I'm a Christian Open to Questions

[ParkingPlaces]

Okay. Let' start with this one:

• 200,000 years ago: humans started looking like we do today

This is based on a hypothesis. Not sure which model ("Replacement Model" ??) the poster was referring to but the timeline is still widely contested and lacks any sufficient evidence to make it factual or supported by the heavy and convincing evidence the poster says exists. The science is all over the place on this one and some of the more recent "scientific" findings suggest that humans appeared sometime within the last 100,000 years. The popular models that are used in the hypotheses are complicated by inconsistencies in the fossil record.

The bottom line is, there is no hard evidence pointing to a verifiable time when homo sapiens first "evolved." In other words, no one really knows.

You're right. We don't know for sure. We know a lot. We know it's a lot more than 50,000 years ago. We know it's more than 75,000 years ago. But we keep finding new information. We just found a brand new species of an apparently intelligent humanoid recently. We didn't have that information before.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/24/new-human-species-siberia

However, nobody in science and nobody who is a fan of the things science is finding expects that we've come up with the end-all answer to this or any other question. We are finding out new things all the time. Do you expect people to suddenly say "Well,this is exactly the way it was!" with certainty, knowing all the while that someone might dig up a new ancestor tomorrow and find out something completely new about our species. I don't think so. How many thousands of buried remains are out there from 50 or 100 thousand years ago? We have no idea. How many of those remains will actually be found? We don't know. But each set found may reveal something new. Or help confirm earlier suspicions. Or simply confirm earlier accepted assumptions.

Don't think that absolutes like exact dates are of huge importance. We're talking about spans of time that nobody can actually comprehend. We're talking about spans of time that contain so many variables that there is no way to pinpoint anything exactly. Without the convenience of calendars and written histories, we're stuck doing a lot of assuming. But we do know we're in the ballpark, age-wise. We do know a lot about the distribution of early humans, because we keep finding remains in some areas and never find them in others.

We can be more exact about more other types of dating. In the plant world, for instance, one plant of a holy species in Tasmania that cannot reproduce (it has three sets of chromosomes and is sterile) has been found that is, by all measurements, about 43,000 years old. I know that's hard to swallow, what with genesis and arks and all, but that's what they found. The same plant has been sprouting new suckers from its roots for that long. Not impressive enough? Aspen trees form colonies of genetically identical plants that are essentially one plant growing over and over. One such colony has been estimated to be 80,000 years old. If we were smart, we would ask it what people looked like when it was young.    Sadly the aspen are in the US and there were no people here that long ago.

Anyway, people may have looked like humans about 16 times longer than the bible claims, or they may have looked human 32 times longer. Plants exist that have been alive 13 times longer than the bible says the earth has existed. If you want something more recent, there are pines in the California Sierra's that, counting rings, mind you, are over 5,000 years old. That's younger than genesis, but a heck of a lot longer ago than the flood.

They are working on ways to date stuff, at least from more recent history, more accurately. Comparing tree rings and ice layers from the polar regions they have been working on ways to figure out what the weather was like each year on earth going back over half a million years. I don't know how many years they can go back now, but it is now possible to find a piece of wood buried in human ruins, look at it's rings, and determine very exactly what years it grew. And as we gather in more information, we will be able to go back further. With very exact dating, like 5,121 years ago and stuff.

We probably won't be able to tell you the month though. 

You asked.

[William]

Abiogenesis explains how life started
Evolution explains how life evolved
These are VERY different processes
EDIT: The only "overlap" is that they are both related to life. However, as I have mentioned, very different processes

Where did evolution begin ?

BS the answer depends on what definition of "life" is acceptable in the coversation.  If one is prepared to be flexible and consider self-replicating chemical systems as "life" then molecular evolution is also evolution and began before any single cell organisims left fossils behind.

