Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
awinkisas
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 141 (55545)
09-15-2003 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jester461
09-15-2003 12:50 PM


Here's a link to an article that describes how carbon-dating as been calibrated back to 43,000 BC.
http://more.abcnews.go.com/...ence/dailynews/carbon0220.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jester461, posted 09-15-2003 12:50 PM jester461 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 141 (55547)
09-15-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jester461
09-15-2003 12:50 PM


And since the development of most radiometric dating methods used each other to verify their own development,
Could you elaborate on this? I believe this to be an assertion made from ignorance of what has actually gone on.
Your ruler analogy is a start but it is not a good representation of the actual case with dating methods.
A better analogy is is I measure a distance across a room with a ruler that is marked as being 12 inches from the manufacturer, a rolled tape measure that is marked in meters from a different manufacturer, a laser interferometer set up to measure distance, a sonar device to measure distance and got close agreement with all 4 methods. If someone then suggested that the room was not 54 feet across (within errors in measurements) they would have to explain how all 4 methods happened to agree.
In addition, for some of the methods I can more directly measure the length. For example, my shoes happen to be almost exactly a foot long and if the ruler is the same length I can take it as being close to right.
Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jester461, posted 09-15-2003 12:50 PM jester461 has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 18 of 141 (55611)
09-15-2003 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jester461
09-15-2003 12:50 PM


