Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is

[paarsurrey1]

Revealed-Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is "man-made", is it so?

Regards

[nolidad]

[Replying to post 70 by DrNoGods]

Hello:

Well at teh end of your post you say it is not clear that feathers evolved from scales. whatever youi wish to call the process or means by which theropods lost their scales and developed feathers- is completely unknown-only theorized.

This is ini a line of evolution that has been declared fact by evllutionists and this is not just an incidental change from one genre to another!

But as for radiometric dating unreliability and the assumptions used by "evoluitionary" geologists I will post several links. Some are technical and others written for general understanding.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

https://www.icr.org/article/4816

http://blog.drwile.com/scientist-realiz ... ve-dating/

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... aboratory/

http://evolutiondismantled.com/accelerated-decay

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... lear-decay

https://creation.com/the-way-it-really- ... ric-dating

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... sumptions/

and from ICR: I linked a page with links to save space.

http://www.icr.org/home?f_search_type=i ... bmitsearch

I realize that non creationists have published far more articles, but then again

What grabbed my attention the most was that discordant ages for rocks from teh same sample are common! these variations can be as high as 40-50%

Also USC lab was given hemoglobin sample discovered in a t-rex bone. No id of the sample was given (three separate times) nor an expected age.

It tested out at under 40K years!!!

Hope these help

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 71 by nolidad]

But as for radiometric dating unreliability and the assumptions used by "evoluitionary" geologists I will post several links. Some are technical and others written for general understanding.

I'll ignore the articles from creationist websites as they are biased. Their goal is to try and disprove radiometric dating as a valid method of dating, so they engage in cherry picking and the use of anomalous results as mentioned earlier. But the others show opinions that are hugely in the minority, and one person (the UNC link) basically argued that the process was so complicated that it must be unreliable (and he, of course, like most creationists, also focused on anomalous results and ignored the far, far greater number of consistent results.

Look at the AIG link I posted in post 65. This article, by AIG no less, lists some 135 independent measurements of meteorite ages made between 1965 and 2004 using Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, Pb-Pb, U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Hf-W, and Mn-Cr, and the results are astoundingly consistent. Why ignore data sets like this and focus only on anomalous samples or misinterpreted analyses which are usually corrected in later publications or external analysis? If the method were so unreliable, how does such a consistent set of data come about from many different research groups over a 40 year period using a variety of isotopes?

What grabbed my attention the most was that discordant ages for rocks from teh same sample are common! these variations can be as high as 40-50%

40-50%? The difference between a 6000 year old Earth and a 4.6 billion year old Earth is nearly 6 orders of magnitude ... a factor of one million! So a 40-50% error obviously could not explain that kind of error. But the AIG meteorite article is more representative of how well the method does work, and it is rooted in established science and understanding of atomic physics, mountains of observational data, etc. Again, creationists cherry pick some anomalous examples, and often misinterpret that data to boot, in order to try and discredit the technique in any way they can.

Also USC lab was given hemoglobin sample discovered in a t-rex bone. No id of the sample was given (three separate times) nor an expected age.

It tested out at under 40K years!!!

The "soft tissue" T-Rex issue has been discussed ad nauseum in the literature. Of course, Creation.com latched onto it and tried to claim "alternative facts", as expected. Better explanations exist:

https://letterstocreationists.wordpress ... ft-tissue/

https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-fa ... really-say

Cherry picking anomalies and results from contaminated samples is the standard tactic of creationists, while ignoring the vast amount of data that shows the validity of radiometric dating which has a solid underpinning from atomic physics. Fortunately, the scientific community is not swayed by these minority creationist claims and the technique continues to be used successfully for a wide range of applications beyond dating of rock samples.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 70 by DrNoGods]

Hello:

Well at teh end of your post you say it is not clear that feathers evolved from scales. whatever youi wish to call the process or means by which theropods lost their scales and developed feathers- is completely unknown-only theorized.

This is ini a line of evolution that has been declared fact by evllutionists and this is not just an incidental change from one genre to another!

But as for radiometric dating unreliability and the assumptions used by "evoluitionary" geologists I will post several links. Some are technical and others written for general understanding.

Appropriate response links and comments below

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Massive article, full of all sorts of stuff. It contains references to figures and charts which aren't actually in the article, and not all the material is properly referenced. This sloppiness made it hard to dig through it.

The basic point that it appears the author is trying to use to discredit radiometric dating is that rocks are contaminated by daughter materials and therefore cannot be used for dating. In his opening paragraph he says something incredibly stupid: "Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock". Someone might want to tell him that it's rock...stuff doesn't just enter or leave rock.

