PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dinosaurs and Human Footprints

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you believe that human and dinosaur tracks exist together in limestone bedrock ?

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creationism_footprints.HTM


(Edited by admin 4/30/2002 at 4:00 PM.)
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 3:12 PM on April 30, 2002 | IP
Mad_dog

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whether or not the tracks are legitimate, there is a huge amount of paleontological evidence supporting the theory of evolution and very little supporting Creation Science.  Creationists need to focus more on accumulating this evidence than beating a dead horse.  The theory loses credibility when all support for it is placed in only a few sources.  

-Margaret


(Edited by Mad_dog 5/7/2002 at 03:08 AM.)

(Edited by admin 11/26/2002 at 11:09 AM).
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 03:05 AM on May 7, 2002 | IP
holsbeke

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It takes more faith to believe in the THEORY of evolution than in creation. The only thing it has going for it is the claim of billions and billions of years which of course no one could prove anything took place because no one was there. The only thing evolution does is give man an out when it comes to facing God. If I think He doesn't exist I won't have to be afraid of the consequences of my actions. That is like the child who puts his hands over his eyes and thinks no one can see him. Nature itself declares that God exists and no amount of years will alter the fact. The fact is we all die and I would rather not take the chance that what the Bible says is not true. Go ahead and laugh I have nothing to lose. But what if you are wrong? Are you willing to take a chance that might effect you for all eternity?


-------
Patricia Holsbeke
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 8:45 PM on June 22, 2002 | IP
Jigokusabre

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Holske, I'd like to know how you would respond to a Moslem making the same claim. If you do not follow the teachings of Mohmammad, as outlined in the Qu'ran, you run the risk of burning in hell for all of eternity. Is it REALLY worth risking your eternal soul to live by Jesus and not Mohammed? By the Bible and not the Qu'ran?


-------
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 8:48 PM on August 19, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well i will not take sides... the fact is we have no way of knowing that there really is a god, but there is much more proof that evolution did occur,i could find it much more reasonable to say that an advanced alien race bioengineered us a long time ago, but there is less proof of that than there is god, but there is much proof of evolution caused by god
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:14 PM on August 28, 2002 | IP
kuanteen

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

who says paleontological evidences proves evolution? where are the missing links? why the sudden appearance of organisms? (no excuse can be made about the fossil record being poor). but rather the fossils point to catastrophism, which points to the Flood. massive burials, massive pressures, organisms in the middle of something, surely, will it not decay with uniformaritanism? if it is uniform, the present being the key to the past, why are there not observations of fossil formation? not only that, but the taxonomic system of today can be used to classify past organims, not only that, name the complete geological strata... where is it? is it not only fragments from around the world? ordered by evolutionary bias?


-------
AMD Athlon XP 1600+ | Gigabyte GA-7VTXH+ | Samsung 256 Mb. DDR-SDRAM | Seagate 40 Gb. 7200 rpm ATA100 | nVidia GeForce 2 MX400 64 mb | LG 24x10x40 CD-RW 8 Mb. Buffer | ASUS 52x CD-ROM | NEC Zip100 | US Robotics 56 K Ext. Modem | MAG 15'' Trinitron
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:35 PM on September 20, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

yes, because all footprints can be the same; gorrila and man


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 09:03 AM on September 25, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm sorry but i believe that my footprint is going to be just a tad bit smaller than that of a gorrilla.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 9:04 PM on November 19, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs106.html

Creationists dismiss the footprint thing. It should be easy to find other creationists supporting the footprints. There is little cohesion to their side of "science".
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 9:51 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

didnt you admit earlier that evolutionists disagree about alot of stuff too? thats what i thought


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:35 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Generally they disagree on theories and more abstract concepts like punctuated equilibrium. They do not disagree on pig teeth after the hoax is revealed.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 10:46 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
Jamin

