How can a person test in reality that the ideas of evoltuion are valid?

Bret said:

Ian asks:

how can you establish the original location of the photon from a supernova and the time it takes to reach us?

Study cosmology, if you didn't get enough of the answer in Physics classes. The age of distant supernova has no bearing on the age of the Earth, according to science - but according to your allegedly holy book, the stars were created after the Earth. So, a biblical literalist has a quandry - the evidence shows distant bodies to be billions of years old. So, how do you explain the evidence that the universe is billions of years old, if you believe it is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Please submit your claims to a peer-reviewed science journal, and we'll discuss it when your paper gets published.

It appears you can't defend Evolution from Biology, Math and Physics...and now even Cosmology.
I have read a Cosmology textbook out of interest several years ago. Can you cite which equation used in Cosmology might also be used to predict the age of our universe? In fact that particular equation is even more compelling than the Isochron model... I may have trouble with that one but I'm getting close to an inspired response. But you look for that equation first and cite it...then we can have a more fruitful discussion.

Do not attempt to quote and mis-interpret the Bible. You'll get all the wrong answers, unless you're studying it with a humble and contrite heart and willing to give God the chance to demonstrate His work in you. So far, my main argument against the current estimate of the age of the earth is not taken from the Bible. but from basic math.

Ian, if you ever get your delusional claims published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals, then we'll discuss it.

To have a rational discussion, both parties must be rational, but when I see you invoking an invisible magic sky fairy as an "explanation" of everything, and when you reject biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, bioinformatics and a host of other sciences, I'm not persuaded that you are rational. I'm not inclined to waste my time arguing with religious cranks/trolls who reject science.

Bret said:

Ian, if you ever get your delusional claims published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals, then we'll discuss it.

To have a rational discussion, both parties must be rational, but when I see you invoking an invisible magic sky fairy as an "explanation" of everything, and when you reject biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, bioinformatics and a host of other sciences, I'm not persuaded that you are rational. I'm not inclined to waste my time arguing with religious cranks/trolls who reject science.

How did I "reject biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, bioinformatics, and a host of other sciences"?

It is very clear you are not able to address the points raised.
You need to be very sure and understand the details, especially the Isochron model which is used to estimate the age of the earth. Are you even able to access a copy of Dalrymple's book you mentioned?

Do not be influenced by others who regurgitate the same comments merely to insult. Evading the real issues and protecting human pride with such comments do no good.
The matter not only involves eternal salvation after death but the kind of influence and impact one can have on your family members and the community at large. When one acknowledges and worships God, his/her life will be changed... character will be molded... and one would take care to uplift another... and survive any of life's heartaches and trials with confidence and trust in God.

The benefits of believing in God far outweigh the belief in Evolution.

Evolution says only the fittest will survive. God says the fittest will help and serve the weak.
Will you vote for Evolution or God?

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - howís that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.


A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

This test was done on August 10, 1990


Source: http://www.angelfire....

Do these big changes really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A generation of bacteria grows in a matter of hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones4). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.


Source: http://www.newgeology...

You won't learn science by cut-and-pasting unsubstantiated anecdotes from a creationist website. Was is on the sole assertion by a creationist (Hugh Miller) that the bones were even dinosaur bones? Where and when were they discovered, and were they found in situ, or washed out of a deposit, and subsequently contaminated with modern organic material?

Even if these were dinosaur fossils, you should realize that contamination of ancient materials with modern organic material means that the radiation from the contaminating material precludes an accurate determination of the older material. Have you heard the phrase "Garbage in, garbage out"? If a contaminated sample is submitted, it's no surprise to scientists that the results are invalid. If the creationists really think that the dinosaurs were about 10,000-16,000 years old, then they need to subject the fossils to valid testing, instead of sending the samples in with the request that invalid tests be performed on them, then crowing when the invalid tests produce invalid results, as expected. But creationists aren't interested in doing science, they are interested in casting doubt on science to protect their religious preconceptions that are contradicted by science.

The typical creationist claims of invalidity of radiocarbon dating stem from such "garbage in, garbage out" abuse of the technique instead of a reasoned understanding of the limitations of radiocarbon dating. For example, an organism such as a shellfish that gets much of its carbon from water coursing through C-14-deficient limestone cannot be accurately dated using radiocarbon, since most of its carbon is from an ancient source in which the C-14 has already decayed. Scientists recognize these limitations. Moreover, radiocarbon dating is just one type of radiometric dating. Elements with longer half-lifes are used for dating older objects (or the radioactive rock matrix in which they are found). You need to pick the right tool for the job.

If you think you have a case, write to the non-creationist scientists who conducted the tests and ask them to explain why the dates are discrepant, and share it here. You might learn something useful.

A further point: many creationists (such as Ian Chua) apparently believe that one must accept either science or their god, and they opt for their god. In some cases, they'll accept those parts of science that don't seem to contradict their religious beliefs, but reject all other facets of science. But note that it is not necessarily an "either-or" choice, as Ian Chua would have you believe. For instance, biology professor Ken Miller (who is a Christian) accepts Evolution and also accepts that the Earth is 4 1/2 billion years old. See his book "Finding Darwin's God" for an explanation of why Intelligent Design Creationism isn't good science, and isn't good theology.

