Evidence of Evolution: The Concept of Geologic Time

[Beaker]

Whenever a topic comes up in which evolution and creationism are debated, there is a constant outcry from the creationist side for "evidence" of evolution. I wanted to do a series of threads...each detailing a piece of evidence that supports the idea that life proceeds via evolution. These pieces of evidence are not PROOF of evolution, they are merely intended to provide the evidence that the creationist crowd clamors for.

Here is the challenge:

I contend that creationism is a negative argument. In other words, they never provide evidence for their idea, they simply spend all their energy trying to discredit the evidence for evolution as the way life proceeds. I challenge the creationist crowd not to focus on discrediting the evidence I present, but rather on presenting their own evidence to support their belief and show how life proceeds via creationism.

*IMPORTANT NOTE: Evidence for evolution does not apply to the topic of how life began...only how it has proceeded since its inception. Evolution does not try to deny the possible existence of a supreme being. The creation of the universe is a different debate entirely. So please, do not view evidence for evolution as evidence that there is not a supreme being...they are not mutually exclusive.

Evidence of Evolution - Geologic Time

Everyone knows that evolution simply means "change over time". But to truly understand what this implies, you have to have a comprehension of the concept of a geologic time scale. The changes evolution speaks of can take years, decades, centuries, millions, or even billions of years. The speed at which it proceeds depends on both the reproductive rate of the organism, and the selection pressures the organism faces.

We have seen evidence of evolution happening in the last 30 yrs. There are now several strains of anitbiotic resistant bacteria, some that cause exremely virulent dieases. This happened in such a short time period due to 2 factors: the extremely short reproductive period of bacteria, and a change in the selection pressure they face...mainly the overuse of antibiotics by man.

But most evolution takes MUCH longer. Geologic time is almost incomprehensible to most of us. Its extremely hard to wrap your brian around the concept of a million years...much less a billion. Think of how long a year takes in your life. Now think of how long ago the founding fathers brought the US into existence. It seems so long ago. Those were old guys, way back in the old days. But that was just a little over 200 years ago. A mere blip in geologic time.

Now think of the time of Jesus. That was in ancient times. That was ten times farther back than the dawn of the US. But it was still only 2000 years ago. The dawn of mankind was roughly 5 times farther back than the time of Jesus (about 150,000 years ago), but thats still only about one tenth of the way back to a million years.

Now back to the time of the dinosaurs. They became extict approximately 65 million years ago...thats 650 times farther back than the dawn of mankind. Evidence shows the first eukaryotic cells (the kind with a visible nucleus, like the ones we're made of) first appeared 2.5 BILLION years ago. And the first prokaryotic cells (like bacteria) are thought to have come about 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. The Earth itself is thought to be approx 6 billion years old. That means the Earth existed for 2 BILLION years before the first traces of life appeared.

What does all this mean in terms of evolution? It means that there are incomprehensibly massive amounts of time for changes to occur. Its not as hard to concede that major changes could have come about in the periods of time we're talking about. If your argument is that the Earth cant be that old, then I can do a thread on physics and radioactive decay to support it.

I intend to present evidence from many other branches of science in this series of threads. Again, the challenge is not to try to discredit the evidence I present to support evolution...but to present evidence of your own to support your belief. In this thread keep it to the subject of geologic time.

[Jason]

Evidence of evolution can be seen in small breeding populations (a very rare thing in a world that allows us to travel from continent to continent in a matter of hours). Geological timeline aside, aren't the unique species of animal and plant life on islands such as Australia, Madagascar, and the Galopigos (sp?) all the evidence that's needed for evolution? Are the different "races" of humans evidence of evolution? I'd say that it is.

Oh yeah... I thought that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million yrs ago!

[Alias]

I do have something to discredit (yeah i know you dont want that lol) the whole radioactive decay system of measurement. Maybe not discredit, but at least put it into question. Do you want me to wait for another thread that's on the topic or just post it here?

[browns town bengal]

I dont understand the folks that believe that the earth is only some 5000 years old. I have yet to see evidence presented by these people that proves the earth is only that old. I assume they are just proceeding on faith. Yet, I have seen countless upon countless pieces of data that show how old certain geologic formations are.

It takes millions of years for a mountain range to form and then erode. The himalayas are the highest range on earth and still growing as the indian plate continues to crash into the asian plate.

And jason, youre right! The dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago. Some debates still linger on what the primary cause was. I suppose the most widely accepted theory is that an asteroid hit near the yucatan peninsula in mexico(a giant crater has been found there). approx 65 mill. years ago forming a giant dust cloud that eventually blocked out the sun for many years.

Edit:anyways if you couldnt tell from my post, I do believe in evolution and firmly believe that the earth is billions of years old...not 2000 or 5000 years like some may believe.

[Beaker]

The dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago.

Yes , 65 mya, not 160... my mistake. Too many numbers all at once in my train of thought in that post. Now corrected in the original post.

[browns town bengal]

Yes , 65 mya, not 160... my mistake. Too many numbers all at once in my train of thought in that post. Now corrected in the original post.

No problem...whats another 100 million years amongst friends?:p

[artanis]

I dont understand the folks that believe that the earth is only some 5000 years old. I have yet to see evidence presented by these people that proves the earth is only that old. I assume they are just proceeding on faith. Yet, I have seen countless upon countless pieces of data that show how old certain geologic formations are.

It takes millions of years for a mountain range to form and then erode. The himalayas are the highest range on earth and still growing as the indian plate continues to crash into the asian plate.

And jason, youre right! The dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago. Some debates still linger on what the primary cause was. I suppose the most widely accepted theory is that an asteroid hit near the yucatan peninsula in mexico(a giant crater has been found there). approx 65 mill. years ago forming a giant dust cloud that eventually blocked out the sun for many years.

Edit:anyways if you couldnt tell from my post, I do believe in evolution and firmly believe that the earth is billions of years old...not 2000 or 5000 years like some may believe.

An asteroid hitting the earth could not account for the extinction of dinosaurs.

The accepted theory bascially states that a big hunk of space rock hit the earth, kicked up clouds of dust that blocked out the sun causing a massive cooling of the earth...now, if that were to happen, how long would it take for the plants to die?...a year?...two years?...the theory states that withoug light, the plants died, the plant eaters died, the meat eaters died...all the dinosaurs died...even the ones in the ocean, but not the fish...why not the fish?...but that is not what happened...dinosaurs did not just die...suddenly...in a year or two or a hundred...they SLOWLY died out over tens of thousands of years.

Now, another theory is that a hunk of space rock hit the earth, moved the orbit of the earth slightly, thus altering the weather...not true either...how did the earth resume a natural orbit?...hit by another rock?...that nudged us back to where we were?...not likely.


The most probable cause of extinction, at least to me, is disaease...a reptile dino disease that perhaps messed up theri reproduction...yeah...sounds a little far fetched also...why did crocodiles live but not other dinos?

Anyway...back to evolution...evolution does make alot of sense...however...I am uncomfortable with the fact that we are basing our information on HUMAN evolution of bits of bones...they do not have complete skeletons for most of these examples of early man...they have what amounts to a shoebox full of bones...they don't even have complete skulls...most of their finds have no mandible...yet they extrapolate HUGE amounts of info from bits of bones...not reall comfy with that...is the earth older than 6000yrs?...yes...a billion years old?...yeah, I'll buy that for a dollar...just wish they would find more complet human ancestors...the find complete, or near complete dinos all the time...and they are MUCH older...how about a complete H-OMO HABILAS for us to gander at...too much to ask for?

[Who Dayton]

I dont know anyone that thinks the earth is only 5-6 thousand years old..Heck, the ancient Egyptians were around in 3000 B.C. Add in the 2000 years since B.C. and that alone is 5000 years. By that, then Dinosaurs only lived for maybe a month. Most Christian that don't believe in the Billions of years theory, go by 10's of thousands. Roughly the 40 thousand mark.

On to evolution!

