Evidence against creation

[Esquilax]

Yeah this is a very interesting thing i was thinking about. How would the formation or in a sense reformation of rock determine the real age of the rock.

It's all a bit over my head, but radiometric dating- of which carbon dating is just one of a whole genre of dating methods- works by measuring the radioactive half life of given atoms within an object; they decay at a certain constant rate, and so one can determine the age of the materials of a thing by examining the rate of decay and working backwards from there.

Of course, I am a layman at this: I had to do my research, much as I'd recommend you do.

Anyways getting to the point, since i couldn't find too much argument against wrongly dating the rocks due to already being formed i assume there when it undergoes volcanic activity it heats up so much that the actual structure of the rocks changes completely to essentially being formed again at its core but i could be wrong.

Well, the atoms that compose the object don't change, and that's what is measured when we do radiometric dating.

Regardless though, the dating measurements should show in millions or billions of years according to the current estimates on the age of earth according to current measurements, though i definitely think there's something more complex going on here? My lack of knowledge on the formation of rocks leaves much to be desired here though.

Well, the upper limits of our dating capabilities have provided us with mineral samples that are billions of years old.

Another interesting thing to think about would be how do they determine the formation of rocks, i'd assume all rocks should be in essence the age of the earth at ~4.8 billion years,

You can measure stuff like that via radioactive decay; as isotopes decay they produce other, daughter components in predictable patterns, and we can use the presence of those to determine more about the nature of the formations.

Animals with the eyes the size of a greek shield would lend itself to being a dinosaur, that was the recount of Alexander the great. Elephants are what the biggest, otherwise it'd need to be a large sea creature, but the instance of Alexander the great's was that his army was walking through a foreign nation and those people referred an animal with huge eyes and told them not to annoy it, but as Alexander's Army marched across the valley they heard a huge roar and were terrified, and some had sighted the great beast.

Yeah, the thing you need to keep in mind when reading that stuff is that accounts from that time are prone to exaggeration and, frankly, mysticism. They speak of portents and magic and so on; if you're not going to take that stuff at face value, why take the rest? In this case, you're taking second hand reports from terrified people, if we take it all to be true, and assuming it all to be accurate; I don't see why you'd do that.

That picture if it depicts a dinosaur and is not somehow from an artists imagination would just be evidence that dinosaurs roamed within the last 6000 years, throwing out general thinking that they exist only million years ago. The topic is mores evidence against creation not against evolution, since imo creationist evidence is far less abundant seemingly at this stage.

Well, it's not a dinosaur. It's some other kind of animal, plus a pattern that has been conflated to be part of the pictograph by people who want it to be a dinosaur.

And frankly, I wouldn't mind if we found dinosaurs alive even today, but the time to believe that is when there's evidence for it, not merely spurious stone carvings. Our time scales for this kind of thing are more elastic than you'd think; we once thought the Coelacanth to be extinct too, before we found living populations of it, fished up from certain rivers.

Interesting. I could only find this occurrence with the T-rex they found of possible soft tissue, so it doesn't seem to point anyway.

Yeah, that's why you don't want to go to creationist sources for your information: they'll lie to you if they think it'll help the conclusions they've come to before they even look at the evidence.

[Surgenator]

Let me ask you this: where did the matter that makes up the pyroclastic flow come from? Did it pop into existence 200 years ago? Or did it exist before then, just in a different form that ended up within the volcano?

Now consider this: carbon dating measures the age of the materials, not the current state of the materials.

Yeah this is a very interesting thing i was thinking about. How would the formation or in a sense reformation of rock determine the real age of the rock.

The igneous rock goes from liquid to solid trapping radioactive atoms in it. So the formation of a rock locks in how many radioactive atoms it starts off with.

Anyways getting to the point, since i couldn't find too much argument against wrongly dating the rocks due to already being formed i assume there when it undergoes volcanic activity it heats up so much that the actual structure of the rocks changes completely to essentially being formed again at its core but i could be wrong.

Lets correct something, igneous rocks is only one way to form a rock. Here is some other ways.

If a rock was reformed, then the concentrations of radioactive isotopes are changed into a new starting values. So the date you get comes when the rock was last formed.

Regardless though, the dating measurements should show in millions or billions of years according to the current estimates on the age of earth according to current measurements, though i definitely think there's something more complex going on here? My lack of knowledge on the formation of rocks leaves much to be desired here though.

I recommend a good geology book or becoming a geologies (they get to go to the coolest places).

Another interesting thing to think about would be how do they determine the formation of rocks, i'd assume all rocks should be in essence the age of the earth at ~4.8 billion years,

Noooooooooooooooo. Rocks are formed everyday. As you dig deeper underground, the older the rocks will be, assuming they were undisturbed (radioactively). That is why geologist always talk about layers of rocks. You need to need an undisturbed layer of rocks to allow new rocks to form. The new rocks that form make another layer, and so on until you get layers of rocks. The ones at the bottom are older than the ones at the top.

yet they use rock and sediment around dinosaur fossils to determine the dinosaur ages, measured in the millions of years generally, would be interesting to find the science behind this.

