Christian Forums

Quote from: KiwiChristian on Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 20:29:36
prove it.

https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/


https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/


http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ancient-life-hydrothermal-20170301-story.html

Quote from: Alan on Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 21:18:14

https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/


https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/


http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ancient-life-hydrothermal-20170301-story.html

I would say these are proof for why you believe what you do, but not proof of the earth.  Scientific American has the most honest reply in the phrase "current understanding."

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 21:26:55
I would say these are proof for why you believe what you do, but not proof of the earth.  Scientific American has the most honest reply in the phrase "current understanding."

I like Scientific America, despite being a canuck. 

QuoteJust don't call it fact.  There is a difference between a theory with strong evidence and a fact.

It's directly observed to happen.  So you can't do better than that.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Dec 11, 2017 - 21:18:14

https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/


https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-do-we-know-earth-46-billion-years-old-180951483/


http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ancient-life-hydrothermal-20170301-story.html

i can post weblinks, too, but lets have a conversation.

please give me ONE piece of evidence and lets discuss it.

notice how he refuses to discuss anything, but instead just post links.

i could also post plenty of links, but he will say they are not legit or not real science, etc. without even looking at it.

ONE evidence for the earth not being very old are the existence of polystrata fossils.

These are whole fossilized trees crossing several rock strata and  are preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their "in place" growth and fossilisation.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 00:04:17
It's directly observed to happen.  So you can't do better than that.

Evolution has never ever been observed.

QuoteEvolution has never ever been observed.

Of course it has.  Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact.   We've even directly observed speciation.   Would you like to see some examples?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 07:22:22
Of course it has.  Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact.   We've even directly observed speciation.   Would you like to see some examples?

Sure.

Quote from: KiwiChristian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 02:20:07
notice how he refuses to discuss anything, but instead just post links.

i could also post plenty of links, but he will say they are not legit or not real science, etc. without even looking at it.

I must have forgot that you don't like to read. Are you a scientist that has all of this knowledge stored in your head ready to reiterate here in text?  If not, where do you get your information?

Alan writes:

QuoteAre you a scientist that has all of this knowledge stored in your head ready to reiterate here in text?  If not, where do you get your information?

No one can hope to be fully up-to-date on science these days.   At best, a scientist out of his speciality knows enough of the basics to know what to look for to find out.

Barbarian asks:
Of course it has.  Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact.   We've even directly observed speciation.   Would you like to see some examples?

QuoteSure.

The first one directly observed was O. gigas from O. lamarckana (species of primrose) from a polyploidy event.   DeVries noted the new species was fertile, but completely unable to reproduce with the original species.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-5533.html

Drosophila miranda, a new species of fly which was again reproductively isolated from the species from which it came.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208619/

Both the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis admit the fact of speciation.   Why is this so important?   It's important because reproductive isolation means the two populations will continue to diverge over time.  The ICR has endorsed the idea that new species, genera, and families can evolve.   But, they say, that's the limit.   The problem is that the line separating families usually has lots of transitional forms that make it impossible to clearly define them.  So it's  slippery slope.  They'd rather just deny speciation, but it happens often enough that there's no point in denying it.  Once you open the door to speciation, there's no way to set up a wall to further evolution.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 11:10:38
Barbarian asks:
Of course it has.  Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact.   We've even directly observed speciation.   Would you like to see some examples?

The first one directly observed was O. gigas from O. lamarckana (species of primrose) from a polyploidy event.   DeVries noted the new species was fertile, but completely unable to reproduce with the original species.
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-5533.html

Drosophila miranda, a new species of fly which was again reproductively isolated from the species from which it came.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208619/

Both the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis admit the fact of speciation.   Why is this so important?   It's important because reproductive isolation means the two populations will continue to diverge over time.  The ICR has endorsed the idea that new species, genera, and families can evolve.   But, they say, that's the limit.   The problem is that the line separating families usually has lots of transitional forms that make it impossible to clearly define them.  So it's  slippery slope.  They'd rather just deny speciation, but it happens often enough that there's no point in denying it.  Once you open the door to speciation, there's no way to set up a wall to further evolution.

