Krangthebrain

But that is bending what we observe to fit a narrow intrepretation of how the world was created.

My problem with Creationism is that it is trying to prove something that wasn't observed. Evolutionary theory began with observations unlike Creationism. Creationists are out to (this is my opinion) bend the facts to fit their story. Scientists aren't supposed to have agendas like that.

A major problem with Creationism is that many of the scientists won't allow much peer review, or are completely uncooperative with other scientists. If Creationists want mainstream society to believe them, they must do this, or continue a long in relative obscurity like they do now.

__________________
“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do—his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn’t care ‘how hard it is’; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the ‘Cause.’ Now, who wants to quit?”

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On life after football: "I wouldn't mind being a sports commentator. Having my own segment, working for ESPN, my own talk show. Part time trainer. Part time car mechanic. Part time Sprint cell phone salesman. Part time car washman. Grocery store baggage man. Football coach. Model. Actress. Stripper. And I even have dreams of being the next crocodile hunter." - Darnell Dockett

Strong Bad

Of course creationism has problems, but so does evolution. I am finding out that the more I read, the more I listen and the more I study it becomes evident that science cannot prove either evolution or creation nor can they disprove the other. As has been suspected by me and said by Stefan, both are scientifically valid ... and I might add neither is scientifically safe.

Krangthebrain

As for Carbon Dating this article should explain the flaws in the arguments of Creationists:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Totally destroys any argument against Carbon-14 dating.

__________________
“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do—his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn’t care ‘how hard it is’; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the ‘Cause.’ Now, who wants to quit?”

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On life after football: "I wouldn't mind being a sports commentator. Having my own segment, working for ESPN, my own talk show. Part time trainer. Part time car mechanic. Part time Sprint cell phone salesman. Part time car washman. Grocery store baggage man. Football coach. Model. Actress. Stripper. And I even have dreams of being the next crocodile hunter." - Darnell Dockett

Strong Bad

Maybe it is just me being awake at this hour (I am not feeling very well) but I didn't find any answer to the doubt that this site brought up http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm Again, from my half awake, half sick state they claim that the half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 and after 10 half-life cycles over 57,300 years there is not enough carbon to use accurately.

Maybe I'll just read those sites when I feel better.

Krangthebrain

Ah, John Morris.

The link I provided totally destroys his arguments.

Read it thoroughly.

__________________
“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do—his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn’t care ‘how hard it is’; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the ‘Cause.’ Now, who wants to quit?”

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On life after football: "I wouldn't mind being a sports commentator. Having my own segment, working for ESPN, my own talk show. Part time trainer. Part time car mechanic. Part time Sprint cell phone salesman. Part time car washman. Grocery store baggage man. Football coach. Model. Actress. Stripper. And I even have dreams of being the next crocodile hunter." - Darnell Dockett

Krangthebrain

Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.

(Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. Henry Morris chose not to mention that portion of the paper! Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that -- unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said.

Tree-ring dating (see Topic 27) gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.

Contrary to creationist Barnes' totally discredited claims, which I've covered in Topic 11, the earth's magnetic field (dipole moment) has, indeed, increased and decreased over time. Strahler presents a graph of the earth's dipole moment going back 9000 years.

Figure 19.5, curve C, shows the dipole field strength calculated from measurements of magnetism of lava flows and of artifacts such as pottery and bricks, whose age can be determined. The curve is roughly fitted to mean values determined about every 500 to 1,000 years... The curve is roughly 180 degrees out of phase with the C-14 curve.

(Strahler, 1987, p.156)

The idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C-14 formation rates] has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, V. Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates. (Renfrew, p.76)

(Weber, 1982, p.27)

Thus, at least within the last 9000 years, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and those fluctuations have induced fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 to a noticeable extent. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. Hovind's claim that carbon-14 has been slowly building up towards a 30,000 year equilibrium is worthless. You now have the technical reason for the failure of Morris' model.

