Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

The science is sound, the problem is if the half life is 5700 years, do things always decay at the same rate. If something starts to decay at a slow pace does decay always stay stable. it doesn't in once living tissue, freezing and thawing, heat, humid and the other changes in tempurature and nature all play a part in decay. Ice crystals forming and then breaking down cell structure plays a part. It you take a rock and expose it to constant wind and water it breaks down at a higher rate than one in the desert. My point is that there are so many variables it is not possible to judge. So we can only say carbon dating works if we are around for 5700 years and it is half gone.

 

None of those things affect the decay rate of C14. The sorts of changes you are talking about are a different meaning of the word "decay." Changes in temperature and such just do not have an effect on radioactive decay.

This is no evidence that the decay rates of radioactive isotopes have changed and good evidence that they have not. There are ways to check what decay rates were in the past, by the way. I'll give you one. Light has a finite speed. This means that it takes some period of time for that light to travel between two points. Now when a star goes supernova, when it explodes, it produces a lot of different radioactive isotopes. We can observe the star after it explodes and actually see the different isotopes decaying. If the star is 1000 light years away, then we are directly observing decay rates a 1000 years in the past.

 

I said:
"The answer is: 'GOD made it that way.' That answer interprets the data correctly."

Whoa there Bubba! It is your theory of evolution that is the bumbling god. Your theory says that new creatures are formed by random mutations and then natural selection. Random is ....well....random. A vast variety of creatures are created and discarded in the process which takes millions of years. That is evolution. What could be a more inefficient process? What could be more bumbling?

But I thought your personal thesis was that GOD made His creatures by way of evolution.

Perhaps you think GOD isn't an intelligent designer. Or maybe you think GOD didn't make the whale, surely not!

So you demand that I tell you GOD's reason for making a whale (in some ways) resemble a camel. You provide no reason why GOD (through evolution) should have made a whale like a camel. Evolution is no explanation for that. Why didn't GOD make the whale resemble a canary? If you demand to know GOD's reasons from me then I can fairly demand them of you.

So then, WHY?

Merely appealing to the "evidence" doesn't explain the why. Evolution is not an explanation of why. If we are talking about "why" then the mechanism doesn't matter.

That is simply an insult.

For two brothers with so much in common we have a lot to work out.

A.F.

 

I did not mean to start a war here my only point is that science theorizes isotopes decay at a slow rate and the half life is 5700 years. The only proof (so to speak) is that we should have this debate in 5700 years and see. I personally believe that since science is constantly changing its theory and God's word does not even need to change who am I going to believe GOD. Each and every time I pick God's word. It is still applicable after thousands of years and look at how science changes its theories.

 

Could we please stick to one definition of "decay"?

The rate of radioactive emission varies only imperceptibly, if at all. The rate of decay remains the same down to practically absolute zero up to thousands of degrees. Erosion and the decay of organic materials has absolutely nothing to do with radioactivity.

 

Oops I forgot to add the major point to my opinion the original question was about reliablity my point is still that as far as being reliable God wins each and every time.

 

Well, it's too bad God doesn't tell us the half-life of C-14 in the Bible. I guess we'll have to use observation to determine that.

Since all you have to offer is mere speculation that the decay rate of radioactive elements might change by some process that you can't explain, I think that I'll stick with the recorded observations that it doesn't.

 

"Whoa there Bubba! It is your theory of evolution that is the bumbling god. Your theory says that new creatures are formed by random mutations and then natural selection. Random is ....well....random. A vast variety of creatures are created and discarded in the process which takes millions of years. That is evolution. What could be a more inefficient process? What could be more bumbling?"

You missed the point completely.

If evolution is the process by which God created the diversity of life on earth, then the observations that we make are consistent with that.

However, if all life was recently and individually created, then we have a different story. We have organisms littered with unneeded parts of all sorts. The bodies have designs which are suboptimized for their purpose. They have parts which are much more complicated than needed. The genome is almost all junk. There are remains of long ago viral infections. There are extra copies of genes. There are mutated genes that no longer function. There are sections of DNA whose sole purpose in life seems to be to copy themselves to other parts of the genome as much as possible. Some genes with the exact same function have wildly varying sequences across different species. Some of the most important parts of the cell even seem to be other organisms that are living in symbiosis with our cells.

These inefficiencies would be completely unexpected if they were created recently. It indicates a very haphazard and aimless design if you can call it such. But if the evolutionary process was what was created and life is the result, then these things make sense.

