102 replies to this topic

[Cata]

At the moment I am guessing. Trees have been dated past the 10,000 year mark (so obviously trees have been around a lot longer)

Where did you get that information? The oldest tree is 5000 years old.

[Cata]

That age was acquired using carbon dating.

Which, is innacurate.
http://www.answersin...prove-the-bible
http://www.answersin...ic-dating-prove

How do scientists know how much carbon was there in the first place?

[Yorzhik]

I am glad to find this site. .

I have been waiting all, finally I can post!

Its hard to find creationists who know science.

Anyways I have some questions.

1) Lets say the world is 4.5 billion years old. Would it be possible for macro evolution?

2) Why hold to a 6,000 year old Earth. When trees have been dated older than that? (I think the Earth is 50,000 - 20,000)

3) In my opinion the geologic column is evidence for evolution. Cyanobacteria is found in old rocks, but in these same rocks no humans, no mamals no nothing besides simple multicellular organisms have been found. how do you explain this?

4) Is it possible to believe in YEC and believe that evolution is possible?

5) I have been reading quite a bit in this forum. One thing which caught my eye was the speed of light, and that it was faster in the past. There was a graph showing that 6,000 years ago the speed of light was much quicker. however, if the speed of light is too quick it will make things in the universe unstable. How do you explain this?

Thats all the questions I have at the moment, I will have some more later.

I'll answer a couple of these.

If the earth were billions, or even trillions of years old, there would never have or could ever be macroevolution. It's a 2nd law problem. It's an information problem, too.

Trees have not been dated over 10000 years. The one's that have, have had even more assumptions added to the dates than just counting rings from a very old tree.

[Javabean]

If the earth were billions, or even trillions of years old, there would never have or could ever be macroevolution. It's a 2nd law problem. It's an information problem, too.

You might want to read over this list of arguments Creationists should never use.

The second law argument is not only misleading but completely un-related to the earth. We are constantly getting high doses of energy from an outside source, so we cannot be considered a closed system, which is what the 2nd law assumes.

ps. the link I provided goes to Answers in Genesis.

[Cata]

Discounting carbon dating, trees can be dated back using the number of rings they have, the field is called "Dendrochronology". According to wiki, they have counted back up to 26,000 years ago from a 2004 study.

According to wikipedia, oldest known tree is 5000 years old.

http://en.wikipedia....of_oldest_trees

[Yorzhik]

You might want to read over this list of arguments Creationists should never use. 

The second law argument is not only misleading but completely un-related to the earth.  We are constantly getting high doses of energy from an outside source, so we cannot be considered a closed system, which is what the 2nd law assumes.

ps. the link I provided goes to Answers in Genesis.

Does a frying pan cooling on the table have anything to do with the second law? Is it in a closed system?

Read http://secondlaw.oxy.edu/ to find out.

[Yorzhik]

I do love this nice, warm-armchair science. What does that even mean? "2nd law problem" "information problem".

I only answered according to what was asked. I can explain more if there is more discussion. That's how discussions of ideas usually works. I realize this is a problem for many evolutionists because they aren't interested in discussing ideas.

So let's get this discussion rolling.

A second law problem is a little like this: you see a ball rolling up a hill.

An information problem is a little like this: a computer program that was running fine suddenly stops working.

Biological scientists have got more important things to do then constantly checking if the universes still adheres to the laws of thermodynamics and non-descript "information".

So you are saying biological scientists don't have to stay within the realm of reality. Either you are not making sense or you are communicating poorly.

[Yorzhik]

What is the 2nd law problem.  Obviously it relates to thermo, but how does a law governing heat and work apply to changes in allele frequencies of a population over time???

Nothing. But then again, "changes in allele frequencies of a population over time" has nothing to do with evolution.

Information carrying media is built using heat. This applies to everything from hard-drives to pencil scribed paper to DNA. So the 2nd law must be considered.

[Javabean]

Nothing. But then again, "changes in allele frequencies of a population over time" has nothing to do with evolution.

Information carrying media is built using heat. This applies to everything from hard-drives to pencil scribed paper to DNA. So the 2nd law must be considered.

Okay, so you are basically avoiding the purpose of the sun in life. The sun is constantly providing an energy source for food creation for ALL creatures...well except the ones living by underwater volcano vents...

This is why the second law doesn't apply to evolution. The sun provides the energy for the dna to be written.

Honestly and truly, If you are going to use the second law argument, which does not apply to evolution, then you have to accept that the second law would also not allow life to live, for things to grow, for children to be born, yet all this happens.

[Javabean]

Does a frying pan cooling on the table have anything to do with the second law? Is it in a closed system?

Read http://secondlaw.oxy.edu/ to find out.

Hmmm...the frying pan on the counter would not cool if the ambient temperature was the temperature that the frying pan started with. So your point is moot.

The frying ppan will not cool past the ambient temperature of the environment, and guess what! That temperature is due in part to the sun. Again we are not a closed system.