Carbon Dating.. What Are Creationists Doing Wrong?

[Megan 8]

"Again I ask, where EVER has randomness brought order and where has this been observed, tested, and repeated?"

The claim is not that particles randomly smacked together to create everything. Spontaneous generation of amino acids shows this. What do you think causes it? I don't know, but it must not be random, do you think? I do not have any other examples for you of things that have been observed, tested, and repeated.

 

I would have to say that evolution makes more sense than creation, to me, because I have never witnessed any magical thing like the things that happened in the bible. For some reason I have trouble believing that supernatural things used to happen but don't anymore. There is also the very specific things that I do not agree with in the bible. Like some things that are called sin in the bible, I do not believe they are sin. I realize that it isn't up to me to decide what is sin, but I just disagree with the bible on some points. Also, I do not believe there is a purpose to life or that there has to be or that life is any less amazing without divine purpose. There is purpose where you give life purpose while you are living it. Also, there are many other religions and I never saw the Christian bible as an authority over other religious text. There are several other reasons like geology, but I will try to stay on topic..

 

"What's the difference? Both evolutionists and creationists gather data and interpret it. Many evolutionists and creationists both have degrees or advances degrees. Creationists start at the beginning with life, and life coming from life. I could be wrong but I think it was you that said 'evolution is not about origins'. I had asked for clarification because I thought that's what books like 'The Origin of Life' or 'Origin of Species' was about. It's not just you that says evolution is not about origins, I've heard this before and I don't understand it. Is it because evolutionists can't explain it so they simply say it's not about origins? If it's not, please tell me why it's not."

 

If you are referring to why abiogenesis is kept separate from evolution theories, it's because there are several different abiogenesis theories and they do not really have anything to do with evolution as we know it. Abiogenesis has more to do with chemistry. I don't have much more of a specific answer than that one because I do not really study abiogenesis.

 

"Evolution has no observable data to back it up. For example, fossils are found, but that doesn't prove evolution. Testing to determine age can be done but cannot be confirmed if accurate."

There is observable change and speciation. These things are interpreted as data that backs up evolution. You may say that is just evidence of microevolution. Well, I have never seen a limit to microevolution. You are right, just finding fossils doesn't prove evolution. But it does raise many questions, at least for me. Why aren't there any human fossils found in the rock layers with dinosaurs or below dinosaurs? Why are there marine fossil layers with a non-marine fossil layer sandwiched between? There are many other questions about the evidence that is not explained in detail with creation theory as it is with evolution or old earth theory.

 

"Has anything in evolution been 100% verified to be true? If so, what and how?"

There are several things, but they have already been mentioned in other threads and I do not know how to go about arguing them or think it is really worth it. It has to do with genetic mapping, but I have not studied that in detail, so I can not argue that with you. I saw in another thread that one of the points was made out to be something else and it seems less effective for either party to discuss things that are of very complex nature. Those types of points can easily be skewed.

So, for the sake of just answering your question, I do not personally have proof of that for you.

 

"How is evolution assumed to be true based on the above? Does not common sense tell you (us) that 'if it looks designed, it is designed'? Can you show me otherwise with proof?"

You made several comparisons using evolution for things that are non-life. Evolution has nothing to do with the non-living, so I do not really have another way to respond to that..

 

"This comes down to that force question again. How did it KNOW it needed these things to survive? How did it KNOW where it needed to fly to migrate and stay warm?"

It did not "know" it needed these traits to survive. Many other species have been born without helpful traits for the changing climate or environment and they died. It isn't a matter of them knowing what traits to have. The other animals that possessed unhelpful traits died, so that is why it is so easy to look at the surviving species and see beneficial traits.

[MarkForbes 167]

nn

....

 

I would have to say that evolution makes more sense than creation, to me, because I have never witnessed any magical thing like the things that happened in the bible. For some reason I have trouble believing that supernatural things used to happen but don't anymore. There is also the very specific things that I do not agree with in the bible. Like some things that are called sin in the bible, I do not believe they are sin. I realize that it isn't up to me to decide what is sin, but I just disagree with the bible on some points. Also, I do not believe there is a purpose to life or that there has to be or that life is any less amazing without divine purpose. There is purpose where you give life purpose while you are living it. Also, there are many other religions and I never saw the Christian bible as an authority over other religious text. There are several other reasons like geology, but I will try to stay on topic..

