Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We are all evolving toward eternity.  The question is where will each of us spend it?

With a name like GRUMPY, I know a thing or two about ARGUING!  BUT just pushing everyone for an arguement is NOT what we are here for! I will put up with a bunch of shit, IF the poster also shares kno

.....or the Cambrian explosion....or the issue with the fossil record...or Hackel's fraud...or Miller's experiment, simulating early Earth's atmosphere, producing cyanide.....or irreducible complexity

Posted Images

One small thunder storm contains more (green house gas) than cars produce

 

And by the way, the most powerful, or effective green house gas is water vapor

So the biggest argument to radio carbon dating is that fossil fuel consumption has altered the amount of carbon 14 present in the atmosphere, and caused it to be different now than before the industrial revolution.

This argument fails though as comparative samples of dated pre industrial revolution materials, mostly from graves has been successfully dated.

In an interesting twist of irony out 2 was even used to date the dead sea scrolls and shroud of Turin in congruence with biblical time frame.

Flaws in radio carbon dating within the scientific community aren't suggesting it's ineffectual, but rather not as precise as it could be. The earth is as much older than 10,000 as it is most certainly not flat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One small thunder storm contains more (green house gas) than cars produce

 

And by the way, the most powerful, or effective green house gas is water vapor

The idea that climate change is unnaturally accelerated by fossil fuel consumption is as absurd as blaming hurricane flooding on your sprinkler system.

Besides one would have to disregard the congruent atmospheric marker trends observed in deep artic ice core samples.

So to reject radio-carbon dating by supposed "scientific" arguments you must accept the notion of global warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know you can trust science, your senses or even your intellect?  What if your perception of reality is wrong?  Epistemology deals with the problem of knowledge.

 

Definition of epistemology
  1. :  the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity

In the end we all exercise faith in determining reality. Christian faith is not a bind faith but a reasoned one as reflected in previous posts including the linked ones that some tend to skip over.

 

Scripture tells us:  

 

Hebrews 11:6New International Version (NIV)

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man made global warming is an obvious hoax to anyone who has any intelligence.

 

but to al gore and his lackies, its a monster paycheck at society's expense!

 

 

 

PS not to mention massive power over people's lives 

Edited by unforgiven
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Wolverine

 

I have only two hard proven axioms, men cannot be trusted and truth does exist.

 

Not politicians, secular or religious, nor any manifestation thereof, is worthy of the least trust without solid proof. It is logical to refer to the religious version as organised religion while the secular is known as government.

When science is allied to either it no longer contains truth as we know it and instead becomes truth as we wish it.

 

Generally one can ignore all but the worst of the religionists until they combine with government which unfortunately cannot be so ignored.

Now that science is firmly in the grasp of government it is a sorry state indeed.

 

Carbon dating is pretty wild stuff with the potential for exponential error, error increased with derived age as the decay of carbon may indeed be subject to conditions at the time of creation of the isotope. To say this is difficult to test would be an understatement. It never should have been used for anything older than a couple of thousand years but yet it is and given full credence to boot.

 

Meh so what else is new

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Wolverine

 

I have only two hard proven axioms, men cannot be trusted and truth does exist.

 

Not politicians, secular or religious, nor any manifestation thereof, is worthy of the least trust without solid proof. It is logical to refer to the religious version as organised religion while the secular is known as government.

When science is allied to either it no longer contains truth as we know it and instead becomes truth as we wish it.

 

Generally one can ignore all but the worst of the religionists until they combine with government which unfortunately cannot be so ignored.

Now that science is firmly in the grasp of government it is a sorry state indeed.

 

Carbon dating is pretty wild stuff with the potential for exponential error, error increased with derived age as the decay of carbon may indeed be subject to conditions at the time of creation of the isotope. To say this is difficult to test would be an understatement. It never should have been used for anything older than a couple of thousand years but yet it is and given full credence to boot.

 

Meh so what else is new

This is because it's results are supported by non organic dating method radiometric dating.

Two completely different test, using completely different substance that return very similar results.

Then when used on items who's dates we know again deliver accurate results within the expected margins... 3 for 3 is pretty on thousands of samples is pretty damn hard to argue

 

 

 

The earth is as much older than 10,000 as it is most certainly not flat.

