Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So this has been a discussion with a false poster? I'm sorry to hear about Tom's situation, but that doesn't excuse taking on us honest responders with shifts of posters!
Well, it's understandable. Thankfully, my son, having read the endless & mindless recycled responses on this thread, has now denounced silly Christian religion as being what it is: illiterate and blindered.
Lead on, Ryan! perhaps you can lead a few more curious types out of the woods with your answers?
[SIZE=2]Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[/SIZE]
First edition 1994; revised version 2002.
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
Get an education?
I have repeated myself for about the third time now. Lets try this one more time, and please, pay attention. It was the organic material that was found on the figurines that was tested. They do this all the time with other historical finds. There is no protest from anyone when this procedure is done on other artifacts.
evolutionist state that the universe begun from matter. a kind of force
Evolutionists are not to be confused with abiogenesists, or quantum theorists, jdk. They never speak of how it all started, just how it then all diversified.
You're showing your vast scientific illiteracy again!
Next...
The big bang thoery sounds like a fraud to my understanding, most notable gesture is a stupid child's imagination trying to be clever. i was more surprised that evolution is not taught as part of science in Malaysian schools when i spoke to my malaysian chinese friend. She first heard it from me, and she's studying a degree based on science and technology; how ironic.
You stating here that the life sciences at Universities in Malaysia don't mention or study Evolution? Let me spend a moment on line and check out if you're lying again...
BTW, what elementary grade level is your friend in, or is she in a nunnery where they actively suppress knowledge and curiosity?
Yet here in the west we want to accept fraud and it is fraud that makes millions of cash. I think evolution is not science it's more like an atheist religion, A religion that defends itse;f by using science, which does not comply
I agree about fraud. Endless & mindless Christian drivel to feed the needs of the incurious and the obdedient. I see religious fraud hourly on TV (The Hour of Power, The Benny Hinn Show (barf...), The Crystal Cathedral.).
But I'm still looking for "The Hour of Evolution" or "Who Wants to Fake Science For a Million $$$???" So far, can't find it. So... send us a link!
As for science not "complying" in the study of Evolution? You ever see the smelly stuff that drops out from the back end of a donkey? I'm oddly reminded of it by your words...
Now then, back to the Malaysian Biosciences University curriculum. Lessee here...
Oooopppss you lie. How's that working for you in life, jdk?
I have repeated myself for about the third time now. Lets try this one more time, and please, pay attention. It was the organic material that was found on the figurines that was tested. They do this all the time with other historical finds. There is no protest from anyone when this procedure is done on other artifacts.
(DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?)
So, Ryan, you didn't read my post either, did you? Anyone can smear anything on something and call it something else. The technique requires that the actual artifact item (or shard) be tested, not the soil or donkey droppings that are on it when it's dug out of the ground. That would be silly!
I see though what you're trying to do here, realizing that C14 dating was completely incorrect, so you need to put some old organic material into the picture. Sorry. No lab would do it. They'd clean the sample item off vigorously first. No Bad Science Allowed Here, even to support loonery!)
You've just driven your own foot firmly into your mouth, son. You state, categorically, that "it was the organic material that was found on the figurines that was tested." Oooopppsssss.
Why, exactly, wouldn't they just test the actualitem itself, rather than some dirt on it? What would they be afraid of? Why test the dirt that would have come from the donkey-poop-filled basket they carried those cute artifacts back to the good (and paying) "doctor" in? That test would have shown the age of the dirt to be, oh let's say, 6 days old.
That's no test at all. How about let's test the actual figurines?
If that's the case, (6 days old I mean...) then those dinos must have been just over the next hill, cavorting with the local sheep herder. or dining exhorbitantly on his sheep.
Bhhaaaahhhhhhaaaa!
(You just made a big mistake, m'boy. Let's see you dig your hide out of this one!) At least you're learning! Say, how old are you, anyhow? 15?
(and oh, BTW, still very curious 'bout the 70 Million long guest species list on The Ark...)
Last edited by rifleman; 03-31-2009 at 06:26 PM..
Reason: typos, clarity
So, Ryan, you didn't read my post either, did you? Anyone can smear anything on something and call it something else. The technique requires that the actual artifact item (or shard) be tested, not the soil or donkey droppings that are on it when it's dug out of the ground. That would be silly!
