Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[teddyv]

Radiometric dating is reliable. 

 

 

[enoob57]

sorry but we can read the scientific journals ... so I find this inaccurate!
Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.
Radiometric Dating | Answers in Genesis

[The Barbarian]

12 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant.

Well, let's take a look...

Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.

With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.

"Argon-argon dating is by far the most important technique in documenting the history of human evolution, and this new result is an important validation of the technique," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics at UC Berkeley and director of the privately funded Berkeley Geochronology Center.

...

The result is so amazing because every dating technique invokes assumptions or involves uncertainties that limit its ability to pinpoint dates with extreme precision. With carbon-14, for example, the changing ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere over time puts a limitation on how precise a date can be established.

Scientists at the Berkeley Geochronology Center have improved the argon-argon technique so as to identify and correct for many of these uncertainties, thereby obtaining improved estimates.

The argon-argon technique is useful only with rocks containing appreciable amounts of potassium, because it is based on the fact that the naturally occurring isotope potassium-40 decays to argon-40 with a 1.25 billion year half-life.

In an older method known as potassium-argon dating the quantity of each isotope in the sample was measured to obtain an estimate of the its age. Precision was limited, however, by how accurately the argon could be extracted from the sample, which typically is melted to 1,600 to 1,700 degrees Celsius.

In argon-argon dating, first developed at UC Berkeley in the 1960s, samples are irradiated with neutrons to convert potassium-40 to argon-39, which is normally not present in nature. The ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 gives a measure of the age of the sample less subject to experimental error.

Thanks to refinements in equipment, the technique can now be used with milligram samples instead of the tens of grams -- nearly an ounce -- of rock needed in potassium-argon dating.

https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

 

Incidentally, scientists have found a way to accurately calibrate carbon-14 methods for extreme accuracy:

https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

sorry but we can read the scientific journals ... so I find this inaccurate!
Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.
Radiometric Dating | Answers in Genesis

Maybe stop reading only Answers in Genesis. That's not a scientific journal.

[The Barbarian]

12 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

LOL!

Basically Barbarian.

If there was proof the Universe was only 1 million years old making Earth roughly 25,000 years old, how would Evolution work when Science has created a basic timeline of 3 Billion years?

If we had proof that pigs could do coding, would Iowa would see a boom in high-tech industries?

As you see, Darwin won an argument with Lord Kelvin concerning the age of the solar system.   Physics (as it was known then) said ten million to 100 million years tops. 

In 1904, Rutherford suggested that radioactivity provides a source of energy sufficient to explain the existence of the Sun for the many millions of years required for the slow biological evolution on Earth proposed by biologists such as Charles Darwin. The physicist Lord Kelvin had argued earlier for a much younger Earth (see also William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin#Age of the Earth: geology) based on the insufficiency of known energy sources, but Rutherford pointed out at a lecture attended by Kelvin that radioactivity could solve this problem.^[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

 

13 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Does Evolution only work if Science has the correct age of Earth?

Physics only works if science (note the small "s") has the correct age of the Earth.    Chemistry only works if science has the correct age of the Earth

Biology only works if science has the correct age of the Earth.

Planetary astronomy only works if science has the correct age of the Earth

13 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

If God made Earth literally 25,000 years ago, does that make the process of Evolution [impossible]?

Unless the YE creationists are right, and modern taxa evolved by some kind of magical hyperevoluition within a thousand years or so.    A 25,000 year old Earth and the consequent hyperevolution are examples of non-scriptural miracles suggested to make YE possible.

Personally, I'd rather just take created as He did it.

 

 

 

.

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That would be natural selection.   And no, time isn't absolutely necessary.    Many YE creationists, to avoid the logical problems of too many species on the Ark, have suggested some kind of magical hyperevolution that rapidly cranked out new species, genera, and families of animals in just a thousand years or so.

Once you can add nonscriptural miracles whenever you have a difficulty, nothing is impossible.

 

just a few years People of the United States were considerably shorter on average and smaller in general size.  I have 2 wardrobe components from early 1800's and they are designed for smaller clothing than the width of today's hanger (just for example) and other things are smaller to reveal we are clearly bigger now [vs] then.

 

And we see the same thing when we look at the heights of some of yesterdays (500 to 3,000 years ago) leaders and general humanity.

 

And yes, there were the occasional person matching today's height and maybe even a range of 5'09" or so.

 

Is it possible"if" we took into consideration that possibly Noah was smaller in structure and maybe even animals in general were smaller 4-6000 years ago, maybe we can get closer to saving more than we think land races?

[enoob57]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Maybe stop reading only Answers in Genesis. That's not a scientific journal.

These are Godly men not afraid of the truth... and as it agrees with truth (Scripture)

[Guest kingdombrat]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And wrong about geology, and ice ages, and genetics, and astronomy, and physics, among other things.    Why not just accept it as it is, and avoid all those logical difficulties?

Is it even remotely possible that what we understand does not necessarily mean we are correct?   That what we know is only logical for Human Beings who exist on Earth but in Heaven God views us incompetent?  Just because it is logical to our limited comprehension doesn't mean to the existence who can observe Earth it is even remotely close to logical to them?

[The Barbarian]

Just now, kingdombrat said:

Is it even remotely possible that what we understand does not necessarily mean we are correct? 

Of course.    Look at all the different "understandings" of scripture.   Of course, it's possible to be wrong.    This is why a hypothesis doesn't get upgraded to a settled theory until its predictions have been repeatedly verified.

This might seem faulty to you, but it works very well.   The process has allowed us to have very good understanding of the way the world works.

 

[The Barbarian]

9 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

just a few years People of the United States were considerably shorter on average and smaller in general size.  I have 2 wardrobe components from early 1800's and they are designed for smaller clothing than the width of today's hanger (just for example) and other things are smaller to reveal we are clearly bigger now [vs] then.

Actually, that's more a matter of health and nutrition.   Farming tends to invite famine as a good year allows increases in population, and then a bad year trims it back.    This is why Cro-Magnons who are essentially modern humans, were larger than we are.   They were hunter-gatherers and healthier than most farming people would be.

Somewhat larger, but not anything like double our size.    Smaller animals would not have saved the Ark story.   This is why most YE organizations now think only a relatively few species were on board, and these evolved over time in to all the species we see today.