Fossils and more.
The fossil flower in China is from 144mya, and is the oldest known on Earth; the very end of the Jurassic. *NO* fossil angiosperms are found from before then. Why? There is an utter wealth of fossils in the world from before then. Take as long as you want, but you're not going to get to dodge this question. Don't feel bad - this is the very reason why the concept of evolution developed in the first place. In fact, the initial solution that scientists came up with was that there were "multiple creations".
quote:
If you do something wrong the same way, everytime, it will always be wrong the same way.
Unfortunately, that's not the way that it works. Scientists don't get the raw data for dating mechanisms from each other. They get the data from the rate of decay. There are calibrating factors for some types, but they don't vary by more than 20%. It would appear that you don't know how radioisotope dating works; I should back up.
Carbon dating: carbon dating is based on the difference between C12 and C14 in the atmosphere. C12 forms from nitrogen in the presence of cosmic radiation. In *normal environments*, the majority of an organism's carbon comes, within a few years, from the atmosphere. I.e., if it eats a plant, that plant isn't likely to be 10,000 years old There are two chief exceptions to this rule: volcanism, and the ocean. Marine organisms, and to a lesser extent those animals which feed only on marine organisms, should never be carbon dated (if you see a creationist attempt to do this, realize that they are being incredibly disingenous). The other case where carbon dating is bad is near active sites of volcanism; however, testing with modern plants has shown that this effect is virtually irrelevant after a few hundred meters away from a vent. The reason for these properties is that the ocean and the deep earth contain quantities of "old carbon". The ocean has very long running conveyors that cycle carbon to and from the depths, and of course carbon dioxide trapped deep in the earth is going to be ancient. What can throw carbon dating off, apart from this, would be a change in the formation rate of C12. Without any calibration factor at all, carbon dating is only accurate to within about 20% (i.e., you can date a couple dozen fossils from the same layer, and they may be as much as 20% off from each other). This is due to a variation in the rate of C12 formation due to variations in the sun (the sun cycles). Of course, this still gives far older dates than the bible. Finally, carbon dating cannot be used without heavy calibration for artifacts more recently than the 1950s; nuclear testing has effectively doubled the amount of C12 in the atmosphere, and it will take thousands of years to get back to normal. The "20%" is calibrated using tree rings and ice cores, both of which date back tens of thousands of years. Note that they're not calibrating it beyond that 20%. The halflife of C12 is 5730 years. Note that for a creationist to argue against carbon dating, they have to argue that the conversion of nitrogen to C12 was *radically* lower in the past, something not supported by tree rings or artifacts from ancient societies which date to their proper times.
Potassium 40/argon 40 dating: With a half life of 1.25 billion years, Potassium 40 (which decays to argon 40) is a popular dating method for old samples. It is one of a series of dating methods, which includes Rubidium 87/Strontium 87 dating (hl=48.8by), Thorium 232/Lead 208 dating (hl=14by), Uranium 235/Lead 207 dating (hl=704my), and Uranium 238/Lead 206 dating (hl=4.47by). These methods work notably differently from carbon dating. When molten rock cools, chemicals do not just go to random locations - rock crystalizes. While crystals may contain impurities, rarely do they ever compose a significant percentage of the crystal's mass. The dating methods use radioactive minerals whose decay products are especially not prone to forming in the same crystals. For example, it is almost impossible for trapped gasses to form in the same crystal (they may make porous rock, but each crystal is proportionally pure). So, when a potassium-bearing mineral crystalizes, there will be essentially no argon in it. However, as it ages, the potassium 40 breaks down into argon 40. Now, if the mineral is re-heated and the crystal softens, the argon can escape - this basically "resets the clock". These dating methods, as a consequence, record the time since the mineral cooled. Escaping argon would give a *younger* date, not an older one. To get an older date, not only *some* argon 40 would have to be trapped, but a *lot* of argon 40 would have to be trapped. To date, noone has managed to trap even a fraction of this much argon in a potassium-bearing crystal of any kind. To ensure accuracy, one must make several dates of different locations in the same sample to ensure consistancy. These methods are typically *uncalibrated*. Of course, when mutliple samples are taken using multiple methods, there typically will be a small difference range, usually 1-10%; these are often averaged to get the most reliable amount.
Note that each dating method utilizes a mineral with a completely different half-life. In some cases, the radioactive material comes from a different source. Let's present a simple case:
Mineral A has a halflife of 1 year
Mineral B has a halflife of 2 years
Mineral C has a halflife of 4 years
You find a rock that contains a ratio that indicates 50% breakdown of mineral A (.5 ^ 1), ~30% breakdown of mineral B (.5 ^ (1/2)), and ~15% breakdown of mineral C (.5 ^ (1/4)). All three of these methods confirm each other in that the rock is 1 year old. Now, let's say that you wanted to show that this is a flawed conclusion. Well, not only do you need to show that each method is wrong, but you need to show that they're *all wrong by the same amount*.
Let's say that you wanted to show that the mineral was 3 months old. You would have to show that there really was a 15% difference of mineral A, a 8% difference in mineral B, and a 4% difference in mineral C. That means that there's a 35% error in mineral A, a 22% error in mineral B, and a 4% error in mineral C.
Now, if the mineral had 75% breakdown of mineral A, 50% breakdown of mineral B, and 30% breakdown of mineral C, it dates to 2 years using the scientific method. To make it date to your 3 month time frame, you need a 60% error on A, a 42% error on B, and a 26% error on C.
Punch in whatever numbers you want - but you'll realize that it's virtually impossible to stretch real dating numbers to any sort of creationist framework unless you break the rules that scientists operate under (multiple samples from a uniform mineral, no carbon dating of organisms which are exposed to a "resevoir effect", etc). Unfortunately, creationists often like to violate these, which is a big scientific no-no. Then, remember that there are thousands apon thousands of samples that are multiply confirmed every year. How do *all* of the numbers get these inconsistant error levels every time? How do these different methods confirm each other?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jester461, posted 09-15-2003 12:50 PM jester461 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 08-31-2005 7:23 PM Rei has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 19 of 141 (55775)
09-16-2003 1:30 PM


I point out that Schrafinator also started a sequel topic, "Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!", shortly after this topic was started. It currently has 116 messages, and has been inactive since 5/30/02.
Adminnemooseus

  
Headcase
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 141 (56330)
09-18-2003 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-08-2002 12:14 PM


inherent age

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-08-2002 12:14 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2003 5:31 PM Headcase has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 141 (56338)
09-18-2003 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Headcase
09-18-2003 4:55 PM