Anyway, since samples taken are checked for contamination, and since samples are narrowed down as much as possible so that it is mostly just the parent and adjoining daughter material getting tested, the concern for contamination is already being addressed by science. New laser techniques in particular can test incredibly small samples, so things like trace lead nearby aren't problematic. His concern with zircon crystals seems particularly unfounded given that we know zircon formation is very anti-lead (it pushes lead out). We know this because we can make zircon in labs (you can buy blue zircon gems online right now if you want).

Despite the volume of his writing, he doesn't raise any new or serious objections.

https://www.icr.org/article/4816

https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3501
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0109010329

One should also understand that uranium-thorium dating is actually a short range technique (and uses Th-232, 231, and 230), please see "radiometric dating" in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#R ... ric_dating

Also, Thorium-228 is not even used in radiometric dating, so the experiment doesn't refute any radioactive isotopes used in dating techniques. Naturally the pseudo-scientists at ICR failed to mention that in their article...

http://blog.drwile.com/scientist-realiz ... ve-dating/

Jay Wile mentions the dating of Zaire diamonds as an example of why radiometric dating is flawed. He neglects to mention, however, that diamonds are almost never dated, because the results are considered tainted, as this Nature article (that he linked to in his blog post) specifically says. I guess he didn't think anyone would actually read the thing: https://www.nature.com/articles/323710a0

He also links to an article by Dr Robert Hayes about possible diffusion issues when using radioactive decay of the rubidium-87 into strontium-87 dating. While Hayes article seems to be quite sound and I can not find any objections to it, there is also no actual testing down to confirm that is actually an issue. I emailed Dr Hayes to see if there was any kind of range for possible overestimation of age. He said in a 1/31/18 email to me: "We have a proposal in submission to the nsf to measure this. I am expecting a wide range of results specific to individual samples". So we will have to wait to see if this is actually an issue, and if so how much difference it will make in established dates.

It should be noted that several radioactive isotopes are used to date things in the hundred of millions to billions range, and diffusion is not an issue with the other ones, so I don't think something like the age of the Earth is going to be greatly affected by this.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... aboratory/

Incredible amounts of energy are required for this to happen, in some cases it would need to be hotter than the core of the Sun...
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/wo ... _henke.htm

http://evolutiondismantled.com/accelerated-decay

This is an article that takes some of the previous things and puts them all in one article. The problem in general with supposed accelerated decay rates that would give you a 6,000 year old Earth is the massive amount of heat and radioactivity that would make life on Earth utterly impossible. The crust would have been 22,000 degrees F.
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/c ... decay.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... lear-decay

Tons of papers on this topic. Solar/galaxy influence appears to be very real according to some papers. The effect on decay rates however is minimal, less than a tenth of one percent. The other, more serious problem, is that decay rates do NOT fluctuate for all isotopes, which can't be possible if neutrinos from the Sun are affecting decay rates. It may also be possible that radon decay is actually affecting these tests, because air is changed more frequently in labs depending on the temperature. It is already known that ground temp, air temp, gas pressure in the soil (due to things like precip) change how much radon flows from the ground. There is still much doubt about this, and the variations aren't statistically significant. For example, the date for the meteorite event that killed the dinosaurs would change by about 55,000 years assuming a tenth of one percent in variation.
http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/XperDecRat.html
https://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/ ... cay-rates/

https://creation.com/the-way-it-really- ... ric-dating

This is nothing more than a blog with unsubstantiated claims, one supposed quote, and no actual references to anything specific (he paraphrases things instead of quoting specific research to support his statements).

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... sumptions/

Basically covered in the other ones. I've made lengthy posts about the illogical claim that "no geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes." In fact they can, simply by looking for contamination in the rest of the rock. If it isn't there, then the odds that a little bit of lead just happened to settle right by a little bit of uranium is ridiculously long.

Constant decay rate has been shown time and again. Snelling has no valid argument.

I realize that non creationists have published far more articles, but then again

What grabbed my attention the most was that discordant ages for rocks from teh same sample are common! these variations can be as high as 40-50%

Also USC lab was given hemoglobin sample discovered in a t-rex bone. No id of the sample was given (three separate times) nor an expected age.

It tested out at under 40K years!!!

Hope these help

Already addressed by others. Cheers.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 73 by Kenisaw]

Already addressed by others.

To add another rebuttal to the creationists claims surrounding carbon-14 dating of dinosaur bones (and other items known to be far older than the range of validity for carbon dating), the second article in this compendium by Thomas Stafford is useful:

https://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

He points out that what most of these earlier studies from the early 1990s when this brew-ha-ha initially came up (prompted by Hugh Miller's con job to get bones from a museum ... see first article in above link), is nothing more than the "blank" or background signal due to geological or laboratory sources. People have tested things like charcoal and marble and obtained "ages" in the 20,000 to 40,000 range from samples known to be far older than that.