None of these examples are proof of evolution.
Most of them are artificially created which could only be accomplished by external intelligence.
In case where asexuality occurred, it has been proven that this in fact is a showcase of devolution and the "species" had little chance of survival.

Furthermore, where natural variations were found, it is impossible to establish if these variations or ability to vary, is not an inherent quality of the species itself.

Finally of course, the fly still remained to be a fly, the flower continued to be a flower, the fern remained to be a fern etc.

As I said: Evolution has never ever been observed.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 11:10:38
Barbarian asks:
Of course it has.  Many creationist organizations even admit that evolution of new species is a fact.   We've even directly observed speciation.   Would you like to see some examples?

Oh, changes WITHIN a kind DO happen. That is not the issue.

QuoteNone of these examples are proof of evolution.

Directly observed.  Can't do better than that.

QuoteMost of them are artificially created which could only be accomplished by external intelligence.

Nope.  None of these were.

QuoteIn case where asexuality occurred, it has been proven that this in fact is a showcase of devolution and the "species" had little chance of survival.

That would be pretty weird, given the reproductive success of whiptail lizards and other asexually-reproducing reptiles.

QuoteFurthermore, where natural variations were found, it is impossible to establish if these variations or ability to vary, is not an inherent quality of the species itself.

The ability to evolve is an inherent ability in all living things on Earth.   It's built into DNA.

QuoteFinally of course, the fly still remained to be a fly

Which is like saying if a lemur-like organism gave rise to humans, the primate still remained a primate.   True, but obviously evolved to something quite different.

QuoteAs I said: Evolution has never ever been observed.

And now you know better.

QuoteOh, changes WITHIN a kind DO happen. That is not the issue.

The problem is in defining "kind."   Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define.   Let's try primates.   How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?

And give us your evidence for your belief.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:45:26
The problem is in defining "kind."   Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define.   Let's try primates.   How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?

And give us your evidence for your belief.

Ahh, back to your old tricks, my friend.

This is one area where scientists SHOULD get together and examine. What IS a "kind".

Of course, the evolutionist will tailor their definition to fit-in with their pre-conceived ideas and false presuppositions.

And, maybe to a similar extent a creationist may do the same.

I would say the Bible indicates a "kind" is an animal that can ( or rather "could originally" ) reproduce.

Also, i would say that ANY 6 six old, when shown a picture of a cat, tiger, dog and lion would say that the odd one out is the dog.

Now, i dont think you WILL, but how about giving us YOUR definition of "kind", please?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:42:59
Directly observed.  Can't do better than that.

Nope.  None of these were.

That would be pretty weird, given the reproductive success of whiptail lizards and other asexually-reproducing reptiles.

The ability to evolve is an inherent ability in all living things on Earth.   It's built into DNA.

Which is like saying if a lemur-like organism gave rise to humans, the primate still remained a primate.   True, but obviously evolved to something quite different.

And now you know better.

Has anyone seen a dog produce a non-dog?

Or an ape produce a non-ape?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:42:59
Nope.  None of these were.

See, now that's simply not true.
Take only this example from the link you provided:

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

First of all it was a human agent who interfered and artificially enforced crossing the two plants. And he ended up with a sterile hybrid.
Now sterile can mean two things; either it is sterile in the sense that it cannot reproduce...which of course already shows it is not evolution; or it was sterile meaning uncontaminated...which can only be produced in laboratory conditions.

Anyway, the result as rather "unfortunate" as the new plant ended up being something unpreferred. Again that does not show evolution at all.

All the other examples are just variations of the above, and where different species were found in nature, it can simply not been proven they weren't there all along.

Once again, evolution has never ever been observed.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Wed Dec 13, 2017 - 14:45:26The problem is in defining "kind."   

