Is Evolution another Deceit?

Originally posted by Methuselah
there is no way to prove that the earth is 4.6 billions years old simply because K-Ar dating along with all other radiometric dating methods are flawed. there are many articles on the internet and in the papers where this has been proven not to work.

Correction.. there are alot of biased christian creationalist sites that have articles based on make believe science that say it's proven not to work.

This is called propoganda.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Methuselah
there is no way to prove that the earth is 4.6 billions years old simply because K-Ar dating along with all other radiometric dating methods are flawed. there are many articles on the internet and in the papers where this has been proven not to work.

Correction.. there are alot of biased christian creationalist sites that have articles based on make believe science that say it's proven not to work.

This is called propoganda.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by riley]

actually most of these article references are from science journals and science magazines.

reply to post by Methuselah


please, provide references to these scientific journals where they question the methods and give me a direct quotation of the information.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Methuselah

 

please, provide references to these scientific journals where they question the methods and give me a direct quotation of the information.

And remember, Christian Science journals don't count.

"radio metric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic collumn had been erected first"
American Journal of Science

"I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils"
Fossil Frustrations

"living snails were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old"
Science Vol 141 M.Keith and A Anderson

"A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago!"
Antarctic Journal

"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is eneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"
Anthropological Journal of Canada

"Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old"
Science Vol 224

"In the last two years an absolute date obtained for the Ngandong beds, and it has the very interesting value of 300,000 years +/- 300,000 years."
Human Evolution

"Material from layers where are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old." they werent told they were dinosaur bones until after that fact.
Challenging Mysteries.

"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale"
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
(in other words, if it doesnt match the geologic time scale/geologic collumn, they discard the dates...meaning it doesnt work)

"Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old."
Earth and Planetary Science Letters

"Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-AR date of 1.6 millions years old."
Journal of Geophysical Research

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily in 1964 gave K-AR age of 700,000 years old.
(it erupted in 1964, and still gave an inaccurate date)
it erupted again in 1972 and gave K-AR dates of 350,000 years old.

these are a few if you want more, im sure I can find more.

reply to post by Rasobasi420

Assumptions in the K-Ar dating technique
Implicit in the use of the K-Ar decay scheme for dating illite are the following
assumptions :
(i) constant K(40):K ratio at present;
(ii) no structurally trapped ancient Ar;
(iii) sample preparation has left no impurities;
(iv) closed-system behaviour.

K:Ar dating of Illite

In the interests of balance, I must also state that the limits of tolerance were 10 million years, and that the paper was based on dating illite deposits. Errors were attributable to loss of Argon through diffusion and the presence of other potassium deposits from contamination by detritus:

Calculations are presented which imply that where sustained reservoir
temperatures are high (> 150~ erroneously low K-Ar ages could result from diffusive Ar loss.
Very low levels of detrital contamination with other K-bearing minerals cause further difficulties. Even non-K-bearing contaminants may have a marked effect on apparent ages of illite 'separates'. However, if considerable care is exercised during separation, the contamination
problem is not intractable.

Originally posted by Methuselah
"radio metric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic collumn had been erected first"
American Journal of Science

1. The only sites that have this quote are creationalists sites.
2. I did a search on the article on the actual American Journal of science site and nothing came up.
3. It's really obviously been taken out of context as by itself that sentence makes no logical sense.

4. ..the article was apparently written in 1976. Not even the AJoS have quoted it.

*"I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils"
Fossil Frustrations

And apparently this was said.. but creationalist sites just take it out of context:

www.talkorigins.org...

As for having all the credit passed to physicists and the measurement of isotopic decay, the blood boils! Certainly such studies give dates in terms of millions of years, with huge margins of error, but this is an exceedingly crude instrument with which to measure our strata and I can think of no occasion when it has been put to immediate practical use. *Apart from very "modern" examples, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils. In fact, fossils such as small marine invertebrate and plant spores and pollen are constantly used as precision tools in dating the rocks. We are measuring in millimetres while the physicists are measuring kilometres. ...

Clearly Ager is not saying that using fossils to establish the relative age of strata is circular reasoning or does not work. Rather he is pointing out that it is a very reliable and precise means of telling time which is quite the opposite of what the quote miners wish us to believe.

"living snails were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old"
Science Vol 141 M.Keith and A Anderson

"A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago!"
Antarctic Journal

I could only find creationalist sites backing that..

"Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old"
Science Vol 224

Again.. only creationalist sites quote these..
..and I believe carbon dating is useless for anything under a certain age [I vaguely remember it being under 5000 years but not certain on the number] .
That is why it's not used to date living things.. it's used to date fossils. Using it to date living things is just silly and scientists know it would give a false result.

I'm not going to even bother with the other ones as it's a waste of my time and your quotes have been just copied and pasted from those same creationalist sites I spoke of. It's no wonder you didn't post a link to them as you proved my point. YOU should have provided sources as so far you have only posted creationalist propoganda.

