Evolution Cruncher

Originally posted by frogstomp
Im going to post this for you , since it would be wasted on dj

Claim CD004:
Cosmic rays and free neutrinos, such as might be produced by nearby supernovas or the reversal of the earth's magnetic field, might affect the decay rates of radioactive elements, invalidating such radiometric dating methods as carbon-14, uranium-lead, and potassium-argon ...[text shortened]... ting is calibrated by independent clocks.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD004.html

For some time Uranium/Lead was considered a reliable dating method. But it soon became clear that there are prblems with it. For a start there are many assumptions which may not at all be reasonable.

The first assumption is that when the material is thrown out in a volcanic eruption, any lead produced by previous decay when the lava was still inside the earth is separated from the uranium by movement of the fluid lava. The atomic clock is thus "reset" to zero. One must also assume that after the lava solidifies to form rock there is no movement of material in or out. There are also other assumptions, but just this one, that nothing moves in or out, was addressed by Henry Faul, who said: "Uranium and Lead both migrate in geological time, and detailed analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained from them... widely divergent ages can be measured on samples from the same spot." That shows serious doubt on how much reliance we can place on Uranium/Lead ages.

For a time the Potassium Argon method was considered reliable, but it was discovered that huge discrepancies occur. Often dates are vastly older or younger than expected. This is not surprising since argon is a gas which is abundant in the air and the rocks. It is mobile and can move easily through rock. It is by no means certain that the argon which one finds in association with potassium came from decay of potassium. It is not uncommon to find a thousand times more (or less) argon than there should be. Results are acceoted or rejected purely on whether they fit the age that was expected before the test was performed.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
1. In one of his corrections for neutron capture, Cook (1966) calculated that an ore dated to 622 million years by conventional methods should be dated to 70 million years. This is still several orders of magnitude older than the Young-earth creationism time line. Creationists seldom (if ever) quote the reduced age derived by Cook; they call it "rece ...[text shortened]... creationists (Cook 1970, 186-193).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD016.html

Whether Cook is right or not in saying that the problem is due to neutron capture is a question which could be settled by detailed long-term research, but it is clear is that the whole question of exactly what happens in radioactive decay processes in rocks in the field is far from certain.

Originally posted by dj2becker
For some time Uranium/Lead was considered a reliable dating method. But it soon became clear that there are prblems with it. For a start there are many assumptions which may not at all be reasonable.

The first assumption is that when the material is thrown out in a volcanic eruption, any lead produced by previous decay when the lava was still inside the ...[text shortened]... or rejected purely on whether they fit the age that was expected before the test was performed.

Give it up dj you are wrong!
Claim CD010:
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Response:
Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

Originally posted by frogstomp
Give it up dj you are wrong!
Claim CD010:
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Response:
Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent resu ...[text shortened]... he vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

As I said, results are accepted or rejected purely on whether they fit the age that was expected before the test was performed.

A.Hayatsu., CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES, vol.16, 1979, p974.

Originally posted by dj2becker
As I said, results are accepted or rejected purely on whether they fit the age that was expected before the test was performed.

A.Hayatsu., CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES, vol.16, 1979, p974.

your dating material is out of date. and besides

Claim CA310:
Scientists find what they expect to find.
Response:
Scientific results are tested. This has two very important consequences: First, the scientists know that their results will be subject to challenge, so they work harder to make sure the evidence really does support their results. Second, published ideas that the evidence does not support will get rejected, especially in times or places with different cultural biases.

Scientists more than most people are trained to be objective. Although expectations can affect their conclusions, they would not affect them to a large degree. Most certainly, they would not blind all biologists and geologists to all the evidence, as would be necessary if creationism were true.

At the start of the nineteenth century, scientists expected to find evidence for creation and a global flood. Instead, they found evidence for evolution, which is why evolution was the accepted theory by the end of the century.

Creationists find what they want to find. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to see it. Scientists, on the other hand, usually welcome disconfirming evidence when it comes along.

Originally posted by frogstomp
your dating material is out of date. and besides

Claim CA310:
Scientists find what they expect to find.
Response:
Scientific results are tested. This has two very important consequences: First, the scientists know that their results will be subject to challenge, so they work harder to make sure the evidence really does support their results. S ...[text shortened]... t. Scientists, on the other hand, usually welcome disconfirming evidence when it comes along.