The real problem it seems is defining evolution. 
That seems rather apparent from Kiwi's question:

Quote from: KiwiChristian on Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 00:08:28
Has anyone seen a dog produce a non-dog?

Or an ape produce a non-ape?

Kiwi has just described to you what he thinks evolution is.  Of course that is not at all what evolution is, but nevertheless he will reject anything less than that as evolution.  And he will reject any concept of what can happen over periods of millions of years simply because he rejects the concept of millions of years for the universe.  So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog. It is absurd, but that is just how it is.  It would be, I think, much like trying to explain the storage of gigabytes or terabytes of data on a hard drive to someone a couple of hundred years ago.  Any such notion would just be rejected.  And no explanation or even demonstration would bridge the gap in comprehension and acceptance.

QuoteHas anyone seen a dog produce a non-dog?

Or an ape produce a non-ape?

Has anyone watched a giant redwood grow to full height from a seed?    This won't help you; it's very transparent.

QuoteKiwi has just described to you what he thinks evolution is.  Of course that is not at all what evolution is, but nevertheless he will reject anything less than that as evolution.  And he will reject any concept of what can happen over periods of millions of years simply because he rejects the concept of millions of years for the universe.  So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog.

I once saw a definition of the creationist idea of evolution:
"Any change that's too great to have ever been observed."

QuoteIt is absurd, but that is just how it is.  It would be, I think, much like trying to explain the storage of gigabytes or terabytes of data on a hard drive to someone a couple of hundred years ago.  Any such notion would just be rejected.  And no explanation or even demonstration would bridge the gap in comprehension and acceptance.

Perhaps you're right.  It looks like an intentional dodge, but it could be just a misunderstanding of what evolution is.

(Barbarian offers some cases of speciation in nature)

QuoteMost of them are artificially created which could only be accomplished by external intelligence.

Nope.  None of them were.

QuoteSee, now that's simply not true.

It's just a fact.  The cases I cited where from nature, and not man-made.

QuoteTake only this example from the link you provided:

There certainly are man-made species.   I just gave you only samples that weren't made by humans.   These examples of evolution of new species demonstrate that it happens regularly in nature.  Sometimes, we're lucky enough to be able to document it.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 14:22:47


Perhaps you're right.  It looks like an intentional dodge, but it could be just a misunderstanding of what evolution is.

I think the latter, but the "polystrate tree fossil" dissuasion could be an attempt at blocking and/or dodging.

Barbarian asks:
The problem is in defining "kind."   Seems that transitional forms exist between any sort of kind you can define.   Let's try primates.   How many "kinds" would that be, or do you think all primates are a single kind?

And give us your evidence for your belief.

QuoteAhh, back to your old tricks, my friend.

(the tricky Barbarian is asking Kiwi for evidence supporting his beliefs)

QuoteThis is one area where scientists SHOULD get together and examine. What IS a "kind".

It's a creationist belief, not a scientific term.  So up to you to show us what it is, and provide evidence for it.

QuoteI would say the Bible indicates a "kind" is an animal that can ( or rather "could originally" ) reproduce.

So a species, according to your definition.  But as you see, new species evolve naturally.   

QuoteNow, i dont think you WILL, but how about giving us YOUR definition of "kind", please?

It's your term. You've just told us it's the same as the scientific term "species."   So that's what we have on the table now.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 05:40:08
The real problem it seems is defining evolution. 
That seems rather apparent from Kiwi's question:
Kiwi has just described to you what he thinks evolution is.  Of course that is not at all what evolution is, but nevertheless he will reject anything less than that as evolution.  And he will reject any concept of what can happen over periods of millions of years simply because he rejects the concept of millions of years for the universe.  So essentially Kiwi, AVZ, and all the rest will reject out of hand any concept of evolution that does anything less than a dog producing a non-dog. It is absurd, but that is just how it is.  It would be, I think, much like trying to explain the storage of gigabytes or terabytes of data on a hard drive to someone a couple of hundred years ago.  Any such notion would just be rejected.  And no explanation or even demonstration would bridge the gap in comprehension and acceptance.