I see though what you're trying to do here, realizing that C14 dating was completely incorrect, so you need to put some old organic material into the picture. Sorry. No lab would do it. They'd clean the sample item off vigorously first. No Bad Science Allowed Here, even to support loonery!)
You've just driven your own foot firmly into your mouth, son. You state, categorically, that "it was the organic material that was found on the figurines that was tested." Oooopppsssss.
Why, exactly, wouldn't they just test the actualitem itself, rather than some dirt on it? What would they be afraid of? Why test the dirt that would have come from the donkey-poop-filled basket they carried those cute artifacts back to the good (and paying) "doctor" in? That test would have shown the age of the dirt to be, oh let's say, 6 days old.
That's no test at all. How about let's test the actual figurines?
If that's the case, (6 days old I mean...) then those dinos must have been just over the next hill, cavorting with the local sheep herder. or dining exhorbitantly on his sheep.
Bhhaaaahhhhhhaaaa!
(You just made a big mistake, m'boy. Let's see you dig your hide out of this one!) At least you're learning! Say, how old are you, anyhow? 15?
(and oh, BTW, still very curious 'bout the 70 Million long guest species list on The Ark...)
They stated they tested the carbon on the figurines, I'm assuming that was organic. Pottery can be tested by use of C14 unless all the people that claim this are wrong. I'm not clear on how they actually do that. Yet I have enought confidence in the various labs that perform such test to do them correctly. In the link below, ancient Japanese pottery was made about 14,500 B.C. And they came to that conclusion by use of C14. Now, will your protest that date also? Or do you only protest dates when the objects being tested do not agree with your worldview?
[SIZE=2]Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[/SIZE]
First edition 1994; revised version 2002.
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
Well, if they cannot use c14 for testing the age of pottery, you better tell that to the lab that used c14 to get the age of this Japanese pottery.
I'm trying to figure out what is going on here. I keep hearing people say they cannot use c14 for pottery, yet then I keep seeing labs say that is what they use. Consider link below.
Swift writes: "Tierney had two fragments of Julsrud type ceramics excavated at El Toro Mountain in Acambaro and in 1956, in Julsrud's presence, Tierney submitted these pieces to Dr. Victor J. Bortolet".
I don't know how anyone could read that as anything other than he submitted them to Dr Bortolet in 1956????
But whatever. It isn't really important as I think it is just a stupid mistake on the author's part. The piece obviously didn't get anywhere near an editor or publisher. It just illustrates the general amateur quality of these sites.
There's another time mixup in the same article which is not really relevant but is quite funny:
In 1955 Hapgood had already distinguished himself as the author of books he hadn't even written yet. (1958,1966,1970)
I agree with you on the writing. It reads like some of my postings. We do the best we can. LOL
The style of Campbell is rinse, recycle, repeat. This is why this thread can go on ad infinitum. We are now entering spin cycle 4 I believe.
Anything Kent Hovind has to offer has been thoroghly refuted and his dishonesty exposed in a well presented rebuttal. See the Creationist Lies - Part A and the No Answers in Genesis which has all the wacko YEC loonies claims collated and refuted with real links to real living scientists.
Anything Campbell may produce from herr doktor (NOT) Hovind, a rebuttal already exists as his stuff is already 10 years old and just like Campbell, he is recycling old crap for new unsuspecting/science illiterate customers for his books and tapes.
And where is the scientific rebuttal for the El Toro Mountain figurines? When did your people have them time tested? Where can I veiw the report that shows us the scientific results from their review? We have been waiting over 60 years for their review. Maybe they are still to busy trying to find one of those transionals. LOL
You obviously never read the link on radiometric dating so I think we are wasting our time with a youth here.
Wish your dad well and we shall wait for him to resume this debate.
I told you that I would not respond to silly posts anymore.
As for your eltoro mountain crap, that did not even come up on their radar screen so thee is no slam dunk for YEC there. You keep recycling that over and over . Take a hint, we are not interested in discussing it anymore.
Get some new material we can debunk and there are many questions you have not bothered answering.
Here ya go Niik. This is a fossilized tooth from a T Rex...Notice the serrated edges designed by evolution to cut meat, not vegies.
Closeup of the serrations.
These look like excellent teeth to eat vegitation with. I think it is an excellent design by an excellent designer, God!
But of course serations would not work on vegetation in your little theory!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's sooo easy!