...

 

But you haven't witnessed Evolution either.

[usafjay1976 47]

Megan,

 

Okay, so to clarify on a few things… you say, and I quote,

 

 

I do not have any other examples for you of things that have been observed, tested, and repeated.

 

And you also stated, and I quote,

 

 

I would have to say that evolution makes more sense than creation, to me, because I have never witnessed any magical thing like the things that happened in the bible

 

And as Mark pointed out, you have never witnessed evolution either.

 

So, you have no examples of anything in evolution that have ever been observed, tested, and/or repeated, and you have never witnessed evolution.

But… you say evolution makes more sense?

 

 

For some reason I have trouble believing that supernatural things used to happen but don't anymore.

 

As a believer in God/Christ/Creation, this doesn’t mean you will see/experience supernatural things. I am 36 years old and I have not witnessed anything supernatural.

 

 

There is also the very specific things that I do not agree with in the bible. Like some things that are called sin in the bible, I do not believe they are sin. I realize that it isn't up to me to decide what is sin, but I just disagree with the bible on some points

 

You might not agree but it, but ultimately if there is a God, it doesn’t matter what you/we think, right? I mean, I might really want to murder someone and disagree with the bible and the 10 commandments. But simply because I disagree with something doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong. There are laws even now I disagree with but they are there and we have to obey them. I might not agree with them but this doesn’t make them less valid. As you stated, it isn’t up to you to decide what is sin, nor is it up to me or any individual on this earth. God sets the rules and it’s up to us to follow them the best we can. That being said, it is not the rules (or what we call the ‘law’) that saves us. No matter what we as humans do, we fall short of the glory of God. We all sin. Yours sins are no better (or worse) than mine. By God giving His Son to die for us and for those who believe in Christ’s death and resurrection on the cross, we have the promise of eternal life when we pass from this life.

 

 

Also, I do not believe there is a purpose to life or that there has to be or that life is any less amazing without divine purpose

 

When you believe you are just random space junk, then your world view makes sense. When/if you realize you were designed in God’s image, your view on life will change.

 

 

Also, there are many other religions and I never saw the Christian bible as an authority over other religious text

 

Here is a brief article on Christianity and the difference between some other main religions. What similarities/differences do you see?

 

http://www.bible.ca/b-christianity-world-religions.htm'> http://www.bible.ca/b-christianity-world-religions.htm

 

And one more short one below:

 

http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/christianity-one-true-religion'> http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/christianity-one-true-religion

 

 

If you are referring to why abiogenesis is kept separate from evolution theories, it's because there are several different abiogenesis theories and they do not really have anything to do with evolution as we know it. Abiogenesis has more to do with chemistry. I don't have much more of a specific answer than that one because I do not really study abiogenesis.

 

So what about those books, ‘Origins of Life, Origins of Species’? You said abiogenesis isn’t about origins yet these are two very popular books that explain our evolutionary origins. You’re saying that it’s separate because it has nothing to do with evolution… yet it most certainly does have to deal with evolution because without abiogenesis, we would not be here according to evolutionists! Something had to start from somewhere!

Some good questions arise regarding abiogenesis and evolution here:

• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms?


• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a multicellular organisms must have had a single-celled organism as an ancestor?


• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage?

The link to the article with the above questions (and more) is here:

 

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/pretending-that-evolutionary-theory-is-separable-from-abiogenesis/

 

 

There is observable change and speciation. These things are interpreted as data that backs up evolution. You may say that is just evidence of microevolution. Well, I have never seen a limit to microevolution. You are right, just finding fossils doesn't prove evolution. But it does raise many questions, at least for me. Why aren't there any human fossils found in the rock layers with dinosaurs or below dinosaurs? Why are there marine fossil layers with a non-marine fossil layer sandwiched between? There are many other questions about the evidence that is not explained in detail with creation theory as it is with evolution or old earth theory

 

Clarify on what you have seen that backs up evolution. I’m assuming by ‘back up evolution’ you mean empirical evidence that can be observed, tested, repeated and this evidence will show me that evolution did/does indeed occur, correct?