Or being able to recognize the partial differential equation that serves as the mathematical model for radiometric dating, and the assumptions that are made in such a model.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 14:20:22
Has anyone watched a giant redwood grow to full height from a seed?    This won't help you; it's very transparent.

No, come on, dont waste my time.

Answer the question with an ANSWER, NOT with another question.

Then again, you HAVE answered this question in effect with a "no".

Thats all you had to say.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 14:22:47
I once saw a definition of the creationist idea of evolution:
"Any change that's too great to have ever been observed."

Wow, one persons definition.

I have seen multiple definitions from scientists that others would reject.

Whats your point?

Perhaps you're right.  It looks like an intentional dodge, but it could be just a misunderstanding of what evolution is.

Not a "dodge".

PLEASE, SHOW ME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF WHY YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION OR THE MILLIONS OF YEARS FAIRYTALE.

QuoteOr being able to recognize the partial differential equation that serves as the mathematical model for radiometric dating, and the assumptions that are made in such a model.

Recently, the model was tested in a blind study on the flow that buried Pompeii.  Argon/argon testing accurately dated it.  Which is really impressive, given how recently, in geological time, that it happened.   So evidence beats assumptions, again.

(Barbarian is asked if anyone has lived long enough to see a new order of mammals evolve)

Barbarian asks:
Has anyone watched a giant redwood grow to full height from a seed?    This won't help you; it's very transparent.

QuoteNo, come on, dont waste my time.

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so.  The argument that we can't know these things because no one ever lived long enough to see them happen, is an obvious dodge.   Then again, you HAVE answered this question in effect with a "no".

Thats all you had to say.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 18:18:25
Recently, the model was tested in a blind study on the flow that buried Pompeii.  Argon/argon testing accurately dated it.  Which is really impressive, given how recently, in geological time, that it happened.   So evidence beats assumptions, again.

One instance also does not cover the whole area of the model.  You didn't reference the percent error involved.  Nice try though.

QuoteOne instance also does not cover the whole area of the model.

It merely shows that the method works.  Remarkably, it worked very well, for a flow so recent.   Because there was so little change over two thousand years, it was a tough challenge.

QuoteYou didn't reference the percent error involved.

Barbarian checks...

A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.

With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.

"Argon-argon dating is by far the most important technique in documenting the history of human evolution, and this new result is an important validation of the technique," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics here and director of the privately funded Berkeley Geochronology Center.

The center has now used the argon-argon method to date many recent important fossil finds, from the highly touted human ancestor dubbed "Lucy" and the major Ethiopian discoveries of Berkeley anthropologist Tim White to Homo erectus remains from Java.

Argon-argon dating also has been used to establish the age of meteorites several billion years old, mass extinctions, climate changes and other geologic events in the last several hundred million years.

The new results were published in the Aug. 29 issue of Science magazine. Renne's co-authors are Warren D. Sharp and Alan L. Deino of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, and Giovanni Orsi and Lucia Civetta of the Department of Geophysics and Vulcanology at the University of Naples. Civetta also is head of the Vesuvian Vulcanological Observatory.

Orsi and Civetta are working with the center to obtain argon-argon dates for numerous past volcanic eruptions in the Campi Flegrei or Phlegraean Fields surrounding Naples, in search of clues to the periodicity of activity that might allow prediction of future eruptions. Naples and vicinity, with more than two million inhabitants, is one of the world's most vulnerable populations to volcanic hazard.

According to the Roman historian Pliny the Younger, Vesuvius erupted in the afternoon of Aug. 24, 1,918 years ago, destroying Pompeii, Herculaneum and other Roman cities.

