Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[The Barbarian]

Just now, Sparks said:

When a new 'species' of bat appears, it's still a bat. 

Just a different kind of a bat.   That's what macroevolution is.  As you just discovered, microevolution is evolution within a species, and macroevolution is the evolution of a new species.

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

We on the CE side didn't invent the term macroevolution, the evolutionists did.

And the definition, too.   Do you remember what that definition is?    It's just that once creationists realized that macroevolution has been directly observed, they wanted to change the definition.

But it remains the same as it has been... the evolution of new species.

 

 

[Sparks]

33 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

If that was true, forensics, fire investigation, geology, and a great many other sciences would not work.   It's not hard to show that the notion "you can't know anything you weren't there to see" is false.

We can test that and show that it's false. 

Perhaps you don't know what the scientific method is.  What do you think it is?

As you just learned, forensics, fire investigation, geology and a great many other sciences can determined what happened, even if no one was around to see it happen.   Do you understand how we can do this?   Would you like an example?

In practice, the scientific method works like this:

"I just saw the oddest thing out by the canyon..."

"Maybe it's.... Or ...."

"How could we tell?"

"If it's ... then..."

(test to see, and/or check existing data and literature)

(it isn't that)

(new idea)

(test to see, and/or check existing data and literature)

(repeat until idea is confirmed)

"So it's this...."

(others test it)

"So it is."

That's how it works.

Well, it does not work when an evolutionist spots something in conflict with his theory.  You guys don't even realize it is a theory, anymore.  You claim Darwinian Evolution is true.  Even Darwin knew better than to claim that.

[The Barbarian]

See, here's another issue where Poe's Law comes in.   Or maybe you just don't get how half-lives work.    Essentially a half-life is the time that it takes for half of an isotope to decay.   So it looks like this:

5730 years  50% left

11460 years 25% left

17190 years 12.5% left

22920 years 6.25% left.

28650 years, 3.125% left

34380 years 1.562% left

40110 years 0.781% left

45840 years 0.390% left

51570 years  0.195% left. 

And there are labs capable of measuring that amount of C14.

So you've been given some wrong stories about that, too.

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

No, there are not labs that can

Sorry, you've got that wrong, too.

Carbon-14 dating can be used to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years old.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/can/intro/17%3A_Radioactivity_and_Nuclear_Chemistry/17.06%3A_Radiocarbon_Dating%3A_Using_Radioactivity_to_Measure_the_Age_of_Fossils_and_Other_Artifacts

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Just a different kind of a bat.   That's what macroevolution is.  As you just discovered, microevolution is evolution within a species, and macroevolution is the evolution of a new species.

And the definition, too.   Do you remember what that definition is?    It's just that once creationists realized that macroevolution has been directly observed, they wanted to change the definition.

But it remains the same as it has been... the evolution of new species.

 

 

We are the ones that stuck with the definition.  And no, a new species of bat is a bat, and that's microevolution. 

Your sister or brother that does not look much like you is also microevolution, but they are human and they and their lineage will never be anything other than a human.

[Sparks]

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

See, here's another issue where Poe's Law comes in.   Or maybe you just don't get how half-lives work.    Essentially a half-life is the time that it takes for half of an isotope to decay.   So it looks like this:

5730 years  50% left

11460 years 25% left

17190 years 12.5% left

22920 years 6.25% left.

28650 years, 3.125% left

34380 years 1.562% left

40110 years 0.781% left

45840 years 0.390% left

51570 years  0.195% left. 

And there are labs capable of measuring that amount of C14.

So you've been given some wrong stories about that, too.

Sorry, you've got that wrong, too.

Carbon-14 dating can be used to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years old.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/can/intro/17%3A_Radioactivity_and_Nuclear_Chemistry/17.06%3A_Radiocarbon_Dating%3A_Using_Radioactivity_to_Measure_the_Age_of_Fossils_and_Other_Artifacts

Even if it could, you cannot prove the world met equilibrium.  It would just be background noise, today.   Besides, I don't trust democrat scientists from academia in labs who make such claims. 

With respect, I think you are clueless about this topic.

[The Barbarian]

Just now, Sparks said:

Well, it does not work when an evolutionist spots something in conflict with his theory.  You guys don't even realize it is a theory, anymore.

Perhaps you don't know what a theory is in science.   Only after an idea has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence is it considered a theory.    Theories are as strong as it gets in science.   They are stronger than scientific laws.

Kepler's Laws predict the motions of planets.

Newton's Theory of Gravitation predicts the motions, but also explains why they move as they do.   But it wasn't a theory until he repeatedly tested its predictions on the motion of planets and verified that it was true.

Learn more about it here:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You claim Darwinian Evolution is true.

It's directly observed.   Evolution is an observed phenomenon, as well as an established theory.   Just like gravity.   Gravity is an observed phenomenon, as well as an established theory.    In fact, evolution is more established than gravity.   We know why evolution works, but we still aren't completely sure why gravity works.

 

[The Barbarian]

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Even if it could, you cannot prove the world met equilibrium. 

As you learned earlier, there is no equilibrium.  Because cosmic rays vary from time to time, so does the production of carbon-14.   But because we have annual varves from Lake Suigetsu (among others) we can know what the level of carbon-14 existed at different times.

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Besides, I don't trust democrat scientists in labs who make such claims.

Doesn't matter.  Reality goes on even if you disapprove.    Besides, many scientists are republicans, libertarians, or even apolitical.   You're projecting things that really don't exist.

And you seem to be very uninformed about the way radioactive decay actually happens or how it is measured.

I gish imeúre- fails en-.

Edited May 20, 2023 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

8 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Your sister or brother that does not look much like you is also microevolution, but they are human and they and their lineage will never be anything other than a human.

It's not evolution at all.  Populations evolve.  Individuals do not.   Do you understand why?   Think back about the definition of evolution.  Does that help?

 

[Sparks]

51 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It's not evolution at all.  Populations evolve.  Individuals do not.   Do you understand why?   Think back about the definition of evolution.  Does that help?

The only type of evolution that is real and observed is microevolution.  You mistake microevolution for macro, which is why you believe Darwinian Evolution is observed. 

It is pointless to discuss this or most any topic with you.  I tried, though. 

 

[FreeGrace]

14 hours ago, Sparks said:

  FreeGrace said: 

No, excuse me, but I never gave any "theory".  That would be about what might have happened during the time gap.  I left all of that out.  Because it is just theory.  We won't know until eternity.

I found how key words in v.2 were translated elsewhere in the OT to come up with what really shows a time gap.  No theory about it.

I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.  I do know the gap theory is just a theory, but it is also missing any scripture.  It's a white space between two sentences.

The word "theory" is what people "think" or "guess" what may have happened during the time gap.  I haven't offered what I "think".  

I have offered ONLY how key words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT in order to understand more clearly what v.2 is really saying.  And it SHOWS a time gap between v.1 and 2.

It obviously takes some time for the earth to BECOME a wasteland, which it wasn't created as.