Some problems with evolution

[Scuba Pete]

Hi, I would just give a few examples since it was said that scripture does not say evolution is false. Lets see from the start. Does evolution say the world was made in millions of years or in 7 days?

The word that WE translate into day actually translates as "warmth" and was meant to mean a "period of work". There were no hours associated with it, much less 24: only that work was being accomplished. These work periods don't even have to be the same length.

BTW, so you can twist the scriptures correctly, that would be 6 days. God rested on the 7th.

So how do account for dinosaur fossils? Where are those creatures TODAY? How about resistant strains of virus? How did they get that way if they didn't evolve.

You seem bound and determined to wallow in your ignorance and fear. Who am I to cast any pearls in your direction? Check back to me when you want to actually figure things out.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With him or me? Please clarify. Nowhere is it written in the scriptures that evolution is false, and I don't recall any tome on evolution mentioning that there can be no God.

Evolution is a stochastic process whereby random changes are subjected to environmental selection. It is explicitly nonteleological. God is not precluded by the theory of evolution. He is simply rendered unnecessary.

 

[Scuba Pete]

God is not precluded by the theory of evolution. He is simply rendered unnecessary.

Back to my premise (artful dodge though), this contention comes from WHAT book on evolution?

Like I have said before Jayhawker, that the two are incompatible is a lie spread by religious extremists. This includes both theists and atheists alike. Thankfully, I don't rely on either extreme to tell me what is compatible with my beliefs. If you need to believe that lie to justify your belief system, then so be it. Just don't expect me to accept the same fallacy with a straight face.

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi , Netdoc, And everyone, so are you saying that when it says the Elohim said let there be light.(maor), and the light He called day (yom) Niether word means warmth to my knowledge. But if as scripture says that we were given them for times and seasons then by my observations on this Earth i would have to disagree and say my eyes say that a day is 24 hours. As for dinasuresIt is funny but if you read you will see alkinds of WRITEN history of dragons. The romans say they fought some that eat elaphent. the Chinees in Eurupe. All over the world we have these recorded historical facts. Oh I forgot most of you don't believe recorded history. But as to dinasors if you can only say that the stories of opinions on the subject have always been the same. I would have to say that the chanses are much better. but the truth is that very few agree with the same degrees and they have different opinions asto everything from the muscel stucture to there looks. can I go for these stories NO.

 

[St0ne]

man, I think you should think yourself lucky any evolutionists even bothered to respond, that in itself is enough to warrant them more respect from you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hi , Netdoc, And everyone, so are you saying that when it says the Elohim said let there be light.(maor), and the light He called day (yom) Niether word means warmth to my knowledge. But if as scripture says that we were given them for times and seasons then by my observations on this Earth i would have to disagree and say my eyes say that a day is 24 hours.

I see you don't believe in faith. That's cool: believe what you want.

As for dinasuresIt is funny but if you read you will see alkinds of WRITEN history of dragons. The romans say they fought some that eat elaphent. the Chinees in Eurupe. All over the world we have these recorded historical facts. Oh I forgot most of you don't believe recorded history. But as to dinasors if you can only say that the stories of opinions on the subject have always been the same. I would have to say that the chanses are much better. but the truth is that very few agree with the same degrees and they have different opinions asto everything from the muscel stucture to there looks. can I go for these stories NO.

Can you translate this into english for us? I am having a hard time understanding a specific point here (if it exists). I do get that you think that God and evolution are incompatible. So, it seems that you buy the equal but opposite lie that Jayhawker has fallen prey to.

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi,You lost me on the I have no faith part? I have no faith in man this is true. As to dragons my point is that we have all kinds of writings discribing large reptile like animals all over but you science says they don't exsist they are mans imagination. Well I'll listen to recorded history and you can go for what ever. That is what scripture says. They will follow lies. Oh ya did i forget an old NYC rule follow the money! Now how much are these makers of theories making on their theories? And PLEASE don't waste your time saying there not getting payed.We have no professors or scientists that live in the subways orparks for that matter.

 

[Scuba Pete]

"No Faith" means that you are forcing the facts to fit your narrow understanding. The FACTS are that this earth is billions of years old. Using your "Force if it don't fit and use a hammer if that don't work" mentality when approaching these facts means that you discount facts for YOUR VERSION OF UNDERSTANDING. You simply don't have faith that God will make it plain. That's sad.

 

[Mister Emu]

Can you translate this into english for us? I am having a hard time understanding a specific point here (if it exists). I do get that you think that God and evolution are incompatible. So, it seems that you buy the equal but opposite lie that Jayhawker has fallen prey to.

Dragon reports = Dinosaur sightings.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I thought it had something to do with the "Force if it don't fit and use a hammer if that don't work" mentality.

 

[Endless]

The FACTS are that this earth is billions of years old.

