Einstein was right after all....

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

There are several species that have remained relatively unchanged over millions of years.

Gee golly that just seems awful convenient for the pro-evolution argument.

When it fits the model of evolution then animals evolve. When it doesn't fit the model, "oh those are the ones that didn't evolve".

Got it. Thanks.

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

The next question I have is why do we need to know how old the Earth is to be able to believe in something that is currently occuring (continental drift) and that has been measured and shown to gave happened within our lifetime?

Ok I'll bite. Let me correct myself.

"Sure continental drift may have some legitimacy, but we can't know to what extent until we know how old the earth is."

Better?

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

There is an opposite side, but it is by no means equal.

Hold on bigorange is calling creationism stupid again. My entire belief system has been shaken all 10 times he's done that on this thread.

 

[bigorange16]

You need to read the whole debate. I was responding to TRUT. I was just arguing that if carbon dating was flawed (or if it proved that the earth was young) it would be devastating to the case of NS.

I have stated multiple times that I have no idea how old the Earth is. I don't have a specific belief either way.

Well you should look into it, because there is plenty of evidence that it is ~4.5 billion years old.

 

[bigorange16]

Gee golly that just seems awful convenient for the pro-evolution argument.

When it fits the model of evolution then animals evolve. When it doesn't fit the model, "oh those are the ones that didn't evolve".

Got it. Thanks.

No, it fits the model both ways. Thats how it works. According to the evidence.

 

[therealUT]

You need to read the whole debate. I was responding to TRUT. I was just arguing that if carbon dating was flawed (or if it proved that the earth was young) it would be devastating to the case of NS.

If carbon-dating is flawed it does absolutely nothing to the theory of natural selection; if the earth is proven to be only 6,000 years old, then the TNS is devastated.

For example, if one takes scientific measurements and calculations to postulate that the world is a sphere and then an erstwhile Magellan decides to sail around the world in a boat, his voyage might help verify the scientific postulate. If it is then proven that his sexton was calibrated incorrectly and he actually sailed in a circle in the middle of the Atlantic before returning to Europe, the initial scientific postulate has not been discredited in the least. Now, if Magellan sails out and sails off the edge of the Earth, falling to his death, that destroys the scientific postulate that the Earth is a sphere.

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

Well you should look into it, because there is plenty of evidence that it is ~4.5 billion years old.

I gotta be honest man after squaring off with TRUT it's kind of child's play having to debate with you. You keep repeating things like

"creationism is hogwash"

"creationism is a ridiculous belief"

"there's plenty of evidence"

"you should look up the evidence"

At least TRUT provides well thought out, intelligent arguments and comes across as someone who is very knowledgable.

No offense man, but you should take your 115 posts and go break your cherry in the football forum first like everybody else does.

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

If carbon-dating is flawed it does absolutely nothing to the theory of natural selection; if the earth is proven to be only 6,000 years old, then the TNS is devastated.

For example, if one takes scientific measurements and calculations to postulate that the world is a sphere and then an erstwhile Magellan decides to sail around the world in a boat, his voyage might help verify the scientific postulate. If it is then proven that his sexton was calibrated incorrectly and he actually sailed in a circle in the middle of the Atlantic before returning to Europe, the initial scientific postulate has not been discredited in the least. Now, if Magellan sails out and sails off the edge of the Earth, falling to his death, that destroys the scientific postulate that the Earth is a sphere.

I think I should be wording it like "many try to reinforce their NS or evolution beliefs by pointing to carbon dating as 'proof' that the earth is old enought to support these claim. The flaws in carbon dating take away this support."

I agree it doesn't disprove NS. Just doesn't support it as many claim it does.

 

[bigorange16]

I gotta be honest man after squaring off with TRUT it's kind of child's play having to debate with you. You keep repeating things like

"creationism is hogwash"

"creationism is a ridiculous belief"

"there's plenty of evidence"

"you should look up the evidence"

At least TRUT provides well thought out, intelligent arguments and comes across as someone who is very knowledgable.

