Creationism vs. Evolution

[rhod01]

Well, to my memory, it already has been proven that the Earth was not made.

Yep, the creationist really don't have much ammunition in this debate.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)


Why????????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Citing the website of a convicted tax fraud with dodgy academics, it must be a fad.

[Mozart1220]

The first word I saw on that website was "firstly" and I had to leave.

I'm pretty new here... and do not know if this site was mention:

http://www.talkorigins.org

It is a pretty substantial source for evolutionary theory and may be a worthy read.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Giancarlo,)
I'm pretty new here... and do not know if this site was mention:

http://www.talkorigins.org

It is a pretty substantial source for evolutionary theory and may be a worthy read.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It is brought up frequently during this thread and the best site available on the subject, but only evolutionists refer to it. I am in China and cannot get to this site oten. In fact I need something fromt the site. The AIG site gives two rather technical challenges to radiometric dating: (1) Zircon crystals contain too much Helium in response to the breakdown of Uranium to other isotopes and eventually lead to be ancient. (2) Diamond contains Carbon 14 and it should not have if they are ancient.

I am a geologist and realize these are not legitimate arguements, but I do not have the high end technical rebuttal to these arguements

If you or anyone else can find a rebuttal on talkorigins concerning this please let me know.

[ruiner]

hi there is a response on the zircon crystals at talkorigins here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html
There is also a paragraph on the uranium to lead topic at the end of the page too

dunno about diamonds containing carbon 14 however, i image they are mostly carbon 12. Are there actually any ancient diamonds containing unusually high levels of carbon 14?

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
hi there is a response on the zircon crystals at talkorigins here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html
There is also a paragraph on the uranium to lead topic at the end of the page too

dunno about diamonds containing carbon 14 however, i image they are mostly carbon 12. Are there actually any ancient diamonds containing unusually high levels of carbon 14?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I have figured out the C14 in daimonds, but would like to get more references.

The problem is I cannot access talkorigins from China right know. I need someone to send me the file or post it.

My e-mail address is shunyadragon@yahoo.com

[PatrickHenry]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
Originally Posted by (StoneWT,)
http://www.drdino.com

Why?????????

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Citing the website of a convicted tax fraud with dodgy academics, it must be a fad. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Are there sources on the tax fraud conviction? I have creationist friends who like him (drdino) :rolleyes:

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PatrickHenry,)

Are there sources on the tax fraud conviction? I have creationist friends who like him (drdino) :rolleyes:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Check here and scroll down to Taxes. There's an additional link.

[Pooeypants]

If the Creationists can't cite valid sources that claim to have found carbon 14 in diamonds (natural), then we don't need to prove a negative.

[ruiner]

Shunyadragon here is a link to the google cache of that talkorigins page: http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:grB4mc...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 hope that works. i email it too

[PatrickHenry]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PatrickHenry,)

Are there sources on the tax fraud conviction? I have creationist friends who like him (drdino) :rolleyes:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Check here and scroll down to Taxes. There's an additional link.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No "Taxes" but thanks for the link. I will investigate.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PatrickHenry,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PatrickHenry,)

Are there sources on the tax fraud conviction? I have creationist friends who like him (drdino) :rolleyes:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Check here and scroll down to Taxes. There's an additional link.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No "Taxes" but thanks for the link. I will investigate.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Click on "Show me the money", then scroll down to "Taxes".

[ruiner]

you cant help feeling sorry for hovind having all these sites documenting stuff against him, im sure he's a decent chap really

[PatrickHenry]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
you cant help feeling sorry for hovind having all these sites documenting stuff against him, im sure he's a decent chap really<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I don't feel sorry for him; what makes you think he's a decent chap?

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PatrickHenry,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
you cant help feeling sorry for hovind having all these sites documenting stuff against him, im sure he's a decent chap really<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I don't feel sorry for him; what makes you think he's a decent chap?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That was so heavy with sarcasm, he should've left a smilie I guess.

