135 replies to this topic

[Truthseeker]

Now, to begin with i will plainly admit that some of the examples cited by certain creationists such as the complexity of the Bombardier beetle and the intricate chemical reactions involved seemed as if it were compelling evidence to challenge the evolutionary theory. However, when viewed against the backdrop of the overwhelming independent, neutrally gathered data in favor of it, i'm afraid that there cannot be any serious challenge to it using scientifically acceptable methods.

It is possible to contend that natural selection is not the sole principle involved, but the fact that organisms have evolved, is a very hard one to dispute credibly. Take, for example the information shown by DNA, why is there a 95 per cent similarity shown between humans and chimpanzees, which is greater than humans and say, any other animal form? Why is there a common lettered code between all organisms at all? Then there is the fossil record. It seems curious that at a certain fixed depth in the vertical geological column, all fossils are similar and vary as you go higher or lower. The very existence of the skeletal remains of creatures in the depths of the earth which are no longer found today strongly supports the idea of a slow, gradual change over time.

Moreover, biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most readily established facts in science. DNA sequences aside, the shared sets of bio chemical and morphological traits amongst species, plus the fact that it is possible to sub divide organisms into 'families' (mammals, reptiles, birds etc) all logically point toward a common ancestry of each of the said groups, and it is'nt really much of a stretch to ascertain a common descent between all living organisms from there.

I will assert, though that the theological implications of all this have been overrated. It is very much possible, at least to my mind for there to have been a guiding force which caused the conditions which allowed this evolution to occur. In conclusion, i will reiterate that the evidence is in favor of common ancestry of species and of descent with modification in response to environmental changes over the slow, gradual process of millions of years and thus the burden of proof is with the skeptics to prove otherwise.

EDIT: I'd just like to add, simply because species have not been observed to change into new species after birth does'nt falsify evolution. Any more than the fact that we cannot use a measuring tape to measure the distance between our planet and the stars makes parallax false etc.

Edited by Truthseeker, 18 June 2012 - 02:57 AM.

[jason777]

It seems curious that at a certain fixed depth in the vertical geological column, all fossils are similar and vary as you go higher or lower. The very existence of the skeletal remains of creatures in the depths of the earth which are no longer found today strongly supports the idea of a slow, gradual change over time.

It seems curious that you believe textbook diagrams instead of actually looking at the rocks themselves. Flowering plants didn't appear until the cretaceous, yet we can find them beneath cambrian fossils in three different countries.

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html

Moreover, biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most readily established facts in science. DNA sequences aside, the shared sets of bio chemical and morphological traits amongst species, plus the fact that it is possible to sub divide organisms into 'families' (mammals, reptiles, birds etc) all logically point toward a common ancestry of each of the said groups, and it is'nt really much of a stretch to ascertain a common descent between all living organisms from there.

The fact that we can divide organisms into distincly different species is indicitive of God creating different kinds. In fact, Carl Linnaeus (The father of taxonomy) said "God created them and I organized them." Wouldn't natural selection favor one superior species instead of millions of them? And why would humans have compasion about nature if we came about through natural selection?


Enjoy.

[Truthseeker]

It seems curious that you believe textbook diagrams instead of actually looking at the rocks themselves. Flowering plants didn't appear until the cretaceous, yet we can find them beneath cambrian fossils in three different countries.

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html



The fact that we can divide organisms into distincly different species is indicitive of God creating different kinds. In fact, Carl Linnaeus (The father of taxonomy) said "God created them and I organized them." Wouldn't natural selection favor one superior species instead of millions of them? And why would humans have compasion about nature if we came about through natural selection?


Enjoy.

Ok, first of all i respect everyone's opinion and i'm not trying to offend you but my response will be the following:

I do not 'believe' textbooks and their diagrams, i simply consider the evidence they present as logical and the most reasonable conclusion. I mean, i have'nt looked at the Earth myself nor have i ever witnessed it rotate around its axis from outer space. When textbooks explain first the gravitational laws, which i can observe and then the rotation of the Earth, it makes a logical pattern that would seem unreasonable not to believe.