[LadyLucy]

BibleStudent, the further back in time we go, the harder it is to specify time. There comes a point in which you cannot calculate to the last second, nor day, nor exact year. You should have learned that if you have studied Biology and Chemistry (the most basic of both of them, mind you). Nothing in the world is EXACT and perfect. If it were, meteorologists would have no problem predicting the weather. Despite them being given the data on the climate shifts, the wind speed, humidity, etc (many things go into account), they cannot say for sure. That's why there's, for example, a 20% chance of rain.

Digging up fossils and using the latest technology to study the dirt and type of rock (which is vital by the way to finding out the age) takes time. It cannot be exact to the last second, but it shows a very good estimate as to how old the rock is. As for the animal or plant skeleton, same thing applies. Plus, you have to be careful when handling material that is THAT old. You have to understand that just because we have estimates and complications from time to time (for example, the fossil is hard to make out) does NOT imply that all science is faulty. Science is extremely reliable; it becomes better and better each passing year. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a small cellphone, a computer (which requires lots of programming and materials to make), and food that is chemically safer for you (disease-resistant plants, bugs won't try to eat it as much, it grows faster, better yield, better tasting, etc). That's just a bit of what science can do for you in everyday life. As for the bigger mysteries of man, that's up to the educated people who spend years studying the subject in rigorous universities around the world, who feel the passion and drive to find out more about the world. We should all be thankful for having so much more information available today.

[William]

We should all be thankful for having so much more information available today.

Not one jot or tittle of which is delivered through the efforts of theologists

Nice post LALD 

[Cyberia]

I pray to Gods of Moderation: Let this thread pass into the Bottomless Pit imminently.  Amen.

[Agamemnon]

I have heard your prayer, and, although I normally only grant prayers of execration, I have moved the thread to the Pit.

[Ivellios]

The problem with Christians and the Bible is you cannot prove it. It is entirely Faith based. Faith is believing something despite fact or reason to the contrary. (abridged & paraphrased.) It depends on the sole desire to believe something, just because they 'said so.' Trying to prove the bible is right or that YHWH exists only proves they have no idea what Faith is.

Moses stands before everyone and says, "I speak for an all knowing and perfect God and God has commanded me to tell you some important things like: The Earth is a Flat Circle, the Earth is the center of the universe, there is a solid archway that the stars are hammered onto, blah blah. If you don't believe me, you will burn in hell for all eternity!"

Christian: Gosh! He acts like he knows what he's talking about so he must know what he's talking about. I better believe everything he says so I don't burn in hell!

Athiest: Prove it! Here's proofs that you are wrong: Astronomy, Geology, a globe, etc.

Christian: Who are you to say he was wrong? You can't prove he's 100% wrong about EVERYTHING! So Moses is Right! You're wrong! Ha! I sure showed you!

Such is religion. So willing to believe a goat herder on his word from 4000 years ago than believing in something concrete. Concrete also wasn't in the bible, so clearly believing in something concrete is impossible.

[One Above All]

Abiogenesis explains how life started
Evolution explains how life evolved
These are VERY different processes
EDIT: The only "overlap" is that they are both related to life. However, as I have mentioned, very different processes

Where did evolution begin ?

Evolution begins AFTER life starts. No correlation besides the "life" part

[Doctor X]

Okay. Let' start with this one:

• 200,000 years ago: humans started looking like we do today

Here I make a bunch of claims without any evidence to support them.

Awesome.

FAIL.

--J.D.

[velkyn]

How prompt is in the hands of the moderators.
I have explained my beliefs plenty of times but for you, I will so again.
Firstly, I am not at the extreme end of the spectrum like an atheist or a "born again" and so my beliefs or views swing around a bit. If I have a preferred outcome of the two extreme ends then it would be atheism. I tend to be lazy and atheism requires zero action whereas the other stuff would mean I would have to go to church etc.

   which isn't necessarily true, but can be.

