What Would Change Your Mind

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
P.S. Why did you only ask the evolutionists for evidence that would make them reject evolution, rather than evidence that would make them accept young earth creation?

Honestly?

I was hoping to bait some people into some new discussions that might have a chance of proving fruitful. I haven't been able to get the creationists to play along so I might as well admit that. Some new threads with subjects where people admitted that their mind could be changed would be fun and possibly accomplish something.

Evolutionist admit that their theory of evolution can be refuted by certain kinds of evidence. I was fairly certain that if I asked, that I would get at least a few evolutionists who would give reasonable things that if found and verified would debunk evolution. And I got a few. I was even hoping that a few of these things might be spun off into new threads by young earthers if they though they had the evidence to show such discoveries, though I doubted this would happen. But I thought it fair to ask each person specifically what evidence would refute their own opinions.

On the other side, I was hoping to have at least a few creationists give some reasonable discoveries or lines of evidence that could convince them of an old creation. This I felt for sure could be turned into new threads that allowed for people to present whether or not these kinds of discoveries exist. But I did not really expect such statements because I think that most would find it difficult to present such a challenge that was plausible but that also did not already have some evidence going for it. I was careful in my wording because it is easy to come up with things that could never be proven just because of reasons such as an exceedingly high level of "proof" demanded and so on. I wanted things in line with the quality of existing discoveries and evidence. Alas, no one has risen to the occasion. I even got some quote mining. And bad quote mining at that.

I did get a few people who admitted that there is no evidence that could convince them. That's fair enough. We can disagree and present evidence back and forth, but I know they will never change their minds. The quote from Wise which reads "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist" is a good summary of their opinions and is a little disheartening to me. We all get so stuck in our heads that we are right but to me this level of stubborness to admit error is hard to understand. There is no guarantee that any of us have the correct interpretation of this scripture. The difference is that all the evolutionist who posted gave reasons that would change their minds and none of the creationists could give a discovery that would change theirs. Even if all the evidence given to us by God through His creation were to point to an old earth they would still refuse to admit that they might be taking the wrong view on that piece of scripture. The evolutionist, while just as convinced that we are right, would be easily swayed by good evidence that showed our view to be in error. And that is an important distiction.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Johnv:

The fact that cro magnon remains and t rex remains never appear, nor do they date, to the same era in time.

The fact remains of wolly mammoths, sabre tooth cats, and similar extinct animals date to a few thousand years ago, but do not date to the jurassic or triassic periods.

The fact that homo ergaster and neanderthal remains do not date to the same time perios of each other.

What types of secular dating methods are used to date these remains?

Evolutionists have these special names for early humans, simply to preserve their theory of evolution. Evolutionist themselves cannot find any agreement among themselves regarding the date or the category of these human fossils. Many important hominid fossils are the subject of intense controversy among evolutionists involving the date, or the category, or both.

The fact that animals and animal remains on the east coast of South America are related to animals and animal remains on the west coast of Africa, suggesting that the two continents were once united.

Do you not think that maybe traders may have introduced animals from S. America to W. Africa? We have a lion in our local zoo, does this mean N. America and Africa were once connected? Again I refer you to the dating methods used.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by john6:63:
What types of secular dating methods are used to date these remains?

Please... Would you / could you define "secular" dating methods. What non-"secular" method would you propose for dating fossils?

There is no such thing as secular or non-secular dating methods. There are simply dating methods. Go to Barry's (Helen's husband) website to see that they acknowledge that dating methods work. http://www.setterfield.org/geology.htm Now they think that the dates are all compressed because of the changing speed of light idea but they still accept the methods for the most part. If you don't like dating methods, I challenge you to present a coherent critique of isochron dating. Here ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html ) is a great introduction to it. Tear it down if you think dating methods are so bad. But you better be able to back up your statements. (Challenge #1)

Evolutionists have these special names for early humans, simply to preserve their theory of evolution. Evolutionist themselves cannot find any agreement among themselves regarding the date or the category of these human fossils. Many important hominid fossils are the subject of intense controversy among evolutionists involving the date, or the category, or both.