This goes back to the layers of rocks. The dinosaur died in a layer of rock that was being formed of its death. So measuring the layer of rock the dinosaur was surrounded by tells how many millions of years ago the dinosaur died.

[Minimalist]

How would the formation or in a sense reformation of rock determine the real age of the rock.

You do not use carbon dating on rocks. C14 requires organic material not minerals.

I think you need this.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.

[Whateverist]

Hi all to be honest i'm here to collect some evidence surrounding evidence against creation from the Atheist and scientific point of view.

I'm sorry I can't help you. I only argue against (or for) worthy interpretations of religious experience. Shooting down creationism is like shooting fish in a barrel. No sport in that. No one actually believes that for reasons that make any sense.

My advice to you is to improve your theism. You're ill equipped to face the modern world with such dated views. People do manage to hang on to their religion while maturing into more worthy points of view. Good luck.

[snowtracks]

Hi all to be honest i'm here to collect some evidence surrounding evidence against creation from the Atheist and scientific point of view. Hopefully this doesn't put you off but i've recently listened to the creationist talk at church about evidence of Dinosaurs within last 6000 years, evidence of flood through tectonic plates leading to Mt Ararat(showing that land masses literally moved upwards from the surface) and also inaccuracy and uses of Carbon dating only to within the the last 25000-50000 years or so.

---

Anyways I'd like to list the main points i heard spoken about and would love to hear the current scientific evidence against such points, mainly strong evidence but i'm also interested in any theories which could present a possible but not a proven reason why it disproves those points. Anyways i'm interested in the scientific evidence and findings and not about an argument so to speak. I just want to see the other side's view.

So here are the main points that you can feel free to provide scientific evidence against:

• Carbon dating has inaccuracies, where pyroclastic flows and volcanic activities have showed a volcano explosion dated at 23.7 million years whereas it only occured in the last 200 years.
  
• Carbon dating relies on C-14 with calculations dependent on trees accurate to what i've found 14,000 years and possible use of coral reefs beyond that to determine carbon dates. My question is how can you carbon date to the millions or billions of years? What techniques does science use alongside carbon-dating, how can the substantiate the 50000+ years dates of historical evidence if it only can accurately go to 50,000. I've read that fossils rely on the rock and sediments around it, but does this use carbon-dating? What am i missing here?
  
• For Evidence with dinosaurs, Alexander the great wrote in his diary of an experience with a huge animal with eyes as big as a shield. An asian temple has a picture of a fleshed out brachisarausBrachiasaurus, how did they come up with this besides imagination, something so accurate as a carving on their temple, and again the points from creationists have been that carbon-dating and the effects of floods affecting the carbon in the atmosphere leads to a re-calibration of fossil dating being drastically cut back to recent times from what i've heard. Also they've found the existence of soft-tissue within dinosaurs this seems to prove in theory they're far more recent than we expected, what's the refutation for this?
  
• Lastly the evidence for the flood whilst seemingly more of a stretch was that in the bible it says:

  The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
  To the place which You established for them.

  So according to this the earth needed to rise and from what i heard that evidence for this is that alot of the tectonic plates actually line up with Mt Ararat where Noah landed so if the earth were to rise it lines up with Noah landing at Mt Ararat. Also evidence at Mt Everest that water and a layer of dirt was found shows evidence of the flood which you may heard of. And the last of that evidence was talking about how the Grand Canyons and similar type structures exist because of water-formations, and a flood seems to explain that very well.
  

Anyways feel free to refute and provide evidence especially scientific evidence and theories or common refutations against this evidence above. You may think i'm naive having this viewpoint but proving it with your evidence would be of great value.

---

[Surgenator]

Once a person understands that the Hebrew word ‘yom’ has multiple meanings for the English word ‘day‘, they will realize that the established historical science dating is correct as in - geology, astronomy, paleontology. Certain groups insists that the Genesis word ‘day’ must be translated as a sunset to sunset meaning. They will also point out that the genealogies added up fit their dating schemes. So to harmonize their incorrect day translation and interpretation schema into science, they are forced to machinate against the established dating methods. Christian also know that God has ‘fixed’ the laws of the Universe meaning they don’t change over time. The proponents of this view are not as wrong as the atheists, but they are still wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom - the correct Genesis ‘day’ means “A long, but finite span of time”.
Currently we are in day 7 (God ‘rested’ [ceased from creation after man]). An aside, many biblical reference have ‘day’ not as 24 hours, such as in: “the day of the Lord”.

You'll have problem with the order of how god created things vs how things were actually came to be.

Bible creation:
1) Heaven & Earth
2) Light
3) Earth's atmosphere
4) Land & vegetation
5) Stars & Moon
6) Fish & Birds
7) Land animals
8) Man

Reality:
1) Plasma
2) Gas
3) Stars & Sun
4) Earth
5) Moon
6) Oceans
7) Fish
8) land animals
9) birds
10) Man

No matter how long or short you make the days, the order is wrong.

[Minimalist]

I bet he tells you that you are reading it out of context.

That's the usual shit they pull.

[downbeatplumb]

It's a metaphor or magic or something.

[robvalue]

Not as wrong as the atheists? What does that mean?

[Norman Humann]

It's a metaphor or magic or something.

Duh