I don't believe that the physics we have in our uinverse has the solution to what created the whole show. I believe our universe was created from "outside" and by either a set of laws that will never be available to us (pre Big Bang??) or it was by some sort of being or beings. However a set of laws outside our universe and being or beings could be the same thing. But whatever you want to call it I don't believe it has any relationship with us. So when it comes to "creator" and whatever that might be then I would be deist or atheist. But as I said those set of laws outside could be beings. Remember we basically define god or gods as being supernatural in relation to our natural laws.

and as has been seen for many many pages, dino can't actually tell us why he thinks this and why "goddidit" should be an acceptable answer.

Within this universe or perhaps it is only the galaxy, I believe there is some sort of superior being or beings and quite possibly many of them. I tend to believe the Bible indicated something big happened all that time ago otherwise the Bible would not have come about. Put it this way, if there is a big train smash it will be in the newspapers and of course the newspaper reprots will be full of errors. However, they will correct on one thing and that is there was a big train smash.

so we have gone from "force" to "beings".  Which is it, dino?  And then we get the bible is important, but dino picks and chooses what from it to beleive, again, no different from any other Christian.  He of course forgets that there doesn't need to be a big train crash at all and it all could be a story. 

In my own life I experience a lot of what might be called telepathy and I have studied carefully what happens and believe I can remove "coincidences". At different times I think it is not telepathy but might be related to one of the superior beings.

again, anedotal evidence and strangely with al of these wonderful special things happening to him, no one else notices.

I don't believe dinosaurs and people coexisted

more evidence of picking and choosing aka the bible must be somewhat right but I'll ignore the bits that actually haev been shown to be ludicrous.

I believe in the basics of evolution. By that I mean I am not a creationist although I can easily accept the idea that one of the superior beings I mentioned above kick started the process and then nature tooks its course.

And again, what are these "basics"?  We haven't yet got what dino thinks these are. 

I believe the Americans put the Lunar Module containing two men on the moon for Apollo 11 and then repeated it for Apollos 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17

whew, at least we don't have to waste time on this.   

[velkyn]

If you fail to acknowledge any overlap with evolution and abiogenesis, then you are the one who is failing here. Do some research and you will find that there are more than a few scientists who would disagree with you.

  Well, dear since you've must have done the research, you should be able to provide us with this.  I rather doubt you can, but please do.

-You probably also subscribe to the "there is no micro or macro evolution...it's all just evolution" crowd, too??

  I always love this one.  Christians have been retreating in front of evolutionary theory since Darwin.  A hundred years ago it would have been sacriledge to agree that *any* part of evolutionary theory was correct. But as evidence has built up, creationists have given way in front of irrefutable evidence. Now they want to say "well, there's macro and micro evolution" which there isn't, but gives them a fall back position.  There is only evolution and it works the same no matter what.  But, BS, let me give you an option.  You use the same science that supports evolutionary theory, the Big Bang, etc, constantly.  Everyday you benefit from the same science.  Now, to really be a good creationist, you need to stop using such ungodly things as modern medicine, computers, etc.  Will you?  I doubt it.  You'll cherry pick science the same as you do your magic book. 

[BibleStudent]

Well, dear since you've must have done the research, you should be able to provide us with this.  I rather doubt you can, but please do.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/abiogen.htm

It is profoundly absurd to discuss evolutionary theory without having to acknowledgment some form of abiogenesis. To do so implies that abiogenesis necessarily occurred only once and only in one form. Is it not possible that abiogenesis may have occurred in different forms at different times in different places ? If that possibility exists, then your position is that it would have no bearing on the TOE. Correct? Please answer that so I know whether you really have an argument for your assertion or whether you are simply trying to defend something that doesn't even make sense to you.

I always love this one.  Christians have been retreating in front of evolutionary theory since Darwin.  A hundred years ago it would have been sacriledge to agree that *any* part of evolutionary theory was correct. But as evidence has built up, creationists have given way in front of irrefutable evidence. Now they want to say "well, there's macro and micro evolution" which there isn't, but gives them a fall back position.  There is only evolution and it works the same no matter what. 

