Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[Guest theElect777]

34 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

Thank you for the invitation, @one.opinion. Radiometric dating techniques are diverse and rely upon exhaustive stratigraphical surveys to establish baselines of geological age; these are cross-referenced and subjected to the peer-review process so when a reputable source provides an approximate geological age, we can be assured that the measurement in question has been slapped around, poo-pahed, kicked while down, and otherwise subjected to multiple assassination attempts. The overarching goal of the peer-review process is to prove all things false! 

The radiometric dating of organic material has always posed a challenge to the scientist; measuring the carbon 14 (c14) isotope is the only reliable means by which human remains may be temporally established in the geological record. Some crazy anthropologists proposed subjecting human dentition (teeth) to thermoluminescence dating, a technique which measures radiation contained within crystalline minerals in order to determine the geological date when the material in question was heated/exposed to sunlight. Superb when dealing with rocks, questionable where our teeth are concerned. 

In light of the forum's policy with regard to videos I'll furnish a link to a safe website (it passes my anti-virus software) which will help the curious understand how the radiometric measurement of the carbon 14 isotope, aka carbon 14 dating, works. 

https://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm
 

My issue with any dating method is typically we remove the test subject from its natural uncontrolled environment, and then test it within a controlled environment, and expect the test subject to remain at the same consistency.   To which is impossible!   Grant it, can we get within years of any test subject, I doubt it.  But I believe we can get within 500 years.   And that also leads to another question of water erosion.   Even a puddle of mud will factually date different than the dry dirt not far from it.   But for me, what the real kicker here is, setting up the dating equipment.   We input the age we believe and from there its basically older/younger.   It does not specify how much older/younger either way.   So I can say something is 12 billion years old.  And even if it dates younger, I can guestimate that oh it must be 11 billion years old.   It's expensive to date subjects so we generally do not keep inputting numbers until we're actually close.   There's a lot of hot air and baloney taking place in how we date test subjects.

Edited July 28, 2020 by theElect777

[Marathoner]

12 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

My issue with any dating method is typically we remove the test subject from its natural uncontrolled environment, and then test it within a controlled environment, and expect the test subject to remain at the same consistency.   To which is impossible!   Grant it, can we get within years of any test subject, I doubt it.  But I believe we can get within 500 years.   And that also leads to another question of water erosion.   Even a puddle of mud will factually date different than the dry dirt not far from it.   But for me, what the real kicker here is, setting up the dating equipment.   We input the age we believe and from there its basically older/younger.   It does not specify how much older/younger either way.   So I can say something is 12 billion years old.  And even if it dates younger, I can guestimate that oh it must be 11 billion years old.   It's expensive to date subjects so we generally do not keep inputting numbers until we're actually close.   There's a lot of hot air and baloney taking place in how we date test subjects.

My participation doesn't include arguing against the beliefs of another, friend. As the OP title indicates this topic is for the discussion of scientific objections to evolution. Your belief as articulated indicates a lack of understanding of the radiometric dating process and all that entails, @theElect777. As I wrote in my post, exhaustive stratigraphical surveys provide the baseline by which various radiometric dating techniques determine geological age. I provided a link to a website which describes radiocarbon dating in terms which most can understand. The carbon 14 isotopes measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), the method I am most familiar with, are not affected by the removal nor transportation of the sample to be tested. C14 measured in the spectrometer will result in a stratigraphical match with core samples of comparable geographical age. 

I recommend that you familiarize yourself with radiocarbon dating before objecting to it.    

[Guest theElect777]

14 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

My participation doesn't include arguing against the beliefs of another, friend. As the OP title indicates this topic is for the discussion of scientific objections to evolution. Your belief as articulated indicates a lack of understanding of the radiometric dating process and all that entails, @theElect777. As I wrote in my post, exhaustive stratigraphical surveys provide the baseline by which various radiometric dating techniques determine geological age. I provided a link to a website which describes radiocarbon dating in terms which most can understand. The carbon 14 isotopes measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), the method I am most familiar with, are not affected by the removal nor transportation of the sample to be tested. C14 measured in the spectrometer will result in a stratigraphical match with core samples of comparable geographical age. 

I recommend that you familiarize yourself with radiocarbon dating before objecting to it.    

I recommend you look at the valley that Mount Saint Helens dug out just 30 years ago and it would appear as if it was a billions years old.   Look at the Grand Canyon and you can see where the water from Noah's Flood carved it out and it still is being dated GEOLOGICALLY at BILLIONS year old.

