Evolution vs. Science, not Creationism!

Again and again, there will be threads about evolution, and generally you see "well we know the earth isn't 6000 years old, so creationism isn't right, so evolution is," or something similarly inane. Discussions of the failures of evolution, from a scientific standpoint, does not involve creationism. Creationism is a faith. Granted, I think there is a strong case that Naturalism is a faith, too, but, as one of its primary tenets, the theory of evolution, claims science status, it should be discussed solely in that arena.

What people who debate this issue seem to fail to perceive is that the theory of evolution fails as science. To prove it fails as science does not require an alternative theory. Or a faith based one. And it certainly is not true just because the faith-based alternative does not hold up to science.

Of course, stating such requires that I address a point of science where the foundation of evolution is flawed. First basis would have to be dating. The entire premise collapses without dating. So where to start?

First would be the shortest range dating, C14. Pretty short way to sum this up: it is accurate as far back as we can calibrate it. Which, if I call correctly, would be in the range of 7500 years? Anything beyond that is based on assumptions that have no basis in fact, and cannot be observed or confirmed.

Next would be according to stratification. This is based on an ASSUMPTION about how long it takes for various strata to form, an assumption shaped by a belief in evolution. By a FAITH in evolution. As it is based on an assumption, the only real fact that can be taken from it is that, in most cases, though not all, the lower item came first, though we cannot confirm how long before, unless it is within the calibrated C14 range.

Third, the long range method, isochron dating. Again, not too hard to invalidate. Why? Because initial ratios are assumed according to the FAITH that it has to be within a certain range. Data that does not fit is simply excluded.

Now, one must understand that it is not presented so simply if you read a science journal. There is a lot of window dressing, and usually these methods are cross-verified according to whatever will give the "most likely" result. Of course, "validating" an assumption with another assumption is like patting yourself on the back and saying "you're smart!" after taking a test, and then never actually receiving a grade.

Now, Im sure I'll get inundated with requests for links to back this up. But there is actually no need; it applies to every case, so looking up any example with yield proof. The current dating system is entirely based on assumptions and faith in the theory. All that we can verify as FACT is that the earth is as old as the oldest calibrating sample for C14. Sadly, a great deal of evolution "fact" is as transparent as this.

Where is the assumption?

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.

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.

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.

This science is tested, re-tested and then tested again.

This science is strong.

This Kung Fu is stronger than your Kung Fu!

Edit -

The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence are needed.

[edit on 7/3/09 by Horza]

Originally posted by Horza


Edit -

The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence are needed.

[edit on 7/3/09 by Horza]

Your quotes are biased. Let me just provide a link, since i don't feel like going over it all to point it out.

This lovely link points out the flaws in the isochron dating in more technical terms. The important part is that my point is still valid; it is still based on making assumptions about original ratios in the various isotopes and how they (or often dont't) correlate. If it is based on assumptions, with no cross-validating mechanism to confirm it, it is merely biased conjecture.

In summary, the mainstream view is that it is true, because it must be true, and therefore its simply a matter of arranging the data and selectively processing it to confirm the initial bias. For further study on the reliability and lack there of in isochron dating, research the level of variance found in moon rock samples. If it were so perfect, there would not be variance on the scale of billions of years. Especially not in samples that are probably the most protected from contamination to have ever been analyzed.

Its not about "kung fu," or your religious fervor for Naturalism; its about facts, and the facts are black and white.

Oh, and also, about assumptions, check out the "excess argon" problems. If isochron were the perfect system it is heralded to be, it would always yield the predicted results. That IS what experimental confirmation is about. However, it does not always, not even after tweaking data sets and discarding "contaminated" specimens. Why would you want to cling so to something that is obviously flawed, rather than pursue clearer knowledge?

Is that not the blind faith that so many mock the religious for?

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Next would be according to stratification. This is based on an ASSUMPTION about how long it takes for various strata to form, an assumption shaped by a belief in evolution. By a FAITH in evolution. As it is based on an assumption, the only real fact that can be taken from it is that, in most cases, though not all, the lower item came first, though we cannot confirm how long before, unless it is within the calibrated C14 range.

if your dating rocks with C14 your doing it wrong, carbon 14 dating only works with organic material ....not rocks

Third, the long range method, isochron dating. Again, not too hard to invalidate. Why? Because initial ratios are assumed according to the FAITH that it has to be within a certain range. Data that does not fit is simply excluded.

so some how ..which you havnt said iocronic ating doent work ... ok what about the ret of the radiometric dating methodology that iochron is only a small part of?

and if your c14 dating rocks im guessing your knowledge of any dating method is about the same nill

Now, Im sure I'll get inundated with requests for links to back this up. But there is actually no need; it applies to every case, so looking up any example with yield proof.

cop out

sorry but persent evience you have claimed using the wrong test on the wrong material proves your point .. but only shows a lack of training if your doing that

its like giing someone a HIV test to see if they have cancer

and well you didnt really state anything to check about other dating methodolgy justsome of its taken on faith, which bit are taken on faith? why are they taken on faith?