As for the salt range findings, i'll overview it and get back to you, but meanwhile consider the following:
While your example is constricted to one specific location, how do you explain the Edicara biota, pre cambrian fossils, the earliest known multi cellular organisms fossils of which which have been found worldwide?:
http://en.wikipedia..../Ediacara_biota

Certain species, such as the Dinosaurs have faced extinction due to selection pressures and this is confirmed in the fossil record. The reason i gave those sub groups was to point out the biological similarities within the group of the different species, such as birds giving eggs to hatch their off spring, etc not the differences.

Natural selection helps individual groups to survive by responding to the challenges of the environment by the slow process of evolution spanning several millions of years. I'm no expert on this, but i believe we have compassion about nature due to the fact that it has been through our experience of interacting with this very nature that we managed to arrive at our present state. Its actually ironic that this process itself is miraculous if you think about it. It does'nt disprove God at all as i explain below.

As a religious person who has been fortunate enough to directly experience the presence of God, i don't understand why you think that the means that we arrived here affect the more fundamental question that we are here, there was a very miniscule probability for there to have been any life in the first place and that there might be a purpose to our being here. Science only concerns itself with the 'how', not the 'why'. Moreover, only God can solve the problem of infinite regress when we consider the origins of the universe itself.

Lastly, i'll leave you with what Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said:
http://www.time.com/...1090921,00.html

[ringo]

Wouldn't natural selection favor one superior species instead of millions of them?

Different ecological niches select different species. Crocodiles have been very successful for a very long time but we don't have many here on the prairies. The cold, dry environment doesn't suit them. Conversely, there aren't many bison in the tropical rain forest.

Millions of niches >>> millions of species

[Stripe]

Now, to begin with i will plainly admit that some of the examples cited by certain creationists such as the complexity of the Bombardier beetle and the intricate chemical reactions involved seemed as if it were compelling evidence to challenge the evolutionary theory. However, when viewed against the backdrop of the overwhelming independent, neutrally gathered data in favor of it, i'm afraid that there cannot be any serious challenge to it using scientifically acceptable methods.It is possible to contend that natural selection is not the sole principle involved, but the fact that organisms have evolved, is a very hard one to dispute credibly. Take, for example the information shown by DNA, why is there a 95 per cent similarity shown between humans and chimpanzees, which is greater than humans and say, any other animal form? Why is there a common lettered code between all organisms at all? Then there is the fossil record. It seems curious that at a certain fixed depth in the vertical geological column, all fossils are similar and vary as you go higher or lower. The very existence of the skeletal remains of creatures in the depths of the earth which are no longer found today strongly supports the idea of a slow, gradual change over time. Moreover, biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most readily established facts in science. DNA sequences aside, the shared sets of bio chemical and morphological traits amongst species, plus the fact that it is possible to sub divide organisms into 'families' (mammals, reptiles, birds etc) all logically point toward a common ancestry of each of the said groups, and it is'nt really much of a stretch to ascertain a common descent between all living organisms from there.I will assert, though that the theological implications of all this have been overrated. It is very much possible, at least to my mind for there to have been a guiding force which caused the conditions which allowed this evolution to occur. In conclusion, i will reiterate that the evidence is in favor of common ancestry of species and of descent with modification in response to environmental changes over the slow, gradual process of millions of years and thus the burden of proof is with the skeptics to prove otherwise.EDIT: I'd just like to add, simply because species have not been observed to change into new species after birth does'nt falsify evolution. Any more than the fact that we cannot use a measuring tape to measure the distance between our planet and the stars makes parallax false etc.

This is called multiplying your arguments so to create a seemingly insurmountable case.

If you want to have a serious discussion, you should pick one or two points and present reasons for those.