The only evolutionary changes are only ever really seen in certain animals. Take the butterfly for example. A mutated gene or cell in the offspring of a butterfly, could produce a different color on the wings, making it easier or harder for the predators to see them. Obviously the harder one to see survives, and passes on their genes. Thus creating a new family in the species of butterflies.

Going by the numbers I quoted at the top of this post, say 5000 years, how much have we as humans evolved? Even back then we had 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a chin, a nose and a mouth. Genetic mutation in humans never last like they do in the animal world. Usually only lasting in the 1 offspring. Not only handicap mutations, but the offspring of those from that survived the atomic bombs in Japan, who were exposed to radiation, had children, who were deformed or handicapped. The deformed ones, like my moms friend Rosie, she has 6 toes on each of her feet. When she had her kids, neither of them had any deformations. Same with many, many other victims families. Even in the natural mutation of humans, it never reproduces past the 1st offspring. After all the mutations that humans have had, we still only have 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a chin, a nose and a mouth.

And you cant count getting smarter as evolution, because we still cant figure out how they built the pyramids. We can only guess. And yes, it was probably built by slaves, but the engineering of them was flawless. Perfect measurements and traps and tons of other building designs and methods that we cant reproduce.

The ancient Aztecs and Mayans, were able to know planetary alignments and predict them, with amazing accuracy, to an exact date throughout the future without the use of telescopes. Figure that one out.

Have we gotten smarter? No. We just figured out how to do stuff. Thats not getting smarter. Trial and error is not an accurate judgment of intelligence. Are we smarter than the ancient Egyptians? Their structures are still standing after thousands of years without decomposition. We cant figure out how to make a house last more than 100 years without having to remodel and fix it.

Thats all I have to say.

[browns town bengal]

An asteroid hitting the earth could not account for the extinction of dinosaurs.

The accepted theory bascially states that a big hunk of space rock hit the earth, kicked up clouds of dust that blocked out the sun causing a massive cooling of the earth...now, if that were to happen, how long would it take for the plants to die?...a year?...two years?...the theory states that withoug light, the plants died, the plant eaters died, the meat eaters died...all the dinosaurs died...even the ones in the ocean, but not the fish...why not the fish?...but that is not what happened...dinosaurs did not just die...suddenly...in a year or two or a hundred...they SLOWLY died out over tens of thousands of years.

Now, another theory is that a hunk of space rock hit the earth, moved the orbit of the earth slightly, thus altering the weather...not true either...how did the earth resume a natural orbit?...hit by another rock?...that nudged us back to where we were?...not likely.


The most probable cause of extinction, at least to me, is disaease...a reptile dino disease that perhaps messed up theri reproduction...yeah...sounds a little far fetched also...why did crocodiles live but not other dinos?



Yes, Ive often wondered why the dinosaurs all died off but alot of other species remained after the asteroid impact. Im not saying I totally believe that that was the total explanation for the mass extinction. I suggested that it is the accepted theory. I have heard the dinosaur disease theory as well recently and its certainly plausible.

I do believe there was a major impact around that time though. There is a a layer of irridium( which is the element commonly found in meteors) in several different places on earth and that layer has been dated to around 65 million years. It certainly is solid evidence of a large asteroid hitting earth around that time. If that large of a rock were to hit earth, it certainly seems possible that irridium as well as other elements would rain down on the earth for many years following the impact.

[Alias]

I dont know anyone that thinks the earth is only 5-6 thousand years old..Heck, the ancient Egyptians were around in 3000 B.C. Add in the 2000 years since B.C. and that alone is 5000 years. By that, then Dinosaurs only lived for maybe a month. Most Christian that don't believe in the Billions of years theory, go by 10's of thousands. Roughly the 40 thousand mark.

On to evolution!

The only evolutionary changes are only ever really seen in certain animals. Take the butterfly for example. A mutated gene or cell in the offspring of a butterfly, could produce a different color on the wings, making it easier or harder for the predators to see them. Obviously the harder one to see survives, and passes on their genes. Thus creating a new family in the species of butterflies.

Going by the numbers I quoted at the top of this post, say 5000 years, how much have we as humans evolved? Even back then we had 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a chin, a nose and a mouth. Genetic mutation in humans never last like they do in the animal world. Usually only lasting in the 1 offspring. Not only handicap mutations, but the offspring of those from that survived the atomic bombs in Japan, who were exposed to radiation, had children, who were deformed or handicapped. The deformed ones, like my moms friend Rosie, she has 6 toes on each of her feet. When she had her kids, neither of them had any deformations. Same with many, many other victims families. Even in the natural mutation of humans, it never reproduces past the 1st offspring. After all the mutations that humans have had, we still only have 10 fingers, 10 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a chin, a nose and a mouth.

And you cant count getting smarter as evolution, because we still cant figure out how they built the pyramids. We can only guess. And yes, it was probably built by slaves, but the engineering of them was flawless. Perfect measurements and traps and tons of other building designs and methods that we cant reproduce.

The ancient Aztecs and Mayans, were able to know planetary alignments and predict them, with amazing accuracy, to an exact date throughout the future without the use of telescopes. Figure that one out.

Have we gotten smarter? No. We just figured out how to do stuff. Thats not getting smarter. Trial and error is not an accurate judgment of intelligence. Are we smarter than the ancient Egyptians? Their structures are still standing after thousands of years without decomposition. We cant figure out how to make a house last more than 100 years without having to remodel and fix it.

Thats all I have to say.

I actually do believe the earth is only 6000 years old, but I have to admit that the only reason is that I believed the Bible first, and I have yet to hear any valid argument for the earth being older. I can't prove that it's only that old, but I haven't seen any reason to believe differently yet either.

Somebody said that the Himalayas are still rising due to the tectonic plates pressing together. I agree, but I believe that the plates are simply trying to regain their position after a global catastrophe (flood), not separating from pangaea over billions of years. Radioactive dating methods (the ones that are used to date fossils) seem to be flawed as well. A sample taken from the lava dome atop Mt. St. Helens 20 years after it erupted listed an age of 500,000 years. They used a method of measuring krypton to argon, so I know that isnt the same method used on bones (carbon14, I think).

As for carbon dating, I have read that it's claimed accuracy is only up to 30,000 years, and this is still assuming 3 things: 1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time. 2) That the isotopes in the thing being tested have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either isotope.
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of the resulting isotope.
That, in my mind, is a lot to assume. I've also read of living things (mollusks, i think) being tested with the C14 dating method, and being listed as over 20,000 years old.

All this is to say, I dont trust radioactive dating, and I think the Bible offers easily understandable theories for a lot of geology-related stuff (like fossil layers and distribution)

*edit* I also have to say that I do believe in microevolution. That aspect of the theory is obvious. I just have a problem accepting macroevolution.

[Danno]

I actually do believe the earth is only 6000 years old, but I have to admit that the only reason is that I believed the Bible first, and I have yet to hear any valid argument for the earth being older. I can't prove that it's only that old, but I haven't seen any reason to believe differently yet either.

Somebody said that the Himalayas are still rising due to the tectonic plates pressing together. I agree, but I believe that the plates are simply trying to regain their position after a global catastrophe (flood), not separating from pangaea over billions of years. Radioactive dating methods (the ones that are used to date fossils) seem to be flawed as well. A sample taken from the lava dome atop Mt. St. Helens 20 years after it erupted listed an age of 500,000 years. They used a method of measuring krypton to argon, so I know that isnt the same method used on bones (carbon14, I think).

As for carbon dating, I have read that it's claimed accuracy is only up to 30,000 years, and this is still assuming 3 things: 1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time. 2) That the isotopes in the thing being tested have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either isotope.
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of the resulting isotope.
That, in my mind, is a lot to assume. I've also read of living things (mollusks, i think) being tested with the C14 dating method, and being listed as over 20,000 years old.

