Often it is claimed by young-earth creationists (YECs) that the earth is somewhere around 6,000-10,000 years old. There are so many other natural phenomena that I could point to as evidence of an old earth. Another claim of YECs is that radiometric dating is flawed, therefore giving unreliable results.
Radiometric dating is the process by which materials such as rocks, minerals, or organic compounds are analyzed to determine their age. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. If these three assumptions are true, and if good research is done (by not contaminating samples, using the methods improperly, etc.), radiometric dating can provide an important and reliable tool for dating ancient objects.
For example, many fossils have been uncovered that are clearly intermediates between theropod dinosaurs and birds. When examining the genomes of different species, we can compare them and see if they include ERVs in the same location. The final proof for evolution that I want to mention is the convergence between different disciplines. Two resources for understanding the basic concepts of evolution: Understanding Evolution and the Evolution 101 Podcast. Carving the Grand Canyon – A list of reasons why the Grand Canyon could not have been formed by the Flood.
Stalactites – A rebuttal of the claim that the stalactites in caves like the Carlsbad Cavern could have been formed in 4400 years.
Irrefutable Proof of Evolution – An excellent four-part series on YouTube describing evidence to show why evolution is true.
Skeptic Money » Blog Archive » Do You Have Creationist Friends - You make sense but does your money? I think there is definitely some evidence that points towards evolution, or that seems pretty coincidental (such as the fused primate chromosome in humans that you talked about).
However I also find the more I study science, the more I can’t imagine there not being a God.
There are enzymes for just about every reaction in the body, and they’re so specific for one, or a few very closely related, substrates.
Now of course, I am no expert in cholesterol synthesis, so I don’t have a particular answer for that and how it developed. My point is that all your evidence is circumstantial and can also be explained by other factors.
Your above piece missed out that it is very hard for creationists to justify their interpretation(s) of Genesis 1 to 3 (I write as a conservative evangelical not from liberal background). Chloe-Jasmine Whichello and Stevi Richie went on The X Factor to find fame, but instead they found each other and now they're engaged. The couple appeared on This Morning to discuss the happy news, and whilst we know we should be looking at the ring on her finger we couldn't help but notice Chloe-Jasmine's arm candy!
Or stay a cut above with one of the options we've got lined up for you in the edit below.
Showing off her sparkling engagement ring for the first time, Chloe then chimed: 'IA think thata€™s what love is, it comes when you least expect ita€¦ the minute I left The X Factor, I missed him every day.
Notice: The material contained within these web pages only applies to those courses and sections taught by Richard Harwood. There are some who accept the age of the earth as concluded by science, which places it at approximately 4.54 billion years old. The lower bound of this claim is derived from work by Archbishop James Ussher, who created a chronology from the lists of lineages found in the Bible and arrived at the conclusion that the world had been created by God on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BCE.
The first is that the Noahic Flood can account for many of the geological changes that scientists claim would take millions or billions of years to create. Creationists sometimes point to the Grand Canyon, stating that it could have been carved out by the massive currents of water present in the Flood. Caves can be created through a number of means, including erosion, dissolution, lava, glaciers, and fractures. The geologic column itself is evidence for an old earth, since it is difficult to see how a Flood could lay down so many layers of sediment, allowing each to harden before laying down the next one (so they won’t mix together), and also preserving details like footprints, mud cracks, raindrop impressions, and so on. It relies on observing the amount of a certain radioactive isotope (of which various ones are used) and determining how much of it has decayed. In fact, it has a relatively short half-life (5,730 years), so it is not useful for dating anything older than about 58,000 years.1 Other dating methods include potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium. I don’t have the space to discuss this in detail, but essentially it does not rely on any assumptions about the initial conditions. After all, we haven’t been measuring the half-life of uranium for billions of years to know if it has remained constant.
And since this method routinely produces dates for rocks and other objects that are millions of years old, we can be reasonably confident that these objects are, in fact, millions of years old.
Several of these fossils have been discovered fairly recently, and include species such as Anchiornis huxleyi, Epidexipteryx hui, and Archaeopteryx lithographica.
Even Alfred Russel Wallace, the man who independently struck upon the idea of natural selection around the same time as Charles Darwin, accepted evolution for other animals, but denied that it could explain the development of humans.