[Truthseeker]

This is called multiplying your arguments so to create a seemingly insurmountable case.

If you want to have a serious discussion, you should pick one or two points and present reasons for those.

Sorry, how is it multiplying my arguments? I asked in the title of the OP if evolution is credible as a theory or not. Honestly, i tried to make the points i felt lent it credence. Increasing length to give the false impression of truth was not my intention at all.

[jason777]

Science only concerns itself with the 'how', not the 'why'.

That's not true at all. Only evolutionists require an exclusion of God not scientists or science. The fathers of all the sciences that evolutionists claim support evolution were bible believing christians and all of their discoveries were perfectly compatable with their beliefs.

Even evolution itself was part of Hindu mythology thousands of years before the birth of Christ and natural selection was a creationist idea that Darwin read aboard the Beagle.


I'll talk later when I have time, Thanks.

[Hawkins]

Sorry, how is it multiplying my arguments? I asked in the title of the OP if evolution is credible as a theory or not. Honestly, i tried to make the points i felt lent it credence. Increasing length to give the false impression of truth was not my intention at all.

Evolution is not credible at all in terms of science. You will notice that once you understand the big picture. You don't even need to understand the big picture to burst its bubble. ToE is an implciit (if not explicit) claim of "all species came to their existence through evolution and from a single cell". So for each piece of evidence you mentioned in your OP, just ask the question, "that piece of evidence supporting the evolution of what and from what", then you probably will notice where the problem is.

[Truthseeker]

@jason 777: it was said by many respectable scientists. And why is'nt it true? Science can and has explained the natural world and the laws that govern them, how they function and put forth theories on how they(the natural world) originated. It CANNOT answer why these laws exist, or why there is an observable natural order at all in the first place. Hope that clears up my position.

@ Hawkins: lol really? Lets forget about evolution for a moment here. Lets take a look at the law of gravity. Consult any relevant scientist, a physicist most likely, on the subject matter and they will tell you that the laws of gravitation are indeed sound. Now substitute gravity with evolution, and biologist with 'physicist' in the above statement, and the statement remains correct.(Search for evolution on wikipedia, or any respected, relevant scientific journal). Yet why do you claim the laws of gravity to be sound, and any other scientific discipline and accept the scientific method there yet reject it when applied to evolution? In the 19th century, before we had satellites to send into space there was a 'theory' that the Earth was round and rotated about its axis. It was'nt physically observable then, and that is in a way the position the evolutionary theory is in right now. But just because there are some gaps in the fossil record or the like does'nt discredit the record that does exist nor does it undermine the theory. I just don't see what motive biologists would have to falsify information about evolution .

[gilbo12345]

1. Now, to begin with i will plainly admit that some of the examples cited by certain creationists such as the complexity of the Bombardier beetle and the intricate chemical reactions involved seemed as if it were compelling evidence to challenge the evolutionary theory. However, when viewed against the backdrop of the overwhelming independent, neutrally gathered data in favor of it, i'm afraid that there cannot be any serious challenge to it using scientifically acceptable methods.

2. It is possible to contend that natural selection is not the sole principle involved, but the fact that organisms have evolved, is a very hard one to dispute credibly. Take, for example the information shown by DNA, why is there a 95 per cent similarity shown between humans and chimpanzees,

3. which is greater than humans and say, any other animal form?

4. Why is there a common lettered code between all organisms at all?

5. Then there is the fossil record. It seems curious that at a certain fixed depth in the vertical geological column, all fossils are similar and vary as you go higher or lower.

6. The very existence of the skeletal remains of creatures in the depths of the earth which are no longer found today strongly supports the idea of a slow, gradual change over time.

7. Moreover, biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most readily established facts in science. DNA sequences aside, the shared sets of bio chemical and morphological traits amongst species, plus the fact that it is possible to sub divide organisms into 'families' (mammals, reptiles, birds etc) all logically point toward a common ancestry of each of the said groups, and it is'nt really much of a stretch to ascertain a common descent between all living organisms from there.