It is not I that makes the distinction.

One of the non-theist members here at WWGHA provided me with a link to the following website sometime ago to help “educate” me:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evoscales_01

• “It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.”
  
• “Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next,….”

This is just one of a hundred different examples I could provide that shows how even the most zealous evolutionary sources continue to make a necessary distinction.

Why is that ?? ….and why is microevolution recognized as observable but macro is not ??[/list]

[ParkingPlaces]

Why is that ?? ….and why is microevolution recognized as observable but macro is not ??

Time, you silly goose. Time. We have only been looking at evolution for 150-160 years. It takes thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years for the evolutionary process to modify critters.

Most evolutionary biologists don't worry about the micro/macro thing, but apparently others don't mind making the distinction. But it basically works out like this:

micro micro micro micro micro micro micro eventually = macro

Speciazation takes time. The age of planet earth allows for that time. The age of the planet is allowed for by the age of the universe. If the earth looked 4 billion years old and the universe only 2 billion years old, we're be perplexed. We're not.

Abiogenesis? We don't know yet. We're working on it. The idea of the spontaneous generation of life through some process does not perplex those who look at the components of life. Please be patient. That you can fill in the blanks is really really nice, but we want something that is consistent with reality, not fantasy.

I assume you've succeeded in ignoring my post responding to your request for some evidence. If so, that would be direct evidence of micro-ignoration. That's part of a new theory I'm working on. I'd explain, but you wouldn't read. No worries.

[BibleStudent]

I assume you've succeeded in ignoring my post responding to your request for some evidence. If so, that would be direct evidence of micro-ignoration. That's part of a new theory I'm working on. I'd explain, but you wouldn't read. No worries.

I read your post and visited the links. Nothing new there. I was simply challenging your adamant assertion that the times and events in your timeline had been proven.....but we've cleared up that what you were trying to convey was that you felt you had "good evidence" to support your timeline.

Not really much left to discuss because we’re going to disagree on the accuracy of the dating techniques which are at the heart of most of the information in the links you provided. I assume you accept the accuracy of these techniques while I do not.

Now, if you want to get into the “events” rather than the date they allegedly occurred, I would entertain that.

[Tykster]

Not really much left to discuss because we’re going to disagree on the accuracy of the dating techniques which are at the heart of most of the information in the links you provided. I assume you accept the accuracy of these techniques while I do not.

Genuine curiosity here, if you don't accept as accurate, isotopic or carbon dating, what techniques do you subscribe to for dating ancient materials?

[Ambassador Pony]

Not really much left to discuss because we’re going to disagree on the accuracy of the dating techniques which are at the heart of most of the information in the links you provided. I assume you accept the accuracy of these techniques while I do not.

Is that how you approach bible study?

You really should remove the word "student" from your handle. You seem to fail at the outset of every educational endeavor, by throwing away your greatest asset: critical thought. Whoever set those schema, they did a good job of screwing you out of reality.

[BibleStudent]

Genuine curiosity here, if you don't accept as accurate, isotopic or carbon dating, what techniques do you subscribe to for dating ancient materials?

I could be wrong but your question implies that I must subscribe to some form of dating technique ?? At this point, there is a lack of compelling evidence to suggest that any of the more commonly used processes can be relied upon.

[William]

I assume you accept the accuracy of these techniques while I do not.

I'm also curious about the reasons you have for not accepting the "accuracy" of dating techniques. 

Here's what one Christian says - one with obvious credibility on the topic and I think considerable humility and honestly:

Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

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

He goes on to say:

A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study ...

BS, are you willing to heed this call to "study"    To study something and reveal a truth that will enable you to better relate to atheists without loss of your own faith?    I mean ... has your faith been compromised because the bible and Christianity was shown to be wrong on the cause of lightning, the shape of the earth, or the configuration of the solar system?  Is it a problem for God if we add radiometric dating to the list of human Christian blunders?