All this is to say, I dont trust radioactive dating, and I think the Bible offers easily understandable theories for a lot of geology-related stuff (like fossil layers and distribution)

*edit* I also have to say that I do believe in microevolution. That aspect of the theory is obvious. I just have a problem accepting macroevolution.


There are a lot of points I'd like to elaborate on in this post, but I just want to ask you this: If you feel this way about the earth, what do you feel about astronomy? The universe? The possibility of other life out there?

[Alias]

There are a lot of points I'd like to elaborate on in this post, but I just want to ask you this: If you feel this way about the earth, what do you feel about astronomy? The universe? The possibility of other life out there?

I believe that the universe was also created by God along with the earth, and I have no doubt in my mind that there may be other life out there.

[Who Dayton]

I actually do believe the earth is only 6000 years old, but I have to admit that the only reason is that I believed the Bible first, and I have yet to hear any valid argument for the earth being older. I can't prove that it's only that old, but I haven't seen any reason to believe differently yet either.

Somebody said that the Himalayas are still rising due to the tectonic plates pressing together. I agree, but I believe that the plates are simply trying to regain their position after a global catastrophe (flood), not separating from pangaea over billions of years. Radioactive dating methods (the ones that are used to date fossils) seem to be flawed as well. A sample taken from the lava dome atop Mt. St. Helens 20 years after it erupted listed an age of 500,000 years. They used a method of measuring krypton to argon, so I know that isnt the same method used on bones (carbon14, I think).

As for carbon dating, I have read that it's claimed accuracy is only up to 30,000 years, and this is still assuming 3 things: 1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time. 2) That the isotopes in the thing being tested have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either isotope.
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of the resulting isotope.
That, in my mind, is a lot to assume. I've also read of living things (mollusks, i think) being tested with the C14 dating method, and being listed as over 20,000 years old.

All this is to say, I dont trust radioactive dating, and I think the Bible offers easily understandable theories for a lot of geology-related stuff (like fossil layers and distribution)

*edit* I also have to say that I do believe in microevolution. That aspect of the theory is obvious. I just have a problem accepting macroevolution.

So according to the 6000 year theory, the dinosaurs only lived 1000 years tops, if they were here at the dawn of the earth. And since you and anyone else can say, that is not the case...So only a few hundred years the dinos roamed the planet.

Given the times I stated in my post earlier, ancient Egyptians were around roughly 3124 B.C. Add that to todays year, and you get 5132 years. That give dinosaurs 868 years to live. Given that they were here when the earth was formed. The ancient Egyptians were not the first civilization documented. So that lessens the time alloted for dinos to be here.

I'm a Christian, and I believe more along the lines of the 40 thousand year span the earth has been here, as apposed by the billions of years by scientists. But you have to admit, only 6000 years seems a little short.

If you guy by the a day to us is like a thousand years to God, then it took 6000 years alone to create the world and all plant life and water and man. plus 5000 years of just the ancient Egyptians to now, is over 11,000. If you go by days, then its closer to 5900 years and 6 days. Giving the dinos less time than the average home to survive.

[Alias]

Im not convinced that mankind and dinosaurs didn't cohabitate. Honestly the fact that so many cultures have stories of massive dragons makes me think that there very well may have been big reptiles that were hunted as monsters. Job (guy/book in the Bible in case some dont know), which was written approximately between 2000 and 1800 BC (based on events recorded within the book), actually references several creatures that fit the description of different dinosaurs. I think the terms that most bibles use are "behemoth" and "leviathon." There are also references to "flying serpents" or "fiery flying serpents" in Isaiah. Parts of Isaiah were written in 700 and 681 BC, so that would mean that there would have still been, or at least would have still been memories of, what we would call dinosaurs up until at least 681 BC. Like I said though, I think there may have been some stragglers around up into the middle-ages,and I don't doubt that there could still be some ancient kinds of things in the oceans, and maybe even in dense, relatively unexplored jungles.

[Beaker]

Im not convinced that mankind and dinosaurs didn't cohabitate. Honestly the fact that so many cultures have stories of massive dragons makes me think that there very well may have been big reptiles that were hunted as monsters. Job (guy/book in the Bible in case some dont know), which was written approximately between 2000 and 1800 BC (based on events recorded within the book), actually references several creatures that fit the description of different dinosaurs. I think the terms that most bibles use are "behemoth" and "leviathon." There are also references to "flying serpents" or "fiery flying serpents" in Isaiah. Parts of Isaiah were written in 700 and 681 BC, so that would mean that there would have still been, or at least would have still been memories of, what we would call dinosaurs up until at least 681 BC. Like I said though, I think there may have been some stragglers around up into the middle-ages,and I don't doubt that there could still be some ancient kinds of things in the oceans, and maybe even in dense, relatively unexplored jungles.

The challenge for those who dont believe in evolution was to provide evidence for their theory. Do you have any hard evidence that the Earth is not billions of years old...other than what the bible says?

This thread was presenting the concept of geologic time as a prelude to learning more about evolution. I didnt feel it necessary to go into the actual physics of geologic time since it was presented merely to reinforce the concept that massive (almost incomprehensibly long) amounts of time have existed in which even major evolutionary changes could indeed have plenty of time to occur.

If the subject of radiometric dating continues to be debated as a sticking point, I may find it necessary to do a future thread explaining how it works and how it really is very reliable. Although I have wanted to try to stay away from fact overload in an effort to keep these threads easy to read and informational at the same time.

[Alias]

The challenge for those who dont believe in evolution was to provide evidence for their theory. Do you have any hard evidence that the Earth is not billions of years old...other than what the bible says?

This thread was presenting the concept of geologic time as a prelude to learning more about evolution. I didnt feel it necessary to go into the actual physics of geologic time since it was presented merely to reinforce the concept that massive (almost incomprehensibly long) amounts of time have existed in which even major evolutionary changes could indeed have plenty of time to occur.

If the subject of radiometric dating continues to be debated as a sticking point, I may find it necessary to do a future thread explaining how it works and how it really is very reliable. Although I have wanted to try to stay away from fact overload in an effort to keep these threads easy to read and informational at the same time.

Yeah I didn't really mean to go off topic too much, but I would appreciate the defense for radiometric dating, because I already posted most of my knowledge about it. I mostly just want to find the truth in all this. Evolution just has holes (at least to me, like with the dating) that I can't accept yet, and, as I said, I believed creation first, so I will continue to believe it until something is 100% proven otherwise.

*edit* I don't see how the point about the dating is completely off topic though. Isn't it kind of central to the idea of geologic time? I mean if the dating is inaccurate (which you say it isn't, I know) then we don't really know how much time we're dealing with.

[Beaker]

Evolution just has holes (at least to me, like with the dating) that I can't accept yet, and, as I said, I believed creation first, so I will continue to believe it until something is 100% proven otherwise.

Nothing in science is ever 100% proven...and never will be. Science is fluid and changes as new discoveries arise. That is the beauty of it. Facts accumulate into theories, theories accumulate into laws, but even laws are never 100% certain.

As far as holes, of course there are holes. You must think of scientific discoveries as a jigsaw puzzle with many missing pieces. Each new discovery is like another piece added to the puzzle. The more pieces that are added, the clearer and more apparent the picture in the puzzle becomes. If your sole basis for not considering evolution is missing pieces, I would submit to you that creationism has far more missing pieces than evlution does in the context of an explanation for how life proceeds.

[Alias]

Fair enough, and that is entirely possible. However, it still has fewer holes that I have personally come across.

[jamiethelanky]

Fair enough, and that is entirely possible. However, it still has fewer holes that I have personally come across.
OK...

Can I have some proof that animals may have just simply appeared. (Hole 1)

[Alias]

OK...

Can I have some proof that animals may have just simply appeared. (Hole 1)

I don't know about proof, honestly, but I would say that the Cambrian Explosion was actually the initial creation. Obviously that would call into question the existence of life (dinosaurs) prior to the explosion, but as I have said before, I have little faith in the radiometric (thanks Beaker, by the way, for correcting me on the label of it) dating.