8. I will assert, though that the theological implications of all this have been overrated. It is very much possible, at least to my mind for there to have been a guiding force which caused the conditions which allowed this evolution to occur. In conclusion, i will reiterate that the evidence is in favor of common ancestry of species and of descent with modification in response to environmental changes over the slow, gradual process of millions of years and thus the burden of proof is with the skeptics to prove otherwise.

9. EDIT: I'd just like to add, simply because species have not been observed to change into new species after birth does'nt falsify evolution. Any more than the fact that we cannot use a measuring tape to measure the distance between our planet and the stars makes parallax false etc.

1. This is merely your own opinion

2. There are many faults with this "evidence". Firstly the extent of the changes presented are not evaluated. A creature with lots of superficial changes will be the alike than a creature with a small amount of changes of which each one have a dynamic impact. The fact that the amount of change per DNA variance is not measured means that the "95%" is measured on an arbitrary scale.

Furthermore the way this % is derived defies science and utilises evolutionary assumptions which would invalidate its use as evidence. When DNA is analysed, gaps are inserted in the DNA to ensure that there is MORE similarity. The justification of such gaps is because evolution is assumed to have occurred therefore some changes in the DNA would have occured over time... Whilst this may seem logical, such a thing would mean that using this as evidence of evolution is circular reasoning since you needed to assume evolution in order to justify inserting gaps.

Also when you insert these gaps they are arbitrarily inserted in relevance only to the other species you are comparing that DNA to. I did an experiment, I had DNA A and compared it to DNA B, C, D and E and then I compared DNA A with DNA X, Y, Z... Both DNA A's looked totally different due to different gap insertions.. Now how do we know which alignment was true? Which is correct? What this shows is that the DNA alignment process arbitrary increases the amount of similarity between the DNA analysed. Therefore invalidating such "evidence"...


3. Mice are claimed to be 85% similar.... Yet are on a totally different lineage to apes / humans.. A worm is 75% similar.... Perhaps this is due to the common design mechanisms within each creature.. ie- all creatures have cells, all creatures use glucose as a source of fuel etc. Common features also infer common design

4. Common features also infer common design...

5. Actually its curious that according to the fossil record multicelluar life just "appeared" out of nowhere. You do realise that your claim here is based on the evolutionary assumption that

i) the layers are an account of time
ii) the first instance of an organism is when it "evolved".... who is to say that it existed before and just wasn't fossilised.

6. Actually skeletal remains is only evidence of death.... Fullstop.. Unless you have remains depicting each and every tiny change from one to another and have proof that these fossils do have a common lineage, then perhaps you'd have some evidence. Sadly evolutionists claim this is asking for too much and whine about it.

7. What Biologists publish is their own view, all people are biased, I am and I'll be a scientist soon. You need to realise that being a scientist doesn't make that person infallible, nor does it make their words golden. You need to do some critical thinking for yourself rather than accept all people tell you. I did and that is why I am a critic of evolution on the basis of science.

8. Actually there is no evidence for evolution once you take away the assumptions one needs to make to believe in it. Science is based on empirical experiment not on assumption.

If you want proof that evoution is not true then here is one.

Cellular respiration is a complex process, one that cannot have evolved due to

i) the inter-linking of requirements (glycolysis, the citric acid cycle and the electron transport chain all require one another)
ii) the fact this process is required for energy in the simplest organism, meaning there is no pre-cursor to its use, it is required in the first instance of life

Now Darwin himself said that if it could be demonstrated that there was something that could not have come about by a bit-by-bit process then his "theory" (actually model), would crumble....

Here is the evidence, it is known to all scientists... why do they persist in evolution when Darwin said his theory would crumble? Perhaps there is an emotional attachment to this. Atheists do not want to believe in anything else, so will hold on despite that evolution has already been falsified.