Young-Earth creationists must reject the speed of light in a vacuum, or suppose that distant galaxies and supernova aren't really billions of light-years away (and that the light isn't really from the same number of years ago), or they simply give up and invoke a supernatural miracle when cosmology contradicts their religious preconceptions. Creationists reject the overwhelming evidence for (and observations of) evolution, because it doesn't fit with their interpretation of their alleged holy books. Creationists must reject the Laws of Thermodynamics, which are an important part of Physics. Creationists typically carry around a lot of non-scientific baggage. In the U.S., most of the creationists are Fundamentalist and/or Evangelical Christians. Ask one of these Fundamentalist creationists to show the chemical equation for turning water into wine.

If they can't, or they invoke miracles instead, then they're not doing science. Supernaturalism is not a part of Natural Science. Creationists reject modern Biology, Cosmology, Physics and Chemistry, among other sciences. [edited to clean up typos]

I'll give brief answers to some of your claims, but, with rare exceptions, an online thread with posts by non-specialists isn't the best place to learn science and the refutations of creationist misunderstandings. Read reputable science textbooks (not religious fluff like A Beka and Bob Jones University publications) and peer-reviewed science journals to learn science. There are also some good online tutorials at government and university-sponsored websites.

Do these big changes really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands.

Yes, these big changes really happen. The transitional fossils in the fossil record show the evolutionary path taken as different lineages evolved. Darwin cited 2 transitional whale fossils in On the Origin of Species, and many more have been discovered since then, particularly in the last few decades. Given the interest in transitional fossils in our own lineage, there have been many transitional hominid fossils that have been discovered. The Australopithecus afarensis fossil nicknamed "Lucy" is now on tour in the United States, if you want to see one of these transitionals for yourself. Get to Houston and see it. Moreover, the genetic sequencing projects (include the Human Genome Project) reveal the evidence for evolution from microbiology and bioinformatics. We can now determine the specific mutations that have occurred since, for example, the human and chimp lineages split from a common genetic ancestor. For one of many such changes, there was a 92-base pair deletion mutation in the human lineage that seems to have had a beneficial effect on brain development, according to preliminary reports. We can tell that human chromosome number 2 resulted from a fusion of two separate chromosomes in the ancestor of humans. If I recall correctly, human chromosome 2 correspond to chromosomes 12 and 13 in our great ape cousins (chimps, gorillas and orangutans). Read the results in peer reviewed science journals such as Nature and Science. The sequence data is available online at GenBank. Also, n a few rare instances, speciation (which is an instance of macroevoluton) occurs very quickly, with a mechanism such as polyploidy. Look up observed instances of speciation for the details.

We do not have these problems with bacteria. ... There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones4). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria.

You need to read up on the work of Nobel Laureate Salvador Luria. He came up with a great experiment that showed evolution in bacteria. And because their generation times are so short, Luria's plating method can be performed by students in school to demonstrate Darwinian evolution by random mutation and selection. It's always nice when school students can do the experiments to prove Darwinian evolution to themselves. So the bacteria turn into something new, even as they remain bacteria. Just as you are something new, even as you remain a primate (and a mammal, and a eukaryote, etc.). But even your own genetics show that your mitochondria descended from free-living microbes. You can't get away from the genetic evidence in your own body that you evolved from single-celled microorganisms. Look up the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, as championed by Lynn Margulis. Take a college-level biology course if you want to learn more about it.

The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.

You seem to have a serious misconception or twenty about transitional fossils. In the case of animals, why shouldn't transitional animals be "complete" for the particular suite of traits with which they were born? Evolution doesn't have an end goal in mind. Every generation must be viable to leave offspring with variations on which natural selection can act, otherwise the lineage goes extinct (as most have). You have a few mutations that were not present in your parents, and your offspring, if any, will have a few mutational differences from you. Most mutations are neutral, some are detrimental, and fewer still will be beneficial. The beneficial ones that improve reproductive success tend to spread in the population over several generations.

The many transitional fossils show intermediate traits between organisms that came before and those that came later. For particular examples, the transitionals between non-avian dinosaurs and birds show the succession of traits that evolved as avians evolved. Moreover, genetic studies show how changes in expression of genes change wings to limbs (and vice versa), and how 2 mutations change scutes (similar to scales) to downy feathers. In whales, the reduction of hind limbs, the transition of legs into flippers (and the loss of hooves), and the changes in the bones of the ears is evident in the transitional fossils between their hooved land-dwelling ancestors and the modern cetaceans. And genetics shows where whales fit into the evolutionary family tree with artiodactyls, with hippos being their closest extant evolutionary cousins. [edited to clean up typos]

Bret, fantastic work your doing here in the defense of just science.

Chad, thanks for the encouragement. From your profile, it sounds like you are an active promoter of science and reason in your part of Texas. Thank you!

A former member said:

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - howís that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.


A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

"We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16,120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."

This test was done on August 10, 1990


Source: http://www.angelfire....

This information is superficial and invite evolutionists to rebutt in their usual way. You really need to look into the Isochron model and the mathematics behind the dating methods. Evolutionists rely on the mathematicians for the age of the earth. Once the Isochron model is debunked, the whole theory of evolution breaks down. Creation scientists and evolutionists need to put aside any other arguments for or against evolution and just discuss the math first. It is much easier, and the conlcusion can be arrived at very quickly!