Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[_ Old Earth _] Radioisotope Dating Seriously Flawed
- Thread starter Bronzesnake
- Start date
jasoncran
Member
it very recent as recent as 2009! of course i know that in science all things will analzysed and scrutinized, they acknowledge this and in the prologue they say that the evidence may support the idea of natural selection since the printing of this book.
they mainly are against the ideas of two things. the theory of natural selection and the idea of physologcal devolpement by skinner(this is what to them kills the the ns theory the most, and they attack it there as those are so closely related).
they mainly are against the ideas of two things. the theory of natural selection and the idea of physologcal devolpement by skinner(this is what to them kills the the ns theory the most, and they attack it there as those are so closely related).
Bronzesnake
Member
I said I was going to continue to provide exaples where these dating methods were seriously wrong, so let's show just how unreliable these methods really are.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp
Dalrymple, one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, Creation magazine reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.2
One sobering example comes from the Grand Canyon in Arizona (see diagram,above). The Cardenas Basalt in the bottom of the canyon is an igneous rock layer suitable for radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method, the Cardenas Basalt yielded an age of 1.07 billion years. Most geologists consider this a ‘good’ date because it agrees with their evolutionary chronology.However, we know the date can’t be right, because it conflicts with Biblical chronology.
It is a different story when the same rubidium-strontium method is used to date lava from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon. We know these volcanoes are some of the youngest rocks in the canyon, because they spilled lava into the canyon after it had been eroded. Geologists generally think that these volcanoes erupted ‘only’ a million years or so ago. The measured age? 1.34 billion years. If we were to believe the dating method, the top of the canyon would be older than the bottom!
Of course, geologists don’t believe the result in this case, because it does not agree with what they believe to be the right age. We don’t agree with the result either. Such an obviously conflicting age speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. It also speaks volumes about the way ‘dates’ are accepted or rejected by the geological community.
Table A. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for historic lava flows (from Dalrymple1).
Historic Lava Flow _____________________Potassium - Argon age in millions of years.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Hualalai, basalt
(Hawaii, AD 1800–1801) was given dates of 1.6 ± 0.16 (2 samples)
________________________________________________________________________________________
Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, 122 BC) was given dates of 0.25 ± 0.08
________________________________________________________________________________________
Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) was given dates of 0.35 ± 0.08
________________________________________________________________________________________
Mt Lassen, plagioclase was given dates of 0.11 ± 0.03
(California, AD 1915)
________________________________________________________________________________________
Sunset Crater, basalt was given dates of 0.27 ± 0.09
Arizina 0.25 ± 0.15 (2 samples)
AD 1064–1065)
________________________________________________________________________________________
There is very good scientific evidence which shows a good deal of helium in zircons consistent with an age of about 6,000 years.
Here is a quote from...http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
The current amount of helium in the zircons, and the measured rate of helium diffusion show (1) that a lot of radioactive decay has happened (to produce so much helium) and (2) that it must have happened quickly in the recent past (otherwise the helium would have had time to escape).
RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds. Since 14C is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that these diamonds and coal deposits are thousands of years old at most. In particular, the hard lattice structure of a diamond makes any sort of contamination extremely unlikely. Dr. Baumgardner also stated that 14C is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column.
I am more than willing to discuss the findings of these highly qualified scientists with anyone who is interested. these discoveries along with the serious flaws with the dating method are extreemly powerful scientific evidence for a young earth.
John
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp
Dalrymple, one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, Creation magazine reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.2
One sobering example comes from the Grand Canyon in Arizona (see diagram,above). The Cardenas Basalt in the bottom of the canyon is an igneous rock layer suitable for radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method, the Cardenas Basalt yielded an age of 1.07 billion years. Most geologists consider this a ‘good’ date because it agrees with their evolutionary chronology.However, we know the date can’t be right, because it conflicts with Biblical chronology.