[Stripe]

Sorry, how is it multiplying my arguments? I asked in the title of the OP if evolution is credible as a theory or not. Honestly, i tried to make the points i felt lent it credence. Increasing length to give the false impression of truth was not my intention at all.

Your intention or not, the practice of posting multiple arguments for an idea creates a wall against rational discussion.

Just pick a single argument for a thread.

[jason777]

@ Hawkins: lol really? Lets forget about evolution for a moment here. Lets take a look at the law of gravity. Consult any relevant scientist, a physicist most likely, on the subject matter and they will tell you that the laws of gravitation are indeed sound. Now substitute gravity with evolution, and biologist with 'physicist' in the above statement, and the statement remains correct.

You have history twisted here. Who is the person that proved gravity and what was his worldview? You will also be suprised to find out that Gregor Mendel was ignored because his empirical scientific discoveries falsified Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis "Flat earth biologists".

What valid prediction has evolution ever made? Junk DNA that isn't and vestigal organs that aren't. What has creation predicted on the other hand? Just one creation scientist predicted the strength of the magnetic field of Neptune and Uranus and the empirical age of zircons by their heliums diffusivity rates. How many more creationists have been right? Likely hundreds.


Enjoy.

[Hawkins]

@ Hawkins: lol really? Lets forget about evolution for a moment here. Lets take a look at the law of gravity. Consult any relevant scientist, a physicist most likely, on the subject matter and they will tell you that the laws of gravitation are indeed sound. Now substitute gravity with evolution, and biologist with 'physicist' in the above statement, and the statement remains correct.(Search for evolution on wikipedia, or any respected, relevant scientific journal). Yet why do you claim the laws of gravity to be sound, and any other scientific discipline and accept the scientific method there yet reject it when applied to evolution? In the 19th century, before we had satellites to send into space there was a 'theory' that the Earth was round and rotated about its axis. It was'nt physically observable then, and that is in a way the position the evolutionary theory is in right now. But just because there are some gaps in the fossil record or the like does'nt discredit the record that does exist nor does it undermine the theory. I just don't see what motive biologists would have to falsify information about evolution .

Just like every other evolutionist, you have a complete twisted concept about what science is.

=====
Science is about a claim of a repeating pattern govern by rules. ToE made such a claim implicitly if not explicitly that "the nature repeatedly causing evolution and all species are a result of such a evolution". Creation never made such a kind of claim. Creation is a one time event like history. Historical truth can only rely on evidence to be found out, but can hardly be precisely confirmed.

Science is about the discovery of the set of rules governing such a repeating pattern. Such a scientific truth is confirmed by its predictability and falsifiability instead of evidence. Evidence requires the interpretation of a human brain while predictability and falsifiability don't.

If the set of rules is truly found, you will be able to use it to predict the behavior of the claimed repeating pattern. You can repeatedly make use of the set of rules to predict the repeating behavior unlimited number of times. If one out of the unlimited number of times to trying/testing failed, which simultaneously means the repeating pattern doesn't follow rule set you defined. You rule set is thus falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.

For an example, water dissolves into oxygen and hydrogen. This is a repeatable process and is govern by a formula. The formula found will be true if it allows any third party to use any water even from Mars or Neptune to do the test to get to the same predicted result, that is, oxygen or hydrogen. If some water are found to be dissolved to something else or refuse to dissolve at all. The formula will thus be falsified. This is the predictability and falsifiability of science. In this case, you may have to declare a paradigm under which your formula still works. Say, if water in Neptune doesn't dissolve at all, your paradigm will become that your rule set applies to all water but those in Neptune.

Similarly, if ToE implicitly/explicitly says that it should apply to all existing living organisms. It should allow any third party to choose any living organism to test its evolution from a single cell (or whatever declared simple life form) to its current state. Your theory will be falsified if it failed to do so.