Also, Beaker, I have found a site with a lot of evidences for a young earth. Would that be okay to link to, or would you rather me wait for a different thread topic?

*edit* Here's the link I was talking about. http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ It looks a lot longer than it is. Only 14 items with a lot of references listed.

[Beaker]

Also, Beaker, I have found a site with a lot of evidences for a young earth. Would that be okay to link to, or would you rather me wait for a different thread topic?

*edit* Here's the link I was talking about. http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ It looks a lot longer than it is. Only 14 items with a lot of references listed.

After reading, this link does not provide any evidence for a young Earth. It simply tries to discredit scientific evidence. This is a favorite misleading tactic that has been used for years. It is my opinion that this type of misdirection has been a primary reason there has been so much confusion by the general public on this topic.

There is a HUGE difference. You cant take someone else's evidence, try to poke holes in it, and say that since it has holes, then those holes are evidence for your proposal. In other words, it would be evidence for young earth if they were saying that the scientific evidence has holes, we've found alternative evidence that fills those holes, and here it is. But they dont have any alternative evidence. They are attempting to use holes as their evidence.

[Who Dayton]

So was my attempt at this discussion good or just that bad that it doesnt deserve a response? lol

[Alias]

So was my attempt at this discussion good or just that bad that it doesnt deserve a response? lol

I already responded to it, I think. But here is what I said in response to you:

Im not convinced that mankind and dinosaurs didn't cohabitate. Honestly the fact that so many cultures have stories of massive dragons makes me think that there very well may have been big reptiles that were hunted as monsters. Job (guy/book in the Bible in case some dont know), which was written approximately between 2000 and 1800 BC (based on events recorded within the book), actually references several creatures that fit the description of different dinosaurs. I think the terms that most bibles use are "behemoth" and "leviathon." There are also references to "flying serpents" or "fiery flying serpents" in Isaiah. Parts of Isaiah were written in 700 and 681 BC, so that would mean that there would have still been, or at least would have still been memories of, what we would call dinosaurs up until at least 681 BC. Like I said though, I think there may have been some stragglers around up into the middle-ages,and I don't doubt that there could still be some ancient kinds of things in the oceans, and maybe even in dense, relatively unexplored jungles.

[Beaker]

Yeah I didn't really mean to go off topic too much, but I would appreciate the defense for radiometric dating

A very basic post on radiometric dating:

Most atoms have isotopes. Those are atoms with a different number of neutrons. For example Carbon-12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Its isotope, Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Most isotopes are unstable, that is, they decay over time. It is this decay, or giving off particles over time that can be detected as radiation. This change occurs due to physics at a predictable rate.

For example, rradioactive uranium-238 changes into lead-206 as it decays. Scientists can determine the age of rocks by measuring and comparing the amount of the two elements in the rocks. Due to basic principles of physics, the decay rate is unaffected by physical and chemical conditions ordinarily found on Earth.

Here is a link that not only gives a basic overview of the process, but also addresses many misconceptions:

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

[Alias]

After reading, this link does not provide any evidence for a young Earth. It simply tries to discredit scientific evidence. This is a favorite misleading tactic that has been used for years. It is my opinion that this type of misdirection has been a primary reason there has been so much confusion by the general public on this topic.

There is a HUGE difference. You cant take someone else's evidence, try to poke holes in it, and say that since it has holes, then those holes are evidence for your proposal. In other words, it would be evidence for young earth if they were saying that the scientific evidence has holes, we've found alternative evidence that fills those holes, and here it is. But they dont have any alternative evidence. They are attempting to use holes as their evidence.

I actually have to disagree. There were times where the points essentially only said "the evolutionist timeline is impossible." But there were also times where points said that the data would support that the earth is a few thousand years old.

2. Too few supernova remnants.
Crab Nebula
Photo: Courtesy of NASA

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

for the sake of space, i'll just list the titles of the others that actually support the young earth idea rather than simply discrediting an old earth.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

less empirical, but logical:

13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.

[Who Dayton]

I already responded to it, I think. But here is what I said in response to you:

Im not convinced that mankind and dinosaurs didn't cohabitate. Honestly the fact that so many cultures have stories of massive dragons makes me think that there very well may have been big reptiles that were hunted as monsters. Job (guy/book in the Bible in case some dont know), which was written approximately between 2000 and 1800 BC (based on events recorded within the book), actually references several creatures that fit the description of different dinosaurs. I think the terms that most bibles use are "behemoth" and "leviathon." There are also references to "flying serpents" or "fiery flying serpents" in Isaiah. Parts of Isaiah were written in 700 and 681 BC, so that would mean that there would have still been, or at least would have still been memories of, what we would call dinosaurs up until at least 681 BC. Like I said though, I think there may have been some stragglers around up into the middle-ages,and I don't doubt that there could still be some ancient kinds of things in the oceans, and maybe even in dense, relatively unexplored jungles.

I know we already discussed briefly, but my question was aimed towards Beaker.

But in response to you, the more logical answer to the "fiery flying serpent", there is at Bakra a sort of serpent which they call Heie Sursurie, or Heie Thiare. They commonly stay up high in date trees; and as it would be laborious for them to come down from a very high tree in order to ascend another, they twist themselves by the tail to a branch of the former, which, making a spring, by the motion they give it, throw themselves to the second. Hence, it is what the Arabs call them, the flying serpents - Heie Thiare

Fiery, is what they called the bite of the serpent. The burning sensation you would feel, especially from a poisonous serpent, would feel like a hot poker on you.

[Alias]

A very basic post on radiometric dating:

Most atoms have isotopes. Those are atoms with a different number of neutrons. For example Carbon-12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Its isotope, Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Most isotopes are unstable, that is, they decay over time. It is this decay, or giving off particles over time that can be detected as radiation. This change occurs due to physics at a predictable rate.

For example, rradioactive uranium-238 changes into lead-206 as it decays. Scientists can determine the age of rocks by measuring and comparing the amount of the two elements in the rocks. Due to basic principles of physics, the decay rate is unaffected by physical and chemical conditions ordinarily found on Earth.

Here is a link that not only gives a basic overview of the process, but also addresses many misconceptions:

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

I knew that actually. Some of the charts in the link you provided me are exactly what is on some powerpoints from my earth science class. I remember that the isotopes have half-lifes which are the things that are used to determine age, right? Anyway, I'm in the process of reading it.

It seems like there are some presuppositions here that I can't ignore. Like, " Since the half-life of carbon-14 is less than 6,000 years, it can only be used for dating material less than about 45,000 years old. Dinosaur bones do not have carbon-14 (unless contaminated), as the dinosaurs became extinct over 60 million years ago." It's as if, because of the idea that dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years ago, any bones which do have carbon -14 are considered contaminated instead of possibly only being <6000 years old.

[Beaker]

I'm in the process of reading it.

After youre finished, Id like to know if you still have as much doubt as you did before about the validity of radiometric dating.

[philhos]

After youre finished, Id like to know if you still have as much doubt as you did before about the validity of radiometric dating.

I do have a question about it (for the record, I'm a Christian that believes the Earth to be millions of years old): How do we know it's accurate? Have they used that dating or carbon dating or whatever they use on something whose age can be easily verified? Like taking a sample of something created in 1950 and using the dating process to determine that it is indeed 58 years old?

I honestly want to know.

[Beaker]

I do have a question about it (for the record, I'm a Christian that believes the Earth to be millions of years old): How do we know it's accurate? Have they used that dating or carbon dating or whatever they use on something whose age can be easily verified? Like taking a sample of something created in 1950 and using the dating process to determine that it is indeed 58 years old?

I honestly want to know.

Phil,

Did you read this link? http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Im not being a smart arse. That link will answer many questions better than I ever could.

[Beaker]

Geologic time is not determined by radiometric data alone. And carbon dating isnt the only method of radiometric dating either. Currently over 40 different isotopes are used in radiometric dating.