"But I thought your personal thesis was that GOD made His creatures by way of evolution.

Perhaps you think GOD isn't an intelligent designer. Or maybe you think GOD didn't make the whale, surely not!"

I am not sure of what you are getting at.

I do not contadict myself here. I have been clear that I believe that evolution is the process which God designed to create life. I believe that he created all life. Even though my parents conceived me and brought me into this world, I am still a creation of God. Just because God used evolution to produce the whale does not preclude the whales as being a creation of God. They are regardless of the process.

"So you demand that I tell you GOD's reason for making a whale (in some ways) resemble a camel. You provide no reason why GOD (through evolution) should have made a whale like a camel. Evolution is no explanation for that. Why didn't GOD make the whale resemble a canary? If you demand to know GOD's reasons from me then I can fairly demand them of you."

The reason for me is easy. God created the whale through evolution. The path of that evolution was to use an even toed ungulate. God also used this path to make camels and hippos and antelopes and deer and pigs and sheep. So the reason for the very close genetic relationship is the path used for the creation. The path chosen tells me why whales have dozens of olfactory pseudogenes. The path tells me why whales embryos have little legs and feet. The path tells me why some whales are born with atavistic legs and why many whale species have a little vestigal pelvis and legs hidden up in there.

By the same token, I can look at the path used for birds, in contrast, and tell why whales are not so closely related to a canary. The path does tell why that canary would have much in common genetically with a crocodile, though.

The recent common designer hypothesis can speculate that different "kinds" should have similarities decause of having one designer. But it is a hard concept to put into practice. The usual way is to claim that animals that look similar and have similar lifestyles would be expected to have common genes. I can accept that as reasonable. And it is why I rarely use genetic arguments in such cases. For example, I will be unlikely to discuss how similar a chimp and a gorilla are genetically unless I also add humans to the discussion. The chimp / gorilla line of reasoning by itself is too easy to dismiss.

This is why I prefer cases where there is a strong fossil record between two animals that seem so very different in body plan and lifestyle. It is hard to suggest with a straight face that you would expect a whale and a camel SPECIFICALLY to be more similar genetically than any other animal outside of the even toed ungulates unless your basis is common descent. I do the same thing wiith horses and rhinos. There is a very rich fossil record for the horses. Very finely divided in some areas. Dozens of genera with mny more known species. And the strong genetic evidence connecting horses and rhinos and tapirs to go along with it. You may have noticed also that I recently discovered the gentic connection between birds and crocodiles to go along with the known fossil record.

"That is simply an insult."

It was not meant as an insult.

It was an observation that YEers have a lack of evidence on their side. So they often resort to personal attacks instead. They try to equate doubting them to doubting God. It is an easy way to try and score points at your opponents expense by making it appear that they are going against God. Such tactics are usually the ways of the desparate. If you can't win on the facts, slander.

 

UTEOTW

I still do not see any scripture references from the Bible supporting evolution. Why do you ignore this? You claim the Bible is reliable.

I am actually starting to understand some of your posts. I completely disagree, but I am beginning to see where you are coming from.

Here is someone who talks your language who disagrees with some of your points.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/evolution/pseudogenes.html

I don't know about all these useless genes and whatnot. However, we know from the Bible that after Adam and Eve sinned that death passed upon the whole world. This undoubtably had some physical effects. So this might explain some of these problems.

 

The Bible is reliable but not exhaustive. It also says nothing about the Theory of Relativity. It says nothing about the structure of an atom. It says nothing about enzyme kinetics. These things and others we must find out about from observation.

 

Petrel

Yes, but the Bible does talk about CREATION. And the account given does not line up with the theory of evolution whatsoever.

No evolutionist would say that sea life and fowls were created in ONE day. No evolutionist believes fowls came before land animals. No evolutionist would say that the land creatures and man himself were created in ONE day. No evolutionist (or modern cosmologist/astronomer) would say the Earth was created before the Sun. No evolutionist believes the whale was created whole as the Bible clearly states. No, they believe the whale evolved from another form.

And no evolutionist would believe the entire creation was made in just 6 days.

It is not that the Bible doesn't explain the creation process in detail that gives evolutionists a problem. It is that the order and time-scale of creation completely disagrees with evolution in every way. Evolution cannot be made to agree with the order or time-scale of creation in Genesis 1.

 

That's if you take the Creation account to be literal. I don't.

 

What do you take the creation account in Genesis to be?

And do you believe the Bible is reliable?

 

Figurative and yes. We've been over this many times before in this thread and others.