[Calypsis4 639]

A true miracle that happens daily on planet earth by the trillions:

 

 

Observable, testable, repeatable.

 

Why is it a miracle? Because of the Law of Biogenesis. Life MUST come from other living things. It never comes from non-living matter. Evolutionists believe this happans DESPITE that firmly established law which has never been proven wrong. That's because they don't care about the laws of science. They care about proving their prejudices.

[Megan 8]

"And as Mark pointed out, you have never witnessed evolution either.

So, you have no examples of anything in evolution that have ever been observed, tested, and/or repeated, and you have never witnessed evolution.

But… you say evolution makes more sense?"

Correct. I have no examples except for microevolution and speciation. But, though these do not prove macroevolution, they also do not set boundaries or limits for evolutionary change. I know you disagree with this claim, but the way I interpret the evidence of speciation, evolution of novel traits, and microevolution is clearly different from the way you do. I have also never observed anyone physically ascending to heaven, parting seas, or anything supernatural. So, to me, it appears to be a leap of "faith" in either direction.

"So what about those books, ‘Origins of Life, Origins of Species’? You said abiogenesis isn’t about origins yet these are two very popular books that explain our evolutionary origins. You’re saying that it’s separate because it has nothing to do with evolution… yet it most certainly does have to deal with evolution because without abiogenesis, we would not be here according to evolutionists! Something had to start from somewhere!

Some good questions arise regarding abiogenesis and evolution here:

• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms?
• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a multicellular organisms must have had a single-celled organism as an ancestor?
• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage?"

I do not know that life only arose once or how it happened. I can only theorize.

It seems likely that if abiogenesis is true, that single celled organisms would come before multicellular organisms. I have no proof of this. Again, only theorizing.

I do not know if the fossil evidence is the result of multiple abiogenesis. It seems to fit better as generations of life's ancestors. Are you agreeing that the fossil evidence is in layers of high disparity? How does this coincide with flood theory?

The distinction that I know of between abiogenesis and evolution is that evolution deals primarily with biology and abiogenesis is primarily chemistry. I did not make the distinction personally, it is just highly regarded that way.

Sorry, your first two links did not work.

"Clarify on what you have seen that backs up evolution. I’m assuming by ‘back up evolution’ you mean empirical evidence that can be observed, tested, repeated and this evidence will show me that evolution did/does indeed occur, correct?"

Evolution of novel traits, speciation, ERV's(but that is up for debate in another thread and there is clear disagreement of what the evidence reflects, so no use in arguing it out here), and other instances of microevolution.

Calypsis: "They care about proving their prejudices."

What prejudices? Many many scientists are Christian and other religions.

[Calypsis4 639]

 

"And as Mark pointed out, you have never witnessed evolution either.

So, you have no examples of anything in evolution that have ever been observed, tested, and/or repeated, and you have never witnessed evolution.

But… you say evolution makes more sense?"

Correct. I have no examples except for microevolution and speciation. But, though these do not prove macroevolution, they also do not set boundaries or limits for evolutionary change. I know you disagree with this claim, but the way I interpret the evidence of speciation, evolution of novel traits, and microevolution is clearly different from the way you do. I have also never observed anyone physically ascending to heaven, parting seas, or anything supernatural. So, to me, it appears to be a leap of "faith" in either direction.

"So what about those books, ‘Origins of Life, Origins of Species’? You said abiogenesis isn’t about origins yet these are two very popular books that explain our evolutionary origins. You’re saying that it’s separate because it has nothing to do with evolution… yet it most certainly does have to deal with evolution because without abiogenesis, we would not be here according to evolutionists! Something had to start from somewhere!

Some good questions arise regarding abiogenesis and evolution here:

• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms?
• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a multicellular organisms must have had a single-celled organism as an ancestor?
• If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage?"