Unfortunately that's not entirely accurate. The age of the earth is calculated, in the calculations certain guesses/assumptions have to be made because no one was there to witness things. If these assumptions are infact incorrect then the age of the earth is wrong. A fact cannot be based on an assumption.

Let me provide you with an example.

Dacite (7kg) was dated from a lava dome by Potassium Argon analysis and the lab told that 'Low argon' should be expected - indicating that they thought it was relatively recent.
The lab sent back the results of 4 samples from this rock:
The dates varied from 0.34 to 2.8 million years old.
Tell me, is the date from between 0.34 to 2.8 million years old fact?

 

[jwu]

Dude, War of the Worlds is Science Fact. Tom Cruise is in it!

Yeah. And every child knows Tom Cruise is a scientologist

Dacite (7kg) was dated from a lava dome by Potassium Argon analysis and the lab told that 'Low argon' should be expected - indicating that they thought it was relatively recent.
The lab sent back the results of 4 samples from this rock:
The dates varied from 0.34 to 2.8 million years old.
Tell me, is the date from between 0.34 to 2.8 million years old fact?

Potassium argon dating doesn't really measure the age of a rock, but when the material was completely molten the last time. If that sample contained xenoliths or wasn't completely molten, then it can contain excess argon and the date is put off.

 

[Endless]

Potassium argon dating doesn't really measure the age of a rock, but when the material was completely molten the last time.

Yeah, but that's how rocks form. Therefore since the formation of that rock, those were the dates given for the dating.

If that sample contained xenoliths or wasn't completely molten, then it can contain excess argon and the date is put off.

Exactly - and who was there when it was formed to say whether there was excess Argon present in the rock and how much? They weren't dating lava - they were dating solid rock. What is the assumption this dating works on? That there is no excess Argon present - increase in Argon = increase in age of the rock. So if there is excess Argon present then the age of the rock will turn out far greater than it actually is. But no-one knows whether excess Argon was present or not - so when dating they work on the assumption there wasn't any. So how can the date be a fact when an assumption as critical as this is worked upon?

Do you want to know the real date of the rock in question? It was 10 years old. It was formed when Mount Saint Helen's erupted between 1980-86.
Theradiodate was 0.34 million years to 2.8million!! If that rock had been one outside of human history, how wrong we would have been on the date of the rock. Radiodating using the Potassium Argon method fails spectaculary when tested - because of the assumptions that it has to work under. We can't tell the date of a rock of known age - how in the world can we expect to tell the date of a rock of unknown age?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you want to know the real date of the rock in question? It was 10 years old.

Are you sure? Maybe it was a rock thrown by MSH?

But you find a problem with ONE method of dating and dismiss ALL of them? Typical knee jerk reaction of an extremist.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Alexander, what are your three favorite books on evolution?

This question really should be answered before we move on.

 

[jwu]

But no-one knows whether excess Argon was present or not - so when dating they work on the assumption there wasn't any. So how can the date be a fact when an assumption as critical as this is worked upon?

And exactly that can be checked with isochron dating.

They weren't dating lava - they were dating solid rock.

[snip]

Do you want to know the real date of the rock in question? It was 10 years old. It was formed when Mount Saint Helen's erupted between 1980-86.

You've just defeated your own point then - if it wasn't lava, then it quite clearly has been a while since the matter of that rock was molten the last time. MSH merely ejected it to the surface.

Furthermore, due to the slow decay of potassium, it cannot be used on ten years old samples anyway, it's absolute error margin is too large for that. Saying that because of a failure of Pt/A dating to come up with a good age for something supposedly ten years old it cannot be used for older things is like saying that because yardsticks don't give good results for the width of a bacteria they cannot be used to measure the length of your room.

 

[Mathematician]

As for dinasuresIt is funny but if you read you will see alkinds of WRITEN history of dragons. The romans say they fought some that eat elaphent. the Chinees in Eurupe. All over the world we have these recorded historical facts. Oh I forgot most of you don't believe recorded history. But as to dinasors if you can only say that the stories of opinions on the subject have always been the same. I would have to say that the chanses are much better. but the truth is that very few agree with the same degrees and they have different opinions asto everything from the muscel stucture to there looks. can I go for these stories NO.

Firstly, the majority of dinasaurs don't look like the Chinese/European/Arabian dragons. The Chinese dragons looked more like large snakes, and while the Europeans had something more like the T-Rex, that's only one species out of thousands(or millions).

Secondly, what's to say they didn't dig up bones themselves and go, "omg, this thing must still be alive"?

There's nothing credible about the dragon sightings...

 

[Endless]

NetDoc,
Yes i am sure it was ten years old - it was a lava dome sample from Mount Saint Helen's 1980-86 erruptions.

But you find a problem with ONE method of dating and dismiss ALL of them? Typical knee jerk reaction of an extremist.

