MARK L. BAKKE'S
Night Owl Mk. II




Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay


Back to Philosophy page




Please feel free to E-mail me with your own comments on this issue or on anything else included in my Philosophy of Life section. Debate is good!



Please report any problems with this page to the Webmaster!



Boulder Games
Bowling
Entrance Page
Exit/Links Page
Night Owl Mk. II
Special Features
Personal Pages
Philosophy of Life
Site Map
Wargaming
What's New on this Site?
REPLY #11 TO
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM"



Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.

Italicized/emphasized comments
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.

My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB).



(R) I am a creationist,...
(MB) I'm truly sorry to hear that. Why do you prefer the dogma of one version of a particular religion to the reality of the universe?


(R) ...and would like to know what you would consider proof ?
(MB) Proof of what? Reading ahead in your reply, I see that you will be dredging up several old, classic bits of Creationist misinformation and general nonsense in order to dispute evolution. Do you understand that merely stating quibbles with evolution in no way, shape or form provides any support for the alternative idea of Creationism? Creationism's ideas must be supported independently. Failure of one hypothesis does not constitute proof of another. It only means that the failed hypothesis must be discarded. Anyway, let's look at your oldies-but-goodies and debunk them for the umpty-millionth time.


(R) Would the fact that there are modern man foot prints along side those of a dinsour for about 150 feet in Texas have any affect ?
(MB) You are referring to the famous and admitted Creationist hoax that was perpetrated along the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas in the 1930's. For a detailed explanation, select the link below.
[Read about the Paluxy hoax]



(R) Next, if my understanding of the Evolution theory is correct, form would follow function.
(MB) Evolution says nothing of the sort. Random mutations produce changes in the offspring of living things. Changes that make those offspring better able to survive in its environment allow it to flourish and produce more offspring. Eventually, the changed creatures may supplant its predecessor or become varied enough that interbreeding no longer occurs and a new species arises.


(R) If so please explain the Bombardier Beetle. A unique little beetle that has a defense mechanism of spurting out a highly combustible gas that smells horrible. This gas comes from the mixing of 2 chemicals which are kept in two seperate chamber then combined in a third then expelled through the snot. These 2 chemicals are not harmful by themselve but when mixed blow up.
(MB) See the web site listed below for an extensive refutation of this old chestnut.
[Read about the Bombardier beetle]



(R) Another question. there was a volcanic eruption that is historically veried as happening approximently 800 years ago with a lava flow that went into the ocean down a thousand feet deep. Scientist to test how well carbon 14 dating worked with a verifiable sample staring dating items found in the lava flow starting at the surface of the water. To my undestanding they started getting readings of about a 1000 years.(Not bad) howevr as they to sample from further down the reading got older and older with read near the bottom at several billion years old.
(MB) There are two major problems with this account that might even lead one to rightly consider it to be a deliberate fabrication. First, one cannot age-date a lava flow in the way you are suggesting. The molten rock would destroy any markers that would ordinarily be used to age-date sediments. Second, Carbon-14 dating is only used with organic material -- not with rocks. In addition, since the half-life of C-14 is only 5730 years, it is not possible to use it to date anything to "several billion years".


(R) This lead to the question of how do geologist date the rock layers ? By the fossils that they find. How do archealogist date fossils ? Based on the the rock layer.
(MB) This is incorrect. There are many independent and separately verifiable methods used to age-date rock samples and strata, such as the uranium-lead method, the rubidium-strontium method, the potassium-argon method and isochron dating. These methods do not depend on any fossils which might be included within the rock layers. Fossils are dated by first age-dating the strata which contains them.


(R) Then you have ask how do they know how old the fossils in these layers where ? Well, they used carbon 14 dating.
(MB) No, they don't. Fossils are far too old to be age-dated by the C-14 method. When the same fossils keep showing up in strata that consistently age-dates to the same historical period, that just provides more evidence as to the accuracy and reliability of the methods being used.



(R) If carbon 14 is proved highly inaccurate the how can you prove the age of the Earth.
(MB) C-14 is highly accurate when used correctly -- as is any tool. To claim that it is a bad method since it can't show the age of the Earth is to demonstrate ignorance about the method itself. It's akin to denigrating a hammer because it can't be used to saw a piece of wood. One must always use the proper tools to do a proper job.


(R) Now it has been awhle since I read up on this, so if science has come up with verifieable dating methods, please let me know.
(MB) Science has had such methods for decades. I think you need to hit the books again and read up on them. For a detailed explanation of isochron dating, select the link below.
[Read about isochron dating]



(R) In one of your essays or answer you have stated that the flood could not have happened. While I was not there to see it, there is some proof that it did happen. In answer to the question, it is the Grand Canyon. If you look at the way it is eroded it resembles that of a massive flood that happened quickly versus a slow erosion. To show similiar site on a micro scale not such a macro scale look at the current flooding in California.
(MB) There is no possibility that the Grand Canyon could have been carved out by the effects of a Noachian Flood. Any runoff of the scale you suggest would have eroded the entire landscape and not just the relatively small area of the Grand Canyon itself. Indeed, if your scenario is true, we should expect to see a great many such Grand Canyons in the desert southwest (if not throughout the entire world) and there simply are none. That's why the Grand Canyon is so special. The erosion produced by the Colorado River over millions of years is the sole force behind the creation of the Grand Canyon and the process continues to this day.
    For a look at a failed Creationist attempt to use the Grand Canyon to dispute age-dating methods, select the link below.
[Read about the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project]




Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 04 Jun 98
E-mail: mlbakke1@earthlink.net


Earthlink Network Home Page


Go to next reply

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay

Back to Philosophy page