As a summary, a scientific claim, that is, the set of rules governing a repeating pattern requires it to be backed up by predictability and falsifiability, as you claim that it is repeatedly govern by your theory (rule set). A historical claim, such as creation doesn't require any predictability or falsifiability as it never claims "a repeating pattern govern by a set of rules" in the first place.

To simply put, only repeating behavior following rules will bear the characteristic of predictability and falsifiability.

The presentation of evidence is also different. Whenever you present the so-called evidence, you need to specify that piece of evidence support the repeating process from which stage to which stage. You don't simply say that "chemical reactions exist such that all water must have evolved into gases". Similarly, when you say "speciation is an evidence of evolution", you need to specify the speciation of what supports evolution of what and from what. That's what science is and should be.

=======
It is impossbile to setup a predictable model because the nature is so complicated, it is almost safe to say that ToE can never bring up a model which is predictable and falsifiable to make it a true science. Actually, scientists have already given up long time ago for the building up of such a model. ToE now is adapting an approach which no other science ever adapted. So ToE is never analogue to the Atomic theory model.

Like I said, science is the building up of a predictable and falsifiable model for the desciption of the future (not past) behavior of a repeating pattern. Only then the model is extended to explain the past. Scientists won't study how atoms behaved some 100,000 years ago. They study how atoms behave now and in future to set up a predictable and falsifiable model. Then to extend the theory to say that "atoms in some 100,000 ago should behave the same" (even this conclusion contains faith though).

ToE on the other hand, has already given up this approach. They never study a single cell must go through how many stages, under what temperature and humidity and so forth, and how long it takes for it to become a dog, or a cat or a rat. Their approach is to study the past instead. Past however happened only once, you don't have a repeatable model to predict any future behavior (of 99.99% existing species), Your theory together with its contents thus are never predictable and falsiable. It is a scientific study of history, or at best capable of bring up a fasifiable model for the simplest life forms such as bacteria. Then inviting faith to extend your bacteria model to the much more complicated species to draw the fallacious conclusion that "because bacteria evolved, such that dogs, cats.....must have been evolved from a single cell".

That's the fundamental difference between ToE and other science such as the atomic theory.
======

[Hawkins]

The faith of the scientists:

======
The scientist circle accepts ToE for a reason. It is because ToE is the one and only one secular explanation of how things originated. If the scientists are presented with the same logic, they will realize that ToE is just a faith based theory, a political correctness in the field of science.

Moreover, if you are willing to drill deeper into science, you will notice that science is almost futile about the one time past. Science in nature is not for the kind of truth happened only one time in the past.

An example is the Big Bang theory, people including scientists in majority will accept it, but it by no means says that it is the truth and fact, though better than ToE, it is supported by a certain degree of predictability. It is still faith-based. That's why other theories than the Big Bang theory can exist. If on the other hand, Big Bang is already a confirmed truth, then other theories will be falsehoods as there can be only one truth in regards to the origin of universe.

In a nutshell, true science is for the discovery of existing rules governing a repeating pattern which starts at the point human started the observation till any point in the future. As for the past, it remains as one time history which actually outside the scope of science to draw a conclusion. However, if a theory stands firm in terms of predictability and fasifiability, you can safely apply it to the past as well.

And getting back to the Big Bang theory, it can't stand firm simply because you (including the scientists) don't have a repeatedly exploding universe to observe to make the theory a scientific truth! As a result, over 90% scientists have faith that the Big Bang is the truth, while some other scientists have faith that other theories may be the truth. In this case, even when 100% scientists buy into BB it won't make it more true but a faith.

That's about the nature of the faith of the scientists.

[ringo]

Who is the person that proved gravity and what was his worldview?

Good example. Newton's worldview didn't influence the conclusions that he drew based on observations of natural phenomena. His conclusions have been confirmed repeatedly by people with many different worldviews.

Just one creation scientist predicted the strength of the magnetic field of Neptune and Uranus and the empirical age of zircons by their heliums diffusivity rates.