It may interest the reader to know that within this 9000-year period, where the radiocarbon method can be checked by tree-ring data, objects older than 400 BC receive a carbon-14 date which makes them appear younger than they really are! An uncorrected carbon-14 date of 6000 years for an object would actually mean that the object was 6700 years old. Seven hundred years or so is about as far as the carbon-14 method strays from tree-ring dating on the average. Individual dates given on a 1973 correlation chart (Bailey, 1989, p.100) show that objects with true ages between 4200 BC and 5400 BC would receive a carbon-14 date making them appear 500-900 years too young. As it turns out, we have a check on the carbon-14 production which goes back even further than 8000 years:

Evidence of past history of C-14 concentration in the atmosphere is now available through the past 22,000 years, using ages of lake sediments in which organic carbon compounds are preserved. Reporting before a 1976 conference on past climates, Professor Minze Stuiver of the University of Washington found that magnetic ages of the lake sediments remained within 500 years of the radiocarbon ages throughout the entire period. He reported that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere during that long interval did not vary by more than 10 percent (Stuiver, 1976, p. 835).

Thus, the available evidence is sufficient to validate the radiocarbon method of age determination with an error of about 10 percent for twice as long a period as the creation scenario calls for.

(Strahler, 1987, p.157)


So.....C-14 dating can be crosschecked with tree rings...

__________________
“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do—his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn’t care ‘how hard it is’; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the ‘Cause.’ Now, who wants to quit?”

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On life after football: "I wouldn't mind being a sports commentator. Having my own segment, working for ESPN, my own talk show. Part time trainer. Part time car mechanic. Part time Sprint cell phone salesman. Part time car washman. Grocery store baggage man. Football coach. Model. Actress. Stripper. And I even have dreams of being the next crocodile hunter." - Darnell Dockett

SirStefan32

This thread is getting really difficult to follow, but let me try to make a few points:

1. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

I watched Dr. Hovind debate three times, and he demolished his evolutionary couterparts. I think his "Howind Theory" is a little weird, and I think he is a bit paranoid (see tape 5 of his seminar), but he really does know problems with evolution well.

Dr. Hovind has openly challenged anybody to debate him. I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he kicked some butt in the debates I watched. I would be very careful of any articles written against Hovind, as most of those guys refuse to acctually debate him because they know that that's the only way he can defend himself.

2. Fossils are not dated by Carbon dating. I think it is fair to say that there are doubts about the accuracy of carbon dating. I've seen some examples when it almost worked, and I saw some examples when it was not even close. As many honest evolutionists will admit, fossils are dated by what layer of rock they were found in. (And yes, the layers of rock are dated by what kind of fossils were found in them thus creating circular reasoning.)

3. Krang, you said My problem with Creationism is that it is trying to prove something that wasn't observed. Evolutionary theory began with observations unlike Creationism. Creationists are out to (this is my opinion) bend the facts to fit their story. Scientists aren't supposed to have agendas like that.

I agree! Scientists should not have agendas like that.
However, they do, and I think it is only fair to say that both groups, creationists and evolutionists have hidden agendas.
Both groups bend facts to fit their story. Also, evolutionary theory did begin with observation, but it is no longer based on observations. Macroevolution can not be observed, Chemical evolution can not be observed, stellar evolution can not be observed, etc.

I think we need to be honest and fair, and admit that both of our groups have hidden agendas and bend facts to fit their theory.

Great discussion by the way!

Stefan

__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."

"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."

"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."

Cigarette Smoking Man

SirStefan32

I agree with that, religion can be dangerous when idiots get involved, but take my word, nine out of ten fundamental Christians are normal people. Unfortunately, other 10% give us a bad name.

__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."

"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."

"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."

Cigarette Smoking Man

Krangthebrain

Neither side will relent, that's for sure.

And I will agree, evolution did begin with observation, but now has moved on to theory. And some of the theories are downright wacky (IMO) on both sides.

For example: I believe that all humans evolved in Africa. But some theorists, quite a few actually, believe in a multi-continental evolution (Europe, Asia, and Africa). There is evidence for both, but the "out of Africa" theory is the only one that fully makes sense.

And you are right (I don't know if I was implying this) but most fossil evidence can't be dated with C-14 dating. Most fossils no longer have any carbon in them, so though other types of dating such as flourine can be used.

