what exactly is your position on this, because I don't know and I'm not even sure that you do?

 

[lordkalvan]

Ref: http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/course...rseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

Fourth, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere is not constant. Although it was originally thought that there has always been about the same ratio, radiocarbon samples taken and cross dated using other techniques like dendrochronology have shown that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 has varied significantly during the history of the Earth. This variation is due to changes in the intensity of the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth, and changes in the effectiveness of the Van Allen belts and the upper atmosphere to deflect that bombardment. For example, because of the recent depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere, we can expect there to be more C-14 in the atmosphere today than there was 20-30 years ago. To compensate for this variation, dates obtained from radiocarbon laboratories are now corrected using standard calibration tables developed in the past 15-20 years. When reading archaeological reports, be sure to check if the carbon-14 dates reported have been calibrated or not.

Yes, Carbon 14 dates are calibrated. So what? I've been pointing this out to you for several posts now. I have also pointed out that historical levels of atmospheric Carbon 14 can be (and have been) measured by analysing lake sediments.

Just to note dendrochronology does not say anything about dates in it (if we are to verify only the C14 concentration using rings). dendrochronology gives you a period from A to B and it is found C14 is not constant. If C14 is not constant, how good is other isotopes having the same error ratio in similar proportions?

Dendrochronology says everything about dates, the clue being in the '-chronology' part of the word:

'Dendrochronology is the formal term for tree-ring dating, the archaeological dating method that uses the growth rings of long-lived trees as a calendar. Tree-ring dating was one of the first absolute dating method, and was invented in the early decades of the 20th century by astronomer Andrew Ellicott Douglass and archaeologist Clark Wissler.'

Source: http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/g/dendrochro.htm

See those mentions of 'dating' and 'calendar'? Those are also clues as to what dendrochronology involves.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

"Lamb of God" is different from "lamb".

"Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" is different from "ground".

 

[felix]

"Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" is different from "ground".

I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

 

[felix]

But not half-a-dozen posts ago and on this very page you told us that monkey species are not related to one another at all:

Of course they are not related at all. Who told they are related? Interbreeding is different from being related to it by evolution. You are mixing interbreeding to prove evolution.

So what exactly is your position on this, because I don't know and I'm not even sure that you do?

Microevolution is variation within species level not anything higher than that.

Interbreeding is very much possible and even mentioned in the Bible as possible but the way it is mentioned is not to do it.

(Leviticus 19:19) 'You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

The issue was not about interbreeding. Even sons of God can interbreed with daughter of men to produce a difference race of men. That's no problem for any true Christian.

Are you angry at God for creating the chimpanzee? It doesn't matter what you put as your answer here. He will know your true feelings.


You know, the "Top 3 List Of God's Earthly Creations In Order Of Intelligence" used to be:

1) Human
2) Serpent
3) Chimpanzee


After Genesis 3:15, the list changed:

1) Human
2) Chimpanzee
3) Bottlenose dolphin


The bottlenose dolphin is very intelligent. It is the only aquatic creature that didn't need to live in an aquarium on Noah's Ark. It just swam alongside the Ark accompanied by its mate.

 

[lordkalvan]

Of course they are not related at all.

'Of course' based on what?

Who told they are related?

I believe Carl Linnaeus was the first to go about this systematically. Since when, all research only supports this conclusion.

Interbreeding is different from being related to it by evolution.

Well, your ideas seem to make evolution a rather conservative proposal. As far as I can tell, yiunappear to think that sharks could interbreed with porpoises.

You are mixing interbreeding to prove evolution.

Nope, I'm asking you why certain species of monkeys can interbreed and whether all species of monkeys are related in some way. Your answers appear to be that virtually anything can interbreed with anything else and that monkeys aren't related to one another at all. Apart from your assertions to these effects, however, you appear to have no evidence to offer to support either if these positions, but then relevant, substantive evidence seems to be more absent than not from most of your claims. I would be interested in why, if interbreeding is so universally possible as you seem to think, when multiple species of coral on the same reef spawn, approximately one-third of the species can successfully hybridize while two-thirds are unable to do so? According to what I understand you to be saying, all species of coral should be able to hybridize successfully. So what is your explanation for this?