Did he use creationist hypotheses as the basis for his conclusions or did he use observations of natural phenomena? Can his conclusions be repeated by others with other worldviews using only observations of natural phenomena?

[Hawkins]

Good example. Newton's worldview didn't influence the conclusions that he drew based on observations of natural phenomena. His conclusions have been confirmed repeatedly by people with many different worldviews.

That's actually a misleading concept. He's conclusion was drew based on the setting up of a predictable and falsifiable model, to predict instead of passively observe.

Did he use creationist hypotheses as the basis for his conclusions or did he use observations of natural phenomena? Can his conclusions be repeated by others with other worldviews using only observations of natural phenomena?

Again, this is a misleading premise. Creation never claims that something is repeatedly true. In this case, it won't bear any falsifiablity or predictability, that is, the kind of repeating futuric behavior which a science requires to observe. So as long as the scientific kind of observation is not require, one can simply admire all the things God created including teh natural phenomena.

[ringo]

He's conclusion was drew based on the setting up of a predictable and falsifiable model, to predict instead of passively observe.

Predictions only predict what will be observed. Neither predictions nor observations were dependent on his worldview.

Creation never claims that something is repeatedly true. In this case, it won't bear any falsifiablity or predictability, that is, the kind of repeating futuric behavior which a science requires to observe.

That's my point. If a creationist made accurate predictions about the natural universe, he didn't use creationist methods to do it. He used the same methods that scientists with other worldviews use - and they can make repeatable observations to confirm his prediction.

[Hawkins]

Predictions only predict what will be observed. Neither predictions nor observations were dependent on his worldview.

You are right then. So insisting that those with a Chritian world can't be scientific is a wrong premise.

That's my point. If a creationist made accurate predictions about the natural universe, he didn't use creationist methods to do it. He used the same methods that scientists with other worldviews use - and they can make repeatable observations to confirm his prediction.

"creationist methods" is a stereotype, either you are scientific or you are not. There's nothing there being called creationist methods.

[ringo]

So insisting that those with a Chritian world can't be scientific is a wrong premise.

I agree.

There's nothing there being called creationist methods.

Again I agree. The creationist mentioned used the same methods that any other scientist with another worldvew would have used. Therefore, the fact that he is a creationist isn't relevant.

[gilbo12345]

That's actually a misleading concept. He's conclusion was drew based on the setting up of a predictable and falsifiable model, to predict instead of passively observe.




Again, this is a misleading premise. Creation never claims that something is repeatedly true. In this case, it won't bear any falsifiablity or predictability, that is, the kind of repeating futuric behavior which a science requires to observe. So as long as the scientific kind of observation is not require, one can simply admire all the things God created including teh natural phenomena.

Yet creationists do claim phenomena which would be consistent with the creation account and the timeline that follows from it, Ringo was asking if the experiments can be repeated.. in terms of helium diffusion in zircon, yes it can be repeated and they have done as much. I believe the book, "Thousands not Millions" is a good summary of these experiments detailing that the Earth is not millions of years old based on the helium diffused in zircon. Helium is a by-product of uranium decay hence one can predict the amount of decay from the amount of helium within the crystal.

Here is an analogy of the radioactive decay problem

Lets say you walk into a room with a burning candle. You can measure how much the candle burns over time, and you can measure how much of the candle is left, however can you work out how long the candle has been burning from this information?

No you cannot, since you do not know how tall the candle was initially, it could have been 10cm taller than when you walked in, it could have been 100km tall... This is the same with isotopes... How do we know how much was there initially?

Now there is a way to determine how long the candle has been burning, this is from the amount of melted wax you have on the floor.. The melted wax is the by-product of the burning candle and the amount of melted wax is indicative of how much of the candle has been burnt. Therefore from this you can work back to find out how much was there initially, THEN you can work out how long the candle was burning for.

This is exactly the same with helium in zircon