When an organism is infected, what the virus does is inject its own RNA code into the host cell’s DNA, so that the cell now diverts resources to producing more copies of the virus. With the relatively tiny size of these ERVs compared to the entire genome, the odds of even one of the exact same ERV appearing in the exact same place one two genomes is vanishingly small. I have not even had the space to provide half the evidence in favour of evolution, yet it seems clear that the earth is in fact old, and that evolution did indeed occur.
This is an index of what might possibly be every single creationist claim ever, and a list of several reasons why each is wrong—all properly sourced and documented, of course. I am really not sure where you get the idea that “it comes down to faith on both sides.” I completely disagree. But that is why science includes the input from many people with many different areas of expertise, many different starting points, and many different perspectives in order to try and cancel out the biases that humans can have. It’s a description of how life on earth diversified and spread, not a statement of faith about metaphysics and the supernatural. It also looks like you dont understand the implications of evolution on your faith if it doesnt really matter to you. There are many reputable non Christian scientists that believe evolution is nothing more than fairy tales for grownups. I took an evolution course (biology department) back in second year, but unfortunately I don’t remember a lot of it now. For example, I did a presentation a while back on the synthesis of cholesterol, which is synthesized from Acetyl-CoA (2 carbons) eventually forming cholesterol (27 carbons), which involves over 30 different enzymes. I think the pathways that involves multiple, sequential steps are what blow my mind the most.

And I agree that such complex systems really do seem too incredible to have come about through natural selection. I kind of wish I could take the course again now, I think I might get a lot more out of it. I was somewhat familiar with the term irreducible complexity, but I understand it more now, so thanks.
And yet, this is the third time you have essentially ignored what I have written and merely restated your original assertions. A very good book examining Gen 1 to 3 with theological critiques of a creationist conclusion and other positions is In the Beginning by the french theologian Henri Blocher (conservative evangelical). It's the perfect size for carrying all your essentials and it adds a modern twist to this vintage-inspired ensemble. New Look has got a lot of love for the laser cut trend, or splash out on a Tory Burch tote. I was so sad not seeing him every day.'But while the two hit it off as soon as they left the show, Essex-born Stevi confessed that he didn't find Chloe attractive at all when they first met.
Unless otherwise noted, all images and graphics contained within are the property of Richard Harwood and may only be reproduced with permission from the author. Of course, despite my zeal for debates and apologetics, I had never actually read any books by evolutionists or spent any time researching what evolutionists said—my information always came from creationist sources. Other creationists, however, do not accept this age, so I thought it best to separate this topic from the more general claims of creationism.
Of course, Ussher’s conclusions were based on the ages listed for the people mentioned, as well as assumptions about when they would have had children.
But the most common type of formation, including that of caves like the Carlsbad Cavern, is dissolution.
The principle is the same for these isotopes, but the half-lives of these isotopes are much longer than carbon-14. The second assumption is important, but is something that can generally be avoided by doing good research. What scientists have done, however, is subjected isotopes to numerous tests to see if they can artificially change the decay rates. If one is looking for a bizarre mix of organisms that is half of one species and half of another, like a crocoduck, then of course there are no transitional fossils.
These fossils display animals which are clearly lizard-like, but have distinctive characteristics similar to modern birds (the most prominent of which are the proto-feathers, but there are other differences as well). However, there are many reasons to believe that humans are, indeed, relatives of the great apes. This might cast some suspicion on the claim of a common ancestor—where did the extra pair go in humans? If the virus happens to infect the sex cells of the organism, these additions to the DNA get passed onto the offspring, and can therefore become a permanent part of the genome of that species given enough time.
For example, they can compare the anatomy (the bones, organs, and other structures) of organisms to look for similarities. There are simply too many ways for evolution to prove itself true, and without fail, it does so every time.
Science works by systematically taking a look at the evidence and then formulating theories which best explain it. How does “God did it” provide a better explanation for the earth and the life on it than evolution?
To me, evolution or creation, it doesn’t change my belief that Jesus came to earth, lived a perfect life and died for me.
Of course, it might have implications about the Bible, like you mentioned (and despite what you say about starting with Jesus, our only source of information about him is from the Bible), but I think that those, by themselves, can be resolved and still leave one’s faith intact. The whole point of Joshua was to atone for the mistake that adam and eve made in the garden after creation.
Like I mentioned in my article, they question whether the assumptions of radiometric dating can be justified.
How would all of these enzymes just evolve, they just all happen to be functional and work together to do the necessary job.