I started a thread on just this topic. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000254 If your claim is true, you should have no problem showing how the different hominid species are all fully modern humans or are apes completely unrelated to humans. Funny you haven't taken the opportunity to engage the debate. (Challenge #2)

Do you not think that maybe traders may have introduced animals from S. America to W. Africa? We have a lion in our local zoo, does this mean N. America and Africa were once connected? Again I refer you to the dating methods used.

He said they were related, he did not say they were the same animal. Here you go. http://phylo.gen.lu.se/Staff/AxelJanke/PAPER/cane.rat.mouchaty.pdf That is a paper describing how a relationship between South American and African animals was shown. Unless you count "kinds" as being at the level of a sub-order. Do you have some evidence for your what-if story?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


There is no such thing as secular or non-secular dating methods.

I know the word secular seems to offend some, but any dating method that stretches the genealogy of Genesis beyond recognition, I will refer to as secular.

I will read both sides and post my thoughts, but I would still like to know what method was used to date these hominid fossils.

If your claim is true, you should have no problem showing how the different hominid species are all fully modern humans or are apes completely unrelated to humans.

I read an article on the “walking with cavemen” special, they said they had 111 evolutionary scientists and did they all agree with each other?

‘Of course not. But that’s exactly the point, says director and executive producer Richard Dale: “The thing about science is that there isn’t just one truth. Everything is interpretation, and in this case, if you were to gather every piece of fossil evidence on which interpretations about early humans are based, it would fit quite easily into one small car.”

If a group of scientists can’t agree on something, why should I put my faith and trust in their assumptions?

Do you have some evidence for your what-if story?

My what if story is simple. I served in the US Navy and we still today protect our ship with not only armed sentries, but also with “rat guards” attached to our mooring lines, to prevent critters from entering the ship, not only in the US, but also overseas. You’re fooling yourself if you think that a specific kind of animal didn’t sneak aboard a ship or was carried for the intent to introduce it to the area wasn’t common in the 1400s.

I’ll get back to the other discussions at a later time. Some projects I’m working on are nearing their due date.

 

[Meatros]

I know the word secular seems to offend some, but any dating method that stretches the genealogy of Genesis beyond recognition, I will refer to as secular.

Nice dodge of the question! What are non-secular dating methods, how are they measured, and what is their accuracy?

 

[john6:63]

Again, I posed the question first. What secular dating methods are being use?

 

[Meatros]

Playing ping-pong? You posit that there is such a thing as a "non-secular" dating method and a "secular" method. I do not, so therefore it is on you (you're making the claim).

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Playing ping-pong? You posit that there is such a thing as a "non-secular" dating method and a "secular" method. I do not, so therefore it is on you (you're making the claim).

A non-secular dating method would be the Bible. It is an ancient written document that's transmission accuracy (consistency with the original writings) is "scientifically" attested to by textual critics to a degree much greater than any proof of pre-written natural history.

We, its proponents, argue from internal proofs that it is derived directly from God and therefore is accurate in everything that it addresses. Its earliest book, if historical at places where context indicates that it is, originates with someone who may well have known Noah and have seen dinosaur-like creatures. The accounts recorded in Genesis were written by someone who spent significant time in the direct presence of God (Moses).

It is treated as literal uniformly by the inspired writers of scripture. In addition, the earliest known writings of any kind that have been accurately dated appear suddenly about 4000 years ago and compliment the biblical record.

 

[Johnv]

What types of secular dating methods are used to date these remains?
The same "secular" dating methods that proved the Shroud of Turin to be a fake, as well as the ones that recently proved the so-called "brother of Jesus" ossuary to be a hoax.

Evolutionists have these special names for early humans, simply to preserve their theory of evolution.
That statement displays your lack of knowlege of the subject. That doesn't negate the fact that these different homonids are all different, and appear in different time periods.

