Originally posted by Silver Stardust
Despite the fact that evolution has a lot of evidence and creationism has none. Quite ridiculous.
EVIDENCE OF A YOUNG WORLD (Part I)
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
-The stars in our own Milky Way galaxy rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present proven spiral shape. (source: Scheffler, H. & H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar matter, Springer-Verlag [1987] Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-403.) Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this the “winding-up dilemma”, in which they have known for about 50 years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up dilemma” also applies to other galaxies as well. For the last few decades the favored attempt to restore the dilemma has been a complex theory called “density waves”. The theory has conceptual problems* however, it has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of a very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51*. (* source: D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky and telescope, Dec. 1993, p. 10.)
I find it funny how creationist use science to support thier religious beliefs (i.e. carbon dating a piece of what's thought to be Noah's ark to prove the Bible story) and then dismiss the same science when it goes against their own theories (carbon dating anything that would prove the world is older than 6000 years).
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I find it funny how creationist use science to support thier religious beliefs (i.e. carbon dating a piece of what's thought to be Noah's ark to prove the Bible story) and then dismiss the same science when it goes against their own theories (carbon dating anything that would prove the world is older than 6000 years).
CARBON-14 DATING:
Carbon-14 (14C) is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it to 14C. Unlike ordinary carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14C, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture stays about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms, which decay, are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. So the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. A “clock” is developed and it starts ticking the moment the organism dies.
The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years (give or take 40 yrs.). In two half-lives only ¼ of the 14C atoms will be left. The theoretical age is then 11,460 years. Anything over 50,000 years should theoretically have no 14C left in it; therefore, this dating method cancels out organisms being “millions” of years old using this method.
WHY CARBON-14 DATING IS NOT ACCURATE-
Plants discriminate carbon dioxide containing 14C and therefore takes less than expected. The plants are then eaten by animals, the 14C levels are now less than previously thought-of in them also. Because of the expected levels of 14C that plants contain, which is lower than expected, these organisms would test older than they really are.
Different plants take in different amounts of CO2, this would have to be accounted for when “dating”.
The rate of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not remained constant throughout history, this would have to be accounted for when “dating”.
Industrial areas release CO2 into the atmosphere increasing the carbon levels and making dead organisms appear older than what they really are.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field is weakening and therefore affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A weaker magnetic field means more cosmic rays which creates more 14C. The earth’s magnetic field is weakening more as time goes on and therefore more 14C exists now then in the past making dead organisms appear older than they really are.
Floods lower the amount of 12C by burying the atoms into the ground and slowly would make the atoms into coal and oil. Therefore the ratio of 14C/12C is disrupted.
Volcanoes emit CO2 gas which depletes the amount of 14C furthering the disruption of the 14C/12C ratio.
OTHER RADIOACTIVE DATING METHODS:
Other dating techniques mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. (ex. potassium-40 decays to argon-40, uranium-238 decays to lead-206, etc.). These techniques are applied to igneous rocks and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification of the rock.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates, however. To derive the ages from such measurements, improvable assumptions must be made, such as:
The starting conditions are known (ex. that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have supposedly always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
*K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) dating was done on a lava flow from Mt. Nguaruhoe in New Zealand on 5 lava flows that occurred in 1949, 3 in 1954, and one in 1975. But dates on the lava flows, according to the K-Ar dating method, suggested anywhere from 270,000 to 3.5 million years ago.
*Source: A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Nguaruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-argon ‘Dating,’ Proc. 4th ICC, pp.503-525, 1998.
It bothers me that many people try to make it look like evolution is the fact and creation is just some crazy religious jargon. They say in order to believe in creation you just have to have faith - but evolution is a religion too. You have to have faith for that too. Creationists believe that in the beginning there was God and evolutionists believe that in the beginning there was dirt. Both faith.
I've explained this many times--evolution was not a matter of "random chance". We didn't HAVE to end up this way in order to survive. There are probably countless other "techniques" living organisms could have used just as effectively to stay alive. It's not like there was a god and he set everything in motion, just hoping that humans would come out at the end because otherwise it wouldn't work.
If you think that there is no more proof for evolution than for creation, you're either blind and deaf, self-deluded to the point of ridicule, very stupid, or simply haven't done any research outside of sites like answersingenesis.com and exposingsatanism.com.
Originally posted by kRaZy777
It bothers me that many people try to make it look like evolution is the fact and creation is just some crazy religious jargon. They say in order to believe in creation you just have to have faith - but evolution is a religion too. You have to have faith for that too. Creationists believe that in the beginning there was God and evolutionists believe that in the beginning there was dirt. Both faith.