Also, and I think I'm correct in stating this, none of the results from the carbon-14 dinosaur bone testing that the creationists put forth as "proof" of a young Earth have been published in legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals. It lives in a big way on all of the creationist websites and publications, but not in the scientific literature. So just another example of that group latching onto anomalous results and trying to build a case for a young Earth from them. And, interestingly, they are happy to claim carbon-14 dating is highly accurate when it suits their purposes, but trash radiometric dating in general as unreliable when it doesn't.

[Danmark]

So just another example of that group latching onto anomalous results and trying to build a case for a young Earth from them. And, interestingly, they are happy to claim carbon-14 dating is highly accurate when it suits their purposes, but trash radiometric dating in general as unreliable when it doesn't.

This double standard is endemic to all creationist approaches, whether about evolution or the age of the Earth.

[Willum]

[Replying to paarsurrey1]

Look at the universe around you; cars, skyscrapers, books, chairs, TV's and more.
The universe IS man-made, just as religion is.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Hello DrNoGods,


Will this creation/evolution debate last millions of years?

May I first say that we know that our diametrically opposed views of origins cannot both be correct at the same time?

Certainly true. But I would argue that mine has scientific results as a basis (observation and measurement), while yours does not (it is based solely on stories in an ancient book).

Are you able to give me scientific laws that support the certainty of evolution? Maybe that would help in the absence of witnesses. How do you observe and measure what happened in the past?

You are correct that my arguments are based on contents of an ancient book. The truth that the Bible contains remained unchanged since the beginning of time! Thank you! The ancient commands for us not to steal or kill is still in effect! Would you please give what was said in this ancient book that protects trade today?

The fatal flaw of evolution is that if it is true, life as we know today reached its present state by millions of years of death and destruction.

This is not a flaw, but a description of how life does actually work on this planet. Every living thing dies, and sometimes whole species are wiped out in destructive events. But this has no bearing on evolution as a process, which is a scientific description of how life diversifies over time.

But this error tends to lead individuals away from their hope.

As for the relationship between evolutionary dogma and science, the sights below should be of help in showing that some had non-scientific purposes for promoting evolution.

https://creation.com/charles-lyell-free ... from-moses

https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011/10 ... %E2%80%9D/


May I please remind that trust in the man-made evolution model along with its arguments only tends to lead the heart away from vital trust in the Creation model that's the basis for hope? What's undesirable about hope, please? Go ahead and continue your evolutionary arguments until you wear yourself out.

Thank you, Nolidad for your helpful arguments.

ELD

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 68 by Kenisaw]

Hello Kenisaw,

However, I think it is important to note something about these dissenters. Their alternative solution is definitely NOT supported by evidence and data. Their solution is definitely not verified and validated. I have no issue with anyone deciding that the evidence doesn't fit the accepted scientific theory, but then they should be able to create a new theory WITH explanatory ability that fully explains the facts and data that they've studied in the first place.

"God did it" doesn't do that.

Read on. I will cover this further down.

But are all willing to accept the validated facts as revealed? Human nature has its bag of tricks.
Why does the Creation/evolution debate, for example, continues to rage instead of having been settled long ago?

Ignorance. Most of the people that I have conversations with simply do not understand how scientific theories work, what the data and evidences are, and often disagree with it simply because their religious book or dogma has a different story that conflicts with the findings of science.

But how may a person exposed to what was revealed that should have settled an issue be described as ignorant? Did you mean willfully ignorant?
The Bible is more than a mere religious book or mere dogma. Can’t we see that around us? Does it conflict with other sciences such as thermodynamics, physics, or electrical theory also? Aren’t you familiar with the verse in it that protects trade? Why are only the things that pertain to the beginning the troubling issues? Before the abundance of knowledge of fossils with their estimated ages, was man in the dark about how man began? Are you talking about operational science or historical science? Please beware of strawmania.

]Over 50% of scientists in America consider themselves religious and/or believe in a personal god according to polling statistics. Yet most of these people find evolution to be a valid scientific theory. But those are people who have dug into the matter.

I was also taught evolutionary dogma in high school by my science teacher that I trusted and believed it and hoped for the day that I would find a solution to the conflict with Biblical truth that my mother taught me. There’s no solution. As written in scripture, there’s simply too much around us that point to the creation model. It takes compromise for Bible believers to believe evolution. Is the natural mind above the supernatural?