Creationism is not a science.

..and quoting a page number and taking a line out of context from a book [of which the existence of [conveniently] can't even be verified..] is not proof.
That is hearsay and is propoganda.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by riley]

I'm going to back Riley up on this. Radiocarbon dating is useless for anything younger than a certain age, which is why a freshly dead seal tests as being one thousand years old. The test can't differentiate between "one thousand years old" and "died yesterday". It can, however, differentiate between "died yesterday" and "ten thousand years old".

uhm, I didnt copy and paste from any sites. I didnt go to any sites to get the information. I have the hard copies of the articles themselves. literally a copy machine copy saved as a soft copy on my external HDD.

since carbon dating is used to date thing less than 5370 years of age, then it should be able to accurately date anything less than 5370 years. oh and btw, 5370 years is only its half life not its max.

everytime ive been to a museum, they never mention radiometric dating. they always refer to the geologic time scale. do you all even know when that scale was thought of? before any sort of radiometric dating ever existed. Charles Lyell made it up. so are you telling me that what he had in his imagination happened to be todays modern science backbone? i dont think so.

and I never said creationism is science. I implied (probably said) that evolution is not science, of course you also have to define what you mean when you say "evolution" or "evolve".
I find that the evidence presented to support the creation theory is very logical and very feasible. and I find that the evidence for evolution is not feasible and not logical whatsoever.
the supernatural portion of creation does require faith, I admit that. but so does the evolution theory. there is no way to know that the earth is billions of years old let alone the universe.

nonfeasible theory, here is a prime example of what im talking about when it comes to evolution:
big bang theory (its part of the theory whether you want to admit to it or not. you have to start from the beginning and i know that you know that)

they can calculate down the very micro second each event that took place after the big bang (expansion, explosion... .whatever you want to call it)
but they cant use radiometric dating to accurately date things of known age. that sounds to me like they are making it all up.

oh and of course you only find creation site providing this information, if an evolutionist provided this sort of information or evidence even if it were true, they would get fired or their grant money would get stripped away. dont pretend like you dont know what im talking about. and if you dont know and want to deny that any of this takes place, then that also very sad. teachers get fired all the time for pointing out flaws in textbooks when it comes to evolution. things that have been proven wrong years ago. why? because evolution is a state protected religion and its based on things that are not observable, testable, demonstrable, logical, or scientific.

you probably believe with all your mind that those scientists out there are providing evidence for what you believe in, and just like in the past i can assure you, they are making it up because they have to hide what they really find.

OMG if you all could just see the big picture, it would make so much more sense. strike down all the evidence you want, you cant run from the truth forever.

im done on this thread, no matter what I give you, your just gonna smack it down for any reason by any means just to say, see i told you so.... because you dont even know you are being lied to.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Methuselah]

Originally posted by Methuselah
uhm, I didnt copy and paste from any sites. I didnt go to any sites to get the information. I have the hard copies of the articles themselves. literally a copy machine copy saved as a soft copy on my external HDD.

If thats the case scan them in and put the entire articles up.

I must say however it's very coincidental that you should quote the same out of context half senetences as the creationist sites.

You can start by scanning the first one in.. the amercian science journal published in 1976. Apparently written by a guy called O'rourke [thats all I could find out about it apart from page number].

On another one you actually cut a sentence in half and ommited "apart from".. just like all the creationist sites have. "Apart from" means whatever-it-is does happen.

..and now you are trying to claim you left in context. If it supported your views you wouldn't need to leave out the rest of paragraphs or even sentences.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by riley]

well then it probably is the same material... sorry to have bothered you all with information that is only contributed by one side.

so you mean to tell me that the evolutionists never find not one thing that can support creation? not even one thing?

they never go, "hey wait this might be used as evidence for creation or even both"?

if they do, where are those findings? and if they dont, then why not? science is not to search on behalf of one side. science speaks for itself and the conclusions drawn from the facts and evidences make the theories.

Originally posted by Methuselah
well then it probably is the same material... sorry to have bothered you all with information that is only contributed by one side.

Again.. very coincidental that you just happen to own the same books that creationalist sites list.
You said you have the originals.. if that is true you should be able to post scans of it or at least post a link where it's in [objective] context and not out of date by three decades. You would also have to prove that these few little [mostly] obsolete quotes are more relevent than the entire scientific community and all the knowledge they have aquired. Posting stuff from the seventies doesn't undo the research that has taken place since.

All of those same quotes you used are on creationists sites and usually only have that one out-of-context line and vague reference. They call this science yet go to great lengths to dismiss all mainstream scientific evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs. I said you would probably post creationist propoganda.. and nearly word for word you did and then blamed coincidence.