Microevolution is variation within species level not anything higher than that.

And yet we see several different species of macaques, for example. So how did these different species arise?

Interbreeding is very much possible and even mentioned in the Bible as possible but the way it is mentioned is not to do it.

(Leviticus 19:19) 'You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind.

And this is evidence of what, exactly?

 

[felix]

Well, let's not quibble over 17,000 or 14,000. In either case, both are greater than your previously claimed number, both also suggest a minimum age for Earth between two and three times that of 'young' Earth chronologies, and both invalidate your claim that '...there is not a single dating method that does not use RM dating to measure.'

Yes, I know you've already mentioned this. What you have failed to mention, however, is either any evidence to support your speculations or any rebuttal of the citation that shows your speculations are wholly erroneous.

Well, apart from having this backwards -RM dating is used to confirm dating metrics from varve sequences - varve sequences can be anchored by known historical events which leave particular markers in the record, such as climactic change, changes in how water flow impacts the lakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. its best to learn something about a subject before pronouncing so confidently and yet wrongly on it.

Passing lightly over this garbled understanding of varve chronologies, as you have done nothing at all to establish that 'C14 concentrations...will anyway be false', your continued handwaving on this subject is approaching the status of risible.

Whatever you say and however you try to change the claims of your ad hoc speculations, you have failed either to present any evidence at all to support them or to answer any of the points raised that indicate they are entirely spurious. So perhaps you can tell us why we should credit your ill-informed, unsubstantiated comments with any value at all?

OK, I do have to accept something with you because the Bible is not against it. Infact, water on earth was present even before light was created.

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(Genesis 1:2) The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Water was not created in any day but in the beginning before the first day. Also, to clarify, I am not strictly a YE creationist. But rather, I have a my own view of God created everything in this world strictly on 7 days, yet the first 4 days are not necessarily 24 hrs because Sun was not yet created during that time. My view of young earth is only with living things that were created after the 4th day. Hence, some aspects of older earth does not bother me because it is biblical. I remember mentioning this a long time ago in another thread but worth telling again. However, water was completely overlooked by me from Genesis account as it was created in the beginning with earth.

 

[felix]

Are you angry at God for creating the chimpanzee? It doesn't matter what you put as your answer here. He will know your true feelings.


You know, the "Top 3 List Of God's Earthly Creations In Order Of Intelligence" used to be:

1) Human
2) Serpent
3) Chimpanzee


After Genesis 3:15, the list changed:

1) Human
2) Chimpanzee
3) Bottlenose dolphin


The bottlenose dolphin is very intelligent. It is the only aquatic creature that didn't need to live in an aquarium on Noah's Ark. It just swam alongside the Ark accompanied by its mate.

Nope.

(Numbers 22:28) Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"
(Numbers 22:29) And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!"
(Numbers 22:30) So the donkey said to Balaam, "[Am] I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since [I became] yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?" And he said, "No."

How intelligent should a donkey be to speak the above ?

I think, in antediluvian era, all animals should have spoken with each other which makes all intelligent. Otherwise, a serpent speaking with Eve should have scared her.

The serpent was not referred in anyway for intelligence but for "cunning".

 

[felix]

'Of course' based on what?

I believe Carl Linnaeus was the first to go about this systematically. Since when, all research only supports this conclusion.

Well, your ideas seem to make evolution a rather conservative proposal. As far as I can tell, yiunappear to think that sharks could interbreed with porpoises.

Nope, I'm asking you why certain species of monkeys can interbreed and whether all species of monkeys are related in some way. Your answers appear to be that virtually anything can interbreed with anything else and that monkeys aren't related to one another at all. Apart from your assertions to these effects, however, you appear to have no evidence to offer to support either if these positions, but then relevant, substantive evidence seems to be more absent than not from most of your claims. I would be interested in why, if interbreeding is so universally possible as you seem to think, when multiple species of coral on the same reef spawn, approximately one-third of the species can successfully hybridize while two-thirds are unable to do so? According to what I understand you to be saying, all species of coral should be able to hybridize successfully. So what is your explanation for this?