 

"I still do not see any scripture references from the Bible supporting evolution. Why do you ignore this? You claim the Bible is reliable."

As Petrel said, it is because I do not think that it is a subject the Bible broaches. I believe that Genesis tells us the important fact that God is the creator of all, but I think that it leaves the method of creation open.

"I am actually starting to understand some of your posts. I completely disagree, but I am beginning to see where you are coming from."

I am glad. Please bring questions forawrd as you have them

I don't have to convince you. It is something if you can see why I accept it even if you continue to deny it.

"Here is someone who talks your language who disagrees with some of your points.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/6562/evolution/pseudogenes.html "

Interesting.

This underscores why it is necessary to be able to check out such claims. The first example from your source.

What he calls random is actually not in any sort of conflict with common descent.

From other evidence, the branching of these was as follows. The monkey is a primate, not an ape, so its lineage split off first. The line leading to gibbons was the next. Then the line to oragnutans. Then the line to gorillas. This leave the line to the chimps.

So let's now look at the DNA segments examined.

"The 2-kb pseudogene was present in the apes but not in Old World monkeys." This pseudogene was formed after the line leading to the monkeys but before the line to the gibbons split off.

"Some of the Alu elements of the gene were shared by all the primates studied..." An Alu element is a specific bit of DNA which is copied around repeatedly in primate genomes. In this case, this particular Alu element got copied to this spot before any of the lines leading to any of the species studied had split off.

"...one was absent only from the rhesus monkey rDNA..." This Alu element was copied after the line to the monkeys split but before the gibbon split.

"...and another was absent from both gibbon and rhesus rDNA." And this one was copied into place after the gibbon split but before the orangutan line branched off.

So, contrary to what was implied, this particular study supports and reinforces what was previously though about ape phylogeny. These elements are not randomly distributed at all.

 

You'll have to take up that debate with the author.

You said,

"I don't have to convince you. It is something if you can see why I accept it even if you continue to deny it."

Boy, you are not getting it. It is not that I DENY it. Nothing you or any other evolutionist has said has convinced me whatsoever. I find many problems with how evolutionists form their theory.

You have made long posts trying to show a long gradual, transitional process that shows animals are related. At the same time you have argued that animals maintain a form for long extended periods of time. Then suddenly, with no rational explanation provided, evolution suddenly speeds up. A certain animal transforms into another type so quickly that no fossil record is left.

As for animals that have similar structure. How many animals have four legs? Probably thousands. Does this mean they are related? I don't even think you would say that. How many animals have tails?

Lions have claws. Bears have claws. An owl has claws. Does this mean they are related?

You pick and choose which similarities in your mind form a relation. At the same time you ignore many differences. Many of the supposed transitional forms do indeed have some similarities, but they also have many dramatic differences from each other.

But you pick the ones that agree with your predisposed belief.

Pretty incredible that evolutionists believe that whales and camels are related because they have a similar ankle bone. The whale must live in water and will die if it is washed up on land. The camel is famous for being able to live in the driest desert and go extended periods without water.

But boy, their ankle bone looks the same!

 

Here is a site about the evolution of the horse.

I am sure you will discredit it. You discredit anything that does not agree with your belief.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html

 

"It is not that I DENY it. Nothing you or any other evolutionist has said has convinced me whatsoever."

I do not follow your logic. If you do not accept it, then you deny it. Quite simple.

"You have made long posts trying to show a long gradual, transitional process that shows animals are related. At the same time you have argued that animals maintain a form for long extended periods of time. Then suddenly, with no rational explanation provided, evolution suddenly speeds up. A certain animal transforms into another type so quickly that no fossil record is left."

Then I have not adequately explained things.

THis goes back to the quote mining of Gould. An observation of the fossil record is that rarely [rarely does not mean never] do you record details down to the level of changes within a species or of a specific species changing into a new species of the same genus. THis is because most such changes occur in relatively small populations and over geologically short peiods of time. They are unlikely to fossilize.

But as you move up the ladder, you see more examples of transitions from one genus to another. More examples of the evolution of new families. More examples of the evolution of new classes and orders.

The rapid change that occurs within a species is not for some unknown reason. It has to do while populations becoming isolated form the larger populations and new selective pressures redistributing the variation of genes within the gene pool.

I tell you what. Go to Hawaii. Look for a bird called the Nene. It got its start when Canadian geese were blown off course alll the way to Hawaii. Once isolated from the other geese, they started adapting to life on Hawaii and have made some changes that foster that adaptation.