..and now you admit it'd probably be the same material.. :shk:

So why would you just happen to own all the same books creationist advocate sites own?

[edit on 18-2-2008 by riley]

noitice I never said "original" i apologize if you misunderstood or if you thought I implied that I ever had originals. I got print outs of the articles from my dad, all I have are the references of where they are found, and the text. to me thats still an article. i apologize for posting information you have deamed to be false/outdated/or inaccurate. but I personally believe that there is more to the story that your evolutionists are not sharing with the rest of the world.
and I see that you still managed to ignore my question. please provide an answer.

why do I have this information? because I collect this kind of information. I collect evolution material too, but its not logical material. find that there are a lot of gaps between theories and a lot of things that when put together, do not make sense and are not feasible. ]

again, please answer the question.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Methuselah]

Creation and evolution are incompatible, hence why we have not found evidence to support both. Incidentally Big Bang theory leaves room for god as the initiator of the universe, further research has, however, shown that he has done very little since.

The idea that each organism on Earth was individually designed is absurd and dangerous; extremely complicated organisms have developed because of the extremely long time scales involved, billions of years' development has brought us to where we are. Remember also that complicated organisms are very much in the minority; the vast majority of organisms are single celled having never been provoked to develop any further by evolutionary pressure.

If you want the best idea of the power of evolution, look at those animals which are less than perfect. Pandas are an excellent example, why design an animal which lives on a few particular species of bamboo (despite having the gut of a carnivore) and which grows only at a particular altitude, an animal which lives a solitary life, has great difficulty breeding, reaches sexual maturity very late, has a long gestation period with a very real risk of starvation and young which are helpless for a long time?

The answer? Natural selection and evolutionary pressure led the Giant Panda to occupy a niche which suited its survival in the short term, but in the long term has threatened the survival of the species. Proof, if proof wre needed, that natural selection is not perfect and that evolution is lacking entirely in foresight. Creationism does not allow for mistakes, to do so would make god fallible.

Originally posted by Methuselah
noitice I never said "original" i apologize if you misunderstood or if you thought I implied that I ever had originals. I got print outs of the articles from my dad, all I have are the references of where they are found, and the text. to me thats still an article.

This is what you said before:

uhm, I didnt copy and paste from any sites. I didnt go to any sites to get the information. I have the hard copies of the articles themselves. literally a copy machine copy saved as a soft copy on my external HDD.

You said ARTICLES THEMSELVES. If this were true you could easily just post these entire articles.. but for some reason you did not [or could not] post them. Why is that?

Posting lots of half out-of-context sentences out of entire articles does not count as using entire articles.. nor does this extreme exageration lend you credibility as a poster.

..and it certainly is not evidence against evolution.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by riley]

Creation and evolution are incompatible, hence why we have not found evidence to support both. Incidentally Big Bang theory leaves room for god as the initiator of the universe, further research has, however, shown that he has done very little since.

The big bang theory and the God of the bible contradict each other. bible says that man brought death into the world, the entire evoution theory=big bang > chemical evo > organic evo > macro evo > micro evo says that millions of years of death brought man into the world.
This eliminates God from the equation when it comes to evolution.
however you are right about one fact, and that is - God hasnt done very much since because he made it right the first time. and then he let it go from there.

The idea that each organism on Earth was individually designed is absurd and dangerous; extremely complicated organisms have developed because of the extremely long time scales involved, billions of years' development has brought us to where we are. Remember also that complicated organisms are very much in the minority; the vast majority of organisms are single celled having never been provoked to develop any further by evolutionary pressure.

why is that dangerous? because it implies something you wish to not believe in? im sure that is the main, if not, only reason.
you say extremely complicated organisms as if all are not. took billions of years? how do you know? because someone else came to that conclusion? because modern science suggests it? or because you cant prove it and the only way to prove it is to throw a large amount of time to take the mind off of an illogical process that has never been observed or demonstrated.

If you want the best idea of the power of evolution, look at those animals which are less than perfect. Pandas are an excellent example, why design an animal which lives on a few particular species of bamboo (despite having the gut of a carnivore) and which grows only at a particular altitude, an animal which lives a solitary life, has great difficulty breeding, reaches sexual maturity very late, has a long gestation period with a very real risk of starvation and young which are helpless for a long time?

you are now assuming that this has been taking place the entire time. you dont know that, this could be because of genetic mutations (probably non-beneficial) passed on through offspring resulting with what you posted.

The answer? Natural selection and evolutionary pressure led the Giant Panda to occupy a niche which suited its survival in the short term, but in the long term has threatened the survival of the species. Proof, if proof wre needed, that natural selection is not perfect and that evolution is lacking entirely in foresight. Creationism does not allow for mistakes, to do so would make god fallible.

natural selection... indeed it was, but not in the sense that evolution has put it. evolution states that natural selection causes evolution (i can give you a school textbook quote if you want on this, im sure you can find it on the internet also, a textbook quote, not an article this time). natural selection does work but just li0ke the process of change in species over time... it is limited to what it can do. natrual selection is not going to change a panda into a hippo over millions of years. it will change the way of life for the panda, maybe even cause them to go extinct, but even then, that is not proof for evolution at all. this is not only supporting evidence for creation but it supports the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

creationism doesnt allow for what kind of mistakes?