WHAT!?!? NOT FLAT!?!?!?!?!
I was as surprised as you...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that there seems to be a type of person that the mere mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity will raise the hackles on?  Almost like there is an almost knee jerk rejection of the subject.  Seems almost like there is something inside that sees Christianity as an enemy.  I have ideas why but generally don't get it.  When I was visiting Afghanistan, even though we were at war, I wished I could come back in more peaceful times and get to know the Afghan people.  I could see the beauty in them.  Why do you think Christianity (not the bozos who pervert it but the true message...) causes some to go so batty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that there seems to be a type of person that the mere mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity will raise the hackles on? Almost like there is an almost knee jerk rejection of the subject. Seems almost like there is something inside that sees Christianity as an enemy. I have ideas why but generally don't get it. When I was visiting Afghanistan, even though we were at war, I wished I could come back in more peaceful times and get to know the Afghan people. I could see the beauty in them. Why do you think Christianity (not the bozos who pervert it but the true message...) causes some to go so batty?

Hmm....thought we were having a two way discussion. You know "chewing the fat" over it. I'm not sure exactly how you got so twisted. It was mentioned that the earth might be really young and I simply presented the science on how we know it's not.

You come to a thread about evolution, lay out your case for creationism, now suddenly I'm the heckler, here? Ok..?

You had been pretty reasonable in this, I'm not sure at what point you abandoned all objectivity. I'm sorry if repeatable, predictable, measurable evidence can be obtained and validated by other sources is bothersome to you, but facts don't really care about feelings.

 

That last sentence applies to your response too Jim. Facts don't care about how you "feel" about something. If it's fits a definition then, let it be defined.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found.

That would imply it's possibly much older than we believe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a scientist or expert but here is the argument for a "young" earth: http://www.icr.org/recent-creation

Thanks for taking the time to find this link. It offers a great opportunity to explain how testing like radio carbon, and radio metric dating are applied and used.

C-14 is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C-14 has not been rising steadily, instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines.

 

There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: one can count rings or one can radiocarbon-date the wood. Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to 6200 BC, one can check out the C-14 dates against the tree-ring-count dates. Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,200-year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date. It is easy to correlate the inner rings of a younger living tree with the outer rings of an older dead tree. The correlation is possible because, in the Southwest region of the United States, the widths of tree rings vary from year to year with the rainfall, and trees all over the Southwest have the same pattern of variations.

 

When experts compare the tree-ring dates with the C-14 dates, they find that radiocarbon ages before 1000 BC are really too young—not too old as Cook maintains. For example, pieces of wood that date at about 6200 BC by tree-ring counts date at only 5400 BC by regular C-14 dating and 3900 BC by Cook's creationist revision of C-14 dating (as we see in the article, "Dating, Relative and Absolute," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). So, despite creationist claims, C-14 before three thousand years ago was decaying faster than it was being formed and C-14 dating errs on the side of making objects from before 1000 BC look too young, not too old.

 

So essentially the authors of these articles aren't using practical examples of how these test are applied.

As I was stating earlier that radio-carbon dating was established using ORGANIC samples because it doesn't work on inorganic, the author uses am inorganic example (diamonds) as his case.

This would be tantamount to claiming x ray photography doesn't work because you cannot x ray sheet steel. It's simply not a viable application for the technology.

 

Now on ice cores. The author claims that we cannot date ice cores because we don't know how many snow storms come in a season. Now this is very true, but it's not the snow storms that are counted.

See in the artic we have long seasons with continous sunlight. This prolonged exposure creates a measurable difference in the snow as is sits. This season only occurs once a year, so by counting how many bands have that trait we can determine how many seasons passed.

Edited by poolingmyignorance
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found.

That would imply it's possibly much older than we believe.

 

im·ply
imˈplī/
verb
 
  1. strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
     
     
     
    There may be hope for you yet my friend!
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Has anyone noticed that there seems to be a type of person that the mere mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity will raise the hackles on? Almost like there is an almost knee jerk rejection of the subject. Seems almost like there is something inside that sees Christianity as an enemy. I have ideas why but generally don't get it. When I was visiting Afghanistan, even though we were at war, I wished I could come back in more peaceful times and get to know the Afghan people. I could see the beauty in them. Why do you think Christianity (not the bozos who pervert it but the true message...) causes some to go so batty?

Hmm....thought we were having a two way discussion. You know "chewing the fat" over it. I'm not sure exactly how you got so twisted. It was mentioned that the earth might be really young and I simply presented the science on how we know it's not.

You come to a thread about evolution, lay out your case for creationism, now suddenly I'm the heckler, here? Ok..?

You had been pretty reasonable in this, I'm not sure at what point you abandoned all objectivity. I'm sorry if repeatable, predictable, measurable evidence can be obtained and validated by other sources is bothersome to you, but facts don't really care about feelings.

 

That last sentence applies to your response too Jim. Facts don't care about how you "feel" about something. If it's fits a definition then, let it be defined.