[PatrickHenry]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ruiner)

I don't feel sorry for him; what makes you think he's a decent chap?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That was so heavy with sarcasm, he should've left a smilie I guess.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
(smacks head in dismay at gullibility)

[shunyadragon]

The following website called EcoWiki is a very good comprehensive website for well documented responses to 'Creation Science' advocate anti-evolution arguements from many sources including talkorigins that I have not been able to access in China.

http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)


Well, then I will give you one. Just pulling a random article from the AiG Creation magazine, the argument in it goes thus:

1. When uranium decays into lead helium is formed
2. Zircons are candidates for uranium lead dating
3. The age of the zircons obtained by radiometric dating is 1.5 billion years.
4. By analyzing the amount of helium left in the rocks an age of less than 14,000 years is obtained. More accurately the date on these rocks have been set at roughly 5,680 years (+/- 2000 years) <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This arguement is the easiest to answer and clearly the most in error of basic principles of science on AIGs part. The articles from Talkorigins were helpful, but I shy away from their arguements, because they attacked the credibility of the work by AIG scientists. I approched it purely on the scientific value of using Helium concentrations to date rocks based on the radiometric decay from Uranium to Lead. I alluded to the problem before, but now I can give a sound logical response based strictly on the geochemistry of rocks and the chemical behavior of the decay products of Uranium.

Yes, Helium forms from radioactive decay in the sequence of isotopes between Uranium and Lead, but only the Uranium, isotopes and lead are reliable indicators of age, because the inert gases do not react with rock matrix and migrate. The general pattern of migration is from regions of high temperature and pressure to regions of low temperature and pressure. This is generslly up towards the surface. As the gases migrate into regions of lower temperature and pressure they slow down and concentrate in the cracks fissures and matrix of cooler rocks. The concentrations of Helium are quite variable in shallow formations. In some areas the concentrations are high enough that they can actually commercially extract Helium using wells. The area where AIG scientist took their sample is where they extract Helium commercially.

The data collected by AIG scientists could very well be completely reliable and accurate, but because Helium migrates within rock formations and concentrates locally it is not a reliable measure of the age of the rocks. It is problamatic that the AIG scientists accept the chemical ractions that take place in the radiometric decay series, but only measure the unreliable concentration of helium to measure the age of the rocks.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Also mentioned in the article is the fact that C14 remains in diamonds (supposed to be billions of years old) (limiting the age of the earth to under 58,000, and also found in other places that it shouldn’t have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Carbon 14 is one of the most difficult of dating methods, because of the many variables and opportunities for contamination. The dating using C14 only works in specific situations for dating recent historical materials and never has been used by scientists for arguements for an old earth or to a great extent evolution. Many C14 datings are controversial from the scientific perspective. The dating of the Cave paintings in Europe have created a great deal of controversy in recent years. These controversies and the presence of trace amounts of C14 in many places does not detract from the value of using C14 for recent historical dating in controlled situations.

Interesting side note is that C14 dating has been very accurate in dating biblical archeology in part becaus the arid environment reduces the opportunity for contamination of the samples.

Carbon 14 occurs many places in small concentrations, because it can be created simply by the pressence of Nitrogen which would occur around and in diamonds in trace amounts. It can only be used in radiometric dating when it occurs in materials that can be dated as living on the land surface in specific situations. Sea animals and plants cannot be dated by C14 dating particularly in Arctic environments where C14 tends to concentrate far above the levels known in other environments.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Telling me that you haven’t seen any sound arguments from AiG is, bluntly, either deliberate ignorance or willful dishonesty. The arguments abound, and the scientific evidence for them is powerfully convincing. Unless you already subscribe to the AiG TJ and or the Creation magazine, you should, as it is unfair that I can’t give you the full article, while (as I subscribe to the Scientific American) I can read the entire article. Reading from the opposite camp often changes our views.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

As I have said before this an overstatement on your part. I still believe AIG's research and oppinions are almost entirely invalid. I do read both sides extensively and when called to task, as in the Helium and Diamond issues, I do my homework on both sides of the fence.

I have a good background in Geochemistry and Geology and it too me considerable time checking before I put forth my arguements based on sound science. I believe you read the articles and believed on faith that they were correct. Did you seriously check both sides of the fence before you challenged me? Do you have a sound background in these sciences to make strong statements of support.

I will take any other issues and points made by AIG to task, but it will take time to do the background work to have my arguement firmly founded in science and not faith.