It is a different story when the same rubidium-strontium method is used to date lava from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon. We know these volcanoes are some of the youngest rocks in the canyon, because they spilled lava into the canyon after it had been eroded. Geologists generally think that these volcanoes erupted ‘only’ a million years or so ago. The measured age? 1.34 billion years. If we were to believe the dating method, the top of the canyon would be older than the bottom!
Of course, geologists don’t believe the result in this case, because it does not agree with what they believe to be the right age. We don’t agree with the result either. Such an obviously conflicting age speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. It also speaks volumes about the way ‘dates’ are accepted or rejected by the geological community.
Table A. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for historic lava flows (from Dalrymple1).
Historic Lava Flow _____________________Potassium - Argon age in millions of years.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Hualalai, basalt
(Hawaii, AD 1800–1801) was given dates of 1.6 ± 0.16 (2 samples)
________________________________________________________________________________________
Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, 122 BC) was given dates of 0.25 ± 0.08
________________________________________________________________________________________
Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) was given dates of 0.35 ± 0.08
________________________________________________________________________________________
Mt Lassen, plagioclase was given dates of 0.11 ± 0.03
(California, AD 1915)
________________________________________________________________________________________
Sunset Crater, basalt was given dates of 0.27 ± 0.09
Arizina 0.25 ± 0.15 (2 samples)
AD 1064–1065)
________________________________________________________________________________________
There is very good scientific evidence which shows a good deal of helium in zircons consistent with an age of about 6,000 years.
Here is a quote from...http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
The current amount of helium in the zircons, and the measured rate of helium diffusion show (1) that a lot of radioactive decay has happened (to produce so much helium) and (2) that it must have happened quickly in the recent past (otherwise the helium would have had time to escape).
RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds. Since 14C is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that these diamonds and coal deposits are thousands of years old at most. In particular, the hard lattice structure of a diamond makes any sort of contamination extremely unlikely. Dr. Baumgardner also stated that 14C is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column.
I am more than willing to discuss the findings of these highly qualified scientists with anyone who is interested. these discoveries along with the serious flaws with the dating method are extreemly powerful scientific evidence for a young earth.
John
Barbarian
Member
As noted earlier, the ancient dating of fresh lava depends on a simple trick. Use lava contaminated with xenocrysts (unmelted crystals that were included in the lava flow). Geologists are very careful not to use such material, unless it has been crushed and processed to remove the xenocrysts.
Turns out that nitrogen is a common inclusion in the crystal lattice of diamonds.
Nitrogen contents in Panda diamonds vary strongly from below detection (< 10 ppm) to 2700 atomic ppm. Nitrogen aggregation ranges from poorly aggregated (Type IaA diamond) to highly aggregated (Type IaB diamond). If all diamonds that show signs of plastic deformation during mantle residence are excluded from the dataset, then a diamond subset becomes apparent with an overall low nitrogen aggregation state of < 30 % B-center. This result may indicate that plastic deformation increases the aggregation of nitrogen in Panda diamonds.
http://eurjmin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/17/3/423
So what? Well, carbon-14 is formed from nitrogen by ionizing radiation. But where would you find ionizing radiation deep in a kimberlite deposit with diamonds?
Uranium and thorium abundances in Indian kimberlites
D.K. Paul*, *, N.H. Gale†and P.G. Harris‡, ‡
†Department of Geology and Mineralogy, Parks Road, Oxford, England
‡Department of Earth Sciences, The University, Leeds, England
Abstract
Abundances of U and Th have been determined in 21 kimberlites from India by delayed fission neutron technique. Whole-rock U ranges from 1.87 to 3.93 ppm but Th shows wider variation from 14.02 to 60.44 ppm. Average Th/U ratios in three main diatremes are 7.9, 8.8 and 10.0. The interrelationships between U, Th and K are variable and complex. A positive correlation exists between P2O5 and U and Th. Model calculations suggest that enrichment of U involved considerable mantle reaction during ascent.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 2a51975dca
So a neutron emitted by thorium or other radioactive elements in the isotope cascade strikes an atom of nitrogen.
The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
1n + 14N ? 14C + 1H
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
And now, you know why.