"As for animals that have similar structure. How many animals have four legs? Probably thousands. Does this mean they are related? I don't even think you would say that."

Actually I would. All tetrapods (birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians) evolved from lobe finned fish who adapted to living, at least part of the time, on land.

"Lions have claws. Bears have claws. An owl has claws. Does this mean they are related?"

I think that if you took a detailed look at the claws of each you would see that the claws of the bears and lions had much in common while the claws of the owl was substantially different than the other two. Of course, lions and bears are both members of carnivoria and share a much more recent ancestor than with the owls.

"You pick and choose which similarities in your mind form a relation. At the same time you ignore many differences. Many of the supposed transitional forms do indeed have some similarities, but they also have many dramatic differences from each other."

Please inform us.

"Pretty incredible that evolutionists believe that whales and camels are related because they have a similar ankle bone. The whale must live in water and will die if it is washed up on land. The camel is famous for being able to live in the driest desert and go extended periods without water. "

The ankle bone is one of the parts, the most important one, that ties the fossil together. But genetic testing confirms the relationship through independant means.

 

Good prediction there. Maybe you could be a scientists.

The page does have some inaccurracies.

"The Evolution of the Horse as commonly shown in many textbooks was proven wrong over 40 years ago. But today it is still in many High school and grade school textbooks."

I would call this a lie of omission.

While it is true that what was shown in textbooks previously, and still shown occasionally, was proven wrong decades ago, it is important to know the details.

There was a time when few horse fossils were known. They fit a general pattern of general and steady change. But more and more horse fossils were found. Dozens and dozens of different species. And suddenly we had a very detailed transition going for us.

What was found was that the evolution of the horse was anything but steady and gradual. (This ties in very well with the Gould discussion above.) It would go in this direction and then that. It would back up. It would split into different lineages that went extinct. It was very messy.

What was wrong with the textbooks is that they continued to incorrectly show the steady view that had been replaced.

" The "Hyracotherium" was first found in Europe. It was then renamed "Eohippus" and used as evidence for evolution. The Eohippus had 4 toes on his front feet, and 3 toes on his hind feet ("modern" horses only have one toe )."

Except that it was found in North America also. This is key since some try to ignore that they were found in NA as a false criticism that the location of evolution jumped back and forth from continent to continent or that fossils from unrelated locations were pulled together without cause to make a series.

"The smallest horses are not older than the bigger horses (as evolution would require). But they are arranged in textbooks in such a way that you would believe they were."

They most certainly are.

Eohipus, orohippus and epihippus were all quite small. Even with mesohippus and miohippus they were only about 2 feet tall. The larger horse came later.

"Not only this, but Peter Hastie claims that sometimes 2 of the alleged progressive forms were buried together. Meaning that they lived at the same time, and could not be ancestral to the other (they should be separated by millions of years).[i/}

Rememeber where I said that the pattern showed a lot of branching? Just because the tree branches, the original species can still continue to survive while the other branch evolves. This is what has happened here. And the overlap that is observed is only between genera very close to the same branch. YOu do not have a genus from the beginning and one from the end found together.

"The number of ribs is also used to "prove" evolution of the horse. But in truth, the number of ribs fluctuate between the species. Not progress or regress."

There is a mistaken assumption here. That is that there was some steady goal, a horse, towards which the horse evolution was marching. There was no goal. It was what was best for the survival of the animals alive at the time. There is nothing wrong with a trait wondering around a bit. It is normal.

" There is a new book out called "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong" by Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2000, pg ) that has some good info on the horse. i will be updating soon."

Which has been responded to here.

 

UTEOTW

You said,

"I think that if you took a detailed look at the claws of each you would see that the claws of the bears and lions had much in common while the claws of the owl was substantially different than the other two. Of course, lions and bears are both members of carnivoria and share a much more recent ancestor than with the owls."

This is a perfect example of how your bias affects your thinking. While an owl is not classified as a carnivore, owls do eat meat. And bears also eat fruits and vegatables in addition to meat.

Because the lion and bear are classified as carnivores you saw a similarity. Because owls are not classified as a carnivore, you saw a difference. But all of these animals eat meat. And probably all (don't know the diet of lions)of these animals eat plants as well.

You see what you want to see and ignore anything that disagrees with your belief.

Here are some more interesting articles about the Cambrian Explosion which gives evolution a tremendous problem.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions02.html

Even prominent evolutionists admit this, but I am sure you will rationalize it away.