Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

No problem. If the earth is that old, that doesn't prove that evolution occurred, of course, but it does prove that counting up generations in the Bible is not the right way to determine the age of the earth. The earth might have sat there for 4.599 billion years, and then God created Adam and Eve and the other creatures.I've learned that carbon dating doesn't have anything to do with evolution. You can only date something to about 40,000 years.

======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH PLUS INVITED GUESTS
====================================================== Except that idea doesn't fit with either the ToE or the Bible. They supposedly date each layer of the Geological Column with its fossil contents to create a calendar of descent of the species through the bazillion years, and the Bible account of the creation includes the creation of the earth and the heavens and all the animals, the works, not just humanity. Yes, but that's still 34,000 years more than the Biblical reckoning.======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH PLUS INVITED GUESTS
======================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-28-2005 07:10 PM

What I can't figure out is how they would know that Potassium decays to Argon at a certain rate. It's not like they can hang about and wait for it to decay. They are saying that Potasssium gradually becomes Argon. But it's mighty gradual.

One of the problems I'm running into in trying to pin this proof down is that the way you know one thing is by this other thing, and the way you know that is by this other thing. I think that's what you were talking about before.However, the fossils are there. But you have to prove they are very old. Otherwise, there would be no evolution.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-28-2005 05:00 PM

Yes, the hall of mirrors bit. You have a clearer way of saying it. They had evolution before they could prove anything about the age of the fossils.I think it's an illusion that great age proves anything about evolution anyway. There's no way to prove actual descent from one to another. That is always assumed and unprovable, no matter how many years are involved.

Hm. I thought I once grasped the principle but I have to admit I don't remember much about it. Maybe I've been allowing myself to be Dazzled by Science on this question. Maybe I will read up a bit on this after all.======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH PLUS INVITED GUESTS
======================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-28-2005 06:56 PM

It doesn't prove it. But a lack of great age would disprove it.

I'm studying it out.When the earth was formed it had Potassium but no Argon. Argon is the "daughter," as they say, of Potassium. Argon can't exist initially. It has to come into existence via the radioactive decay of Potassium. If there's any Argon in a rock, we know right away that it's old. If you have a rock in which there is an equal amount of Potassium and Argon, that rock is 1.25 billion years old.I've got that down, but the question is how they would know that.
There must be something about the atomic structures of Potassium and Argon that make it inevitable that Argon is the daughter of Potassium and that also tells us how long it takes Potassium to start giving birth to her lovely daughter Argon, while dying herself.What that something is, I have no idea.

Wish I had time to think about it but I don't. I'll catch up with you later.

What I'm trying to do is to actually understand it instead of just accepting it on authority as I have always done. It might be impossible for somebody like me. There's too much to be known.

{Not a designated Great Debate participent - Must blank contents. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-29-2005 01:02 PM

The information may be useful but you are not excused for butting into a great debate thread uninvited.======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH PLUS INVITED GUESTS
======================================================

That's pretty much the position I've been in too.======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH PLUS INVITED GUESTS
======================================================

What I want to hear about whenever you feel like it is why you are CERTAIN about Christianity. That interests me very much. I know our topic is "proofs of evolution" but it's our debate, so I guess we can take it where we like.

I don't think we can, or should. It's about proofs of evolution.I guess since you want to know about my certainty, that wouldn't be material for another debate thread, but maybe we could have a chat on it later if you don't mind others chiming in. There have been some pretty interesting chats lately. Or coffeehouse.======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH PLUS INVITED GUESTS
======================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-29-2005 02:59 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-29-2005 03:01 PM