Turns out that nitrogen is a common inclusion in the crystal lattice of diamonds.
Nitrogen contents in Panda diamonds vary strongly from below detection (< 10 ppm) to 2700 atomic ppm. Nitrogen aggregation ranges from poorly aggregated (Type IaA diamond) to highly aggregated (Type IaB diamond). If all diamonds that show signs of plastic deformation during mantle residence are excluded from the dataset, then a diamond subset becomes apparent with an overall low nitrogen aggregation state of < 30 % B-center. This result may indicate that plastic deformation increases the aggregation of nitrogen in Panda diamonds.
http://eurjmin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/17/3/423
So what? Well, carbon-14 is formed from nitrogen by ionizing radiation. But where would you find ionizing radiation deep in a kimberlite deposit with diamonds?
Uranium and thorium abundances in Indian kimberlites
D.K. Paul*, *, N.H. Gale†and P.G. Harris‡, ‡
†Department of Geology and Mineralogy, Parks Road, Oxford, England
‡Department of Earth Sciences, The University, Leeds, England
Abstract
Abundances of U and Th have been determined in 21 kimberlites from India by delayed fission neutron technique. Whole-rock U ranges from 1.87 to 3.93 ppm but Th shows wider variation from 14.02 to 60.44 ppm. Average Th/U ratios in three main diatremes are 7.9, 8.8 and 10.0. The interrelationships between U, Th and K are variable and complex. A positive correlation exists between P2O5 and U and Th. Model calculations suggest that enrichment of U involved considerable mantle reaction during ascent.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 2a51975dca
So a neutron emitted by thorium or other radioactive elements in the isotope cascade strikes an atom of nitrogen.
The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
1n + 14N ? 14C + 1H
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
And now, you know why.
logical bob
Member
I understand that frustration. In general I dislike this approach as much as you do, but I think it's important to make an exception here.jasoncran said:why do these debates wind up with my source is better then yours?
I've been trying to argue in this thread and others that IRC, AIG and the various other creation "science" websites are packed full of basic errors, fundamental misunderstandings, quotemining and quite probably deliberate distortions and downright lies. Because Christians are usually honest people and because many members here don't understand the science involved for themselves they naturally think they can turn to these websites for reliable facts. But you're being conned! Don't fall for it, these sources are worthless.
Bronzesnake
Member
Hello Bob.
I can also see how you get frustrated Bob, however I have tried to clear this misconception up by adding how the lizards did in fact reproduce at least once and possibly twice during the 4 month experiment.
Having understood this, I feel the conclusions reached by ICR are entirely credible.
I think what has happened here is that you and Evo may have jumped the gun and based your own conclusions on what you believed were the entirety of facts, however as we have seen, there are more factors involved in this study than we may be aware.
Again, I'll state that it is not a legitimate position for either camp to take - when we move away from the scientific evidence and into attacking the sources.
I may not agree with methods used by evolutionists but you will never see me attacking the sources you use.
And this whole accusation of quote mining is very often used out of any relevant context.
Evolutionists also use quotes and that is a legitimate practice in an debate.
The trouble evolutionists have is that very often the quotes are damning and come from people in their own camp. I have been accused of this may time however whenever I ask for an explanation showing I have used a quote out of context, all I inevitably get back is “he didn’t meant that†so, I will go back to the quote source and look for larger portions of the statements and inevitably I end up gaining even more corroboration for the original quote.
For example, I have used Gould’s quote in relation to the trade secret of paleontology and I can be sure I will immediately be accused of quote mining, even though I totally agree with the context with which Gould had made his statement. However evolutionists automatically assume I am trying to infer that Gould had corroborated creation. I never made any such inference however I am almost always accused of doing that.
Gould realised that there are very few (I would argue none) evolutionary transitions at the macro evolution level. I totally agree with that statement. And yet I almost always get this “quote mining†label thrown at me as if it somehow automatically “proves†I’m either a liar, or ignorant, or misinformed.