The certainty of the date tempted the team to test the ability of the argon-argon dating technique to establish the age of recent historic events. If it gave an accurate age for the pumice thrown out by the volcano, it would be the youngest rock ever dated by the technique.

The most common method for obtaining the age of objects as young as this is carbon-14 dating, a technique limited to organic material such as wood or bone.

To everyone's surprise the date given by the argon-argon dating technique was 1,925 years ago-off by only seven years. The scientific error on the estimate was plus or minus 94 years.

"We nailed the date to five percent on our first attempt, so we could probably get the error down to one percent or less," Renne says.

The result is so amazing because every dating technique invokes assumptions or involves uncertainties that limit its ability to pinpoint dates with extreme precision.

With the new dating system it should be possible to date even younger samples, perhaps a mere 1,000 years old, with 10 percent accuracy.

"Dating things that are really young has always been the Holy Grail of potassium-argon and argon-argon dating," Renne says.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1997/0924/dating.html

QuoteNice try though.

Amazing try, really.   No one thought that the system would work so well for such a recent flow.

Carbon 14 isn't used much for paleontology, because it has such a short half-life.  However, scientists found a way to calibrate it as well...

You are here: Home / Age of the Earth / Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology
November 12, 2012 by Natural Historian 22 Comments

Do places on Earth exist where annual records have been stored for tens of thousands of years and can be accessed today? Ice-cores and tree rings can preserve long records of yearly events but some of the best records come from layers of sediment underlying some lakes which,  if formed under the right conditions, can be read like the annual rings of an oak tree. These alternating layers of sediments and sometimes organic material are called varves and by counting each varve sequentially a varve chronology can be constructed.   Varve chronologies are a window to the past and have been used to study past climate conditions, the periodicity of volcanic eruptions and as an independent test of radiocarbon (C14) dating methods.

One place were varves have been studied for decades is below a deep lake in Japan: Lake Suigetsu.  Here a varve chronology stretching back well over 50,000 years has been established.

An important summary of the significance of this varve chronology can be found in an open access article from Science here with a summary from Nature magazine here.   For several decades,  varve chronologies  have been featured as clear evidence of an ancient Earth. The evidence from varves presents a formidable challenge to young-earth creationists  (YECs) and their assertion that scientific evidence, properly interpreted, points to a young earth.   Though a well-worn example, this recent work pushing the varve chronology to close to 60,000 year bears reviewing in light of how YECs have responded in the past to this challenging data.
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/

QuotePLEASE, SHOW ME ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF WHY YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

As you learned, it's been directly observed.   Can't do better than that.   Even speciation has been documented in the wild.   Would you like to learn the evidence for common descent?

QuoteOR THE MILLIONS OF YEARS FAIRYTALE.

See above.  Not only does radioisotope dating demonstrate billions of years of Earth history, it replaced a method that showed at least 10 million years.    Lord Kelvin showed, that by measuring the heat flux of the Earth, it had to be millions of years old, but not much more than ten million years unless (as Kelvin wrote) some other source of heat could be found.   Then radioactivity was discovered, and Kelvin agreed that his estimate was wrong.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Thu Dec 14, 2017 - 14:20:22
Has anyone watched a giant redwood grow to full height from a seed?    This won't help you; it's very transparent.

A totally irrelevant comment.
You can actually witness a giant redwood sprouting from a giant redwood seed.
It is a sprout first, then becomes a sapling, then a little plant. After that it does nothing else but mature.
Nobody calls maturing evolution.

It differs in nothing from a baby growing into an adult. The adult will mature and become an old adult.
Nobody would ever say: Look, my baby evolved into an adult.
Maturing is in fact not even a topic in evolution.

But, more importantly it is you who claim that evolution has been observed.
At the same time you say that nobody ever observed a giant redwood tree growing to full height.

So if you state that the 1000 year process of a growing redwood tree is not observable and has not been observed...how can you make the claim that a millions of years taking process like evolution is observable and has been observed?