Yours is the knee jerk reaction - i haven't even commented on the other dating methods yet.

You've just defeated your own point then - if it wasn't lava, then it quite clearly has been a while since the matter of that rock was molten the last time. MSH merely ejected it to the surface.

It was lava at one stage - during mount saint Helen's 1980-1986 erruptions - it was a lava dome sample. It was rock - not lava when it was measured.

Furthermore, due to the slow decay of potassium, it cannot be used on ten years old samples anyway, it's absolute error margin is too large for that.

It's not the error margin - there shouldn't have been any Argon present in a 10 year old sample according to the assumptions used to date rocks of unknown age. The sample should have come back with the 'no Argon present' tag - it didn't. Hence the vast ages were not correct.

Saying that because of a failure of Pt/A dating to come up with a good age for something supposedly ten years old it cannot be used for older things is like saying that because yardsticks don't give good results for the width of a bacteria they cannot be used to measure the length of your room.

So you see, it has nothing to do with the large margin of error whatsoever.

And exactly that can be checked with isochron dating.

Yes, and yet it is not foolproof. There are known processes which invalidate this and we have to assume that these have not occurred. Let me provide another example for you:

The Grand canyon - 27 samples taken from the same geologic formation, using the Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) the dates varied from 400 +- 10 million years to 2600 +- 75 million years.
Now 7 samples where taken from the same lava flow - so they should have been all the same date. The K-Ar dates varied from 1050 to 2600 million years. Now two of the samples were taken 80cm apart from one another, the date of one was 1200 million years and the date of the other was 2600 million years! Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that if the argon concentrations can differ that much between a metre then you haven't a hope of figuring out what the original concentrations where since the original concentrations must have varied wildly across the lava flow.

Now three other dating methods were used with the isochron plots. Rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) and lead-lead (Pb-Pb).
The ages for the rock were calculated as follows:
Rb-Sr = 1240+-84 Million years
Sm-Nd = 1655+- 10 Million years
Pb-Pb = 1883+-53 Million years

Each of those ages is vastly different from the other - they are statistically different.
There should be no difference if isochron are able to predict the amounts of daughter isotopes present in the rock in the first place. In reality the use of isochrons themselves are based on assumptions just like the K-Ar dating method - this is the reason why the dates are so far out between themselves and also between the different dating methods. It is not reliable.

 

[Scuba Pete]

NetDoc,
Yes i am sure it was ten years old - it was a lava dome sample from Mount Saint Helen's 1980-86 erruptions.

That's a lot of faith... did you see it happen?

Yours is the knee jerk reaction - i haven't even commented on the other dating methods yet.

So you ACCEPT the other methods? From the tenor of your posts, you have thrown out the baby with the bath water!

 

[jwu]

It's not the error margin - there shouldn't have been any Argon present in a 10 year old sample according to the assumptions used to date rocks of unknown age. The sample should have come back with the 'no Argon present' tag - it didn't. Hence the vast ages were not correct.

The error margin is there exactly because it is difficult to measure very low quantities of argon. And traces already should have been there, even after ten years. Just the precise amounth is extremely difficult to measure.

Yes, and yet it is not foolproof.

Of course it's not. There are individual rare cases in which freak accidents produce apparently valid isochrons, and one has to consider some things about the choice of samples, as there are some requirements for it to work.

There are known processes which invalidate this and we have to assume that these have not occurred.

...and the probabilities of these processes is very low. The odds that they happen at a significant part of all datings is astronomically low.

The Grand canyon - 27 samples taken from the same geologic formation, using the Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) the dates varied from 400 +- 10 million years to 2600 +- 75 million years.
Now 7 samples where taken from the same lava flow - so they should have been all the same date. The K-Ar dates varied from 1050 to 2600 million years. Now two of the samples were taken 80cm apart from one another, the date of one was 1200 million years and the date of the other was 2600 million years! Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that if the argon concentrations can differ that much between a metre then you haven't a hope of figuring out what the original concentrations where since the original concentrations must have varied wildly across the lava flow.

Now three other dating methods were used with the isochron plots. Rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) and lead-lead (Pb-Pb).
The ages for the rock were calculated as follows:
Rb-Sr = 1240+-84 Million years
Sm-Nd = 1655+- 10 Million years
Pb-Pb = 1883+-53 Million years

Each of those ages is vastly different from the other - they are statistically different.

I think i found the case that this is about. The samples were not cogenetic. Austin even admitted that. Under these circumstances one does not get the age of the solidification of the lava flow, but mantle ages - for well known reasons. Such samples are distingushable in a way so that this sometimes even is used by isotope geologists to "look further back".

Furthermore, no-one claims that all dating methods are perfect. Occasional anomalies do happen. However, there is a huge correlation of dates of independent dating methods which shouldn't be there if there was something wrong with them.