A lot of those who disagree can't even discern between a theory and a scientific theory.

It's ignorance.

Are you saying that everyone that disagrees with evolutionary dogma is unable to discern between kinds of theories? Are you sure?
------------------------------
For post 68
I don’t mind your jumping in. What I post for one is open for all. Welcome!

The question you might want to ask yourself, Erex, is why creationist sites need to mislead people like that....

As long as our worldviews (one Bible-based and the other not) oppose, you and I will always see the other side as promoting error that misleads instead of informing. It depends on who do we want our ears to hear. As for us creationists, Jesus warns that leadership of (also informing) others without Him is to scatter abroad (Matthew 12:30). We that believe His word must believe all of it including Genesis.

About your statement in post 66, “God did it� doesn’t do.� Who would be around to carry out scientific inquiry if God didn’t do His part in creating us first? Are scientists the only authority by which we must live? Try as we may, we cannot believe away God’s word.

Pretend you were a builder of high-performance cars that gave me one of the top models for free (Did we pay money for our bodies?). I then decide to forsake knowledge that you had anything to do with the car so that as I enjoy it, someone asks me how I got it. Claiming a belief that scientists say that the car oozed out the side of a volcano, I would say, “‘Kenisaw did it’ doesn’t do!� What would you think? Should I in this case pretend that you don’t exist in order to protect automotive craftsmanship? But if I decide to make an about face to respect you and to do things right, I hope you would forsake your desire to whip me up.

Let’s also try this: If I decide to believe all of your and DrNoGod’s claims and forsake my trust in the Biblical creation model, how would that benefit me and the field of science? What wisdom, sense of fulfillment, and what satisfaction would it bring me?

How would it personally help me as I turn against and build up hostility against believers of the creation model to “protect science?� I leave the answers up to you.

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 76 by Willum]

Hello Willum,

Look at the universe around you; cars, skyscrapers, books, chairs, TV's and more.
The universe IS man-made, just as religion is.

Is man man-made? Have you read post #64?

ELD

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 77 by Erexsaur]

Are you able to give me scientific laws that support the certainty of evolution? Maybe that would help in the absence of witnesses. How do you observe and measure what happened in the past?

The theory of evolution arose from observations by Darwin (and others) contemporaneous with him in the middle of the 19th century. It is not just an idea that one man had and foisted upon humanity without any evidence. It is a theory of how life diversified on this planet that is supported by a continuous stream of observations and measurements since Darwin's time, all of which strongly suggest that the basic theory is correct. That is how it has risen to the level of "theory" ... experimental support of it is so consistent over time, without any falsification of the basic hypothesis, that it is now called a theory.

It is not necessary for a modern human (who have only been present on this planet for about 0.007% of its existence) to have witnessed an event to conclude that it occurred. Analysis of evidence left behind is sufficient, and like any crime scene investigation all of the available evidence has to be considered, in context, and analyzed for the most likely conclusions. In the case of evolution, the fossil record and the genetic evidence all support the theory, so until someone comes along with a better description or a falsification, it is the best explanation.

The truth that the Bible contains remained unchanged since the beginning of time! Thank you! The ancient commands for us not to steal or kill is still in effect! Would you please give what was said in this ancient book that protects trade today?

Bible scholars put the writing of the Old Testament in the very recent past ... between about 1000 BC and 0 BC. This is less than 3000 years, while the "beginning of time" is an unknown quantity (our solar system is about 4.6 billion years old). But I don't understand the other two sentences. I know of the biblical "ten commandments" and that they were meant to (presumably) apply for all time for humans so would still be in effect But I don't see how this connects to the protection of trade. Today, trade is a worldwide, massive enterprise with every level of honest participant and thieve one could imagine, and countless laws and activities to protect it. I don't think the ten commandments are policing it in any way!

May I please remind that trust in the man-made evolution model along with its arguments only tends to lead the heart away from vital trust in the Creation model that's the basis for hope? What's undesirable about hope, please? Go ahead and continue your evolutionary arguments until you wear yourself out.

I can have hope in many things, such as my own ambitions and future, as well as those of mankind in general, without any trust in a Creation model. Creation models (and there have been many ... just have a browse through this list):

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

are attempts to explain origins without any bedrock in science or rational thought. They are myths and stories created by different people in different times, usually far enough in the past that science could not be brought to bear on the problem because it had not been developed sufficiently. There was no way to explain the sun, moon and stars, or the cycle of day and night, or earthquakes, lightning, thunder, etc. until science had discovered what these things were and how they worked. So it made sense to assign them to deities or the actions of deities. Now they are no longer mysteries and we don't need to invoke gods as explanations.