Evolutionist themselves cannot find any agreement among themselves regarding the date or the category of these human fossils.
That statement is a complete inaccuracy. But considering your lack of knowlege on the subject, it doesn't surprise me.

Many important hominid fossils are the subject of intense controversy among evolutionists involving the date, or the category, or both.
Name them, as well as the so called "controversy".

Do you not think that maybe traders may have introduced animals from S. America to W. Africa?
There's no evidenciary support of such trading.

We have a lion in our local zoo, does this mean N. America and Africa were once connected?
Two words: Straw Man

Again I refer you to the dating methods used.
You have yet to provide anything that contradicts the dating methods. However, you'd be fit to serve on the OJ Simpson defense team. What dating methods would suit you? Perhaps a ski cap or bloody glove?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JamesJ:
You're free to believe what you want. Whether you like my reply or not is none of my concern.

Your assertion that a person will not be with Jesus why they die, of they believe in the possibility of evolution is jugdemental, unbiblical, and completely unchristian. The only thing that saves us is Jesus. Your assertion that it requires "something else" is heretical.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
What types of secular dating methods are used to date these remains?
The same "secular" dating methods that proved the Shroud of Turin to be a fake, as well as the ones that recently proved the so-called "brother of Jesus" ossuary to be a hoax.

Radiometric dating is known to produce significantly unreliable results on objects more than a few hundred years old. Proof disproving these things which are only claimed to be at most 2000 years old does not validate the method for dating objects outside its legitimate capabilities.

That doesn't negate the fact that these different homonids are all different, and appear in different time periods.

There are no transitional links between these animals. The dating methods used with respect to their age is suspect. I find no reason whatsoever to not classify them as species of ape that have become extinct or deformed human beings.

Do you not think that maybe traders may have introduced animals from S. America to W. Africa?
There's no evidenciary support of such trading.

I agree but there is evidence that landbridges existed in the past and any attempt to date those bridges is invariably dependent on assumptions about natural history.

You have yet to provide anything that contradicts the dating methods.

Radiometric dating is dependent on assumptions about how much mother element was present at the beginning. For instance, recently formed lava may be dated as very old. It also depends on uniformatarian historical models that even evolutionists reject when proposing ideas like punctuated equillibrium or when explaining the extinction of dinosaurs.

The geologic column is assumed as a general rule but not proven in nature. In nature, "anomalies" contaminate the theoretical model everywhere. The bottom line is that it is assumed because it necessarily fits in with the long periods required by gradual evolution.

All dating methods make assumptions about the past based on present evidence. This precludes their results from ever being classified as "fact".

 

[The Galatian]

I guess he needs to understand that God isn't going to be mad at him for being a creationist.

Or possibly, he thinks that evolution=atheism.

 

[Meatros]

I agree but there is evidence that landbridges existed in the past and any attempt to date those bridges is invariably dependent on assumptions about natural history.

By your reasoning then, the landbridges are dependent on assumptions about natural history as well.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I agree but there is evidence that landbridges existed in the past and any attempt to date those bridges is invariably dependent on assumptions about natural history.

By your reasoning then, the landbridges are dependent on assumptions about natural history as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I would not deny this truth. There are numerous ways the evidence might be interpretted. Aetheistic evolution often depends on highly improbable sequences of chance events but that does not remove it from the realm of physical possibilities. I believe it to be physically possible but critically improbable.

I would also submit that the strongest evidence against atheistic evolution is its lack of a prime cause. All effects must have cause. One of the last explainations I heard was a perpetually expanded and collapsing universe model that somehow conserved energy and matter.

I am not post-modern nor do I harbor much sympathy for those who are. I simply do not see how reasonable people operating under any set of assumptions can use words like "fact" or "true" when alternative possibilities exist- whether uninvestigated or not catagorically proven false.

 

[Meatros]

Actually I think we are talking about regular evolution, not evolution that atheists would subscribe to (I didn't know there was a difference).

I would also submit that the strongest evidence against atheistic evolution is its lack of a prime cause. All effects must have cause. One of the last explainations I heard was a perpetually expanded and collapsing universe model that somehow conserved energy and matter.