 

Did you really feel my description pointed to you?  I thought we were chewing the fat?  Why did you get so defensive over something that in my mind clearly does not apply to you?  In an oblique manner, you just made my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Has anyone noticed that there seems to be a type of person that the mere mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity will raise the hackles on? Almost like there is an almost knee jerk rejection of the subject. Seems almost like there is something inside that sees Christianity as an enemy. I have ideas why but generally don't get it. When I was visiting Afghanistan, even though we were at war, I wished I could come back in more peaceful times and get to know the Afghan people. I could see the beauty in them. Why do you think Christianity (not the bozos who pervert it but the true message...) causes some to go so batty?

Hmm....thought we were having a two way discussion. You know "chewing the fat" over it. I'm not sure exactly how you got so twisted. It was mentioned that the earth might be really young and I simply presented the science on how we know it's not.

You come to a thread about evolution, lay out your case for creationism, now suddenly I'm the heckler, here? Ok..?

You had been pretty reasonable in this, I'm not sure at what point you abandoned all objectivity. I'm sorry if repeatable, predictable, measurable evidence can be obtained and validated by other sources is bothersome to you, but facts don't really care about feelings.

 

That last sentence applies to your response too Jim. Facts don't care about how you "feel" about something. If it's fits a definition then, let it be defined.

Did you really feel my description pointed to you? I thought we were chewing the fat? Why did you get so defensive over something that in my mind clearly does not apply to you? In an oblique manner, you just made my point.
Well it was directly below my response and I haven't seen where anybody on my side of the Isle had posted between now and then.

I wasn't defensive,more like genuinely perplexed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it can make a blind man see, all depends on the results.

 

Just finished watching a youtube on the nature and philosophical problem of evil as it relates to the nature and existence of a good god.

Steams of conciseness that easily fall flat until the nature of our condition is understood.

This world is not what was intended.

 

If you like here is the link but it does not really get very deep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzNEG1GB-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilization is an evolutionary adaptation of man. There is ample evidence of evolution in this thread as it evolves.All evolution does not lead to a betterment. Some evolutionary developments are dead ends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilization is an evolutionary adaptation of man. There is ample evidence of evolution in this thread as it evolves.All evolution does not lead to a betterment. Some evolutionary developments are dead ends.

Or this blog

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Civilization is an evolutionary adaptation of man. There is ample evidence of evolution in this thread as it evolves.All evolution does not lead to a betterment. Some evolutionary developments are dead ends.

Or this blog

 

 

I am not so sure man has conquered the civilization thing just yet.  He is busy trying to conquer and control others for the most part. Civilizations rise and fall.

 

Are you serious?  Ample evidence of evolution in this thread as it evolves?  What compelling evidence do you have for man being evolved from an amoeba? More faith than compelling fact.  That's for certain.

 

Some just don't want to deal with the issue of who Jesus Christ is?  Any answer is better than acknowledging He is who He said He was.  After all that would have very serious ramifications for all of us..The trouble is the time will come when there will be an accounting whether man wants or believes it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Civilization is an evolutionary adaptation of man. There is ample evidence of evolution in this thread as it evolves.All evolution does not lead to a betterment. Some evolutionary developments are dead ends.

Or this blog

I am not so sure man has conquered the civilization thing just yet. He is busy trying to conquer and control others for the most part. Civilizations rise and fall.

 

Are you serious? Ample evidence of evolution in this thread as it evolves? What compelling evidence do you have for man being evolved from an amoeba? More faith than compelling fact. That's for certain.

 

Some just don't want to deal with the issue of who Jesus Christ is? Any answer is better than acknowledging He is who He said He was. After all that would have very serious ramifications for all of us..The trouble is the time will come when there will be an accounting whether man wants or believes it.

Personally I've found more than reasonable doubt for all explanations so far.

I'm not in the faith game. I'm in the searching game.

post-32655-0-95494800-1463185885_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Civilization is an evolutionary adaptation of man. There is ample evidence of evolution in this thread as it evolves.All evolution does not lead to a betterment. Some evolutionary developments are dead ends.

Or this blog
I am not so sure man has conquered the civilization thing just yet. He is busy trying to conquer and control others for the most part. Civilizations rise and fall.

 

Are you serious? Ample evidence of evolution in this thread as it evolves? What compelling evidence do you have for man being evolved from an amoeba? More faith than compelling fact. That's for certain.

 

Some just don't want to deal with the issue of who Jesus Christ is? Any answer is better than acknowledging He is who He said He was. After all that would have very serious ramifications for all of us..The trouble is the time will come when there will be an accounting whether man wants or believes it.

Personally I've found more than reasonable doubt for all explanations so far.

I'm not in the faith game. I'm in the searching game.

 

 

Very good with the picture of the hearts..  The point is the condition of the human heart is the issue.  Jesus is the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...