But the difficulty is that when Intelligent Design people make statements about, say, the bacterial flagellum, or the eye, or blood clots, then a scientist in the field comes along and takes the time to show how it could have come about in stages.
Then of course, it’s important to remember that the enzymes were evolving along with the process itself. I have to admit, your explanation does make some sense as to how these crazy things could have evolved to get to the point where they are now. Very simple on the first look (descent with modification) but gets pretty heavy the more you delve into it.
If we were intellectually honest, at best you can say evolution is probably true, but we just don’t know.
We got a fossil REPTILE (with TEETH) that has FINGERS ON ITS FEATHERED WINGS WITH A BONY LONG TALE!!!! I honestly feel like a daughter, ita€™s so lovely.'Nevertheless, it seems the unlikely coupling has come as more of a shock to her future husband.'I never thought I'd end up with a posh girl! So, I would hear what creationists had to say, and I would hear what creationists said evolutionists had to say, but I never heard what evolutionists themselves had to say (outside of the debates I had). Today, most creationists view it as, at the very least, too specific of a conclusion for what can be known about the biblical chronology. I will deal with each of these in turn, and then provide a few positive arguments for the age of the earth as determined by science. The Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River, and the basin cuts through about 18 different layers of rock which span about 1 billion years of time.
This is where an acid, like sulfuric or carbonic acid, is brought to an area by water, and slowly eats away at limestone bit by bit until a cavern is formed. This element is exactly the same as regular carbon (carbon-12), except that it has 8 neutrons instead of 6.
Scientists have found certain cases where contamination can be an issue; for instance, mollusks cannot be dated properly using carbon dating methods, because the shells that they form can come from limestone which is much older than they are. Temperature, pressure, chemical environments, and electromagnetic fields do nothing to influence the rate.
Despite what Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron have said, such a hybrid would be more of a disproof of evolution than support for it.
However, what we have discovered from sequencing the genome of humans and other apes is that human chromosome #2 is the product of two ape chromosomes that have fused together. For example, humans and chimpanzees both have thousands of these retroviral insertions,3 and humans share all but 82 ERV insertions with chimpanzees. I investigated evolution very early on in my own time of searching, and when I came to the conclusion that evolution was correct, I immediately then looked at ways that Christians have adapted their beliefs to accommodate it. When you remember that organisms tend find uses for things, even if they aren’t what they were originally used for, it becomes clear that a lot of these cases are cases where something evolved and was used for one purpose, then gradually got repurposed and was used elsewhere. It’s not like cells evolved all these proteins, and then one day decided to use them and hey, look, it produced cholesterol!

Really the hardest part is since humans are purpose engineers (we make things for a purpose) we assume that same for the biological, getting rid of that notion is the hardest part.
So it is important to keep in mind that YECs have their work cut out for them—the existence of even one old phenomenon means that their model of the world is wrong.
Even if the Grand Canyon itself was of recent origin, one would still have to explain the many layers of the geologic column and how they got there. Caves formed by sulfuric acid typically are formed more quickly (because sulfuric acid is much stronger than carbonic acid), but these processes still take time. However, as I mentioned, if even one natural phenomenon took place millions of years ago, this makes the earth at a minimum that old. Whale evolution is one of the best documented examples of evolution, and shows a clear transition from a land-dwelling, four-legged animal to the sleek, ocean-dwelling animal we know today. There are clear, unambiguous signs that are present when two chromosomes fuse, and the fused chromosome that we have is (with a little variance) identical to these other two ape chromosomes.
When examining the genomes of other organisms, one can establish a nested hierarchy that shows ancestry based on how many ERVs the organisms share with each other.
To say, “Well, evolution has evidence in its favour, but it has a possibility of being wrong, so I will put faith in God instead” is simply not a reasonable position to take. But if that’s your definition of faith, everyone takes pretty much everything on faith. They can be brilliant in their own fields, but I wouldn’t hold the word of an astronomer when talking about genetics any higher than any other non-geneticist. The process can be increased step by step, with the enzymes adapting (or getting repurposed) at each step. When I actually spent some time researching the issue, I realized just how much I had missed. Of course, such phenomena must be dated properly, etc., but if just one can be proven to be millions or billions of years old, then YEC is false. I have given two examples where it seems clear that the processes took much longer than 6,000-10,000 years to complete. The decay rate is measured by half-life, which is the point at which half the carbon-14 will have decayed into carbon-12. But a more accurate understanding of what would constitute a transitional fossil is that it would show a mix of characteristics between two species or phyla. To claim that an intelligent designer put these ERVs in the same location within all these species would be strange, to say the least, and to say that these similarities came about without shared ancestry is incredulous. Biologists, geologists, embryologists, paleontologists, and geneticists have taken a look at the evidence, and they all wind up agreeing that evolution best explains it! We are not looking for certainties; we are looking for what explanation has the most evidence in its favour. You take it on faith that your eyes are working properly and that your brain is correctly interpreting the words that you’re reading. As I pointed out, radiometric dating has been checked against other dating methods, like tree ring dating, supernova gamma rays, coral growth, etc.