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing is for sure.  Both religionists and evolutionists are divided even among themselves.  And both have some truth.  Yes, both have some truth. And no, I'm not suggesting creation by evolution.  If it is true that there is only one truth, then almost everyone is wrong.  What do I mean, you say?  Well, there are thousands of religions believing differently, who attempt to understand the scriptures when the Bible itself says that "interpretations belong to God" (Gen 40:8) And that we are to "let God be true"(Rom 3:4) If you believe the scriptures to be true and that they are inspired by God then you have to believe that God doesnt do a thing unless he reveals it to someone, and of course this would be the truth.(Amos 3:7)   On the other hand, evolutionists are divided among themselves as well.  The dating methods used are not consistent.  The rock layers they rely on for dating isnt consistent around the globe either.  The moral of the story?  Search for the Truth by searching for the most important thing we could ever ask of pray for.  God's requirements.  Prov 2:4 [b][color=blue]


-------
Jamin
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 1:35 PM on November 25, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

radioactive dating has proved time and time again to be inconsistent and unreliable


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:23 PM on November 25, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When and on what? Dating would need to be 750,000% off in order for the earth to be 6000 years old. Correct my math if it's wrong.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 3:38 PM on November 25, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you want an example? i'll give you an example. a couple of years ago, a group of scientists (they were NOT creationists) wanted to see how accurate radioactive dating really was. so they took a piece of volcano rock that they knew as a FACT was 600 years old and gave it to some scientists who did not know this. the scientists did the dating thing and came to the conclusion that this rock was millions of years old!!! correct my math if its wrong, but that is 10,000% off!!!


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:09 PM on November 25, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice story, where'd you get it from? 10,000% is a lot but it is nowhere near 750,000%. That margin of error would leave the world still around 60 million years old, if we're assuming carbon dating always dates things older than they are.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 5:46 PM on November 25, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is some links that show some dating failures:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/cenv22n1_dating_failure.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_radio_dating_rubble.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v14n1_radioact.asp

http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp

Carbon dating is only 'reliable' for up to 100,000 years. You can't date something older than this with Carbon.

Here are some assumptions being made about dating with isotopes that are unprovable. Since these assumptions are unverifiable, and there is no reason to believe they are fixed, and dating with isotopes is unreliable.

"The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:


The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

Decay rates have always been constant.


Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added."

There are numerous examples of dating mistakes. If you want, I can give them.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:19 PM on November 25, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course I want them. Carbon dating is only accurate if the item is younger than 50,000 years old. Luckily we date using other elements, too.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 11:09 PM on November 25, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Finding stuff from science journals will be much more convincing than stuff from creationist literature. You've given me two examples from volcanic sites and one (at least) of them was done by a creationist (who decided to take the radiometric date despite not believing radiometric dating to work) who published his work only in a creationist rag, an article on dino blood that is off topic, then two general articles complaining that we don't know what's around the item we date and we don't know if halflifes change.
Now I get to give you my link, yay.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_radiometric_dating_resource_list.htm

(Edited by beavischrist 11/25/2002 at 11:40 PM).
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 11:11 PM on November 25, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is, from what I saw, an un-biased site listing some problems with the dating methods.

Some problems with C-14

"Carbon dating is only accurate if the item is younger than 50,000 years old."

Well, actually, scientist use it to date things up to 100,000 years. At least that's what my Geology teacher said.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:08 AM on November 26, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Carbon dating is not the only method used. Scientists readily accept that it is not accurate over 50,000 years and an argument as rock solid as my teacher said so does not hold any water.

That site is unbiased? It bases all of its history off the bible literally. That site is more hardcore than most of the other sites you showed me.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 10:51 AM on November 26, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That link also says lava messes dating up. I didn't even need to find a rebuttal for those other sites, then.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 10:58 AM on November 26, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if they dont use carbon dating after 50,000 years, then what do they use? i want to do some research on that method as well to see if it has proven to be as inaccurate as carbon dating.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 11:44 AM on November 26, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Scientists readily accept that it is not accurate over 50,000 years and an argument as rock solid as my teacher said so does not hold any water."

Nope. Here are some links mentioning that they use Carbon-14 for much older dates. One even states 700,000 years!

http://www.cnde.iastate.edu/ncce/RT_CC/Sec.2.4/Sec.2.4.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html\

And, if you really care, here is a link explaining why radiometric dating is completely unreliable. It might take some time to read it though...

