Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006 08-09-2002 9:45 PM
I'll try to answer some of them-
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists? Many believe in evolutionary theory, but not the status quo theory-rather progressive creation-however, many of them do not realize that if you take a look at the Hebrew used in Genesis, there is no way in which the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 can mean anything other than what it says, literally. Quote Professor Barr, who at the time was Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford-
quote:Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours as we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the biginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the gigures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.
4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
This can be partly answered by how evolutionists "calibrate" their dating to each other. However, there are many anomalies-dating supposedly hundreds of millions of years rock using carbon dating gives only a few thousand years. There are also numerous problems with the dating-excess helium, polonium 218 halos are but to name a few.
4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.
I'm sure you can refer to the standard YEC flood model-hydrothermal sorting, mobility, etc, but there is the other one I talked about-here for a simple answer.
10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".
Refer to this site that says that the "cubit" could be 250 feet. (Remember, Noah had 120 years to build and prepare for the flood!) >
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-10-2002]
This message is a reply to:
Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-09-2002 9:45 PM
Professor Barr's letter can be found here but I think she was referring to the refutations for polonium halos and excess helium-on which incidentally there are many rebuttals to the talkorigins rebuttal Incidentally, why do most samples given in for carbon dating dont give an infinite date-as there should be too little C-14? Only rarely are there radiocarbon samples that give an "infinite" date.
quote:MOST CARBON-14 DATES DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY So the evolutionists throw them away.
"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators."—*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.
"If a C-14 date supports our [evolutionary] theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely `out of date,' we just drop it."—*Pensee, 3(1):44.
quote:INNACURATE AS IT IS, C-14 DATING RARELY PRODUCES VERY OLD DATES In spite of its flaws, it is far more accurate than radiodating.
"At 600 B.C., the C-14 activity level is about -10%. Before this, the atmospheric activity is observed to decrease in such a way that, by about 2000 B.C., it is of the order of +50%. Clearly, the trend for older samples to have progressively lower delta % levels is observed. In other words, the whole picture is now consistent with the non-equilibrium model. Before 2160 B.C., there are no suitable [historically dateable] materials for calibration purposes, and so it is not possible to trace the curve back further in time . .
"Conventional C-14 calibration has the effect of `stretching out' radiocarbon time and slowing down, for example, the rate of man's cultural development. By contrast, this revised approach has the effect of `compressing' radiocarbon time,' and speeding up the rate of man's cultural development."—Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 22.
"Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorian's prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the [radiocarbon] method because of the chronological uncertainties—in some cases absurdities—that would follow a strict adherence to published C-14 dates . . What bids to become a classic example of `C-14 irresponsibility' is the 6,000 year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years."—*C.A. Reed, "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East," in Science, 130 (1959), p. 1630.
There are also two main assumptions that radiocarbon dating depends on-
quote:"There are two basic assumptions in the radiocarbon method. One is that the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is constant. The other is that the cosmic ray flux has been essentially constant—at least on a scale of centuries."—*J.L. Kulp, "The Carbon 14 Method of Age Determination," in Scientific Monthly, November 1952, p. 261.
quote:Ouch. Wrong on two points: (1) You cannot carbon date rock. You can only carbon-date organic materials. (2) You cannot carbon date anything older than about 50,000 years of age, because by then the 14C in the sample falls below reasonably measurable limits. The testers have to search the sample harder and harder before they start finding any 14C to measure. However, there are air pockets in the machine and in the sample, and in those airpockets are molecules of 14CO2. In all probability with a really, really old sample those CO2 molecules will be the only carbon-14 found, along with the occasional microbial or pollen contaminent, and there is no telling what age the sample will give.
I was referring to the layers underneath the lava flows-which by inference should be older shouldn't they? And how can that explain why the lava flows can give millions of years while the layers underneath only a few hundred?
quote:Generally but not necessarily. Not if the flow is in an overthrust or if it is actually a sill.
However, some of the flows is not an overthrust or a sill--unless you are saying that it could happen over a square mile?
I am frustrated with the above quote because I pointed out that 14C is useless above about 50k. Now, knowing that, *why* would a competant researcher attempt 14C on a layer that, by the principle of superposition, is too old for 14C to be reliable? The answer is that nobody would, unless that person is a YEC, once again ignoring the common sense warnings of 14C to "prove" a young Earth. Such behavior can be described as nothing less than disgraceful.[/quote]
Since 14C is useless, then why would it still give a young date? So are we supposed to just ignore the dates which do not fit in with our model?
quote:As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years.
--John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research
This quote is a bit old, and some later datings give correct dates
quote:Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods in most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.
--G. Brent Dalrymple
but it does illustrate the problems of radiometric dating.
quote:“Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock’ did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.”
[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]
quote:A few years ago I took a course in the "Evolution of Desert Environments". We were standing on the Simi Volcanic flow, about 80 miles south of the south end of Death Valley. The instructor was a well known geologist and evolutionist from Cal. State Long Beach. He told us that the upper end of the flow was dated at 100,000 years, the middle of the flow was dated at 50,000 years, and the toe of the flow was dated at 20,000 years. He then noted that the whole flow probably occured and solidified (the surface at least) within weeks. He then said, based on his observation of the rates of evolution of desert environments he thought the flow was less than 10,000 years of age. He then said "radiometric dating is the cornerstone of modern historical geology and we get this kind of variation?" Clearly he was not happy with the published dates on the Simi flow.
He was also not happy with the published dates on the flows in the Nevada Atomic Bomb Test site where one of the volcanic flows showed a reversal of isotope ratios and gave a value of 20,000 years in the future! These data were, in fact, published in Science magazine in about November of 1988. Please note, these were not MY ideas but the statements of a convinced, tenured, evolutionary geologist who apparently really wanted to beleive in the credibility of radiometric dating. I am just reporting what HE said!