[_ Old Earth _] The end of Evolution ?

[Drew]

I have watched the whole thing before and thought it was garbage, just to throw it out there..

Well, the strong implication at the very beginning is that if we cannot directly observe evolution in the present (i.e. over the course of a handful of years) then this somehow cast doubt on the validity of the theory.

Which, of course, is deeply misleading - as I understand it anyway, the theory posits slow incremental changes over long periods of time. If I asked you to sit in a chair and watch my hair grow over the course of one day, would you see any growth? No. Does that mean we cannot "scientifically" determine that my hair indeed grows by looking at photos of me from the past? Of course not - such photos would constitute direct evidence that my hair does indeed grow even though this may not be discernible over the period of one day.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Well, the strong implication at the very beginning is that if we cannot directly observe evolution in the present (i.e. over the course of a handful of years) then this somehow cast doubt on the validity of the theory.

Which, of course, is deeply misleading - as I understand it anyway, the theory posits slow incremental changes over long periods of time. If I asked you to sit in a chair and watch my hair grow over the course of one day, would you see any growth? No. Does that mean we cannot "scientifically" determine that my hair indeed grows by looking at photos of me from the past? Of course not - such photos would constitute direct evidence that my hair does indeed grow even though this may not be discernible over the period of one day.

He kind of beats that horse to death, "have you ever seen an animal change from one kind to another?" Such ridiculous questions, as if every school of science was done exactly the same and could be accomplished in a laboratory. It's also an edited video so he can go around and ask unprepared people ludicrous questions about evolution, when he has his "gotcha" questions all prepared and ready for battle. The vast majority of these people have likely never had to debate on the matter of evolution, especially with creationists, which is a whole other experience.

 

[Edward]

Well, the strong implication at the very beginning is that if we cannot directly observe evolution in the present (i.e. over the course of a handful of years) then this somehow cast doubt on the validity of the theory.

Which, of course, is deeply misleading - as I understand it anyway, the theory posits slow incremental changes over long periods of time. If I asked you to sit in a chair and watch my hair grow over the course of one day, would you see any growth? No. Does that mean we cannot "scientifically" determine that my hair indeed grows by looking at photos of me from the past? Of course not - such photos would constitute direct evidence that my hair does indeed grow even though this may not be discernible over the period of one day.

Hey there you go. I never heard it stated so eloquently before. I do believe you've proven evolution now.

If it's so ridiculous that the man asks where is the observable evidence of evolution...then how is your statement any less ridiculous brother?

 

[Milk-Drops]

I always find it interesting when I see threads that claim the end of evolution, but all of them base themselves around some you tube video or some apologist trying to sell a book. At the end of the day its the people doing the research in the fields that have more of an impact on medicine and technology.

Evolution is cool, to bad some of you want to degrade it and spit on it like the Marxists want tot degrade and spit on those that actually contribute to society.

 

[Drew]

I always find it interesting when I see threads that claim the end of evolution, but all of them base themselves around some you tube video or some apologist trying to sell a book.

And quite often, in my view, the person who is appealed to as an authority quite often does not have legitimate credentials. I challenge those who deny evolution to actually name a person with a real degree (in an appropriate field of course such as biology) from a real academic institution (that has some legitimacy).

They will likely not be able to do so and I expect the response will be to scorn "man's wisdom". Well, how can you argue with that? If we who believe the case for evolution is strong were able to marshall the names of 10,000 accredited experts who support evolution, it would all be dismissed with arguments like "they all simply want to deny God" or "man's wisdom is secondary to the wisdom of God".

 

[Edward]

Here are some transitional fossils for you.

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

Have at it!

Got it. Thanks brother. One question. How do they know how old the fossils are? Carbon 14 dating or what? How old are the fossils?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Got it. Thanks brother. One question. How do they know how old the fossils are? Carbon 14 dating or what? How old are the fossils?

Radio Metric dating uses what is understood about isotope decay to understand the age of rock formations, and can include Carbon 14 dating, but carbon 14 is only one of many different isotopes used. For instance Argon decays at a slower rate than carbon, so Argon can be used when carbon 14 fails.

Here is a wiki article that gives a brief explanation on how its used and the different types of elements and techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

 

[Edward]

Radio Metric dating uses what is understood about isotope decay to understand the age of rock formations, and can include Carbon 14 dating, but carbon 14 is only one of many different isotopes used. For instance Argon decays at a slower rate than carbon, so Argon can be used when carbon 14 fails.

Here is a wiki article that gives a brief explanation on how its used and the different types of elements and techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

When does carbon 14 fail? After how many millions of years?