Scientific results are tested. This has two very important consequences: First, the scientists know that their results will be subject to challenge, so they work harder to make sure the evidence really does support their results.

How can they be sure if their entire method is based on assumptions and presuppositions?

Second, published ideas that the evidence does not support will get rejected, especially in times or places with different cultural biases.

Then why is evolution taught as a fact in many schools if there is so much evidence that blows the entire theory?

Scientists more than most people are trained to be objective. Although expectations can affect their conclusions, they would not affect them to a large degree.

All scientists have the same evidence to look at. Why then can two scientists look at exactly the same evidence and reach vastly different conclusions? This is determined by their presuppositions.

At the start of the nineteenth century, scientists expected to find evidence for creation and a global flood. Instead, they found evidence for evolution, which is why evolution was the accepted theory by the end of the century.

Hoggwash! What evidence was found for evolution?

Creationists find what they want to find. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to see it.

Evolutionists find what they want to find. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated to invent all sorts of rubbish to support their stupid theory. The Nabraskan man is a classic example. An entire fossil created from the tooth of an extinct pig!

Scientists, on the other hand, usually welcome disconfirming evidence when it comes along.

Unless of cource it is discovered by a Creation scientist.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Scientific results are tested. This has two very important consequences: First, the scientists know that their results will be subject to challenge, so they work harder to make sure the evidence really does support their results.

How can they be sure if their entire method is based on assumptions and presuppositions?

Second, published ideas ...[text shortened]... evidence when it comes along.

Unless of cource it is discovered by a Creation scientist.[/b]

Everything you just posted is worth the bother to answer, if you want to stay ignorant that's ok.
But, you should leave sophistry to Coletti, he's much better at it.
You haven't a clue about how science works, in fact you can't even listen to the word of the Kingdom without using Paul to contradict it. You really need to take stock of yourself and maybe get an education. As of right now the wolves have you and you are in danger of becoming a goat.
Matthew 7,13,25 Mark 16

No scientist worth squat is a creationist, although many scientists are Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Some are Deists and they make the strongest arguments mostly because they view the universe as a Creators work and evolution as a process of Gods handiwork, and leave ethics to philosophers.
The god that the bible says told Joshua to"do the same to Ai that he did to Jehrico , doesn't have a single shread of godhood about him, there is NO possible way that , if that account is true, that god is the Father that Christ speaks of.
If you don't like that too bad.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Hoggwash! What evidence was found for evolution?

The geological column, the matching gene sequences between humans and chimpanzees, and a lot others.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Everything you just posted is worth the bother to answer, if you want to stay ignorant that's ok.
But, you should leave sophistry to Coletti, he's much better at it.
You haven't a clue about how science works, in fact you can't even listen to the word of the Kingdom without using Paul to contradict it. You really need to take stock of yours ...[text shortened]... true, that god is the Father that Christ speaks of.
If you don't like that too bad.

How long will you continue to blabber on about Pauline contradictions without providing examples?

You are clearly a waste of time.

😴

Originally posted by nickybutt
The geological column, the matching gene sequences between humans and chimpanzees, and a lot others.

I answered your first two in other threads. Any more?

Originally posted by dj2becker
How long will you continue to blabber on about Pauline contradictions without providing examples?

You are clearly a waste of time.

😴

So stop wasting your time and go read some more Paul.

Have you ever had an original thought? or even just maybe one that had some class to it. besides low that is.

You follow paul and will reap what paul can give you ,, and that's Nada.

Burn you goat

Originally posted by frogstomp
So stop wasting your time and go read some more Paul.

Have you ever had an original thought? or even just maybe one that had some class to it. besides low that is.

You follow paul and will reap what paul can give you ,, and that's Nada.

Burn you goat

I am still waiting for you to point out how Matthew 25 contradicts Paul's writtings.

Is that too much asking? How do you expect me to reply to you if you haven't pointed anything out?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am still waiting for you to point out how Matthew 25 contradicts Paul's writtings.

Is that too much asking? How do you expect me to reply to you if you haven't pointed anything out?

I expect you to read it yourself. and read Mathew 7 and 13 and Mark 16

Originally posted by frogstomp
I expect you to read it yourself. and read Mathew 7 and 13 and Mark 16

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Would you like to point out how a man can be born again without faith?

Originally posted by dj2becker
John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Would you like to point out how a man can be born again without faith?

3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born
of the Spirit is spirit.

3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so
is every one that is born of the Spirit.

try and understand