I do not know that life only arose once or how it happened. I can only theorize.

It seems likely that if abiogenesis is true, that single celled organisms would come before multicellular organisms. I have no proof of this. Again, only theorizing.

I do not know if the fossil evidence is the result of multiple abiogenesis. It seems to fit better as generations of life's ancestors. Are you agreeing that the fossil evidence is in layers of high disparity? How does this coincide with flood theory?

The distinction that I know of between abiogenesis and evolution is that evolution deals primarily with biology and abiogenesis is primarily chemistry. I did not make the distinction personally, it is just highly regarded that way.

Sorry, your first two links did not work.

"Clarify on what you have seen that backs up evolution. I’m assuming by ‘back up evolution’ you mean empirical evidence that can be observed, tested, repeated and this evidence will show me that evolution did/does indeed occur, correct?"

Evolution of novel traits, speciation, ERV's(but that is up for debate in another thread and there is clear disagreement of what the evidence reflects, so no use in arguing it out here), and other instances of microevolution.

Calypsis: "They care about proving their prejudices."

What prejudices? Many many scientists are Christian and other religions.

 

Both theistic and atheist evolutionists are deeply prejudiced in favor of neo-Darwinian theory even though they don't have a SCRAP of evidence that long and gradual evolution of living organisms has ever taken place and they WON'T believe the testimony of either scripture nor of written history about creation, the flood, etc. nor will they consider any of them with any degree of accuracy. Funny to me that most all of them accept the history of Hammurabi but not the Bible. Ceasar's quotes are regarded as legitimate but not Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John. What happened to king Tut is regarded as real history but not what Moses did and said. I reject that prejudice in toto.

 

Secondly, they deliberately defy natural law which not only tells us that matter/energy cannot be created (not by any natural means we know of), not the Law of Biogenesis which has never been shown to be wrong, nor of entropy which not only prevents the DNA from becoming more complex than it was originally and it actually has degenerated the human race...not evolved it.

 

Plus, my brother in Christ, usajay1976 said he has never seen the supernatural. Most of our brethren in the western world have not. Nonetheless, I and quite a number of my companions have seen it many times over the last 45 yrs,. That's why I fight against what atheists believe so very hard. Their denials of God and the supernatural are wortheless to those of us who have seen it personally. This statement is not meant to be a boast.

[MarkForbes 167]

Just thought I share that video, which relates to the subject with you:

[46and2 0]

Hey, sorry for the thread bump. New here, and sorting through some topics I'm interested in. This thread kind of went off topic, and I thought I'd revive it a bit, if anyone is interested.

 

I'll address the section of the article titled "A Critical Assumption."

 

To begin with, scientists today do not assume that the atmospheric concentration of carbon has always been constant. In fact, they KNOW that it has not been. Actually, they have known this for decades.

 

That is the purpose of calibrating the process with tree rings. By testing individual counted rings, we can determine what the atmospheric conditions were at the time of that individual ring's growth. Using this data, they create a calibration chart to correct for the atmospheric variability. Then, when they test another sample, say for a mammoth, they obtain the uncalibrated data from the carbon test itself, then consult the calibration chart. Only then do they publish (usually, uncalibrated dates are annotated) the results. AFTER the concentration variation has been taken into account.

 

To be clear, the physical counting of tree rings is the standard. Through this process alone, carbon dating (and atmospheric concentration) can be calibrated back ~13,000 years. But it does not stop there. Lake Varves, ice cores, speleothems, and coral bands, all individually counted can calibrate the process back much further (and well past 30,000 years). What's more, when plotted on a graph the separate calibration standards all fall neatly on a line, showing just how accurate the calibration can be, as this paper shows:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5354/1187.full

 

You may have to sign up to the sciencemag site, but it's free, and just make sure you uncheck any emails you don't want to receive when you sign up.

 

To clarify: this particular paper was using lake varves as the standard of calibration past the reach of tree rings, and when ice cores, speleothems, and coral bands were tested using that standard, the numbers fell in line.