Also, when you make statements such as this...
This is why I don’t engage in this tactic Bob.
I have come to know you somewhat, at least as well as can be expected via the written word, and I do believe you are an honest person Bob and that you really have a lot of faith in evolution. That is admirable, but you must recognise that as a Christian, we believe in the precepts of Christian doctrine.
That is; we believe we must follow the examples of Jesus Christ, and we must adhere to His commands as best as we can. I would never say Christians are perfect, obviously.
However I do believe that bible believing Christians, that is, people who honestly accept the scriptures as literal, do make great efforts to be truthful and reliable.
The scientists at both ICR and AIG are honest God fearing Christians Bob, and the fact that their information is open to the world for review makes them accountable in a way that few of us will ever be.
If I am to even consider your assertions that these scientists are liars, then I would also have to believe that virtually every Christian on the planet who visits these sites, and every Christian scientists who contributes and reviews the articles are all involved in a huge anti-Christian crusade to in effect, deceive and confuse all who read these articles. That is simply unrealistic and unacceptable.
It would do you a lot of good to simply engage in an honest non judgemental debate using your best scientific arguments.
Again, you will not see me accusing for example, the people at talk origins (even though they don’t actually talk about origins) of being liars, or ignorant, or dishonest simply because I may disagree with the methods they use to come to their conclusions, or because I ascribe to creation.
Why is it so hard to expect this kind of respect and discourse?
Let's stick to the scientific facts. ICR states that there was no discernable improvement in the lizards during the 4 month period. Now that we know there were offspring, we can argue legitimately that no evolutionary changes were observed.
I have e-mailed ICR in relation to this specific article, and I promise to post their response as soon as I get it. I am going to be reasonable and give them sufficient time to reply, as I understand they must receive hundreds and thousands of e-mails each day.
If you can show me that I am wrong by producing any contrary scientific evidence then I am willing to listen.
Take care brother.
John
I can also see how you get frustrated Bob, however I have tried to clear this misconception up by adding how the lizards did in fact reproduce at least once and possibly twice during the 4 month experiment.
Having understood this, I feel the conclusions reached by ICR are entirely credible.
I think what has happened here is that you and Evo may have jumped the gun and based your own conclusions on what you believed were the entirety of facts, however as we have seen, there are more factors involved in this study than we may be aware.
Again, I'll state that it is not a legitimate position for either camp to take - when we move away from the scientific evidence and into attacking the sources.
I may not agree with methods used by evolutionists but you will never see me attacking the sources you use.
And this whole accusation of quote mining is very often used out of any relevant context.
Evolutionists also use quotes and that is a legitimate practice in an debate.
The trouble evolutionists have is that very often the quotes are damning and come from people in their own camp. I have been accused of this may time however whenever I ask for an explanation showing I have used a quote out of context, all I inevitably get back is “he didn’t meant that†so, I will go back to the quote source and look for larger portions of the statements and inevitably I end up gaining even more corroboration for the original quote.
For example, I have used Gould’s quote in relation to the trade secret of paleontology and I can be sure I will immediately be accused of quote mining, even though I totally agree with the context with which Gould had made his statement. However evolutionists automatically assume I am trying to infer that Gould had corroborated creation. I never made any such inference however I am almost always accused of doing that.
Gould realised that there are very few (I would argue none) evolutionary transitions at the macro evolution level. I totally agree with that statement. And yet I almost always get this “quote mining†label thrown at me as if it somehow automatically “proves†I’m either a liar, or ignorant, or misinformed.
Also, when you make statements such as this...
And...
It really comes across as inflammatory and highly hyperbolic Bob. All you accomplish when you make such statements is you may get someone’s back up against the wall, and in a back door manner, you are actually attacking Christians in a general way as being dishonest and liars.
This is why I don’t engage in this tactic Bob.
I have come to know you somewhat, at least as well as can be expected via the written word, and I do believe you are an honest person Bob and that you really have a lot of faith in evolution. That is admirable, but you must recognise that as a Christian, we believe in the precepts of Christian doctrine.