Originally posted by Methuselah
this is not only supporting evidence for creation but it supports the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Indeed thermodynamics refers to HEAT [hence the word thermal] and has nothing to do with evolution.

Very perdictable I must say.. are you going to start talking about irredusable complexity next? What about the water canopy that alloud for noah's flood? Maybe the little people in indonesia just had some weired birth defect that made them all really tiny? You say you are not a creationist advocate yet everything you say sounds as though you are only here to use this forum as a creationist soapbox. All your arguments are outlined on anti-evolution sites.. and every point you make can be pasted into google and will go directly to those creationist sites.

Coincidentally of course.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by riley]

Methusala wrote

The big bang theory and the God of the bible contradict each other. bible says that man brought death into the world, the entire evoution theory=big bang > chemical evo > organic evo > macro evo > micro evo says that millions of years of death brought man into the world.
This eliminates God from the equation when it comes to evolution.
however you are right about one fact, and that is - God hasnt done very much since because he made it right the first time. and then he let it go from there.

It will not have escaped your attention that you are comparing a book written by men with emprical observations by other men. Please do not quote scripture, it doesn't prove anything except that a point of view was once written down.

Methusala wrote

why is that dangerous? because it implies something you wish to not believe in? im sure that is the main, if not, only reason.
you say extremely complicated organisms as if all are not. took billions of years? how do you know? because someone else came to that conclusion? because modern science suggests it? or because you cant prove it and the only way to prove it is to throw a large amount of time to take the mind off of an illogical process that has never been observed or demonstrated.

It is dangerous because it deters further questioning and provokes ignorance. Complicated organisms took billions of years because that is how old the universe is and we can trace fossil records. We can also work it out by observing the development of single celled organisms in the laboratory, in particular their ability to develop resistance to certain chemcals. Natural selection has been observed and demonstrated, peppered moths in the UK during the industrial revolution being a classic example of genetic mutation suiting particular environments. Apologies for the Wikipedia link, but it is good gen:

en.wikipedia.org...

Methusala wrote

you are now assuming that this has been taking place the entire time. you dont know that, this could be because of genetic mutations (probably non-beneficial) passed on through offspring resulting with what you posted.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but genetic mutation is a major driver in evolution. More to follow...

[edit on 18/2/08 by Naboo the Enigma]

...apologies for double post, but I reached my character limit!

Methusala wrote

evolution states that natural selection causes evolution (i can give you a school textbook quote if you want on this, im sure you can find it on the internet also, a textbook quote, not an article this time). natural selection does work but just li0ke the process of change in species over time... it is limited to what it can do. natrual selection is not going to change a panda into a hippo over millions of years. it will change the way of life for the panda, maybe even cause them to go extinct, but even then, that is not proof for evolution at all. this is not only supporting evidence for creation but it supports the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Evolution is the ultimate process of natural selection, which is brought about by the need for an organism to adapt to its environment including, but not limited too, other organisms, food sources, climate and disease. Selective pressures favour particular characteristics in organisms and those which display those chaeracteristics survive; those that don't die.

Natural selection is entirely capable of turning a panda into a hippo (well, a hippo-like creature) given the necessary selective pressure and genetic variation, viz:

Panda becomes more dependant on aquatic environment, hair prevents efficient swimming, those pandas with less hair (H-) use less energy swimming.

H- pandas are more likely to breed and pass on H- genes to offspring, H- pandas become more prevalent in the population but a panda with even less hair (H--) is even better at swimming. Thus the H-- panada becomes the majority and so it continues until you have a virtually hairless panda.

This simple process combined with the aquatic lifestyle could also result in greater lung capacity, nostrils which can be sealed to prevent water ingress, the gradual movement of the eyes toward the top of the head, flatter feet which are better for propulsion, teeth which are better adapted to a particular food source, a resumption of a carnivorous diet, increased/decreased gestation periods, quicker/slower developing young and so on all happening at the same time.

All evolution needs is time and pressure. Bear in mind that this is not a conscious process, evolution does not have a desired end state and forcing pandas to spend most of their time in water may result in extinction by drowning!

Evolution occurs, yes...but Darwin's theory is a bunch of crock. Most Scientists today are Darwinists. Hell, it has only been 50 years ago that they discovered the Universe was "finite". In my opinion, if we are still here by 2050, Darwin's theory will be to Science what the flat Earth theory is to Science now.

ufo.whipnet.org...