No offense man, but you should take your 115 posts and go break your cherry in the football forum first like everybody else does.

What is wrong with telling you to look at the evidence?

 

[therealUT]

I think I should be wording it like "many try to reinforce their NS or evolution beliefs by pointing to carbon dating as 'proof' that the earth is old enought to support these claim. The flaws in carbon dating take away this support."

I agree it doesn't disprove NS. Just doesn't support it as many claim it does.

Can you name the evolutionary biologists who try to support the theory of natural selection by referring to carbon-dating? Not Dawkins; not Gould; not Darwin.

The only places I see carbon-dating brought up, with regard to the TNS, are from individuals attacking the theory. I have yet to see it brought about by the major proponents of TNS. It seems as though it is simply a red-herring and a straw-man for detractors.

 

[GhostVol]

Ok I'll bite. Let me correct myself.

"Sure continental drift may have some legitimacy, but we can't know to what extent until we know how old the earth is."

Better?

Better? Not much.... You say "may have some legitimacy".... May have? Please Google "tectonic plate speed" and see what you get...

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

Can you name the evolutionary biologists who try to support the theory of natural selection by referring to carbon-dating? Not Dawkins; not Gould; not Darwin.

The only places I see carbon-dating brought up, with regard to the TNS, are from individuals attacking the theory. I have yet to see it brought about by the major proponents of TNS. It seems as though it is simply a red-herring and a straw-man for detractors.

I don't know of an "evolutionary biologist" that claims that (though it would be ignorant to assume there aren't any) but there are examples.

Such as author Laurence Pringle and his book "Billions of Years, Amazing Changes"

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/laurence-pringle/billions-years-amazing-changes/

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

Better? Not much.... You say "may have some legitimacy".... May have? Please Google "tectonic plate speed" and see what you get...

This is literally a quote I found on the first page:

"Most of my research turned up theories and not hard experimental data and those measurements that I was able to obtain were averages or estimations. The numbers found in each source did not exactly agree with each other but their ranges were reasonably similar. The majority of the research showed that the plates moved at the average rates between approximately 0.60*cm/yr to 10*cm/yr. Some sources stated that in the North Atlantic, the rate of movement is only about 1*cm (about 0.4*in) per year, while in the Pacific it amounts to more than 4*cm (almost 2*in) annually, while two others said the plates, in general, traveled from 5 to 10*cm/yr."

Seems like it still has a ways to go before we can determine how old the earth is.

I don't know why you're still trying to convince me that I'm "wrong" about the age of the earth when I have very clearly said I have no idea.

It may very well be as old as many believe and yes continents may drift. The only recent points I've made are

"carbon dating has too many flaws to prove it"

and "in no way does the age of the earth contradict the Bible"

 

[GhostVol]

This is literally a quote I found on the first page:

"Most of my research turned up theories and not hard experimental data and those measurements that I was able to obtain were averages or estimations. The numbers found in each source did not exactly agree with each other but their ranges were reasonably similar. The majority of the research showed that the plates moved at the average rates between approximately 0.60*cm/yr to 10*cm/yr. Some sources stated that in the North Atlantic, the rate of movement is only about 1*cm (about 0.4*in) per year, while in the Pacific it amounts to more than 4*cm (almost 2*in) annually, while two others said the plates, in general, traveled from 5 to 10*cm/yr."

Seems like it still has a ways to go before we can determine how old the earth is.

I don't know why you're still trying to convince me that I'm "wrong" about the age of the earth when I have very clearly said I have no idea.

It may very well be as old as many believe and yes continents may drift. The only recent points I've made are

"carbon dating has too many flaws to prove it"

and "in no way does the age of the earth contradict the Bible"

Saying "I don't know" when there is clearly evidence to support something is disingenuous at best. Downright evil, at worst.

Continental drift demonstrates that Earth must be very old. The plates didn't reach their current locations anytime in the recent past.