That is; we believe we must follow the examples of Jesus Christ, and we must adhere to His commands as best as we can. I would never say Christians are perfect, obviously.
However I do believe that bible believing Christians, that is, people who honestly accept the scriptures as literal, do make great efforts to be truthful and reliable.
The scientists at both ICR and AIG are honest God fearing Christians Bob, and the fact that their information is open to the world for review makes them accountable in a way that few of us will ever be.
If I am to even consider your assertions that these scientists are liars, then I would also have to believe that virtually every Christian on the planet who visits these sites, and every Christian scientists who contributes and reviews the articles are all involved in a huge anti-Christian crusade to in effect, deceive and confuse all who read these articles. That is simply unrealistic and unacceptable.
It would do you a lot of good to simply engage in an honest non judgemental debate using your best scientific arguments.
Again, you will not see me accusing for example, the people at talk origins (even though they don’t actually talk about origins) of being liars, or ignorant, or dishonest simply because I may disagree with the methods they use to come to their conclusions, or because I ascribe to creation.
Why is it so hard to expect this kind of respect and discourse?
Let's stick to the scientific facts. ICR states that there was no discernable improvement in the lizards during the 4 month period. Now that we know there were offspring, we can argue legitimately that no evolutionary changes were observed.
I have e-mailed ICR in relation to this specific article, and I promise to post their response as soon as I get it. I am going to be reasonable and give them sufficient time to reply, as I understand they must receive hundreds and thousands of e-mails each day.
If you can show me that I am wrong by producing any contrary scientific evidence then I am willing to listen.
Take care brother.
John
Pard
Member
logical bob said:I understand that frustration. In general I dislike this approach as much as you do, but I think it's important to make an exception here.jasoncran said:
I've been trying to argue in this thread and others that IRC, AIG and the various other creation "science" websites are packed full of basic errors, fundamental misunderstandings, quotemining and quite probably deliberate distortions and downright lies. Because Christians are usually honest people and because many members here don't understand the science involved for themselves they naturally think they can turn to these websites for reliable facts. But you're being conned! Don't fall for it, these sources are worthless.
Sorry Bob, but that is an excuse in of itself.
I am not the world's greatest scientist, in fact I find it rather boring, but I have a pretty good understanding of it, as I think most people do. I also have an understanding of politics, well understanding may be to light of a word. You are using a typical game that politicians use all the time to make people sway to their side. By making a generalized statement that we are simply to dumb to understand "real" facts from "fake" facts you make the premise that you are not only "mightier than thou" but that you can give us all the answers.
This ploy is used in many political arenas, the two that come to mind of recent date (and of HUGE... EPIC proportions) is global warming debacle and the health care bill.
All I am saying is this, instead of making such a sweeping generalization perhaps you should actually refute sources from these websites with your "real" facts... though a problem does arise in that, what makes your facts any more "real" than mine, besides your claim for their validity. Actually... this comes down to a very basic problem, there are only two sources for facts in this war between creation and evolution and as you can guess, one source is from the creation camp and the other source is from the evolution camp, there is no middle ground...
Barbarian
Member
Maybe we've underestimated you. What are the four basic premises of Darwin's theory, and what evidence did he offer to support them?
I'm looking back there, and I don't see where Evo said you were too dumb to understand. You do know that politicians often make up things they claim their opponents said, don't you? If you'd like to talk about global warming, let's start a new thread. That's a very interesting issue, with lots of evidence to look at.
Hmm... last time I saw a poll, half of all Americans accept evolution,(44 percent do not) and most of them believed God did it. So yes, there's more middle ground than anything else.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolut ... esign.aspx
Pard
Member
First of all, Barb, if I make a comment to you, speak, otherwise keep out. You have no idea what I am talking about (made evident by the fact that you think I was talking to Evo...)
I'm looking back also, and I don't even see where I quotes Evo... so Barb, maybe you should go hijack someone else's reply because I have had it with your ridiculous attitude and your terrible rebuttals.