Edited July 28, 2020 by theElect777

[Guest theElect777]

One of the most well known Geologist theorized that a mass flood of water could do the same as Science claims what time and trickle down water can cause.   And at the bottom you can see a distinct line before sediment begins to stack.   That is water, and it was a flash massive flood of water.   And still today, it is radiocarbon dated as if this happened over the period of billions of years.  So come again with how precise your dating methods are!

[Guest theElect777]

 

[one.opinion]

27 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

 

Forum rules allow a link to a video, but not the video itself.

[one.opinion]

54 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

I recommend you look at the valley that Mount Saint Helens dug out just 30 years ago and it would appear as if it was a billions years old.   Look at the Grand Canyon and you can see where the water from Noah's Flood carved it out and it still is being dated GEOLOGICALLY at BILLIONS year old.

The “canyon” from the Mount St. Helen’s eruption should not be compared to the Grand Canyon for reasons explained here.

https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2010/11/mount-st-helens-as-a-model-for/
 

Additionally, the Grand Canyon structure around the meandering Colorado River suggests formation over extremely long periods of time, and not due to a single, relatively rapid event. A flood with enough force to carve such a structure through solid rock would not cut it into the curves observed in many parts of the canyon.

[HAZARD]

I was talking to a police rescue service officer one day, that I know who tells me every time he see's me, because I once told him I believe in God and His Word,  that God is a figment of a fools imagination and the Bible is a book of lies and fairy stories.

 

I asked him, then how do you think the Earth the entire endless Universe, and all therein came about?

 

His reply was, "It all started with a BIG BANG! I asked what is a big bang? His reply, A Huge explosion!

 

I responded with, Your a police rescue officer, you have seen many fires, many factory fires where there were many explosion's?  He said Yes. I asked, then what is needed to start an explosion like many you have seen in fires and especially factory fires? He responded with, flammable fuels, flammable gasses, an ignition source, and there you have it, an explosion and fire!

 

I asked, then what's left when the fire burns itself out, or if the fire brigade eventually puts it out?  .  .  .  Not much, just charred rubble!

 

I said, now picture this in your mind. Starting with absolutely NOTHING!, no light, no darkness, no fuel, no ignition source, not even a VACUME, just absolutely NOTHING AT ALL! How can one get a big bang that could possibly bring about what you see and what you are, out of absolutely nothing? He had no answer!

 

 

[HAZARD]

Deceived people cannot even begin to reasonably explain the origins and purposes of the three great domains--heaven, earth, and sea and, as if sensing a dire lack, some adherents seek out what is called, the "Theory of Everything"

 

2 Tim 3-7, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

Power belongeth unto God (see Psalm 62:11).   

V. 11, God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.

Things that are seen were not made of things that do appear. Just look at the Periodic Table (the law of octaves preceded it). The difference between substances just basically has to do with the number of bits. All substances (we are told) are measured by protons, neutrons, and electrons. The thing that differs between substances is just the numbers. It looks like everything is composed of just little bits of power that can push or pull, etc. Just BITS OF POWER. God SPOKE and things came into existence. They say electrons are invisible. All these visible things are made from invisible power.

 

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy."
--Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229
(endnote as quoted on Animals that Defy Evolution Part III)

"Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory."
--Charles Darwin

[branchesofHim]

54 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Things that are seen were not made of things that do appear. Just look at the Periodic Table (the law of octaves preceded it). The difference between substances just basically has to do with the number of bits. All substances (we are told) are measured by protons, neutrons, and electrons. The thing that differs between substances is just the numbers. It looks like everything is composed of just little bits of power that can push or pull, etc. Just BITS OF POWER. God SPOKE and things came into existence. They say electrons are invisible. All these visible things are made from invisible power.

Indeed. Good point. It all adds up. Shalom.

Also consider -

Job 38:[1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
[2] Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
[3] Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
[8] Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
[9] When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
[10] And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
[11] And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
[12] Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
[13] That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
[14] It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
[15] And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
[16] Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
[17] Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
[18] Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
[19] Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
[20] That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
[21] Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
[22] Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
[23] Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
[24] By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
[25] Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
[26] To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
[27] To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
[28] Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
[29] Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
[30] The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
[31] Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
[32] Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
[33] Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
[34] Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
[35] Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?
[36] Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
[37] Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
[38] When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
[39] Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
[40] When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
[41] Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

Edited July 29, 2020 by branchesofHim