 

[therealUT]

I don't know of an "evolutionary biologist" that claims that (though it would be ignorant to assume there aren't any) but there are examples.

Such as author Laurence Pringle and his book "Billions of Years, Amazing Changes"

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/laurence-pringle/billions-years-amazing-changes/

So a man who has no graduate degree in the sciences and writes children's books for a living thinks carbon-dating is crucial and vital support for the theory of natural selection?

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

So a man who has no graduate degree in the sciences and writes children's books for a living thinks carbon-dating is crucial and vital support for the theory of natural selection?

Does he use carbon dating to support his point of evolution? Yes.

Do the obvious flaws in carbon dating hinder this support? Yes.

Was that the point I was making? Yes.

Does TRUT agree with me that if one does attempt to use carbon dating to support evolution, then he's using a flawed method? Yes.

Is TRUT arguing now just to argue? Yes.

 

[therealUT]

Does he use carbon dating to support his point of evolution? Yes.

Do the obvious flaws in carbon dating hinder this support? Yes.

Was that the point I was making? Yes.

Does TRUT agree with me that if one does attempt to use carbon dating to support evolution, then he's using a flawed method? Yes.

Is TRUT arguing now just to argue? Yes.

Do you consider a man who writes children's books to be a "major proponent of the TNS"? You might as well cite a blog where someone is trying to explain TNS without fulling understanding the theory.

Most of the evolutionary biologists who publish explanations of the theory of natural selection consciously avoid relying on any dating methods; they do not need it. The most any will do is put forth their argument and then say, oh, and if you think these dating-methods satisfactory, isn't it an interesting coincidence that these methods allot us the time needed.

Were one to come out and prove that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, even Dawkins would abandon the theory of natural selection (he would not abandon his position that this designer is a poor designer, though); were one to discover a fossil of an organism where it did not belong, according to the TNS, even Dawkins would abandon the theory.

However, the critiques that have been leveled at the theory of natural selection have either been easily handled by the theory or they have been critiques that are really directed at straw-men and they are red herrings meant to discredit the theory of natural selection in the eyes of the masses.

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

Do you consider a man who writes children's books to be a "major proponent of the TNS"? You might as well cite a blog where someone is trying to explain TNS without fulling understanding the theory.

Most of the evolutionary biologists who publish explanations of the theory of natural selection consciously avoid relying on any dating methods; they do not need it. The most any will do is put forth their argument and then say, oh, and if you think these dating-methods satisfactory, isn't it an interesting coincidence that these methods allot us the time needed.

Were one to come out and prove that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago, even Dawkins would abandon the theory of natural selection (he would not abandon his position that this designer is a poor designer, though); were one to discover a fossil of an organism where it did not belong, according to the TNS, even Dawkins would abandon the theory.

However, the critiques that have been leveled at the theory of natural selection have either been easily handled by the theory or they have been critiques that are really directed at straw-men and they are red herrings meant to discredit the theory of natural selection in the eyes of the masses.

Ok look man. I can't make this any clearer. I'm gonna put it in all caps for you.

IF ANYONE USES CARBON DATING TO PROVE EVOLUTION, THEY ARE USING A FLAWED THEORY. I AM NOT CALLING THEM A CREDIBLE SOURCE. I AM NOT SAYING A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF EVOLUTIONISTS ACKNOWLEDGE CARBON DATING. I AM NOT REFERRING TO ANY ONE DEMOGRAPHIC OF EVOLUTIONISTS. I AM SAYING "SOME THAT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION TRY TO USE CARBON DATING TO PROVE IT. THAT IS IGNORANCE."

I am not attacking evolutionists with this point. I am attacking the ones that use carbon dating. If you want I can color you a picture to illustrate what I'm saying. But as intelligent as you are, you can't grasp that I'm making a very small point, discrediting a very small group of people. For some reason you are taking this one little point that discredits this one little group of people, and pretending I have used this point to attack all who are not creationists. Can you really not figure this out?