Could you explain "inherent age" a little more fully?
Does this mean that as long as scientists add "god made it look like (GMILL)" in front of everything then there is no more argument?
So I can say "god made it look like the universe is 13.7 Gyrs old"
or gmill we evolved from a primate ancestor and there is no more arguement?
So if every biology text used in schools put GMILL in the introduction everyone would shut up and let us go back to observing real things?
And the fundamentalist churchs would explain why GMILL but says something different in the bible?
Is that your position, headcase?
You understand what a terrible position this will be defend don't you? Not to the scientists but to the real theologians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Headcase, posted 09-18-2003 4:55 PM Headcase has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 09-18-2003 6:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 22 of 141 (56341)
09-18-2003 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
09-18-2003 5:31 PM


It *would* be nice if Creationists would confine themselves to proposals acceptable to their own religious community.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 09-18-2003 5:31 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
CreationWise
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 141 (239065)
08-31-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-08-2002 12:14 PM


THE OTHERS HAVE ANSWERED YOUR FIRST TWO QUESTIONS OKAY SO I WILL HI THE THIRD ONE
3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood evenT
THE REASON WE DON'T IS BECAUSE OF THIS - THE FLOOD LASTED FOR 1 YEAR. IF YOU TAKE A PLANT AWAY FROM ITS ROOTS AND AWAY FROM SOIUL, IT WILL ROT. ALSO, TREES AND PLANTS ARE LIGHTWEIGHT SO THEY FLOAT. THAT IS WHY THERE AREN'T ALOT OF THEM IN THE LOWER LEVELS ON THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. THEY ALL ARE NEAR THE TOP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-08-2002 12:14 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Yaro, posted 08-31-2005 3:26 PM CreationWise has not replied
 Message 25 by Coragyps, posted 08-31-2005 3:50 PM CreationWise has not replied
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2005 6:21 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 24 of 141 (239074)
08-31-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by CreationWise
08-31-2005 3:09 PM


THE REASON WE DON'T IS BECAUSE OF THIS - THE FLOOD LASTED FOR 1 YEAR. IF YOU TAKE A PLANT AWAY FROM ITS ROOTS AND AWAY FROM SOIUL, IT WILL ROT.
Not necisseraly. We do find fossil reminants of smaller plants. Think of plants that werent uprooted, but rather covered over by sediment. Further, you are missing pollen evidence.
Pollen fossils only begin to show up in a certain layer coenciding with the beginning of flowering plants. Your theory dosn't account for this.
ALSO, TREES AND PLANTS ARE LIGHTWEIGHT SO THEY FLOAT.
Things don't float due to their weight. And many trees would stay firmly rooted in the ground. Which is why we get polystrata tree fossils.
THAT IS WHY THERE AREN'T ALOT OF THEM IN THE LOWER LEVELS ON THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. THEY ALL ARE NEAR THE TOP.
What about the pollen. Why is there no pollen in the lower levels?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 3:09 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 25 of 141 (239091)
08-31-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by CreationWise
08-31-2005 3:09 PM


IF YOU TAKE A PLANT AWAY FROM ITS ROOTS AND AWAY FROM SOIUL, IT WILL ROT.
All except for olive branches and their leaves. They don't rot, 'cause the dove couldn't have brought one back to Noah if they did. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 3:09 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 141 (239176)
08-31-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by CreationWise
08-31-2005 3:09 PM


IF YOU TAKE A PLANT AWAY FROM ITS ROOTS AND AWAY FROM SOIUL, IT WILL ROT.
What, in you flood model, is "taking them away from their roots and soil?"
ALSO, TREES AND PLANTS ARE LIGHTWEIGHT SO THEY FLOAT.
They may be light, but they're also rooted into the soil, so they don't tend to float during flooding.
THAT IS WHY THERE AREN'T ALOT OF THEM IN THE LOWER LEVELS ON THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. THEY ALL ARE NEAR THE TOP.
No, they're not all near the top. That's the thing.
There's plenty of plants found throughout the fossil record, top to bottom. The problem for creationists is that the kinds of plants you find changes as you go up or down the fossil column, and they never give any explanation for why this is the case. Flowers and grasses at the top, ferns throughout. A pattern that evolution explains but Noah's flood does not.
Paleobotany falsified the world-wide flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 3:09 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 141 (239209)
08-31-2005 7:19 PM