[velkyn]

Well, dear since you've must have done the research, you should be able to provide us with this.  I rather doubt you can, but please do.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/abiogen.htm
It is profoundly absurd to discuss evolutionary theory without having to acknowledgment some form of abiogenesis. To do so implies that abiogenesis necessarily occurred only once and only in one form. Is it not possible that abiogenesis may have occurred in different forms at different times in different places ? If that possibility exists, then your position is that it would have no bearing on the TOE. Correct? Please answer that so I know whether you really have an argument for your assertion or whether you are simply trying to defend something that doesn't even make sense to you.

  oh my "research" from someone who doesn't even have a minor degree in the subject manner siting nothing but creationist sources. FAIL. Again, where are these "more than a few scientists"?  We have your "source" mentioning "Theodosius Dobzhansky" who died 36 years ago. Do you think we've been doing research since then?  We have Stephen Gould citing him supposedly as the "greatest evolutionist"("evolutionist"? Really? no citation, no nothing)  And we have Julian Huxley cited, also dead in 1975.  And we get his opinion, nothing to support it, just an opinio, which everyone is entitled to have (until they do harm). We get Robert Jastrow  who is an *astronomer* and evidently doesn't understand that chemicals don't just randomly act.  WE also get Denton who sadly didn't know about the fact that we have indeed found evidence of "Yet rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the past two decades and in none of them has any trace of a bioticially produced compound been found." Like here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707134402.htm  He was writing in the early 80s.  Do you really think this qualifies as research showing how abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are overlapping, using quotes from people long dead and information long superseded?  In your ignorant arrogance, do you think you can lie so easily?

Abiogenesis is life coming from non-life. Evolutionary theory is how life adapts and changes.  One doesn't need to care about abiogenesis for evolutionary theory to have no problem being shown correct.  Yes, life may have arose more than once but we have no evidence of this (there are currently claims of a "shadow world" of alternate life but that has not yet been shown to be the case)  and it is essentially a moot question.  WE have Christians who accept evolutionary theory without accepting abiogenesis.  Why is that if, by your claims, they are inseperable? 

I always love this one.  Christians have been retreating in front of evolutionary theory since Darwin.  A hundred years ago it would have been sacriledge to agree that *any* part of evolutionary theory was correct. But as evidence has built up, creationists have given way in front of irrefutable evidence. Now they want to say "well, there's macro and micro evolution" which there isn't, but gives them a fall back position.  There is only evolution and it works the same no matter what. 

It is not I that makes the distinction.

Yes, you do, you accept it and repeat it.  Take some responsiblity for the nonsense you spread. 

One of the non-theist members here at WWGHA provided me with a link to the following website sometime ago to help “educate” me:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evoscales_01

• “It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.”
  
• “Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next,….”

This is just one of a hundred different examples I could provide that shows how even the most zealous evolutionary sources continue to make a necessary distinction.

Yep, and you cut it off right when it shows you are wrong. 

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

Sorry, they don't make the distinction that creationists claim they do.  Microevolution is the steps in macroevolution.  Yep, we do use the same terms but creationist want to ignore the fact that evolution is evolution.  You want to claim that there is *only* microevolution* and it shows here that they are one in the same. More information on the subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Why is that ?? ….and why is microevolution recognized as observable but macro is not ??[/list]

It is observable.  Macroevolution, aka speciation for how creationists try to spin things, has been observed.  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html    Creationists fail since they want to remain ignorant and want their audience to remain ignorant as well.  By cutting yourself off from modern science (except of course those things you hypocritically use) you find yourself in a deeper and deeper hole, attacking strawmen and superseded information because you have nothing else. And it will only get worse for you, since we are always making discoveriesin science and that shoves your god further and further into the gaps which are getting smaller adn smaller.     