 

In summary, the very thesis of this segment is wrong. Scientists absolutely do not assume that the atmospheric carbon has remained the same...they know it hasn't, and correct for it.

 

Calibration is used to correct this variance, and shown to be consistent up to at least ~45,000 years. Tree rings alone stretch the calibration well past the time limit for YEC. Ergo, no equilibrium problem exists.

 

Inevitably, the discussion will now turn to dendrochronology. However, I think I have at least shown that in this section the author has "done it wrong," by accusing scientists of making an assumption that they do not make.

[Ron 10]

That is the purpose of calibrating the process with tree rings. By testing individual counted rings, we can determine what the atmospheric conditions were at the time of that individual ring's growth.

 

To be clear, the physical counting of tree rings is the standard.

 

So, are you saying that annual 'Tree Ring' growth has always been constant, and therefore uniform?

[46and2 0]

So, are you saying that annual 'Tree Ring' growth has always been constant, and therefore uniform?

 

No. Sometimes, there is more than one ring in a year, but it is identifiable. More frequently, there are missing rings, making the tree appear younger than it really is.

 

The tree rings are also cross checked against other methods, like lake varves. If tree rings were not reliable, they wouldn't match up with the lake varves.

 

If you want to argue that the tree rings have not been constant, you'd have to explain how they just happen to converge with lake varves, speleothems, coral bands, and ice cores. Those process are all very different, so you'd have to come up with a scenario which affected all these process very differently, but by the exact same amount. But then you'd kind of be getting away from parsimony.

[Calypsis4 639]

No. Sometimes, there is more than one ring in a year, but it is identifiable. More frequently, there are missing rings, making the tree appear younger than it really is.

 

The tree rings are also cross checked against other methods, like lake varves. If tree rings were not reliable, they wouldn't match up with the lake varves.

 

If you want to argue that the tree rings have not been constant, you'd have to explain how they just happen to converge with lake varves, speleothems, coral bands, and ice cores. Those process are all very different, so you'd have to come up with a scenario which affected all these process very differently, but by the exact same amount. But then you'd kind of be getting away from parsimony.

 

You didn't document anything. You just gave an opinion. If you've got some we'd be glad to read it. I underscored the part I think we need to see.

[46and2 0]

You didn't document anything. You just gave an opinion. If you've got some we'd be glad to read it. I underscored the part I think we need to see.

 

It's in the link in post #33.

[Calypsis4 639]

It's in the link in post #33.

 

I see the written opinion there from a 25 yr old source but I do not see the actual data to confirm the statement made. Nonetheless, I learned a long time ago not to trust evolutionist research...for there are too many fanatic devotees to Darwin in the mix that like to color things that give innacurate conclusions. Most of my companions here agree with me: we have seen countless instances in which scientists prejudices determine a pro-Darwin view but later we discover that they were incorrect in their interpretations; i.e. archeoraptor and National Geographic, Ida, Piltdown, Nebraska man, etc.

 

The P-38's that came down in WW II and subsequently buried under 260 ft. of ice were at a level that would have yielded an ice core several hundred thousand years and yet it is known that the time frame between the planes landing and re-discovery was only 46 yrs. Also, according to many sources, the Bristlecone Pine is the oldest biological organism still alive today so I don't know where they got the notion that there are trees actually older than that. (wikipedia - "he bristlecone pines are three species of pine trees (family Pinaceae, genus Pinus, subsection Balfourianae) believed to live longer than any other known organism: over 5,000 years.")

[46and2 0]

I see the written opinion there from a 25 yr old source but I do not see the actual data to confirm the statement made. Nonetheless, I learned a long time ago not to trust evolutionist research...for there are too many fanatic devotees to Darwin in the mix that like to color things that give innacurate conclusions. Most of my companions here agree with me: we have seen countless instances in which scientists prejudices determine a pro-Darwin view but later we discover that they were incorrect in their interpretations; i.e. archeoraptor and National Geographic, Ida, Piltdown, Nebraska man, etc.