Radiometric dating is unreliable!


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 1:19 PM on November 26, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sigh. It is exactly the same argument as all the other links you sent me. The argument has stopped moving because you gave problems, I gave answers, then you resent the same problems.

I suggest you post in the thread that talks about the conspiracy of silence among scientists. I am curious about what you believe to be the motivation and your reasons for believing.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 2:01 PM on November 26, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The argument has stopped moving because you gave problems, I gave answers, then you resent the same problems."

Answers? When did you do that? You never explained how those three assumptions could be answered. That would be helpful. I'll repost them for you:

"The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

Decay rates have always been constant.


Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added."



-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 4:02 PM on November 26, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for not looking at my link. I guess I need to put it here for you to actually read it.

From http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.html

"First of all, any radiation that would penetrate the crust and change the decay rates of isotopes, most certainly would have killed every life form on Earth."

"Dalrymple (1984, p. 88-89) refutes in some detail the various creationist claims that radioactive decay rates may be influenced by neutrinos, neutrons, and cosmic radiation, including Dudley's "neutrino sea." Dalrymple points out that there is no evidence of an abundant supply of neutrons to affect radiometric decay. If there had been, the neutrons would have also noticeably affected the chemistry of the more common elements. Because neutrinos have no charge and little or no rest mass, they pass through the entire Earth without leaving significant effects. If they can pass through the entire Earth without significant effects, they are not likely to interact with atomic nuclei and affect radioactive decay."

"Even creationist John Morris (1994, p. 52-53) admits that there's no convincing evidence that radiometric decay rates have significantly changed over time. There is simply no known scientific mechanism that could produce such changes. Dalrymple (1984, p. 88) states that decay rates are essentially unaffected by temperatures between -186°C to 2000°C, at pressures that range from a vacuum to several thousand atmospheres, and under different gravity and magnetic fields. Because radioactive decay occurs within the nucleus of atoms while terrestrial chemical processes only affect the outer electrons, it is not surprising that the Earth's chemical and biological processes cannot significantly affect radioactive decay rates."

"In several places in his report (for example, p. 6-7), Dr. Plaisted is concerned that radiometric dates may be unknowingly affected by the movement of water through the rock or by metamorphic heating. Fortunately, his concerns are largely unfounded. Before dating a sample, a geologist will thoroughly evaluate the sample to determine if it has undergone metamorphism or weathering. If the isotopes were significantly affected by heating or water, in most cases the mineralogy would also have been noticeably altered. Hydrothermal ("hot water") alteration may involve the conversion of biotite to chlorite, the oxidation of iron minerals to hematite and geothite, the transformation of feldspars to clays and white micas, and the conversion of pyroxenes and olivines to serpentines. Most of the alteration products are very noticeable under a microscope and, some like the oxidation of iron minerals, may be even noticeable in hand specimens in the field. That is, weathered and altered rocks often have iron stains."

More to come, and I recommend you look at the links I post. The stuff I'm quoting ended up being part of a debate between the men behind trueorigin and talkorigins.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 4:23 PM on November 26, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe I've found the reason dating lava can be problematic, if anyone even cares. Xenoliths, which are fragments of foreign rock broken of by the magmas intrusion through the crust, create the issue. They are pieces of older rock not completely melted by the lava and are in fact older than the lava.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 4:28 PM on November 26, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Page 20 addresses the issue of contamination I think as well as info on the magically changing half lifes.

Page 24 addresses the question of amount of parent element and the issue of decay product.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 4:58 PM on November 26, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so what is the best way to date something?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:41 PM on November 26, 2002 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Originally Posted by Exxoss:
yes, because all footprints can be the same; gorrila and man

This isn't actually true, since humans are entirely bipedal (unlike gorillas) our feet adapted to help our knees handles the stress, and to help us run as fast as possible.  
1) Unlike gorillas, we do not have opposable thumbs on our feet, our big toe is in line with the rest of our toes.
2) Our lateral toes are all smaller to avoid tripping over them when we walk and run (survival of the fittest-if you trip over your toes when running from something you're going to get eaten...smaller toes win)
3) We have arches on our feet (both front to back and side to side) which are very distinct in our foot prints.  This helps our knees handle the stress of walking and creates a sort of cushion.  