Originally posted by yerssot
well, you forget the most important things:
creation IS about faith cause you have no proof, have to believe in someone who you never saw and go against EVERYTHING science has done up till now.
Scientists and evolutionists DO have proof, they base themselves on facts and constantly adjust their theories about it, that's much more than can be said to people that stubbornly keep believing a 2000 year old fairytale
I am not disagreeing that creation is faith- It most certainly is, but you are misled with your startments in which you say creationism goes against everything science has done. If you in fact you open your eyes and go beyond just the filtered stuff they teach you in school you would see that. The fact is, many scientists want evolution to be true so bad that they are willing to completely ignore certain facts. (Just one example: Human footprints were found right in the tracks of dinosaurs. Because they figured it may be a hoax they kept digging deeper in the ground and repeatedly found the same thing. A news crew went out there with a scientist (in addition to the several they already had out there). This man was interviewed on TV and they asked him if he had seen anything there that would go against the theory of evolution. His reply was that he had seen nothing there that contradicts evolution. What he didn't mention was that he blantently refused to turn around and look at the tracks-- he wouldn't.) If you wish I can tell you some of the evidence for creation also. There is no proof for evolution, hence the name "Theory of Evolution" There is even a book written by 50 scientists who (seperately) went out to prove the theory of evolution. What they found made them change their beliefs ("In Six Days", I believe the name is.) Creation is not a fairy tale, and if you would open your eyes you would see that.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Evolution is not even close to being a religion.. where'd you get that from? It's a theory. We don't worship evolution.
What I mean when I say that is that in order to believe in creation you must believe in God. It is a faith (because you can not prove it). Evolution is also a faith. You can not prove it; therefore, you must have faith in it. I believe in creation: I believe God created everything in 6 literal days. Evolutionists believe in......well, what was there 'in the beginning' for them? Dirt... Therefore I say that I believe in God and they believe in Dirt. (Do you see what I mean now?)
I'm misled? 😂 your post is one slap-on of half-truths and cocked up things of creationists!
you gave one example, and it's as faulty as it can get! the footprints are proven to be human yes, but the AGE of them are NOT the same as dinosaurs. They were from a much later date, only creationists see a set of footprints from dinosaurs and one next to it of human and put 1 and 1 together and think they're right. Oh, but wait... you can't even use that example since dinosaurs technically don't exist if you believe the bible... so, got another example then?
sure, go ahead and give examples of creationism, but please, don't go wasting yours or mine or anyones time if they are extremely silly.
It's quite sad how some keep clinging to the word theory... YES, it's a theory, you know what that is? that scientists agree with it but that since it happened in the past NO ONE can be 100% right about it, so that's why they refine it.
What do religious people place against it? an ancient fairytale that will NEVER change... isn't it so that those same people thought the earth was a square? the bible claims so, and so it must be, no? even when science showed it's not...
I have my eyes wide open and up till now I only saw weak arguements people gave to why it's not true, but still can't give one single good reason to why creationism is true.
EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG WORLD (Part 2)
Comets disintegrate too quickly.
-According to evolutionary theory comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it looses so much of its material that is could not survive more than about 100,000 years*. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years*. (source: Steidl, P. F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed. [1983]) Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort Cloud” (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed*. (source: Whipple, F.b., “Background of modern comet theory,” Nature 263 [2 Sept. 1976] 15.)
Originally posted by kRaZy777
Just one example: Human footprints were found right in the tracks of dinosaurs. Because they figured it may be a hoax they kept digging deeper in the ground and repeatedly found the same thing. A news crew went out there with a scientist (in addition to the several they already had out there
Could you please give me the name of that program, or the written documentation to show Dinosaur fooprints with human footprints inside of them. Now I don't wann see human footprints "alongside" the dinosaur footprints, because erosion and atmosspheric conditions can make it possible for footprints to be layered alongside older phenomenon. But I have never seen human footprints inside dino prints and dated back to the Jurassic or Cretacious period. One would think that would hit major publications around the world.
I am also interested to know the rational that creationists have behind the arguement of "Well I know that evolution is wrong because you have no proof (and I say that tongue in cheek because I believe there is a wealth of proof), and although I have no proof that creationism true, I believe 100% based on faith."
So by the arguement "evolution is untrue because it's just a theory with no proof" how can you state with 100% certainty that creationism is at all possible? 🙄