[BibleStudent]

BS, are you willing to heed this call to "study"    To study something and reveal a truth that will enable you to better relate to atheists without loss of your own faith?   

Sir, I have studied.....more than you know. If you prefer to believe that I read everything with a bias, that is your prerogative.

[William]

Sir, I have studied.....more than you know. If you prefer to believe that I read everything with a bias, that is your prerogative.

Well since you have studied can you tell us precisely why you don't accept dating techniques - so we can take you seriously on this issue 

[Tykster]

Genuine curiosity here, if you don't accept as accurate, isotopic or carbon dating, what techniques do you subscribe to for dating ancient materials?

I could be wrong but your question implies that I must subscribe to some form of dating technique ?? At this point, there is a lack of compelling evidence to suggest that any of the more commonly used processes can be relied upon.

What reason then, do you have to reject the modern dating techniques? Do you have alternate methods or simply don't like the results of modern technology?

The various techniques used today cross reference with each other and agree on the approximate times in question, simply put there is corroboration.

[ParkingPlaces]

I assume you've succeeded in ignoring my post responding to your request for some evidence. If so, that would be direct evidence of micro-ignoration. That's part of a new theory I'm working on. I'd explain, but you wouldn't read. No worries.

I read your post and visited the links. Nothing new there. I was simply challenging your adamant assertion that the times and events in your timeline had been proven.....but we've cleared up that what you were trying to convey was that you felt you had "good evidence" to support your timeline.

Not really much left to discuss because we’re going to disagree on the accuracy of the dating techniques which are at the heart of most of the information in the links you provided. I assume you accept the accuracy of these techniques while I do not.

Now, if you want to get into the “events” rather than the date they allegedly occurred, I would entertain that.

Screw the frickin' dating techniques. How do you explain all the alternating layers in the ground in Kansas? Why does evidence show alternating periods of wet and dry over a long enough period of time to build the ground up many many meters? Let alone the similar layering of rocks all over the world, in many different ways. If you're going to call on the flood for that one, how come so many different types of rock layering exist? How come in areas where we know there were large regional floods there are huge sand and rock bars left over, well above flood level. But Kansas has virtually no rocks on the surface. You can plow fields all day in Kansas and never hit a rock. You can't do that in Montana or Washington where we know big floods occurred? How do you explain the difference?How do you explain the multiple layers of fossils, each layer containing a unique group of animals that is not repeated above it? How do you explain the 45,000 year old holly trees if genesis is right and it was only 6,000 years ago. If you're going to pick some things to complain about and ignore the rest, then this isn't much of a conversation.

How about the continental drift? I don't care if it took one million or ten million or two hundred million years. The evidence is quite clear. How do you casually dismiss that information?

[BibleStudent]

Abiogenesis is life coming from non-life. Evolutionary theory is how life adapts and changes.  One doesn't need to care about abiogenesis for evolutionary theory to have no problem being shown correct.  Yes, life may have arose more than once but we have no evidence of this (there are currently claims of a "shadow world" of alternate life but that has not yet been shown to be the case)  and it is essentially a moot question.  WE have Christians who accept evolutionary theory without accepting abiogenesis.  Why is that if, by your claims, they are inseperable?

Talk about an EPIC FAILURE.

You mean to tell me that the possibility that abiogensis may have occurred in different places at different times and perhaps in different forms has no real impact on evolution ? Do you know how ridiculous that is ? No wonder you are so determined to try and separate the two. Talk about a BLIND FAITH !!!  Wow !!

It is observable.  Macroevolution, aka speciation for how creationists try to spin things, has been observed.  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html    Creationists fail since they want to remain ignorant and want their audience to remain ignorant as well. 

Well, which is it? Is it observable or isn’t it. One so-called credible source tells me it is and one tells me it isn’t. Who should I believe ?? You ??