__________________
“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do—his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn’t care ‘how hard it is’; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the ‘Cause.’ Now, who wants to quit?”

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On life after football: "I wouldn't mind being a sports commentator. Having my own segment, working for ESPN, my own talk show. Part time trainer. Part time car mechanic. Part time Sprint cell phone salesman. Part time car washman. Grocery store baggage man. Football coach. Model. Actress. Stripper. And I even have dreams of being the next crocodile hunter." - Darnell Dockett

CardLogic

My first point is that the information on the TalkOrigins web site is biased. The site itself states so:

"What is the Talk.Origins Archive?"

"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In other words, the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient, that there was no global flood, and that evolution is responsible for the earth's present biodiversity."


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html

It is constantly argued that "Creation scientists" are biased and have an agenda. I am pointing out that argurment is as easily applied to "Evolutionists".

All people and maybe more so all scientists are motivated by ego! We all like being right! All scientists set about to prove they are right. In fact I don't know of many "white papers" that are produced stating, "Hey guess what, my hypothesis is wrong!"

Again " the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient...."


My second point (and I am not clear on this but):

"Tree-ring dating (see Topic 27) gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date." (from talkorigins.com)


The carbon dating process being verified by tree-ring dating seems to me to be a circular argument. How is it known the years during which the dead trees grew? By carbon dating!
I was not aware that the forensics of tree dating has become so advanced that they can accuarately string together an 8-9000 year span by overlapping ring from various trees. Sorry I think that is bunk!


My third point (alibet a cheap shot):

If my views are wrong, what have I risked.... nothing!

If your views are wrong, what have you risked.... eternity!


For now I am outta here.... I need a vacation!!!!!

__________________

"...fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain)

CardLogic

I just saw this after my last post! Right on Stefan, and I am tired of that 10% getting all the attention!

Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker etc. do more damage to Christianity than any evolutionist could ever hope to.


Now grab the suitcases, pick up the kids, SEE YA LATER!!!

__________________

"...fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain)

justAndy

... are still responsable for those ******* 10%. I never hear of mainstream X-tians en masse disavowing the radicals.

FischerKing

That's a lame statement and it's cheap. They get the face time because the media is into sensationalism - no one wants to listen to the normal Christian speak out because it's not news worthy and it doesn't sell well.

On the flip-side of this, I suppose that we should blame non-Christians for Hitler, Saddam, Charles Manson, Son of Sam, Jack the Ripper, the Boston Strangler, et al, because you can't keep them undercontrol...whatever.

Oh yeah - can you define "good" for me?

Shawn

__________________


"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics... Even if
you win, you are still retarded..."

"I can't trust a woman who would marry me." ~ AzCards21

"I don't care what you believe, keep your religion out of my peanut butter!" ~ Assface

Krangthebrain

"Evolutionists" aren't attacking Christianity, that's bogus.

Most science believe in evolution, that is a fact. And the majority of those scientists are probably Christians.

__________________
“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do—his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn’t care ‘how hard it is’; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the ‘Cause.’ Now, who wants to quit?”

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On life after football: "I wouldn't mind being a sports commentator. Having my own segment, working for ESPN, my own talk show. Part time trainer. Part time car mechanic. Part time Sprint cell phone salesman. Part time car washman. Grocery store baggage man. Football coach. Model. Actress. Stripper. And I even have dreams of being the next crocodile hunter." - Darnell Dockett

Krangthebrain

Sometimes I struggle with the concept of good, especially if their is no intelligent deity. If there is no intelligent deity, then there is no reason other than the social contract to remain "good".

__________________
“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do—his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him. The True Believer doesn’t care ‘how hard it is’; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the ‘Cause.’ Now, who wants to quit?”

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On life after football: "I wouldn't mind being a sports commentator. Having my own segment, working for ESPN, my own talk show. Part time trainer. Part time car mechanic. Part time Sprint cell phone salesman. Part time car washman. Grocery store baggage man. Football coach. Model. Actress. Stripper. And I even have dreams of being the next crocodile hunter." - Darnell Dockett