should be a rule
There should be a rule that evos that take up the false argument on kinds should have to be ridiculed for it. I have defined kinds here as have others, and there is a clear-cut definition of kinds.
But what's funny is that evos sometimes have such a hard time defining "species" that there have been threads suggesting we move away from defining species.
Any evo making the false argument that "kinds" is not defined is either ignorant or a hypocrite, imo. Bariminology is clearly the study of kinds, and the term itself is well-defined. To pretend otherwise is absurd, and frankly it's a waste of time to even discuss the issue with evos if they are going to deny basic facts.
We observe "kinds" just as much as we observe "species." They are both labels to describe a set of characteristics, and both can be problematic at times. We need to get past the pseudo-charges of pretending that creationists who are devoting an intense amount of research into baraminology have not or are not addressing the issue of what is a kind and defining the kinds out there.
The issue should be on the data itself, and seeing if the ideas have merit.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2005 7:29 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 141 (239212)
08-31-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rei
09-15-2003 8:03 PM


Re: Fossils and more.
flower in China is from 144mya, and is the oldest known on Earth; the very end of the Jurassic. *NO* fossil angiosperms are found from before then. Why? There is an utter wealth of fossils in the world from before then.
Or this is merely a fudged claim like Haeckel's or the subsequent unproven claim of a phylotypic stage.
I am not asserting you are necessarily wrong, just that there is ample reason, imo, to be suspicious of evo claims concerning the data. Personally, I have not researched this claim, but unless you can show where critics of evolution admit the data says what evos say it does, I am not sure I would beleive the claims.
How do we know this is accurate? And that the data is not selectively presented?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rei, posted 09-15-2003 8:03 PM Rei has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 141 (239214)
08-31-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
08-31-2005 7:19 PM


Re: should be a rule
Any evo making the false argument that "kinds" is not defined is either ignorant or a hypocrite, imo. Bariminology is clearly the study of kinds, and the term itself is well-defined.
It's defined, but the definition is circular. Creationists posit that God originally created the animals in separate groups called "kinds", and then when you ask them what that means, they tell you that a kind is one of the original groups of animals that God created.
Perfectly circular, and thus, perfectly meaningless. A useful definition of "kind" would, among other things, suggest a criteria for determining if two similar animals are in the same kind, or in two different kinds.
No creationist to date has been able to do this. I notice too that you assert that "kinds" has some well-known definition - but you fail to tell us what that definition is.
The issue should be on the data itself, and seeing if the ideas have merit.
If the idea of "kinds" has merit, then you'll be able to devise at least some kind of metric for distinguishing kinds, as evolutionists have for "species." That no "baraminologist" (is there even such a person?) has even tried to do so is highly suggestive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 08-31-2005 7:19 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 2:53 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 141 (240181)
09-03-2005 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
08-31-2005 7:29 PM


Re: should be a rule
The same difficulties in determining "kinds" exist for determining phylogeny, but I don't see you insisting phylogeny is pseudo-science.
Most of the controversy regarding created kinds revolves around the asserted boundaries between the kinds -- the position that the kinds are unrelated. Those challenging creation biology often ask what basis creation biologists have for asserting that such boundaries exist, or for determining what those boundaries are.
The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not easy, because it is in essence a historical project, in which the evidence is strictly limited by the evidence available today. This problem is analogous to the problems in constructing phylogenetic trees, where evolutionary biologists struggle to determine which criteria should be used in determining how life is related.
Created kind - Wikipedia
A kind is one of the theorized first created life forms of which all life evolved into today. As such, we should expect to see, in general, though not necessarily, groups of species that are similar in many ways and often able to reproduce though not necessarily so that were descended from the original kind.
Along with that, we should expect to see fossil evidence of this evolution, such as horses or "horse-like creatures" developing into various other horses, but should expect to see large "gaps" to use evolutionary terminology between the different kinds, and frankly imo, this is exactly what we see.
Personally, I am not a YECer, but I find some of their arguments have merit.
This message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 02:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2005 7:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2005 3:22 AM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024