Rate these creationist arguments! (Christian, believe, exist, perspective)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.
The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.
Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.
If isotopic dating is so acurate, then why do samples need to be accompanied with a note describing where they were found and in what layer (depth, etc.). They will not be accepted without this information. Why? Because the layers have been pre-determined and the lab needs to jive the numbers.
If isotopic dating is so acurate, then why is radioactive carbon found in rock layers supposedly billions of years old, when it has such a small half life. There should be next to nothing of the isotope available if any, if the time that they describe was there.
If isotopic dating is so acurate, why are isotope found in solid granite that have half lifes of minutes? How did they get into the granite in the first place?
What is replenishing all these radio-active isotopes at the concentrations that we have today? If the universe is billions of years old we should have next to none existing.
Nikk, the point of the thread is not to list all known creationist arguments. I limited my list at 21 so that people could try and rate them all (and that may still be too much). So please only give arguments if you think all 21 in the OP are flawed, or if the really important one has been forgotten.
To everyone, please read the OP to understand the purpose of the thread. Random debating should only take place after I get sufficient responses to the rating challenge. Please create another thread if you want to discuss virus evolution or whatever.
Nikk, the point of the thread is not to list all known creationist arguments. I limited my list at 21 so that people could try and rate them all (and that may still be too much). So please only give arguments if you think all 21 in the OP are flawed, or if the really important one has been forgotten.
To everyone, please read the OP to understand the purpose of the thread. Random debating should only take place after I get sufficient responses to the rating challenge. Please create another thread if you want to discuss virus evolution or whatever.
OK, I was just adding other good arguements. Carry on!
Many of those arguments you posted are good. But how about the best one? you can't get something from nothing. This universe was created, life (and us) were created? We didn't evolve.
Note to the OP: I know; the following comment is slightly off your intention, but as with many of us, I just can't let this one slip on by, esp. since the poster also wasn't following your requested format:
In response to kd's opinion, highlighted in blue above, I'll just add this short one-liner:
And yet, we did! With evidence and everything! Neat, huh?
Note to the OP: I know; the following comment is slightly off your intention, but as with many of us, I just can't let this one slip on by, esp. since the poster also wasn't following your requested format:
In response to kd's opinion, highlighted in blue above, I'll just add this short one-liner:
And yet, we did! With evidence and everything! Neat, huh?
First you need to prove we came from nothing, then we'll talk about evolution further. W/out abiogenesis (or the universe popping into existence from nothing), you don't have evolution.
Many of those arguments you posted are good. But how about the best one? you can't get something from nothing. This universe was created, life (and us) were created? We didn't evolve.
Note to the OP: I know; the following comment is slightly off your intention, but as with many of us, I just can't let this one slip on by, esp. since the poster also wasn't following your requested format:
In response to kd's opinion, highlighted in blue above, I'll just add this short one-liner:
And yet, we did! With evidence and everything! Neat, huh?
___________________________________
Then, to NIKK's obtuse and purposefully misleading obfuscation, where he says:
"Why? Because the layers have been pre-determined and the lab needs to jive the numbers."
Hardly. Or, better yet, you could provide us with the details of the lawsuit or case where you know this has acually ever happened. Or is it just defensive tripe & wishful thinking from AiG, saying what they so desperately HOPE is the case?
Science wants to know the surrounding substrate so as to specifically avoid over-reaching on their dates. It's called the "Reservoir Effect", and has, for instance, created known errors with the oft-mentioned El Toro / Acambaro, MX, clay figurines, where they actually ended up dating the contaminanats smeared onto those recently made toys, but then wanted to say they were older, much older. Sorry; no sale there.
Contamination from the surrounding strata will potentially generate an errant date too old. Science is nothing if not conservative and overly careful, given the rat-pack of nay-sayers waiting to bite at their ankles over any mis-step. Rather, they go out of their way to avoid over-reaching on such findings. Hardly the pack of bilious and biased morons they're depicted to be!
So, frankly, the artifacts so dated in the manner described (isotopic analysis) are usually older than the stated dates, not younger as you'd so desperately hope.
You know, you could always actually read up on the latest techniques and their stated shortcomings and how those are compensated for before you just blat out the predictable (but also technically incorrect) AiG speaking points. You know; try to get it right , from a well-educated perspective before posting your errant positions and accusations here?
Interesting concept, huh?
To that point, doesn't it bother most Christians to realize they are believing and then regurgitating wildly incorrect stuff from these apologist acolyte websites, and that, in fact, the accusations from those very biased and combative people are completely out of date or just plain wrong?
Is that OK with you, as long as it defends your Christian position?
Hmmm... interesting, if that's so. Intentional self-delusion.
The same argument applies to the subject of life. A basic tenet of science is that you can't get life from non-living things.
Just grabbed this from wikipedia because i couldn't be bothered writing it myself:
Quote:
The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Soviet scientist Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[1] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[3][4][5]
Published in October 2008[6], a re-analysis of material from the experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were created in one apparatus.[7]
By the way, the reason you cannot get life from non-living things is that carbon-based molecules are quickly oxidised. In the early stages of the earth's creation, oxygen wasn't present in it's current form and therefore couldn't oxidise carbon based molecules.
...then we'll talk about evolution further. W/out abiogenesis (or the universe popping into existence from nothing), you don't have evolution.
True, but once you have life (which,m obviously, we do), you have an established and proven process by which all the variations came into being.
I know you like to ( or need to) conjoin the two, like Siamese twins, when there's no conjoinin' to be done.
First, somehow, life began. There's a number of theroies I'd be happy to discuss iwth an open-minded debator.
Then..
(let me repeat, for clarity...) THEN...
(only AFTER life arose...)
THEN...
Evolution's proven and observable mechanisms (simple mutation of DNA, dutifully recorded and reproduced with few errrors in subsequent generations) produced the countless differentiations.
No biogenesis required. NO BIOGENESIS REQUIRED.
(Geee.... it's really too bad there's not a waaayyy bigger FONT available here; perhaps it would finally sink in for yah, kd:
THERE'S NO BIOGENESIS REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION TO HAPPEN)
I know you wish this were true, that Evolution required A-bio-Genesis, so you could keep on arguing from at least a semi-plausible perspective, but sadly for you, since IT'S NOT REQUIRED, it's been real easy to PROVE, esp. now with DNA mapping.
That part's now so simple that, if a person can read, they can see exactly what's happened. It's that obvious now.
Many of those arguments you posted are good. But how about the best one? you can't get something from nothing. This universe was created, life (and us) were created? We didn't evolve.
Is god not "something from nothing" the whole "self existant thing" is the same concept. God is supposedely something that came from nothing because he was always there. Same thing different brand. Kinda like coke and pepsi.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