[velkyn]

Abiogenesis is life coming from non-life. Evolutionary theory is how life adapts and changes.  One doesn't need to care about abiogenesis for evolutionary theory to have no problem being shown correct.  Yes, life may have arose more than once but we have no evidence of this (there are currently claims of a "shadow world" of alternate life but that has not yet been shown to be the case)  and it is essentially a moot question.  WE have Christians who accept evolutionary theory without accepting abiogenesis.  Why is that if, by your claims, they are inseperable?

Talk about an EPIC FAILURE.
You mean to tell me that the possibility that abiogensis may have occurred in different places at different times and perhaps in different forms has no real impact on evolution ? Do you know how ridiculous that is ? No wonder you are so determined to try and separate the two. Talk about a BLIND FAITH !!!  Wow !!

Please do tell me how it should impact evolution.  WE have no evidence of differening trees of life or life coming about at different times.  If there was other ways life came about, we have no evidence of it.  We have what we have, one "tree", easily seen to increase in complexity, though from the same root stock.  Nothing different. You don't understand abiogenesis, you don't understand evolutionary theory and you try to attack both.  Amusing as always.

It is observable.  Macroevolution, aka speciation for how creationists try to spin things, has been observed.  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html    Creationists fail since they want to remain ignorant and want their audience to remain ignorant as well. 

Well, which is it? Is it observable or isn’t it. One so-called credible source tells me it is and one tells me it isn’t. Who should I believe ?? You ??

I showed you, it is observable.  I don't care what other opinions are. I have shown evidence.  That's what you should be looking at, yes? 

[BibleStudent]

Well since you have studied can you tell us precisely why you don't accept dating techniques - so we can take you seriously on this issue 

Stated in a simplistic and non-technical way, I find the assumptions made about the initial and subsequent condition of the specimen(s) during aging to be speculative at best. There is simply no way to know whether the specimen(s) were ever subjected to a condition or event(s) that may have somehow altered the aging process.   

[ParkingPlaces]

Well, which is it? Is it observable or isn’t it. One so-called credible source tells me it is and one tells me it isn’t. Who should I believe ?? You ??

You have no trouble choosing who to believe elsewhere. Why is it so difficult here?

[Azdgari]

There is simply no way to know whether the specimen(s) were ever subjected to a condition or event(s) that may have somehow altered the aging process.   

Yes there is.  That's why Zircon crystals are so popular for radiometric dating of igneous rocks:  The crystal is highly impermeable, so that its contents are sealed during crystallization.  But to remove any ambiguity, multiple crystals are tested to get the most accurate date.  If chemical alteration really did cause a problem for such dating techniques, then the more altered sections of an intrusion would yield different dates than the relatively unaltered sections would.

Igneous intrusions of sedimentary rock containing such crystals can be used to date the "youngest-possible" age of the rocks they intrude, since the sedimentary rock has to be older than the dike.

Do you disagree, BS?

EDIT: Wrong word.

[nogodsforme]

^^^^People have also already pointed out that scientists don't rely on just one method of analysis when looking at samples. They use several different methods to obtain corroboration. When the info from several methods yields the same answer, you can assume you are right. Scientists cross-check with other scientists as well, trying to find the holes in each other's work.

Like for climate change data you can look at chemical composition of ice cores from Greenland, compare them to ice cores from Antartica, then look at tree rings in a sample from a desert and tree rings from a tropical sample, and pollen in sediments from different regions.  Then the US scientists see if the Japanese and Australian and Norwegian researchers found similar results when they looked at similar stuff.

If all of these give you the same range of answers, you can assume within a specific margin of error that you are correct. Then you put it out there in journals and at conferences for everyone else to shoot holes in it. If your findings survive all that, you are probably as right as you can be with current knowledge.

Can you imagine if representatives from different religions cross-checked their evidence for corroboration in as rigorous a way as scientists do? I think all religions would be gone overnight if they dared to do this....