So this "atheistic" evolution postulates a cause? In other words their is no distinction between the "atheistic" evolution and abiogenesis? I'm glad that scientific evolution doesn't combine the two theories, then it would indeed need to know the "cause", but since it doesn't combine the two theories and it is not dependent on explaining abiogenesis, this is quite a big difference between "atheistic" evolution and scientific evolution.

I have to ask, who subscribes to this "atheistic" evolution?

I am not post-modern nor do I harbor much sympathy for those who are. I simply do not see how reasonable people operating under any set of assumptions can use words like "fact" or "true" when alternative possibilities exist- whether uninvestigated or not catagorically proven false.

So should we give credence to *every* possibility, no matter how improbable? Should I actually have to take into consideration other creation theories, such as the ancient egyption's idea of creation?

 

[Johnv]

Radiometric dating is known to produce significantly unreliable results on objects more than a few hundred years old.
There are mulsiple radiometric techniques that have been shown to be quite accurate.

There are no transitional links between these animals.
That's a common reply. You have specimen 1, and specimen 2, and it's said "there's no transitional link between 1 and 2". Then, specimen 1.5 is found, which fits between 1 and 2. Then the arguement becomes "there's no transisional link between 1 and 1.5", until specimen 1.25 comes about, and so on, and so on, and so on.

I find no reason whatsoever to not classify them as species of ape that have become extinct or deformed human beings.
There's no evidence to support these. Neanderthals, for example, show no evidence of deformity. They do, however, show evidence of language and culture. They were not, however, Hom Sapiens.

there is evidence that landbridges existed in the past and any attempt to date those bridges is invariably dependent on assumptions about natural history.
Land bridges have existed between upper asia and north America (they're still there, just submerged). There's no evidence of land bridges between South America and Africa. Rather, the plates and rifts support the idea that they were one united continent.

Radiometric dating is dependent on assumptions about how much mother element was present at the beginning.
Not really. Radiometric isotope decay is precisely measurable.

The geologic column is assumed as a general rule but not proven in nature.
It's not that simple. When looking at geologic layers worldwide, there's a very specific and predictable pattern that develops.

In nature, "anomalies" contaminate the theoretical model everywhere.
Anomalies are quite expected and generally predictable.

All dating methods make assumptions about the past based on present evidence. This precludes their results from ever being classified as "fact".
There's no evidence to suggest that the findings about the geological timeline are in error. There's no evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. There' no evidence to suggest all animals in the fossil record ecisted at one specific time and place 6000 years ago, 600,000 years ago, or 6 million yearg ago (assuming that carbon dating is "inaccurate").

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Radiometric dating is known to produce significantly unreliable results on objects more than a few hundred years old.
There are mulsiple radiometric techniques that have been shown to be quite accurate.

Having read a different perspective that pointed to tests done at different labs with radically different dates, I would be interested in any objective proof you have of this accuracy. The testimony as I recall it used volcanic rock known to have been formed within the last few hundred years. The lowest age given by the labs was in the 10's of millions of years.

That's a common reply. You have specimen 1, and specimen 2, and it's said "there's no transitional link between 1 and 2". Then, specimen 1.5 is found, which fits between 1 and 2.

How exactly is it said to fit? Actually the point is moot since the specimens aren't 1, 2, 1.5, 1.25, 1.1, or 1.01 until scientist place them in an assumed model.

Radiometric dating is dependent on assumptions about how much mother element was present at the beginning.
Not really. Radiometric isotope decay is precisely measurable.

Note that I did not say that isotope decay is not measurable. I said that this method of dating is based on the assumption that environmental conditions have been relative static for the sample and how much of the mother element was present at the point of formation.

The geologic column is assumed as a general rule but not proven in nature.
It's not that simple. When looking at geologic layers worldwide, there's a very specific and predictable pattern that develops.

That is pretty much what I said except that it isn't all that predictable nor does it yield a "written in stone" interpretation of its formation.