[jamiethelanky]

I knew that actually. Some of the charts in the link you provided me are exactly what is on some powerpoints from my earth science class. I remember that the isotopes have half-lifes which are the things that are used to determine age, right? Anyway, I'm in the process of reading it.

It seems like there are some presuppositions here that I can't ignore. Like, " Since the half-life of carbon-14 is less than 6,000 years, it can only be used for dating material less than about 45,000 years old. Dinosaur bones do not have carbon-14 (unless contaminated), as the dinosaurs became extinct over 60 million years ago." It's as if, because of the idea that dinosaurs became extinct 60 million years ago, any bones which do have carbon -14 are considered contaminated instead of possibly only being <6000 years old.
Well, it's not like the ground is full of Carbon 14...

Oh hang on, it is.

[Alias]

Well, it's not like the ground is full of Carbon 14...

Oh hang on, it is.

Well, the ground that the fossils are found in would most likely be the same age as the fossil itself, or at least relatively close to the same age. If not, that kind of puts question marks on the method of dating called "biostratigraphy"

[Alias]

Im not convinced that mankind and dinosaurs didn't cohabitate. Honestly the fact that so many cultures have stories of massive dragons makes me think that there very well may have been big reptiles that were hunted as monsters. Job (guy/book in the Bible in case some dont know), which was written approximately between 2000 and 1800 BC (based on events recorded within the book), actually references several creatures that fit the description of different dinosaurs. I think the terms that most bibles use are "behemoth" and "leviathon." There are also references to "flying serpents" or "fiery flying serpents" in Isaiah. Parts of Isaiah were written in 700 and 681 BC, so that would mean that there would have still been, or at least would have still been memories of, what we would call dinosaurs up until at least 681 BC. Like I said though, I think there may have been some stragglers around up into the middle-ages,and I don't doubt that there could still be some ancient kinds of things in the oceans, and maybe even in dense, relatively unexplored jungles.

Here we go. I found the thing about Job.
"Dinosaurs and the Bible. Many are surprised to find that dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. Job chapter 40 gives us a good description of one of these animals.

The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born or soon after the Flood. Here God describes the greatest of land animals, an animal the Bible calls "behemoth," meaning "gigantic beast." This Biblical description clearly fits the description of a large saurapod such as Diplodocus or Apatosaurus. Note the following points mentioned there; the behemoth:

Was a large, grass eater
Had great muscles and extremely strong bones
Was not afraid of anything
Had a tail so large it was compared to a large cedar tree
Rests in marshes--flooding rivers do not alarm it
Cannot be trapped or domesticated

Before the wide-spread interest in the dinosaurs, early students of the Bible tried to identify the behemoth of Job based on contemporary experience. The best candidates were the elephant or hippopotamus, both of which fail the description--especially the tail test.

Other samples of how dinosaur facts can be used to honor the Creator include the presence of dinosaur fossils in hardened mud (sedimentary rocks) and the fact that fossil skeletons result from rapid burial (such as the Flood), not by slowly being covered by sediments over many years. Another area of interest to both children and adults is in the wide-spread tales of dinosaur-like creatures (so-called "dragons") preserved in the legends of many ancient cultures. There have even been occasional encounters with dinosaur-like creatures reported in modern times."

From http://www.icr.org/article/271/

Even if you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, and just made up by human beings, where would a person living in 2000 BC come up with that kind of a description of a dinosaur without actually seeing it? I see that as evidence that man and dinosaurs did cohabitate.

[Beaker]

Another area of interest to both children and adults is in the wide-spread tales of dinosaur-like creatures (so-called "dragons") preserved in the legends of many ancient cultures. There have even been occasional encounters with dinosaur-like creatures reported in modern times."

Even if you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, and just made up by human beings, where would a person living in 2000 BC come up with that kind of a description of a dinosaur without actually seeing it? I see that as evidence that man and dinosaurs did cohabitate.

Gee, I read a book about fairies, goblins and gremlins. I read another one about an ancient greek guy who saw three headed dogs guarding the gates of **** and a lady with live snakes for hair. I guess that means they must exist. How could someone have written about them without actually seeing them?

[Alias]

Gee, I read a book about fairies, goblins and gremlins. I read another one about an ancient greek guy who saw three headed dogs guarding the gates of **** and a lady with live snakes for hair. I guess that means they must exist. How could someone have written about them without actually seeing them?

lol I didn't say that. I'm saying he accurately described something that we know existed.

[Dill]

Even if you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, and just made up by human beings, where would a person living in 2000 BC come up with that kind of a description of a dinosaur without actually seeing it? I see that as evidence that man and dinosaurs did cohabitate.

Why are you assuming it was a dinosaur? That description sounds pretty vague to me.

And if people could not "describe" things they have never seen, we couldn't have science fiction movies and novels. We wouldn't have Greek mythology (among others), with Gorgons and Hecatonchires and Pegasus, or the Sphinx.

So how can you be sure the author of a text thousands of years old and passed through many interpolating scribes was describing something he actually saw? And can't the passage about behemoth have even been added long after the first or kernel version of the text was written?

[busamboy]

Here we go. I found the thing about Job.
"Dinosaurs and the Bible. Many are surprised to find that dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. Job chapter 40 gives us a good description of one of these animals.

The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born or soon after the Flood. Here God describes the greatest of land animals, an animal the Bible calls "behemoth," meaning "gigantic beast." This Biblical description clearly fits the description of a large saurapod such as Diplodocus or Apatosaurus. Note the following points mentioned there; the behemoth:

Was a large, grass eater
Had great muscles and extremely strong bones
Was not afraid of anything
Had a tail so large it was compared to a large cedar tree
Rests in marshes--flooding rivers do not alarm it
Cannot be trapped or domesticated

Before the wide-spread interest in the dinosaurs, early students of the Bible tried to identify the behemoth of Job based on contemporary experience. The best candidates were the elephant or hippopotamus, both of which fail the description--especially the tail test.

Other samples of how dinosaur facts can be used to honor the Creator include the presence of dinosaur fossils in hardened mud (sedimentary rocks) and the fact that fossil skeletons result from rapid burial (such as the Flood), not by slowly being covered by sediments over many years. Another area of interest to both children and adults is in the wide-spread tales of dinosaur-like creatures (so-called "dragons") preserved in the legends of many ancient cultures. There have even been occasional encounters with dinosaur-like creatures reported in modern times."

From http://www.icr.org/article/271/

Even if you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, and just made up by human beings, where would a person living in 2000 BC come up with that kind of a description of a dinosaur without actually seeing it? I see that as evidence that man and dinosaurs did cohabitate.

This is another example of a great post to argue the other side, yet so many tear it down really quick. Honestly, I think you are doing a fine job proving your side and why you believe what you believe. I am not on either side as I don't know all the facts. For a long time I did believe in evolution, but that is just because that is what I was taught and that was what was mainstream. I have come to find out that I want to learn everything myself and come up with my own opinion. Like for instance, I know how much the military taking part in other peoples business around the word *****. We are creating problems instead of rectifying them. I know this because I have been to these places and have learned what I can about everything and then come to my own opinion. I don't want to be manipulated anymore by the media or anything.

Anyway, thanks for your input on this subject. You are showing me where to start looking for argumentative things against evolution.

[Alias]

Why are you assuming it was a dinosaur? That description sounds pretty vague to me.

And if people could not "describe" things they have never seen, we couldn't have science fiction movies and novels. We wouldn't have Greek mythology (among others), with Gorgons and Hecatonchires and Pegasus, or the Sphinx.

So how can you be sure the author of a text thousands of years old and passed through many interpolating scribes was describing something he actually saw? And can't the passage about behemoth have even been added long after the first or kernel version of the text was written?