 

[Milk-Drops]

When does carbon 14 fail? After how many millions of years?

Carbon 14 is never used to date anything that is suspected to be even a million years old due to its half life being roughly 5,730 years. Carbon dating is used more injunction with tree growth patterns and Ice cores to date more recent events.

You can read more about Carbon dating here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

 

[Edward]

Carbon 14 is never used to date anything that is suspected to be even a million years old due to its half life being roughly 5,730 years. Carbon dating is used more injunction with tree growth patterns and Ice cores to date more recent events.

You can read more about Carbon dating here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Just less than 6000 years? Interesting. I thought that diamonds took millions of years to form. Wouldn't that alone blow the old earth theory out of the water?

Most natural diamonds are formed at high temperature and pressure at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 118 mi) in the Earth's mantle. Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years

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

 

[Milk-Drops]

Just less than 6000 years? Interesting. I thought that diamonds took millions of years to form. Wouldn't that alone blow the old earth theory out of the water?

Most natural diamonds are formed at high temperature and pressure at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 118 mi) in the Earth's mantle. Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years

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

It doesn't change old earth theory because the Isotope for Carbon 14 only converts it to Carbon 12, carbon 12 is more stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-12

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Just less than 6000 years? Interesting. I thought that diamonds took millions of years to form. Wouldn't that alone blow the old earth theory out of the water?

Most natural diamonds are formed at high temperature and pressure at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 118 mi) in the Earth's mantle. Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years

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

This would be a valid argument... if Diamonds were made up of Carbon 14, but it is actually Carbon 12 which has a near infinite half-life and will almost never break down as it is an extremely stable isotope.

Nice try though.

Wouldn't it be nice if people actually listened and did studying from unbiased sources before trying to refute concepts they don't understand?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It doesn't change old earth theory because the Isotope for Carbon 14 only converts it to Carbon 12, carbon 12 is more stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-12

You just beat me by a minute! lol

 

[Barbarian]

J

ust less than 6000 years? Interesting. I thought that diamonds took millions of years to form. Wouldn't that alone blow the old earth theory out of the water?

Most natural diamonds are formed at high temperature and pressure at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 118 mi) in the Earth's mantle. Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years

Interestingly, one can find C-14 in diamonds. However, it appears that it gets there the same way that C-14 gets in the atmosphere; conversion of nitrogen to C-14 by radiation. It turns out that diamond-containing deposits normally have a fairly high level of uranium and thorium, and diamonds contain a fair amount of nitrogen.

 

[Edward]

J

Interestingly, one can find C-14 in diamonds. However, it appears that it gets there the same way that C-14 gets in the atmosphere; conversion of nitrogen to C-14 by radiation. It turns out that diamond-containing deposits normally have a fairly high level of uranium and thorium, and diamonds contain a fair amount of nitrogen.

But if C-14 has a half life of 5730 years then the diamonds could not have taken a million years to form. Right?

 

[Barbarian]

But if C-14 has a half life of 5730 years then the diamonds could not have taken a million years to form. Right?

Of course they could have. All that's necessary is radiation (thorium and uranium are present) and nitrogen inclusions in the diamonds (nitrogen is a common inclusion) for diamonds.

Most likely, some of the nitrogen was once C-14, which then decayed to nitrogen. But as you see, radiation can reverse it, turning nitrogen back to C-14.

 

[Edward]

Of course they could have. All that's necessary is radiation (thorium and uranium are present) and nitrogen inclusions in the diamonds (nitrogen is a common inclusion) for diamonds.

Most likely, some of the nitrogen was once C-14, which then decayed to nitrogen. But as you see, radiation can reverse it, turning nitrogen back to C-14.

This is true, however according to this article, in order for that to happen, it also needs ultra violet rays from the sun to initiate the transformation of the nitrogen back into C-14. how could that happen if the diamonds are formed so far beneath the earths crust?

http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/C14a.htm

 

[th1b.taylor]

be that as it may be - it seems someone has got it wrong or been taught it wrong as per www.EvolutionvsGod.com - a bit like the Big Bang farce even now - twinc

The links are grand twinc, thank you.

 

[Barbarian]

This is true, however according to this article, in order for that to happen, it also needs ultra violet rays from the sun to initiate the transformation of the nitrogen back into C-14.

Completely wrong. I have no idea where they got that. UV doesn't have anything to do with it. There must be ionizing radiation, such as cosmic rays or radiation from sources like uranium or thorium.

how could that happen if the diamonds are formed so far beneath the earths crust?

Radiation from decaying radioactive elements.