Sadly, a great deal of evolution "fact" is as transparent as this.

hahha the only thing transparent around here is the nonsense you just read on a creationist website an put here in your own words

so present your evidence sir!

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

This lovely link points out the flaws in the isochron dating in more technical terms.

no it doesnt

The ages yielded by large phlogopites from xenoliths are, however, commonly older than the eruption, a phenomenon that has been interpreted as the incorporation of excess radiogenic Ar from a deep fluid source.

hahahah they are talking about somthing totally different to invalidate the dating method for argon dating .. its practically as bad as the c14 rock debarcle

its a well known fact that dating xenoliths within lava increase the age range massivley because xenoliths are infact bits of the volcanoes rock structure that broke off an got carried within the lava

the zenoliths are much older then fresh rock .. which is why science makes sure it doesnt test zenoliths

the mount st helene creationist test they ground the rock first incluing the zenoliths so what was tested was a mix of both the old and young rocks which invalidates the test somewhat

bad scinece gives bad results ...that doesnt mean the science is flawed just the idiot doing it need to learn what they are doing so they do it right

reply to post by noobfun


Exactly where did I say anything about carbon dating rocks? That is just a baseless personal attack that has nothing to do with anything. You're not an idiot, you know that the "geological column" is inherently cross-linked with C14 dating of the organic material contained within, if said material is considered recent enough to C14 date. Im not even going to bother reading the rest of your post, or replying to you again. I will not honor someone who makes such spurious attacks with my time. Learn how to debate the science rather than attack the messenger, and you might get respect in return.

IMO you people are all very silly for debating such things today.

Creationism, Evolution all of it=STUPID.

It's very simple to understand why, it's because WE don't understand. It's impossible for us to understand because we do not have the tools or the mental capacity to study, oberserve and understand these types of EXTREMELY complex things spanning millions and billions of years.

As far as evolution goes...just a theory.

As far as creationism goes.....just a fairytale.

They could both be right, they could both be wrong, we probably won't find out in our lifetime, and it all comes down to personnal opinion based on the "facts" that have been presented to us by modern science and religious texts.

Neither is a good representation of really happens or has happened based on the fact that they are simply our best GUESS at the time. We cannot say for 100% certainty that mostly anything is true.

Stop arguing, nobody is going to win, and this thread will simple devolve into an argument over who mis-spelled the word or who can pull the most articles off of wikipedia and such.

~Keeper

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by noobfun

 

Exactly where did I say anything about carbon dating rocks? That is just a baseless personal attack that has nothing to do with anything.

baseless ?

Next would be according to stratification. This is based on an ASSUMPTION about how long it takes for various strata to form, an assumption shaped by a belief in evolution. By a FAITH in evolution. As it is based on an assumption, the only real fact that can be taken from it is that, in most cases, though not all, the lower item came first, though we cannot confirm how long before, unless it is within the calibrated C14 range.

so what your saying is we can only confirm the age of strata acuratley if it is within the accurate c14 calibration period

strat and stratification shall we actually check what those words mean?

Stratification in archaeology is the formation of layers (strata) in which objects are found.
Stratification of rock layers (strata) is part of the geologic field of Stratigraphy.

strata (geology), a sequence of discrete rock layers used for age dating and identification of concurrent regional or worldwide events in the geologic record.

both refer to rocks .. there one that refers to comparion of genomes but well cant do that with dead things you need at least 1 living an healthy specimen to compare to .. and that has nothing to do with c14 dating either

so strat (rocks) and bieng within c14's accurate calibration period to test it with ... testing rocks with c14

..your doing it wrong

You're not an idiot, you know that the "geological column" is inherently cross-linked with C14 dating of the organic material contained within,

but they are within the strata not the strata, and stratification ONLY refers to the layers nothing contained within

Learn how to debate the science rather than attack the messenger, and you might get respect in return.

learn how to use correct terminoligy not just shove any old word in becasue it sounds all sciencey

and that wasnt an attack,

you didnt state how isochron dating was wrong you simply said it was

you didnt state how c14 dating can only be accurate to 7500 years, simply aid it was

you then didnt supply any evidence for either claim an tol us to go find our own

then supplied 1 website which i ridled with errors, as tated in my second reponse if your dating the zenoliths or grining up both new materia and zenolith then testing it the date are going to be very anomoylous, that doesnt show the technique i faulty it show the material choice for testing is faulty either through incompetence or deliberatley in the mt st.helen case

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by noobfun

 

Exactly where did I say anything about carbon dating rocks? That is just a baseless personal attack that has nothing to do with anything. You're not an idiot, you know that the "geological column" is inherently cross-linked with C14 dating of the organic material contained within, if said material is considered recent enough to C14 date. Im not even going to bother reading the rest of your post, or replying to you again. I will not honor someone who makes such spurious attacks with my time. Learn how to debate the science rather than attack the messenger, and you might get respect in return.

I agree completely. He is attacking you personally. Now he will post something to try to refute this.

Watch.

your a day latet an a dollar short the replies above

an hey you should be down on this using words incorrectly .....

an just to add to the topic

The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0 - 6,000 yrs BP) and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.[11] (Link to graphs: [1])

Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).

en.wikipedia.org...

so it an be accuratley callibrate to 26,000 years with mall margins of error

The only way to resolve this uncertainty is to calibrate the C14 dates with calendar dates. This calibration has been done by compiling a dendrochronological (tree-ring) record and painstakingly figuring the C14 age of these tree rings. This tree-ring record now extends back about 11,500 years, and by comparing the calendar age of the tree rings with their radiocarbon age,

www.flmnh.ufl.edu...

an we can calibrate it to just under 12,000 years on tree rings alone let alone all those nice sediment deposits that double that



[edit on 7/3/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Actually, that was sort of the point I was try to build to. Science is a wonderful and powerful thing. Faith/philosophy based subjects have no place. Think of all the wasted money and resources spent of trying to prove evolution, and on continually changing the theory every time the holes become too numerous. (for example, everything Darwin proposed for how it worked has been proven wrong...and replaced by new models, to keep the faith alive.) Think of what more could have been done to further REAL knowledge with those resources. It's a tragedy. As big a tragedy as all of those out there who ignore science because of their ideology. Oh, wait, it's the same exact thing.

[edit on 3/7/2009 by saturnine_sweet]

reply to post by noobfun


Sweet Jesus, work on your reading comprehension. Im not going to explain to you what that paragraph meant. But trust me, it had nothing to do with carbon-dating rocks.

reply to post by noobfun


I was using the tree-ring data set, because it is the only one that does not involve any degree (however "reasonable") of assumption. Science is crumbling today because half of what is deemed correct is an assumption, based on a series of assumptions, when are in turn based on assumptions. To use a little science, the probability of such theories being correct becomes exponentially less likely with each layer of assumption, effectively rendering the theories at the top of the pile (things like the theory of evolution) completely useless based on that fact alone.

Assumptions can be useful, when experimentation can verify that they are at least useful, working models. Like, for instance, a number of aspects of physics. A theory might be based on assumptions, but experimentation shows that, even if some of those assumptions may or may not be correct, the theory as a whole predicts the result of the experiment. This fails with evolution, because it cannot be analyzed in such a manner. (and yes, I know of the fruit flies with six wings and eight legs in petri dishes. That is not evolution, that is engendering birth defects.)

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by noobfun

 

Sweet Jesus, work on your reading comprehension. Im not going to explain to you what that paragraph meant. But trust me, it had nothing to do with carbon-dating rocks.

the terminology used can ONLY imply rocks or layers of rock

reading comprehension is fine terminoligy used isnt

strata/stratification = rocks/layers of rocks

inclusions in strata/stratification = things found in or amongst the rocks and layers

without the correct terminology you open the door to ALL kinds of misunderstanings people pass off as fact, in the same way people pass off the mt st.helens argon testing or the hawaii zenolith testing is used

the paper on hawiian zenolith inclusions has been used by creationist to try and show argon testing showed 200 year old lava gave reults of 2 million years old rocks, when what the paper actually says is they tested the zenolith and found them to be 2 million year old then tested the newer rock an got a correct 200 year old anwer which was done to alert to the danger of dating zenoliths by accident giving anomolys results

when it was pointed out just how wrong they were with that they intentional ground fresh lava and thier zenoliths so annomolous results are guaranteed and trie to pass that off as evidenc the test was faulty

the reason i jumped all over this is what you may have done by slip of the tounge others do purposefully

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old

www.angelfire.com...

here they are clearly stating dating a rock(fossil) as evidence dinosaurs are not million of years old

skip to 4:30 our favorite fun time guy advocating dating fossils and giving examples of when it was done to a dinosaur to prove his point

this is why i jumped on the lack of clarity in terminology, it was is and will be a tactic to use misrepresentational terminology to give completley the wrong impression to people uneducated about a topic to convince them everyones wrong except the guy with a phd in bible studies or law

im not saying thats why your doing it you instantly corrected it to be inclusions ... but if you hadnt many people around here would jump to the wrong conclusion or use it to bolster the wrong conclusion they have already decided is right no matter what evidence is presented



[edit on 8/3/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


I used the precise terminology I intended, and used it correctly. I don't know what else to say there. In regards to your attacks, Im not talking about any creationism here. But you are proving my point about how it is a religious war for most people on both sides.

Please, put down your torch and pitchfork, set aside your desire to jump on anyone opposing your religion, and read what i said with a calm mind. Perhaps then you will understand what I was saying.

reply to post by noobfun


Oh...and about the dinosaur bones. You do realize that there are many, many examples of such "fossils" that still contain organic tissue? I realize how inconvenient that is, but it is no less true. After all, that is the very place where "evidence" of birds coming from dinosaurs comes from.

Your dogma and parroted talking points are great. But they are not debate, they are not discussion, and they are not well informed.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

I used the precise terminology I intended, and used it correctly. I don't know what else to say there.

as the only meaning of your terminoligy of stratification means rocks and layers of rocks unless your now saying you did mean c14 dating rocks im at a total loss for what you are trying to say

the stratification/strata is not organic so unable to be tested by c14

either the terminology is wrong/or your using the wrong terminology

In regards to your attacks, Im not talking about any creationism here.

...you do realise i was giving an example of where wrong terminology or misused terminology leads to wrong impressions

But you are proving my point about how it is a religious war for most people on both sides.

actually its a war of accuracy i correct pro and antis' alike if they get it wrong .... only by bieng honest and accurate as possible can you hold the moral high ground in any debate

if it was a holywar i wouldnt spend my time corretcting people on both sides of the discussion who try to equate evolution and science in general as disproving god or bieng against god

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I believe in a Creator.

I acknowledge there is a lot of evidence for evolution just not enough for me to give up my faith, that's all.

my imediate response was to discuss why evolution doesnt require or ask anyone to leave thier faith in what ever deity they believe and provide several video and text links to thioestic evolutionary sites

not really the act of a rabid anti thiest on a mission ...

Please, put down your torch and pitchfork,

got a coffee mug and a cigarette will that do?

and read what i said with a calm mind. Perhaps then you will understand what I was saying.

again same thing stratification dating is based on assumption of how long the rock layer takes to form,

the lower item came first, though we cannot confirm how long before, unless it is within the calibrated C14 range.

well as tyour talking about rock layers the lowest items are rocks .. no mentions of anything included thats organic just rocks and its ability to be dated within c4's date range

You do realize that there are many, many examples of such "fossils" that still contain organic tissue?

Yes actually, have you actually checked to see what the status of such organics were?

The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels.

news.nationalgeographic.com...
The material had been crystallized, after being decrystallized, it became more or less flexible.
The are also dinosaur mummies, pretty fascinating. Well preserved dinosaur carcasses.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet

Oh...and about the dinosaur bones. You do realize that there are many, many examples of such "fossils" that still contain organic tissue? I realize how inconvenient that is, but it is no less true.

many many is a light exageration theres a few, and its not in anyway inconvenient they have been shown to be residue of bacteria tha was eating the fossil and became trapped no inconvenien in he slightest the residue is alos well over he 50,000 year ability for c14 testing so other methods

After all, that is the very place where "evidence" of birds coming from dinosaurs comes from.

sorry are you refering to the callogen fragments recovered from the bacterial residue?

there was plenty of evidence before and plenty found since he disovery of callogen residue after all that was only done in 2007

the cladistics, taxonomic, fossil evidence was over welming long before then, infact the reptile-bird evolution has been around since 1860

and has grown stronger since

Your dogma and parroted talking points are great. But they are not debate, they are not discussion

but they are accurate and based on research, your terminology is ambiguose and your c14 date based on dendrochronology is 1/2 the varifiable age

but it can then be taken further by comparissions of other dating methods, calbrate a silt column by comparrison to the dendrochronology and the silt colum goes back further and allows a inrease in the definate calibration date, which is why it can accuratley be calibrated to 20-28,000 years for much of the earth

my talkjing points required research to test the accuracy of your claims so not possible to parrot them ...

and my dogma is honesty and accuracy so yeah ill admit to that

and correcting or commenting on the op isnt an attack, unless you equate attack as anything/one that fails to agree

now please drop the name calling and present eviudence either for your claims or too refute my corrections of those claims

reply to post by RuneSpider


i agree the mummy is fascinating but just to clarrify its not a mummy in the egyptian mummy sense a dried carcass

it is solid rock, but the fast mineralisation preserved the shape and size of the soft tissuesorgans muscle etc) as they were in life

it also had an extinct species of crocodilian preserved partially within the carcass, it seems the covering of the body in mud was so fast and the covering so complete it trapped the feeding crocodile before it could escape and stopped it escaping