No, you're right that the description is pretty vague, but no other animal that we know of measures up to it. People have tried to say it's the elephant or hippopotamus, but those fail to measure up to the description exactly. The Apatosaurus and Diplodocus are just known (at least believed) to have spent time in marshes and had tails that could easily have been as thick as trees. I suppose it is possible that the author was making up an animal and just got lucky that one existed historically, but I think that is far less likely, especially since the rest of the animals and natural occurrences listed in those passages were (and are) very real.

As for the "interpolating scribes," that is a very big assumption, but I can't really (for the sake of keeping this thread on topic) go into details about the validity and accuracy of the biblical texts. I am in the process of getting a bible minor, and I had a class that touched on that stuff, but I couldn't recite it to you without looking at those notes again. In brief defense, we have thousands (I think maybe even in tens of thousands) of very old manuscripts for the various books of the Bible, and the group of people that copied a lot of them (i think their name began with an M, but dont quote me on it) were known for their meticulously accurate scribes. I'm saying the poor scribe would make one error and have the entire parchment discarded.
I don't quite understand how "And can't the passage about behemoth have even been added long after the first or kernel version of the text was written?" makes any difference whatsoever. Even if it was added long afterwards (which I am pretty certain it wasn't), that would only support my belief that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, unless it was added to in the 1800's. At least it is my understanding that the 1800's were when we first discovered dino bones.

[Alias]

This is another example of a great post to argue the other side, yet so many tear it down really quick. Honestly, I think you are doing a fine job proving your side and why you believe what you believe. I am not on either side as I don't know all the facts. For a long time I did believe in evolution, but that is just because that is what I was taught and that was what was mainstream. I have come to find out that I want to learn everything myself and come up with my own opinion. Like for instance, I know how much the military taking part in other peoples business around the word *****. We are creating problems instead of rectifying them. I know this because I have been to these places and have learned what I can about everything and then come to my own opinion. I don't want to be manipulated anymore by the media or anything.

Anyway, thanks for your input on this subject. You are showing me where to start looking for argumentative things against evolution.

Thanks. It's good to know that there are other people who don't just unquestioningly take what is spoon-fed to them. (Not saying all you who believe in evolution do that either. Beaker has obviously put a lot of thought into the matter).

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

lol I didn't say that. I'm saying he accurately described something that we know existed.

I understand what you're saying, however one could argue that just because it is referred to as a behemoth also doesn't mean that they're referring to a dino. Humans have coexisted with many animals in our history that no longer exist. We also coexist with an animal today that could fit that description...An 18ft aligator...with the exception of being a grass eater of course

[Alias]

I understand what you're saying, however one could argue that just because it is referred to as a behemoth also doesn't mean that they're referring to a dino. Humans have coexisted with many animals in our history that no longer exist. We also coexist with an animal today that could fit that description...An 18ft aligator

I thought that too, actually, but alligators don't eat grass lol. However, I can accept that it may have been a different animal he was describing, but I think the two I mentioned fit the description pretty perfectly. I think you would have to want to disbelieve it to think otherwise.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

I thought that too, actually, but alligators don't eat grass lol. However, I can accept that it may have been a different animal he was describing, but I think the two I mentioned fit the description pretty perfectly. I think you would have to want to disbelieve it to think otherwise.

Yeah I edited my post about the grass part. However my point really is that we've coexisted with many animals that no longer exist. Maybe we have yet to discover the remains of the animal being described. Also I'm not able to say that we didn't coexist with dino's simply because I don't know. One could argue that we still do with the aligator, as I've been told they were around when befor dino's supposedly went extinct may. Who knows maybe they didn't go extint, and just evolved into new species such as birds (which are also closesly related to dino's.)

[Alias]

Yeah I edited my post about the grass part. However my point really is that we've coexisted with many animals that no longer exist. Maybe we have yet to discover the remains of the animal being described. Also I'm not able to say that we didn't coexist with dino's simply because I don't know. One could argue that we still do with the aligator, as I've been told they were around when befor dino's supposedly went extinct may. Who knows maybe they didn't go extint, and just evolved into new species such as birds (which are also closesly related to dino's.)

That is a valid point, but I have to go with what is a most likely scenario, and at the moment, I have no reason to believe that Job couldn't have been describing one of those two dinosaurs. As a result of that, I have no reason to believe that we didn't coexist with them, which would mean that the belief that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago would be incorrect. This would then lead to the possibility that some of the bones that we find could be dated via the carbon-14 method (not just tossed aside as "contaminated" if there is carbon found in them as they are now). Then that would obviously call the other dating methods into question.

Most theory that is based in evolution assumes that these dating methods are correct and alters interpretation of data to incorporate that age. If the dating is incorrect (which I believe is the case) then the entire theory needs to be tweaked as it (in it's current state) would be disproven.

I'm not so much trying to prove you wrong with this as much as I am trying to explain my thought process.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

That is a valid point, but I have to go with what is a most likely scenario, and at the moment, I have no reason to believe that Job couldn't have been describing one of those two dinosaurs. As a result of that, I have no reason to believe that we didn't coexist with them, which would mean that the belief that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago would be incorrect. This would then lead to the possibility that some of the bones that we find could be dated via the carbon-14 method (not just tossed aside as "contaminated" if there is carbon found in them as they are now). Then that would obviously call the other dating methods into question.

Most theory that is based in evolution assumes that these dating methods are correct and alters interpretation of data to incorporate that age. If the dating is incorrect (which I believe is the case) then the entire theory needs to be tweaked as it (in it's current state) would be disproven.

Also valid points, however as I've said before evolution is a theory and as we gain more info the theory is and will be "tweaked". Such as better methods of dating and more discoveries. But I believe the theory itself is sound.

Gotta go now, rep to you for a good debate though. Later.

[busamboy]

Not that this has anything to do with this subject specifically, it does talk about creation and evolution. I don't know who this guy is, but he has some valid points for both sides.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f96_1186820375

[Alias]

Not that this has anything to do with this subject specifically, it does talk about creation and evolution. I don't know who this guy is, but he has some valid points for both sides.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f96_1186820375

Thanks for this. He kind of echoes my own thoughts there at times.

[busamboy]

Since this has a little bit to with geologic time, I found this one. Has to do with dinosaur bones and why they are not only 3000 years old. He makes a funny joke in here too. Check it out.

The speakers name is Richard Dawson.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09f_1182375190

[Alias]

Since this has a little bit to with geologic time, I found this one. Has to do with dinosaur bones and why they are not only 3000 years old. He makes a funny joke in here too. Check it out.

The speakers name is Richard Dawson.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09f_1182375190

While funny, this guy immediately assumes that creationists are incorrect (which I don't think is a good assumption), and aggressively attacks the credibility of the university with no real backing to his statements. Like saying "since the world is billions of years old, the creationists are making an error that is the equivalent of saying that the distance between california and new york is 28 feet." That was obviously a paraphrase lol. Radiometric dating is far from an exact science. For instance, there was a test to date the lava dome atop mount st. helens 20 years after it erupted. The scientists used a method of *something* to Argon dating (i think it was krypton, but i cant remember exactly). Anyway, the resulting age of the 20 year old lava dome was 500,000 years. Now if this error is normal (which i cant assume it is, I know) then a 6000 year old rock would be listed at an age of 150,000,000 years.

Anyway, the point of this experiment was to show that excessive heat could speed up the process of decay.

[Beaker]

While funny, this guy immediately assumes that creationists are incorrect (which I don't think is a good assumption), and aggressively attacks the credibility of the university with no real backing to his statements. Like saying "since the world is billions of years old, the creationists are making an error that is the equivalent of saying that the distance between california and new york is 28 feet." That was obviously a paraphrase lol. Radiometric dating is far from an exact science. For instance, there was a test to date the lava dome atop mount st. helens 20 years after it erupted. The scientists used a method of *something* to Argon dating (i think it was krypton, but i cant remember exactly). Anyway, the resulting age of the 20 year old lava dome was 500,000 years. Now if this error is normal (which i cant assume it is, I know) then a 6000 year old rock would be listed at an age of 150,000,000 years.