 

The P-38's that came down in WW II and subsequently buried under 260 ft. of ice were at a level that would have yielded an ice core several hundred thousand years and yet it is known that the time frame between the planes landing and re-discovery was only 46 yrs. Also, according to many sources, the Bristlecone Pine is the oldest biological organism still alive today so I don't know where they got the notion that there are trees actually older than that. (wikipedia - "he bristlecone pines are three species of pine trees (family Pinaceae, genus Pinus, subsection Balfourianae) believed to live longer than any other known organism: over 5,000 years.")

 

First of all, it's 15 years, not 25.

 

Second, it is a peer-reviewed research paper.

 

3rd, the observed data is plotted on graphs (specifically figure 1).

 

It's not opinion, it's an explanation of empirical data.

 

Why did you ask for documentation if you knew you were just going to shrug it off as lies? Seems a little disingenuous.

 

I'm not going to address ALL of your complaints. Look up the Gish Gallop tactic. I will, however, explain how they can calibrate with tree rings beyond the 5000 years, if you are interested.

[Ron 10]

 

So, are you saying that annual 'Tree Ring' growth has always been constant, and therefore uniform?

No. Sometimes, there is more than one ring in a year, but it is identifiable. More frequently, there are missing rings, making the tree appear younger than it really is.

 

The tree rings are also cross checked against other methods, like lake varves. If tree rings were not reliable, they wouldn't match up with the lake varves.

 

If you want to argue that the tree rings have not been constant, you'd have to explain how they just happen to converge with lake varves, speleothems, coral bands, and ice cores. Those process are all very different, so you'd have to come up with a scenario which affected all these process very differently, but by the exact same amount. But then you'd kind of be getting away from parsimony.

Actually that would be incorrect because EACH of the methods you are referring to is fallible (i.e. have variants that can deviate exponentially BEYOND recorded history because we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what may have affected them in those UNKNOWN YEARS)... All we can do is speculate during those centuries. So, when you cross-check across fallible means, you have a multiple of errors that you have to contend with, and it basically falls within the 'Evolution did it' Evolution-of-the-gaps that requires 'speculation putty' to fill in all of those chasms!

 

So, it seems that it is YOU who are knee deep in the muck, and far away from the parsimonious balance you really need to be paying attention to.

[46and2 0]

Actually that would be incorrect because EACH of the methods you are referring to is fallible (i.e. have variants that can deviate exponentially BEYOND recorded history because we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what may have affected them in those UNKNOWN YEARS)... All we can do is speculate during those centuries. So, when you cross-check across fallible means, you have a multiple of errors that you have to contend with, and it basically falls within the 'Evolution did it' Evolution-of-the-gaps that requires 'speculation putty' to fill in all of those chasms!

 

So, it seems that it is YOU who are knee deep in the muck, and far away from the parsimonious balance you really need to be paying attention to.

 

And they all just happen to magically fail in such a way that they agree? That doesn't seem likely, does it?

[Ron 10]

And they all just happen to magically fail in such a way that they agree? That doesn't seem likely, does it?

The only thing "magically failing" is your attempt to promulgate the religion of macroevolution at this forum.

 

By the way, you have failed to support your assertions.

[46and2 0]

The only thing "magically failing" is your attempt to promulgate the religion of macroevolution at this forum.

 

By the way, you have failed to support your assertions.

 

Nice evasion. And I haven't been talking about macroevolution at all.

 

Once again, the support of my assertions is in the link given back on post #33.

 

Does this 5 minute wait time between posts stop after I have made enough posts here, btw? It's kind of annoying. lol. ;-)

[46and2 0]

Furthermore, I'm not trying to promulgate anything. I like discussing these matters because I learn cool things from it. Heck, I would PREFER for you to be correct. Who wouldn't want to live in paradise forever? I'm not trying to change your mind about deep time. I don't care if you believe it or not. I just enjoy discussing it for the interesting research it leads me to, both Biblical and scientific. As I have mentioned previously, I actually attempted to come up with the same number Ussher did with the chronologies. What I found is that I was unable to do so with out the extra-Biblical sources that he used. The dates simply aren't all given by the Bible.