And yet we see several different species of macaques, for example. So how did these different species arise?

And this is evidence of what, exactly?

Interbreeding means the ability to breed between species. This is not in any way evidence of evolution. For evolution, it will have a process of "natural selection". There is no natural selection or mutation in interbreeding to make it anything closer to evolution.

Also, I never said that all interbreeding is possible. I merely pointed out that even Bible before 3500 years ago, had mentioned that interbreeding is possible, yet restricted it.

 

[lordkalvan]

OK, I do have to accept something with you because the Bible is not against it. Infact, water on earth was present even before light was created.

(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(Genesis 1:2) The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Water was not created in any day but in the beginning before the first day. Also, to clarify, I am not strictly a YE creationist. But rather, I have a my own view of God created everything in this world strictly on 7 days, yet the first 4 days are not necessarily 24 hrs because Sun was not yet created during that time. My view of young earth is only with living things that were created after the 4th day. Hence, some aspects of older earth does not bother me because it is biblical. I remember mentioning this a long time ago in another thread but worth telling again. However, water was completely overlooked by me from Genesis account as it was created in the beginning with earth.

If you are an OEC, I really don't understand why you find evidence that supports the idea of an 'old' Earth so unacceptable. RM dating, etc, seems to fit quite satisfactorily with such a viewpoint.

 

[lordkalvan]

Interbreeding means the ability to breed between species.

But if these species do not share ancestral relationships, how is this possible? What evidence supports any such interbreeding outside an evolutionary framework?

This is not in any way evidence of evolution.

Well, first of all I'd like to see some evidence for it occurring outside an evolutionary framework.

For evolution, it will have a process of "natural selection". There is no natural selection or mutation in interbreeding to make it anything closer to evolution.

And your evidence is what, exactly? Ring species and the example of corals I gave you previously seem to belie your claim.

Also, I never said that all interbreeding is possible.

So what is, what isn't, what biological mechanisms allow it and what biological mechanisms preclude it?

I merely pointed out that even Bible before 3500 years ago, had mentioned that interbreeding is possible, yet restricted it.

Not exactly evidential though, is it?

 

[Mountainshield]

But if these species do not share ancestral relationships, how is this possible? What evidence supports any such interbreeding outside an evolutionary framework?
So what is, what isn't, what biological mechanisms allow it and what biological mechanisms preclude it?

The mechanism is "Meiosis" which both allows and precludes interbeeding based on chromosomes.

 

[lordkalvan]

The mechanism is "Meiosis" which both allows and precludes interbeeding based on chromosomes.

Thanks, yes. I was hoping for an explanation of how this allows and/or restricts interbreeding under the model felix seems to be proposing that the evolutionary limitations on hybridisation are entirely imaginary.

 

[felix]

If you are an OEC, I really don't understand why you find evidence that supports the idea of an 'old' Earth so unacceptable. RM dating, etc, seems to fit quite satisfactorily with such a viewpoint.

it is not the old earth that I am against but evolution and dating methods of fossils.

 

[lordkalvan]

it is not the old earth that I am against but evolution and dating methods of fossils.

So how old do you think Earth is and what evidence informs your conclusion?

 

[felix]

So how old do you think Earth is and what evidence informs your conclusion?

My view of the creation of heaven and earth is that, it was in the beginning. How old is a very interesting research. However, in my view, and for any christian, it shouldn't matter because, God created time and He is not bound by time. He can view the past, present and future all at the same time. So, a trillion years into past and a trillion years into future is same to God because, He is the only One who dwells in a place where time doesn't exist. So, God did not wait for infinite number for years and suddenly thought of creating humans. However, He did create heavens and earth in the past and Bible does not record what happened between the beginning and the first day. While, there are some theories, those are not strictly Biblical. Coming back to the question with what I mentioned as a background, honestly, I don't know, neither it should bother a Christian, but somewhere in the "beginning". Also, as the Bible says, for God, a day is like 1000 years (it is just an illustration for representing that He is not bound by time).