Anyway, the point of this experiment was to show that excessive heat could speed up the process of decay.

Where do you think the lava rock from the lava dome came from? You think it was created on the surface 20 yrs ago? No. The lava came to the surface from miles underground and cooled into rock. You think the lava from miles underground was 20 yr old lava? Heck no, it was very old rock that had be re-melted into magma underground and eventually came back to the surface.

[Alias]

Where do you think the lava rock from the lava dome came from? You think it was created on the surface 20 yrs ago? No. The lava came to the surface from miles underground and cooled into rock. You think the lava from miles underground was 20 yr old lava? Heck no, it was very old rock that had be re-melted into magma underground and eventually came back to the surface.

That is entirely possible. However, wouldn't that thought kind of hurt the idea that layers of rock that sit on top of others are younger than the ones below?

[busamboy]

That is a valid point, but I have to go with what is a most likely scenario, and at the moment, I have no reason to believe that Job couldn't have been describing one of those two dinosaurs. As a result of that, I have no reason to believe that we didn't coexist with them, which would mean that the belief that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago would be incorrect. This would then lead to the possibility that some of the bones that we find could be dated via the carbon-14 method (not just tossed aside as "contaminated" if there is carbon found in them as they are now). Then that would obviously call the other dating methods into question.

Most theory that is based in evolution assumes that these dating methods are correct and alters interpretation of data to incorporate that age. If the dating is incorrect (which I believe is the case) then the entire theory needs to be tweaked as it (in it's current state) would be disproven.

I'm not so much trying to prove you wrong with this as much as I am trying to explain my thought process.

I'm just going to quote your last one here. All this talk about the dinosaur. Imagine a human without much knowledge seeing the bones of this animal. Wouldn't it be the craziest most profound thing they have ever seen. That is how we theorize that the legend of the titans came about. It makes sense too. Just because that animal was described doesn't mean that it couldn't be done from the bones. They would have brought in the so called experts of the day and they could have looked at the teeth and decided by looking at other animals teeth that this is a grazer. And for seeing the first bones of an animal that big, it would actually make sense that it would be in the bible to me as it would have been one of the most profound things the human eyes had seen in that time and they would have tried to make sense of it. Some even made a religion out of these huge bones, so it is not completely out of the realm of possibility.

I am not attacking your point of view, I am just adding in a grey area of your argument. Maybe this argument will even help your side, I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility of why the bible is able to describe this animal greatly with very vague wording. (the vague words would make sense if all they had to look at was the bones as they would not have been able to tell much except for what was right in front of them)

[Beaker]

That is entirely possible. However, wouldn't that thought kind of hurt the idea that layers of rock that sit on top of others are younger than the ones below?

Do you remember your earth science at all? The layers youre talking about are the Earth's crust. Magma comes from down in the mantle...the layer below the crust. Thats where the molten rock is....the crust is solid. There are even convection cells in the mantle that help move the crustal plates during continental drift.

[Alias]

Do you remember your earth science at all? The layers youre talking about are the Earth's crust. Magma comes from down in the mantle...the layer below the crust. Thats where the molten rock is....the crust is solid. There are even convection cells in the mantle that help move the crustal plates during continental drift.

No I understand that. I was more thinking when lava cools over top of rock on the crust. Wouldn't the cooled lava technically be older than the layer below it?

[Beaker]

The scientists used a method of *something* to Argon dating (i think it was krypton, but i cant remember exactly). Anyway, the resulting age of the 20 year old lava dome was 500,000 years.

No I understand that. I was more thinking when lava cools over top of rock on the crust. Wouldn't the cooled lava technically be older than the layer below it?

Yes...and that what you said in your post (see above). Thats how you get older rock on top of younger. There are plenty of other ways to get abnormalities in the rock layers. Like when plates collide and cause crust to fold over on top of itself, etc. My point was that the radiometric dating said the lava was 500,00yrs old because it was that old....not 20 yrs old. The dome simply formed 20 yrs ago, the rock it was made of was older.

[Domata Dominance]

Yes...and that what you said in your post (see above). Thats how you get older rock on top of younger. There are plenty of other ways to get abnormalities in the rock layers. Like when plates collide and cause crust to fold over on top of itself, etc. My point was that the radiometric dating said the lava was 500,00yrs old because it was that old....not 20 yrs old. The dome simply formed 20 yrs ago, the rock it was made of was older.

I'm sorry, but those dating systems are corrupted by evolutionists. As an experiment, a volcanic rock from mount st. Helens was brought to a lab and tested. Of course, the guy who brought the rock knew where it was from, and that mt. st. Helens had erupted recently. The "scientists" examined the rock and concluded that it was millions of years old.

My point is not that they intentionally lie, but they make faulty assumptions because their science is based on evolution being a proven FACT. They see the world through darwin's glasses and not how it really is.

[Alias]

I'm sorry, but those dating systems are corrupted by evolutionists. As an experiment, a volcanic rock from mount st. Helens was brought to a lab and tested. Of course, the guy who brought the rock knew where it was from, and that mt. st. Helens had erupted recently. The "scientists" examined the rock and concluded that it was millions of years old.

My point is not that they intentionally lie, but they make faulty assumptions because their science is based on evolution being a proven FACT. They see the world through darwin's glasses and not how it really is.

That's more my beef with it too, honestly. I tried to say it in an earlier post when I read that when carbon 14 is found in bones of fossils that are assumed to be millions of years old, they're tossed aside and believed contaminated.

[Alias]

Yes...and that what you said in your post (see above). Thats how you get older rock on top of younger. There are plenty of other ways to get abnormalities in the rock layers. Like when plates collide and cause crust to fold over on top of itself, etc. My point was that the radiometric dating said the lava was 500,00yrs old because it was that old....not 20 yrs old. The dome simply formed 20 yrs ago, the rock it was made of was older.

I know that's what you meant, and I agreed that it was entirely possible. My posts after that were just questions.

[kjb034]

I'm sorry, but those dating systems are corrupted by evolutionists. As an experiment, a volcanic rock from mount st. Helens was brought to a lab and tested. Of course, the guy who brought the rock knew where it was from, and that mt. st. Helens had erupted recently. The "scientists" examined the rock and concluded that it was millions of years old.

My point is not that they intentionally lie, but they make faulty assumptions because their science is based on evolution being a proven FACT. They see the world through darwin's glasses and not how it really is.
It's quite ironic of you to say that science makes assumptions and fits the data to their expectations. What does religion do?

What about Einstein's theory of special and general relativity? Quantum mechanics? Those discoveries flied in the face of everything we knew back then, but the data didn't lie and the scientists didn't try to ignore it. The same goes with evolution.

[Stewy]

That's more my beef with it too, honestly. I tried to say it in an earlier post when I read that when carbon 14 is found in bones of fossils that are assumed to be millions of years old, they're tossed aside and believed contaminated.

You know how fossilization works right? Minerals replace BONE and soft tissue material with things like quartz and calcite. Flesh becomes rock. It's the definition of a fossil. Thus there is no Carbon left. If there is no Carbon left then how are you going to date it.

Additionally, the half-life of Carbon 14 is only 5k years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 ). So even if there were some biologic material left in a fossil it would have a maximum radioactive date of 5k years.

Different elements have different half-lives. This is proven and documented by more than evolutionists. Did you even read the article Beaker quoted? Documented and proven. So it isn't logical to use the C14 tool on an item that old. All the carbon will have DECAYED. The only way to directly date something through Radioactive Dating is for the organic material to have been replaced by materials with radioactive elements with a long half-life. But this almost never happens since Quartz is the most common replacement in fossils and Quartz hs no other radioactive minerals in it.

However what is commonly done is for the rock the fossil is in, above or below to be dated since the rocks themselves usually have minerals with radioactive elements. Example Apatite Fission Track Analysis ( http://www.geotrack.com.au/afta-overview.htm ) is a common method used to date sandstones which were laid down and stayed cool for a long time. Argon/Argon Dating is another common method ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating ).