In nature, "anomalies" contaminate the theoretical model everywhere.
Anomalies are quite expected and generally predictable.

John, come on. I disagree with you but I know you are reasonable. Anomalies by definition are things that show up where they are not expected or predicted.

There's no evidence to suggest that the findings about the geological timeline are in error.

Actually the fact that any two labs can take any unknown but measurable sample and give two different ages shows the methods to be very much in doubt. The fact of petrified trees extended through several strata defies the common assumptions about the geologic column.

There's no evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

The Bible is significant evidence of this.

There' no evidence to suggest all animals in the fossil record ecisted at one specific time and place 6000 years ago, 600,000 years ago, or 6 million yearg ago (assuming that carbon dating is "inaccurate").

There really is no assumption about carbon dating being inaccurate. The dispute is over just how inaccurate it is.

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

While I expect that you would reject this resource out of the box, please read the article and tell me why you think I should.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Johnv:

The same "secular" dating methods that proved the Shroud of Turin to be a fake, as well as the ones that recently proved the so-called "brother of Jesus" ossuary to be a hoax.

The dating proved the authenticity of the ossuary. It was the inscription that was concluded as a hoax.

That doesn't negate the fact that these different homonids are all different, and appear in different time periods.

If you’re still having problems naming these hominid fossils try reading in the Bible, the part about the Tower of Babel and how “the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” I doubt you will give much thought of this since in your opinion Genesis is a fairytale anyway.

That statement is a complete inaccuracy. But considering your lack of knowlege on the subject, it doesn't surprise me.

This isn’t anything new. Scientists have been known to disagree with each other, it happens even in my line of work. Again, I refer back to my quote of the “Walking with Cavemen” by the director who plainly stated that not all the 111 scientists agreed upon how the movie should properly portray the cavemen. BTW we still have cavemen to this day. The Taliban in Afghanistan.

There's no evidenciary support of such trading.

I admit the trading quote I made between S. America and W. Africa was wrong in the assumed date of 1400. However, I’m sure trading was conducted between the two, maybe not W. Africa, maybe S. Africa and the animals migrated to the area, well before the discovery of these bones.

You have yet to provide anything that contradicts the dating methods.

I’m not a geologist, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn express last night.

Actually, secular-dating methods when used properly and the data not massaged to fit the evolutionists belief system would work just fine.

Basically, from what I’ve read and since it’s coming from mainly Bible believing creationist, I’II take their word before anyone else’s. Call me closed-minded, call me what you will, but assumptions that try and destroy the credibility of the Bible IMO isn’t worth my attention.

The problem with these radiometric-dating procedures is that in order to properly date an object one must know the amounts of C14 in the atmosphere at the time of the supposed living organism was alive. There is no way having knowing what the C14 & C12 were beyond recorded history. If they say they know this millions of years ago, they are going off of assumptions, which IMO isn’t good science.

Plants will discriminate carbon dioxide containing C14. They will take in less than is expected, which will produce an older than actual date. A buddy geologist of mine tested an orange or apple peel and it was determined to be significantly older that it actually was. The same buddy in college sent 3 different labs volcano rocks that were no more than 200 years old. Each lab reported back a varying of ages from a few million to several billions of years old.

Quoting from AiG:

“The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of C14 produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C14 is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total C12 in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb C02, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total C14 is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more C12, C14 is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the C14/C12 ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood. Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated”

Why should scientists consider the flood? Not all, but most are atheists anyway. The ones that aren’t will not admit it, b/c of their status within the community and of course the paycheck. My wife wouldn’t get a recommendation to dental school from an organic chemistry professor b/c she believed in special creation. How absurd is that! We didn’t see the ACLU chomping at the bit!

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Radiometric isotope decay is precisely measurable.

AiG agrees, somewhat: "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."

[ June 25, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

[ChurchBoy]

Can someone point me to a website(s) that describe the theory and appplications of carbon and roadiometric dating techniques. I really want to have a thorough understanding of these dating methods before I respond to the question of this thread.