So as you can see...no the foot prints would not be the same, human footprints are very unique.  Furthermore, gorillas shouldn't have existed with dinosaurs either.

Originally Posted by Holsbeke:
It takes more faith to believe in the THEORY of evolution than in creation. The only thing it has going for it is the claim of billions and billions of years which of course no one could prove anything took place because no one was there. The only thing evolution does is give man an out when it comes to facing God. If I think He doesn't exist I won't have to be afraid of the consequences of my actions. That is like the child who puts his hands over his eyes and thinks no one can see him. Nature itself declares that God exists and no amount of years will alter the fact. The fact is we all die and I would rather not take the chance that what the Bible says is not true. Go ahead and laugh I have nothing to lose. But what if you are wrong? Are you willing to take a chance that might effect you for all eternity?

First of all, no offense, but that is not a very good reason to be religious.  You are not supposed to be religious out of fear if you are not, you are supposed to be religious because you want to.  Furthermore, if I am Christian, but I believe in evolution that does not mean I am not going to be saved.  It is salvation through grace not through belief in Creationism.

Originally Posted by Fallingupwords84:
you want an example? i'll give you an example. a couple of years ago, a group of scientists (they were NOT creationists) wanted to see how accurate radioactive dating really was. so they took a piece of volcano rock that they knew as a FACT was 600 years old and gave it to some scientists who did not know this. the scientists did the dating thing and came to the conclusion that this rock was millions of years old!!! correct my math if its wrong, but that is 10,000% off!!!

Do you have a source on this??

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 4:37 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sarah, my beliefs have changed considerably since i posted those previous comments several months ago. but i heard about that dating thing in a science book a few years ago. unfortunately, i cannot remember which one it was


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:25 PM on January 15, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fallingupwards84

I suspect that you didn't hear about it in a science book. It came from some creationist source. The original author was, I think, Henry Morris. If you had read the actual science, you wouldn't have screwed the story up so badly. Creationists love this one because lava known to be only a couple hundred years old was actually dated to millions of years. Half truths are so supportive to "creation science."

In fact, the question was about the suitibility of certain types of lava for use in dating. The actual paper is Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii by Funkhouser and Norton in the Journal of Geophysics Research, vol. 73, pgs. 4601 - 4607. What Morris didn't report and what you failed to grasp from your reading of that "science book" was that the scientists dated xenoliths. The hint for Morris should have been the mention of "inclusions". That's what a xenolith is, an unmelted rock that is "included" in the lava flow. What the scientists were trying to show was that xenoliths did not become hot enough to reset the K/Ar radiometric clock. They expected to get old dates and they said so. The purpose of the study was to show that inclusions were not suitable for use in K/Ar dating of lava flows. Those xenoliths really were millions of years old even though the lava wasn't.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 01:54 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lurch, like i said, i have changed my views since i had made that post. evolution could have been used by God to create the world that we live in today. so no, i am not a creationist


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 02:39 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fallingupwards84

Congratulations, but if you read carefully, you will notice that I didn't even imply that you are a creationist. Sorry you got that impression. What I said was that I suspect that you got your information from a creationist source. The reason I say that is because such a paper is of interest to a specific group of scientific professionals in geology, geophysics, and paleontology. Biologists are aware of it mostly because of the way creationists have spread and continue to spread misinformation.

Any who are interested in radiometric dating can get further information at the following links:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools? by Andrew MacRae

Isochron Dating by Chris Stassen

A Radiometric Dating Resource List by Tim Thompson. Tim's page will give you links to more information than you probably want to know. It covers both the creationist claims and the real science.

(Edited by lurch 1/18/2003 at 11:45 AM).
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 11:43 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The rock thing is a very common factual example. I believe you are referring to the Hawaiian volcano rock when you said that?