[busamboy]

You know how fossilization works right? Minerals replace BONE and soft tissue material with things like quartz and calcite. Flesh becomes rock. It's the definition of a fossil. Thus there is no Carbon left. If there is no Carbon left then how are you going to date it.

Additionally, the half-life of Carbon 14 is only 5k years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 ). So even if there were some biologic material left in a fossil it would have a maximum radioactive date of 5k years.

Different elements have different half-lives. This is proven and documented by more than evolutionists. Did you even read the article Beaker quoted? Documented and proven. So it isn't logical to use the C14 tool on an item that old. All the carbon will have DECAYED. The only way to directly date something through Radioactive Dating is for the organic material to have been replaced by materials with radioactive elements with a long half-life. But this almost never happens since Quartz is the most common replacement in fossils and Quartz hs no other radioactive minerals in it.

However what is commonly done is for the rock the fossil is in, above or below to be dated since the rocks themselves usually have minerals with radioactive elements. Example Apatite Fission Track Analysis ( http://www.geotrack.com.au/afta-overview.htm ) is a common method used to date sandstones which were laid down and stayed cool for a long time. Argon/Argon Dating is another common method ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating ).

the interesting thing though is that they are finding soft tissue that is actually still flexible after being treated with a certain solution. I don't know exactly what it is or what it all means, but it sure is interesting that we can look at blood cells and soft tissue that should have no business still being there (i think)

[Stewy]

the interesting thing though is that they are finding soft tissue that is actually still flexible after being treated with a certain solution. I don't know exactly what it is or what it all means, but it sure is interesting that we can look at blood cells and soft tissue that should have no business still being there (i think)

Ok this is a big de-rail, but....

Yeah I saw something on on Discover channel on that. It's ok to not know what it means or what to think about it. This is a very new development and conclusions are still being ascertained.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html - T. Rex soft tissue discovered
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html - Dino's are like chickens

What it means to me is the following:
#1 - If it truly is original soft tissue all I can say is WOW.
#2 - Why didn't we know this before? The method for dissovling the rock and preserving the soft materials is new. Scientific methods are discovered and evolve every day. God bless science.
#3 - Still won't be able to date it. C14 decay happens regardless of fossilization.
#4 - Caution: Note that this is one instance - one fossil type - this needs to be done more times to draw viable conclusions

[busamboy]

Ok this is a big de-rail, but....

Yeah I saw something on on Discover channel on that. It's ok to not know what it means or what to think about it. This is a very new development and conclusions are still being ascertained.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html - T. Rex soft tissue discovered
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html - Dino's are like chickens

What it means to me is the following:
#1 - If it truly is original soft tissue all I can say is WOW.
#2 - Why didn't we know this before? The method for dissovling the rock and preserving the soft materials is new. Scientific methods are discovered and evolve every day. God bless science.
#3 - Still won't be able to date it. C14 decay happens regardless of fossilization.
#4 - Caution: Note that this is one instance - one fossil type - this needs to be done more times to draw viable conclusions

Again, I didn't mean to make you feel like I was speaking directly towards you, I was using your post and adding to it just because it follows the same thing you are talking about. So instead of typing a whole bunch of crap all over again, I just add to it and quote what you wrote so that the person reading will have a generalization about what my post will be about. That post was for everybody, not directed towards you.

[Beaker]

I'm sorry, but those dating systems are corrupted by evolutionists. As an experiment, a volcanic rock from mount st. Helens was brought to a lab and tested. Of course, the guy who brought the rock knew where it was from, and that mt. st. Helens had erupted recently. The "scientists" examined the rock and concluded that it was millions of years old.

Thats because the rock WAS that old. The magma came from deep within the mantle when St Helen's erupted, and cooled into rock. Therefore the material that composed the rock was older than the date of the eruption. Whats so hard to understand there?

[busamboy]

Thats because the rock WAS that old. The magma came from deep within the mantle when St Helen's erupted, and cooled into rock. Therefore the material that composed the rock was older than the date of the eruption. Whats so hard to understand there?

It is kind of a crazy concept, i don't know much about it at all. I just find it interesting that scientists can still date the rock after it has been put through that much heat and stuff.

[Domata Dominance]

Thats because the rock WAS that old. The magma came from deep within the mantle when St Helen's erupted, and cooled into rock. Therefore the material that composed the rock was older than the date of the eruption. Whats so hard to understand there?

by that logic, everything is the same age. All matter is at least as old as the earth, so how do we get some that are "younger" than others?

As for that rock, it was LAVA that means it completely melted in the eruption and then hardened. The melting would have completely rearranged all the particles, essentially forming a new rock.

[Beaker]

The melting would have completely rearranged all the particles, essentially forming a new rock.
Yet the particles, even though re-arranged, wouldnt have gotten any younger.

[Domata Dominance]

Yet the particles, even though re-arranged, wouldnt have gotten any younger.

then the dating system is pointless. Everything is the same age.

[Beaker]

then the dating system is pointless. Everything is the same age.

If thats the leap you make then debating it with you is also pointless.

[kjb034]

then the dating system is pointless. Everything is the same age.
I think it would be correct to say that all matter/energy is the same age and it is the age of the universe. But the 'age' that is referred to in the dating system is how long the matter has been in the form of certain elements, at least I think. I'm certainly not an expert, but from what I understand, all matter/energy was in a plasma-like state because it was too hot at the time of the big bang for matter to clump together. As the universe expanded, it cooled down and formed mostly hydrogen (the simplest element). The hydrogen atoms clumped together and formed stars, which fused hydrogen atoms together to form helium and other heavier elements. These elements were blown off into space when the stars exploded in supernovae and formed planets around other stars. So, the age of the rocks on these planets would be the amount of time since the iron and such were formed in the star.

I know I have strayed pretty far off topic, but hopefully that helps.

[Domata Dominance]

BTW, I'm pretty sure they were trying to measure the date of the eruption, not the substance itself. Not sure though. I'll look for a link to the article.

[Domata Dominance]

I found the link

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

[Danno]

I found the link

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

Well,
The method they used to test, Potassium - Argon dating apparently has a known flaws.
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geol/labs/Argon_Lab/Methods/Methods.html#KArprob

Also, I am not sure what it is, but I am just having trouble trusting the findings on the site... :nervous: It's the combination of rather informal writing style and 1990 style webpage. Neither mean anything, but its just a general feeling.

Like they say, appearances matter!

[Alias]

You know how fossilization works right? Minerals replace BONE and soft tissue material with things like quartz and calcite. Flesh becomes rock. It's the definition of a fossil. Thus there is no Carbon left. If there is no Carbon left then how are you going to date it.

Additionally, the half-life of Carbon 14 is only 5k years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 ). So even if there were some biologic material left in a fossil it would have a maximum radioactive date of 5k years.

Different elements have different half-lives. This is proven and documented by more than evolutionists. Did you even read the article Beaker quoted? Documented and proven. So it isn't logical to use the C14 tool on an item that old. All the carbon will have DECAYED. The only way to directly date something through Radioactive Dating is for the organic material to have been replaced by materials with radioactive elements with a long half-life. But this almost never happens since Quartz is the most common replacement in fossils and Quartz hs no other radioactive minerals in it.

However what is commonly done is for the rock the fossil is in, above or below to be dated since the rocks themselves usually have minerals with radioactive elements. Example Apatite Fission Track Analysis ( http://www.geotrack.com.au/afta-overview.htm ) is a common method used to date sandstones which were laid down and stayed cool for a long time. Argon/Argon Dating is another common method ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating ).

That part I bolded is a problem in my eyes. You're assuming the fossil is old, and discarding any potential support for it being otherwise based on that assumption. I know there are fossils that have C14 in them because people say "they've been contaminated." I know about half-lives :).

[Beaker]

Time for these threads to come back. Please notice they arent in P&R for a reason. But with the numerous evolution threads re-popping up, the same lame argumments are occurring.