[Bonedigger 42]

Does this 5 minute wait time between posts stop after I have made enough posts here, btw? It's kind of annoying. lol. ;-)

 

Once you reach 50 posts, you become an "Advanced Member" and the 5 minute restriction is taken off by the forum.

[46and2 0]

 

Once you reach 50 posts, you become an "Advanced Member" and the 5 minute restriction is taken off by the forum.

 

I figured it was something like that. Thanks.

[Calypsis4 639]

First of all, it's 15 years, not 25.

 

Second, it is a peer-reviewed research paper.

 

3rd, the observed data is plotted on graphs (specifically figure 1).

 

It's not opinion, it's an explanation of empirical data.

 

Why did you ask for documentation if you knew you were just going to shrug it off as lies? Seems a little disingenuous.

 

I'm not going to address ALL of your complaints. Look up the Gish Gallop tactic. I will, however, explain how they can calibrate with tree rings beyond the 5000 years, if you are interested.

 

1. O.k. my bad.

 

2. So what? The accepted 'peer reviewed' stuff is dominated by those who won't tolerate even what our scientific forefathers believed in: A Creator who made all things...Sir Humphey Davies, Mendel, Alexander Fleming, Rudolph Virchow, and about 40 more I could name here. To suggest that an Almighty God Creator was the reason behind the vast complexity of life in our world is anathema to those who run the 'peer review' process...so we are unimpressed.

 

3. I saw no charts and no data. But I'll take a look again.

 

4. I doubt it. In the end of things it will probably be revealed to be false conclusions of wishful thinkers just like it usually does. I've been in this ball game a long time, friend. I now how the game is played.

 

5. I haven't said it was 'lies' yet. I will reserve that conclusion for later if I discover that that indeed is the case.

 

6. I don't know about nor am I interested in the 'Gish Gallop' tactic. The truth of the matter at bottom line is that neither you nor any other neo-Darwinian can offer a bit of evidence that any organism on this planet ever developed into another classification of organism to any degree nor over any time frame.

 

But if you think you can do what no one else in your neck of the scientific community has been able to do then be my guest.

 

P.S. I am an ex-evolutionist.

[Calypsis4 639]

Furthermore, I'm not trying to promulgate anything. I like discussing these matters because I learn cool things from it. Heck, I would PREFER for you to be correct. Who wouldn't want to live in paradise forever? I'm not trying to change your mind about deep time. I don't care if you believe it or not. I just enjoy discussing it for the interesting research it leads me to, both Biblical and scientific. As I have mentioned previously, I actually attempted to come up with the same number Ussher did with the chronologies. What I found is that I was unable to do so with out the extra-Biblical sources that he used. The dates simply aren't all given by the Bible.

 

But that's what you said about Jesus family lineage which I posted your statement was not true: Luke 3 has that information.

 

The ages are the early patriarchs are given in Genesis 5.The rest of the time frame is derived from independent statements from various places in the text of the old testament. I have seen them all and they are legitimate.

[46and2 0]

But that's what you said about Jesus family lineage which I posted your statement was not true: Luke 3 has that information.

 

No, I said "with ages."

 

The ages are the early patriarchs are given in Genesis 5.The rest of the time frame is derived from independent statements from various places in the text of the old testament. I have seen them all and they are legitimate.

 

Then post them.

[Calypsis4 639]

No, I said "with ages."

 

 

Then post them.

 

And? Put a thousand year life span on those 76 names and what do you get? Millions of years? Not even close. But most of the antediluvian men mentioned in Genesis lived less than a thousand yrs (from Adam to Noah it adds up to 1656 yrs by the calculator).

 

So what kind of a point are you trying to make here? You certainly have no human observer to ANY age before 'pre-history' nor can you be certain about any date that radio-carbon or other dating methods are used; not without knowing the original content of the samples and not without knowing if decay rates stayed the same throughout the eons of supposed time.

 

"Then post them."

 

O.K. I will. But give me some time to look them up again because its been awhile. I'll get back with you tommorrow or Monday.