Regardless, science is all about challenging accepted notions and questioning things, so I wouldn’t expect there to be complete unanimity about evolution. After the whole process is put together, then the enzymes can become more specialized (leading potentially to more efficiency), to the point where now the enzymes could no longer do any other task other than the one involved in cholesterol synthesis.
If you want to back up anything that you say, or to address my responses, I’ll be pleased to continue on this discussion. So this post will attempt to summarize the arguments for a young earth and for creationism, as well as what I feel to be the best arguments against these views. And these reactions cannot really be sped up, because the acid can only react with the surface area of the limestone with which it comes in contact.
Radiometric dating can be calibrated using non-radiometric dating methods, such as reliable natural cycles on earth, luminescence dating, and observation of gamma rays (given off by radioactive isotopes) from supernovae. So while we might not expect lizards with half a wing, we might expect lizards with proto-feathers, or lizards that show evidence of perching on trees.
The YouTube video is here; it is only four-and-a-half minutes long, but it succinctly describes the amazing evidence that this provides for human evolution. But regardless of which makes the most sense, I think it is totally possible to accept evolution and also believe in God. If you want to challenge the validity of radiometric dating, you’ll also have to provide a response for why it also agrees with all our other methods of dating.
That the vast majority of biologists do accept it, however, despite the incredible gains one might make by proving such a well-established theory to be wrong, by itself provides something in its favour. Thus, looking at it millions or billions of years later, it looks irreducibly complex, but really, it’s because the enzymes and the process evolved together over time, continually increasing efficiency. Obviously I don’t have room to cover everything (this post is long enough as it is!), but there is plenty of information out there for those who are interested in learning more. As it eats away at the rock, obviously that surface area grows, but the reaction itself simply takes time. There are certainly theistic evolutionists who update their beliefs in light of the evidence for evolution. We have examples of both, and the differences are quite apparent, especially to a trained geologist.
And increasing the amount of water or the amount of acid simply does not do anything to speed it up. Essentially, one can take a large tree, count the rings, and also use carbon dating on sections of the tree. But a full examination of the evidence prevents any sort of answer that denies the common ancestry of life on earth.
Finally, since most YECs are forced into claiming that the geological column was also laid down during the Flood (to explain fossils and such), it is difficult to see how the Flood could lay down 18 distinct types of sediment, allow time for it to harden, and then cut through it extremely quickly (as far as erosion is concerned).
As such, a Christian belief system that includes creationism (in the sense of rejecting evolution) is simply in contradiction with the world in which it exists. Instead of viewing him as a sculptor, constantly meddling with the stone to create his finished work, one might need to view him as more of a composer, creating a piece of work that, once finished, plays out its melody without the need for continual intervention.
There is simply no way to explain these caves through a large Flood (in fact, increasing the amount of water would only dilute the acid solution, making the process slower). So, there are other dating methods that help support the assumption that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes has remained constant over time.
For the millions of species to be mapped by independent fields and yet converge on a similar result would be astonishing if the ancestry underlying it did not actually exist.
The hierarchy can be proven over and over again using thousands of different methods, and yet the results are always the same. There is no other answer for such convergence unless one is willing to believe that God is intentionally deceiving us.

How to make presentation well
Gay interracial dating nyc

Comments to «Proper dating age difference»

  1. Romeo777 writes:
    Obtain a balance in between you will have twice the level of desirability and.
  2. LADY writes:
    Jokes, do not be afraid to throw in a joke sell him dress.
  3. PALMEIRAS writes:
    Are single correct now, in a complicated??relationship or a committed the colors a lady can.
  4. Roni_013 writes:
    That and a few genuinely awful edit misses.