 

[therealUT]

Ok look man. I can't make this any clearer. I'm gonna put it in all caps for you.

IF ANYONE USES CARBON DATING TO PROVE EVOLUTION, THEY ARE USING A FLAWED THEORY. I AM NOT CALLING THEM A CREDIBLE SOURCE. I AM NOT SAYING A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF EVOLUTIONISTS ACKNOWLEDGE CARBON DATING. I AM NOT REFERRING TO ANY ONE DEMOGRAPHIC OF EVOLUTIONISTS. I AM SAYING "SOME THAT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION TRY TO USE CARBON DATING TO PROVE IT. THAT IS IGNORANCE."

I am not attacking evolutionists with this point. I am attacking the ones that use carbon dating. If you want I can color you a picture to illustrate what I'm saying. But as intelligent as you are, you can't grasp that I'm making a very small point, discrediting a very small group of people. For some reason you are taking this one little point that discredits this one little group of people, and pretending I have used this point to attack all who are not creationists. Can you really not figure this out?

I was under the impression that you were using that point to try to discredit the theory of natural selection or the actual scientists who work on the theory. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[sanddune50]

That's not 100% true. Its a matter of perception. If one is trying to prove that the earth is young, then yes carbon dating directly affects that age of the earth. If one is set in stone that earth is whatever-billon years old then I guess it wouldn't matter to them how old the living organisms are that inhabit it.

Again I don't have an opinion either way. No point in trying to guess how old earth is. It is not contradictory to God's word to say that earth is 10,000 or 10,000,000 years old.

God's word never specifically says how old the Earth is. It does state(paraphrasing) that 1,000 years to man is like 1 day to God. Which could imply the 7 day creation was 7,000 years or even more, who knows? Couple that with a 12 month calender being a man made phenomenon, and that time may have been kept at different intervals in the biblical days. Point is evolutionists keep pointing to this 6,000 year comment, and in truth very few bible scholars today will back that timeline.

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

God's word never specifically says how old the Earth is. It does state(paraphrasing) that 1,000 years to man is like 1 day to God. Which could imply the 7 day creation was 7,000 years or even more, who knows? Couple that with a 12 month calender being a man made phenomenon, and that time may have been kept at different intervals in the biblical days. Point is evolutionists keep pointing to this 6,000 year comment, and in truth very few bible scholars today will back that timeline.

Well said

 

[PKT_VOL]

God's word never specifically says how old the Earth is. It does state(paraphrasing) that 1,000 years to man is like 1 day to God. Which could imply the 7 day creation was 7,000 years or even more, who knows? Couple that with a 12 month calender being a man made phenomenon, and that time may have been kept at different intervals in the biblical days. Point is evolutionists keep pointing to this 6,000 year comment, and in truth very few bible scholars today will back that timeline.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the evolution debate.

The biggest contribution Christianity had on time was that it made time linear. Every other society before and some since thought of time as periodic.

 

[sanddune50]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the evolution debate.

The biggest contribution Christianity had on time was that it made time linear. Every other society before and some since thought of time as periodic.

Several posters in this thread mentioned the Creationists 'view' of the earth being 6,000 years old, and I posted in response to debunk that belief.

 

[MG1968]

God's word never specifically says how old the Earth is. It does state(paraphrasing) that 1,000 years to man is like 1 day to God. Which could imply the 7 day creation was 7,000 years or even more, who knows? Couple that with a 12 month calender being a man made phenomenon, and that time may have been kept at different intervals in the biblical days. Point is evolutionists keep pointing to this 6,000 year comment, and in truth very few bible scholars today will back that timeline.

they may not back that timeline, but when pressed on the issue they will give a non-answer at best

 

[PKT_VOL]

Several posters in this thread mentioned the Creationists 'view' of the earth being 6,000 years old, and I posted in response to debunk that belief.

That would be accurate. Most Creationists do believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Some, more reasonable Creationists, try to incorporate science into the equation.