I literally LOL's when you posted that gallup poll. I have seen it, it doesn't really support what you were saying. Stop looking at the pretty graph for a moment and read the hard data.
I'm looking back also, and I don't even see where I quotes Evo... so Barb, maybe you should go hijack someone else's reply because I have had it with your ridiculous attitude and your terrible rebuttals.
I literally LOL's when you posted that gallup poll. I have seen it, it doesn't really support what you were saying. Stop looking at the pretty graph for a moment and read the hard data.
logical bob
Member
No problem. Here's a thread devoted to doing just that.Pard said:
And here's a list I made of claims from creationist sites. Please note I didn't go looking for these. All but one of them were presented to me by creationist members of this forum in the space of about a week.
1. Planets that spin faster have more gravitational pull.
2. The strength of Earth's magnetic field halves every 1400 years
3. Helium can't escape from the Earth's atmosphere.
4. Because light bends in a gravitational field, all calculations involving the speed of light are wrong.
5. In 1836 it was possible to measure the sun to an accuracy of 5 feet.
6. Calculations that assume the volume of a sphere is directly proportional to its radius.
7. Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
8. Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist.
9. Theories which use imaginary numbers cannot describe the real world.
As you say you have a pretty good understanding of science I'm sure you'll agree that these are all ridiculous. So why would you believe the sources they came from?
The real facts are the ones that have evidence supporting them.
I realise you're new here, but The Barbarian is extremely knowledgable and educated regarding science and you're still at school. Have some respect - you might learn something. I know I have.
Barbarian
Member
You apparently misread it. The numbers you cite are from 2005. The most current opinion listed on that site is from 2008.
2008 data:
Man developed 50%
Breakdown:
Man developed but God did it: 36%
Man developed but God didn't do it: 14%
Man was created pretty much as he is: 44%
No response, other: 5%
Slow progress, but the truth is winning.
Pard
Member
logical bob said:
I agree with that, of course we will always run into the problem of what evidence is "legit".
I am well aware of his knowledge. However, he does this a lot. He likes to take comments that are in no way related to him (or even the topic at his one) and then makes ridiculous claims and or accusations (such as in this case). I don't mind if he enters into my comment directed at you, but when he doesn't even realize it is directed at you and instead implies I am lying and saying Evo said something, than I have a problem, and this should be a very understandable thing.
Pard
Member
The Barbarian said:
I concede that you are right in what you said, and I am sorry.
I'd like to point out however that the data that lists 2008 neglects the data from 2005 because it was not the same question. I did a thesis on the power of word arrangement as tied into polls. The way the '05 poll is worded uses keywords, such as Bible, that would dramatically change the answers. So yes, the numbers are down, however I'd like to see the same question asked today and see how the answers would turn out.
logical bob
Member
Pard, you repleid to my post but left out the substantian bit - the 10 examples of blatant factual errors on creationist sites. Still think they're reliable?
Crying Rock
Member
The Barbarian said:
I'm looking back there, and I don't see where Evo said you were too dumb to understand. You do know that politicians often make up things they claim their opponents said, don't you? If you'd like to talk about global warming, let's start a new thread. That's a very interesting issue, with lots of evidence to look at.
Hmm... last time I saw a poll, half of all Americans accept evolution,(44 percent do not) and most of them believed God did it. So yes, there's more middle ground than anything else.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolut ... esign.aspx[/quote:1wo7e7in]
Will you point out where your source says half of all Americans accept macroevolution?
lordkalvan
Member
I guess that would be subsumed in the question itself, which asks whether the responder believes that 'human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life....'Crying Rock said:
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolut ... esign.aspx
Crying Rock
Member
The Barbarian said:
I read that 85% of those polled don't believe humans evolved from other life forms.
Developed doesn't equal macroevolution.
lordkalvan
Member
So what do you take 'over millions of years from less advanced forms of life' to mean, then? What would you have supposed if you had been asked the self-same question as the pollsters asked?Crying Rock said: