skuinders Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 What evidence?The text I posted contains evidence!!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE IS YOURS????? This site was created to counter Creationists. Do I need to link you a Creationist site so you can understand where we are coming from? www.drdino.com Most "true" Creationists will argue the young Earth. Why is this new news to you?Why can't we find any neutral sites on this? :shrug: The site I am referencing, http://www.talkorigins.org/, is a neutral site. It is not the fault of the web site if the creationist arguments are few and futile.
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 EDIT: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.htmlFrom YOUR source:"The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence. Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface. (maybe that was Noah's flood?- Skippy) The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia." Now explain "radiometric dating." As I understand it, an assumption has been made that the same amount of Carbon-14 is available today as there was at every point in the past. Is that close?? It is an assumption for several reasons not the least of which is that C-14 is constantly breaking down. But, we would have to have had someone there 3.5 billion years ago taking atmospheric and soil samples of the quantity of C-14. Your source uses two isotopes of lead instead of carbon-14, yet it still makes assumptions. "Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time." - Assumptions have been made as to how much of each of the elements the sample started out with THAT is why the data separates!!
skuinders Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 From YOUR source:"The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence. Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface. (maybe that was Noah's flood?- Skippy) The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia." Now explain "radiometric dating." As I understand it, an assumption has been made that the same amount of Carbon-14 is available today as there was at every point in the past. Is that close?? It is an assumption for several reasons not the least of which is that C-14 is constantly breaking down. But, we would have to have had someone there 3.5 billion years ago taking atmospheric and soil samples of the quantity of C-14. Your source uses two isotopes of lead instead of carbon-14, yet it still makes assumptions. "Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time." - Assumptions have been made as to how much of each of the elements the sample started out with THAT is why the data separates!!So, of course, because there are some grey areas in the dating process, one must assume the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that the bible stories are correct. What evidence do you have that is better than this?
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 The site I am referencing, http://www.talkorigins.org/, is a neutral site. It is not the fault of the web site if the creationist arguments are few and futile.Such naivete is cute. There is one link on the Home Page, for The Panda's Thumb, it "is dedicated to explaining the theory of evolution, critiquing the claims of the anti-evolution movement, and defending the integrity of science and science education in America and around the world." Where's the balance to that? :wave: Also on the Home Page is their mission statement - "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." You call that Neutral? :shrug: What a joke!
Fishteacher73 Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface. (maybe that was Noah's flood?- Skippy) The problem with a global flood is that the geological evidence is not there. Such an event would leave evidence of errosion globally (if it were a global flood, whic there are multiple arguments against also concerning global water volumes) and it has not.
skuinders Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 If you can post evidence for your claims, I will talk. Until then I am not wasting my time with you anymore.
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 If you can post evidence for your claims, I will talk. Until then I am not wasting my time with you anymore.Classic defeatist statement.
skuinders Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 Classic defeatist statement.Classic Christian who plays with use of language and writes off all evidence from science but presents no evidence himself. Go back to your silly book and stop playing smart.
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 The problem with a global flood is that the geological evidence is not there. Such an event would leave evidence of errosion globally (if it were a global flood, whic there are multiple arguments against also concerning global water volumes) and it has not.Check out - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842"Not enough mud on the sea floor. Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it. Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago. Not enough sodium in the sea.Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 Classic Christian who plays with use of language and writes off all evidence from science but presents no evidence himself. Go back to your silly book and stop playing smart.When I was your age I was studying Organic Chemistry from Dr. Lewis' (of the Lewis Dot Structure) at Rice University. I will not stoop to say I'm smarter than you, but I will say that you exhibit as much faith in your religion as I do in mine. The only difference is I HAVE studied YOUR religion and studied it FROM the viewpoint (until I wised up) of a believer being taught by some of the finest professors of the religion at that time. An open mind is a beautiful thing.
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 The problem with a global flood is that the geological evidence is not there. Such an event would leave evidence of errosion globally (if it were a global flood, whic there are multiple arguments against also concerning global water volumes) and it has not.You will say this does not suffice:Evidence "University of Michigan paleontologist Philip D. Gingerich and colleagues at the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) announced April 10 the successful excavation of an unusually complete and well-preserved skeleton of the 40 million-year-old fossil whale Basilosaurus isis." - IN THE MIDDLE OF "Wadi Hitan, a remote desert valley in which hundreds of fossil whale skeletons are being exposed by the wind."
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 Skippy, do you believe in Noah's ark?Of course.
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 Skippy, do you believe in Noah's ark?Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep. From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp Now read Genesis 30 and see that the ancient's knew about cross-breeding to pass on traits of the parent animals. A single pair of cross-bred animal would be capable of producing several different breeds if the right two gametes combined.
skuinders Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 Of course. OK. I thank you for the time you have put into this conversation. I do not want to continue because it is my opinion that you have either not researched the implications of your beliefs far enough, or you are incapable of logical and rational analysis. I don't want to turn this into a pointless flame war or a posting back and forth of internet articles, so I'll end my participation here. :shrug:
Skippy Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 OK. I thank you for the time you have put into this conversation. I do not want to continue because it is my opinion that you have either not researched the implications of your beliefs far enough, or you are incapable of logical and rational analysis. I don't want to turn this into a pointless flame war or a posting back and forth of internet articles, so I'll end my participation here. :shrug:"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." - Bertrand Russell Keep searching, but you will not find it in the religion of evolution.-Skippy
skuinders Posted July 21, 2005 Report Posted July 21, 2005 Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp OK! One more! Even if we assume the vessel was that big (no wooden vessel that large has ever been built because it would be structurally unsound), it is not big enough.There are extant today over 4,500 species of mammals, 6,000 species of reptiles, 8,600 species of birds and 3,000 species of amphibians. Each of these have many large members: elephants, camels, rhinoceros, hippopotamuses, giraffes, horses, donkeys, zebras, cattle, bison, tapirs, pigs, tigers, lions, jaguars, panthers, sea lions, walruses, crocodiles, alligators, giant turtles, Kimono dragon, snakes, ostriches, emus, falcons and giant salamanders. There are 23,000 species of fishes, many of which will not be able to survive the flood if not taken up into the ark. And then there are the little creatures; there are about a million species of insects and 60,000 species of arachnids. How were these species stored in the ark? There are many other problems including:Gathering all these animals would be a problem. Genesis 7:11-15 makes it clear that the gathering of all the animals took only one twenty-four hour day. Thus each pair of animals have less than 1/10th of a second to get into the the ark. Noah was also supposed to store food for these animals (Genesis 6:21). This presents another problem in terms of storage space and the actual variety required. A pair of elephants would require about 300 kgs of bulky greenery per day. Enough meat must be stored for the various carnivores such as tigers, lions, jaguars and panthers. The 10,000 species of termites would have to be fed to ensure that they do not consume the ship itself! The giant panda would have to be fed only bamboo shoots. The koala must be fed only fresh eucalyptus leaves. Animals such as snakes, penguins and bats need to be fed with living food; so Noah would need additional storage space for rats, fishes and insects for these creatures. Removing the wastes and excrement of the animals in the ark would provide a logistical nightmare. How could pairs of all these be taken up the ark and looked after by only eight people (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives.)? And what about terrestrial plants and vegetation? The immense weight of the flood water would have destroyed them all. What kept the plant alive through the flood? It is naive and pointless to say that God kept these alive by miraculous means; for what is the reason then for Noah building the ark? If God could keep the plants and the fresh water fishes alive without Noah taking them into the ark, He surely could have kept all the rest alive without needing the ark. There are still more difficulties with the story. It fails to explain the distribution of animals after the flood; How did the animals know how to reach their respective habitat after the flood? What an amazing coincidence that almost all marsupials end up in Australia. Why did the penguins head for the south pole and not the north? Where did all the water go after the flood? What did the carnivores eat before the first pairs of their food have a chance to reproduce? What did the herbivores eat, since all the plants woulds have died during the flood? Now read Genesis 30 and see that the ancients knew about cross-breeding to pass on traits of the parent animals. A single pair of cross-bred animal would be capable of producing several different breeds if the right two gametes combined. Some organisms don’t survive or reproduce in pairs (eg. insects such as bees and flies).
Recommended Posts