Scientific dating has been known to not always be accurate. Thus, you have to have faith in science if you believe that the dating is always right, because it is not and we have no way or prooving it is.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:31 AM on January 20, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great, Broker.

Would you please point out some of the problems with radiometric dating. You say that is has been known to not always be accurate - please document that information. Specific cases that have been shown to be wrong, how they were determined to be wrong, and so on.

I do think it's great that you pointed out that we were talking about Hawaii since it had been mentioned twice. It demonstrates your amazing attention to detail. That was very quick of you. Did you also read the information I linked? Did you learn that the scientists in question expected the dates to be wrong? Did you learn why?

Tell you what. Why don't you explain to us the process of isochron dating and why it is more reliable than other methods. I'm sure you read through all of the links that I gave you and had educated yourself on the topic before you expressed an opinion. To express an opinion from ignorance would be . . . well . . . ignorant.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 2:52 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mad_dog at 03:05 AM on May 7, 2002 :
Whether or not the tracks are legitimate, there is a huge amount of paleontological evidence supporting the theory of evolution and very little supporting Creation Science.  Creationists need to focus more on accumulating this evidence than beating a dead horse.  The theory loses credibility when all support for it is placed in only a few sources.  

-Margaret


(Edited by Mad_dog 5/7/2002 at 03:08 AM.)

(Edited by admin 11/26/2002 at 11:09 AM).


Evolution has not been reproduced in a lab. therefor it is not a viable theory.



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:50 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution has not been reproduced in a lab. therefor it is not a viable theory.


First of all, even if evolution had not been observed in a lab, your claim is false. Science is based on observation and evidence. Criminals are put behind bars all the time without any witnesses who watched them commit the crime.

But, again... refer back to my response in this thread.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:34 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The evidence is contradictory, First of all the fossils do not go in the nice orderly pattern that is shown in text books. Secondly the model that Darwin used, the cell, was seen as much more simple. Now we know that even a bacteria is a very complex organism, the flagella on the particles bacteria contains approximately 100 part.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:48 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The evidence is contradictory, First of all the fossils do not go in the nice orderly pattern that is shown in text books. Secondly the model that Darwin used, the cell, was seen as much more simple. Now we know that even a bacteria is a very complex organism, the flagella on the particles bacteria contains approximately 100 part.


The flagellum [sic] does not have 100 parts. Furthermore, and as I stated before, I knew you would chose an example of Irreducible Complexity that was refuted more than ten years ago.

Here's a video on the development of the flagellum:

The Evolution of the Flagellum

Lastly, I will point out to you again that Abiogenesis is not Evolution.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:52 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How ever evolution must have some way for life originate. How els would it?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:11 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How ever evolution must have some way for life originate. How els would it?


Evolution is a change of life. Please point out in any scientific resource you can find where the emergence of life is found under the Theory of Evolution's definition.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:34 AM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not saying that evolution concerns the emergence of life, however since most modern scientist agree that earth has not always existed, than you must explain how life originated. No life no evolution.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:50 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not saying that evolution concerns the emergence of life, however since most modern scientist agree that earth has not always existed, than you must explain how life originated. No life no evolution.


Evolution can work no matter how life got here. Alien organisms could have planted life here, God could have snaped life out of thin air, or chemical processes could have done the job. Either way, life evolves.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:46 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However you must have it. How did it get here?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:47 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However you must have it. How did it get here?


To confirm the Theory of Evolution? No, we don't.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:59 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You must confirm that life was not originally created through intelligent design before you pose evolution. Unless you believe that something created the first pats of life, and that evolution took over from there.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:13 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You must confirm that life was not originally created through intelligent design before you pose evolution. Unless you believe that something created the first pats of life, and that evolution took over from there.


No, we do not need to confirm how life came into existence. A designer could have created the first life, and evolution still, as you put it, "took over from there." Note that I already posed that possibility my last post.

I accept the Hypothesis of Abiogenesis, but needless to say, the emergence of life has a lot of ground to cover before it will ever become a theory like evolution.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:00 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, However before I except something it must ALL make sense to me not just part of it.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:17 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.