Let's see proof of creation (dinosaur, hell, genesis, myths)
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.
I just can't get my head around people like Finn, Campbell and kevcrawford. Every single day of their lives they accept, unquestionably, the results of scientific research. When they heat their morning coffee in the microwave, when they drive their cars, fly in aeroplanes, watch TV, make phone calls, take pills for headaches or other medical conditions. One could fill a page with the things that they accept and trust without question that has been given to them by science. Yet, when that same science disproves their belief in myths, it suddenly becomes untrustworthy and should not be relied on. They look at science and say:
Theory of electromagnetism: Good!
Theory of gravity:Good!
Quantum theory: Good!
Germ Theory: Good!
Thermodynamics: Good!
Theory of evolution: Science is evil and filled with atheists who want to destroy Christianity everywhere and those dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to trick us.
Photosynthesis: Good!
Periodic Table of the Elements: Good!
Theory of Relativity: Good!
Acoustics Theory: Good!
Chaos Theory: Good!
Number theory: Good!
Big Bang theory: Science is evil and filled with atheists who want to destroy Christianity everywhere and how can they believe in the Big Bang when no one was around to see it.
So science is great and one of the best means of understanding our universe unless it contradicts the writings of ancient goat herders. Then it's evil and wrong.
If you look at Geology it shows that fossils are of different ages. Look at Palaeontology and you will see a fossil sequence that changes through time. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Compare that with 'Creationism' .....which is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!"
So we don't know precisely how life started on this planet. So what? That doesn't mean we have to make up an answer i.e 'God did it'. An archaeologist can discover a building and determine that it is from ancient Rome but not know what the hell it was used for. You can come along and claim that it was where the Hobbits lived and then give your entire account of the Lord of the Rings. You would have a much more complete answer than the archaeologist.......but it would be baseless bullcaca.
It's time you faced the facts lads. Aeroplanes fly....carpets and broomsticks don't.
That's the point. How do you verify the age of a fossil, when the dating methods have such great flaws in them?
Because modern dating methods do not have those flaws...Your carbon dating rant may have had some merit many decades ago, but all it showed to me is that you have no idea how fossils are dated today.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age. Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)
Leaving your attempts to disprove evolution ( Which is NOT the topic of this thread) can we agree that life began at some point? We can both call it creation and we only disagree on how, or perhaps when that creation came about. You believe your God "breathed" life into existence, and I believe it was a natural process that began around 3 billion years ago.
Unless you are a bible literalist and believe that creation happened only a few thousand years ago, could evolution not apply regardless of how life began?
My point is that proving or dis proving evolution has nothing to do with creation and how it came about.
I just can't get my head around people like Finn, Campbell and kevcrawford. Every single day of their lives they accept, unquestionably, the results of scientific research. When they heat their morning coffee in the microwave,
Microwave and automobiles are practical applications, while evolution is an unproven theory. It is a very poor comparison.
You saying that if there is a microwave, then anything is possible as long as a scientist says so, even if they have nothing to show for it except failed experiments and failed theories?
I am not very impressed Rafius. Are you suffering from a hangover?
You do you have a ton of faith, that much is proven.
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use.
Yes, I was talking about carbon-14 dating, and when the results do not agree with their agenda, they toss it out. They keep trying until is says what they want it to say.
Of course evolution is on-topic. If evolution is proven false, then what's left?
BTW, no, the fossil evidence in no way, shape, or form supports Creationism whatsoever. There is absolutely no evidence that any species, let alone all, spontaniously erupted onto this planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
How do you know the scientists used the correct methods in their study? Many previously accepted methods have been found to be incorrect, and the conclusions based on them had to tossed out, or should be tossed out. Huge errors have been made with Carbon-14 dating method, because it relies on assumption that carbon always ages at the same speed. However that was found out to be not true, because aging of carbon depends on the surroundings. Also, it assumes that the concentration of carbon-12 in atmosphere, which affects the decay of carbon-14 has always been constant, but that has also been proven incorrect, because there has been HUGE variations in carbon-12. Many scientists agree that the method is only accurate to the last 3000 years.
The peer review process has more than qualified the many, many dating techniques used by scientists. BTW, Carbon 14 is but one of those dating methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Often when fossils are found and carbon dated, the scientists had estimated the age to be millions of years old, but when the test results arrive, they show only a few thousand years. These results are usually thrown out and disqualified because of "contamination". This is called the "human bias" factor in carbon dating, because the results were correct, but the scientists could not accept them because it would contradict with their assumptions, and it would disprove their theory. There is also proof of scientists running ten tests on carbon dating on same evidence and throw away nine results because they show the age to be only a few thousand years, but they keep the 10th one because it says 90 000 years, which is close to their original assumption. Human bias runs deep in these studies because the scientists have already made up their minds and will not allow truth to prove them wrong.
Again, RC dating is but one of the many, many dating methods used, and has poven quite accurate in the medium it is used for, ei samples from dry regions.
Microwave and automobiles are practical applications, while evolution is an unproven theory. It is a very poor comparison.
You saying that if there is a microwave, then anything is possible as long as a scientist says so, even if they have nothing to show for it except failed experiments and failed theories?
I am not very impressed Rafius. Are you suffering from a hangover?
You do you have a ton of faith, that much is proven.
I notice you didn't address my post....Too tough for you?
Without taking advantage of what is known about evolution what do you suppose the state of agriculture, medicine, etc. would be today? We wouldn't have nearly the abundance of food, our life span would be much shorter among many other things.
Yes, I was talking about carbon-14 dating, and when the results do not agree with their agenda, they toss it out. They keep trying until is says what they want it to say.
Of course evolution is on-topic. If evolution is proven false, then what's left?
Wrong again...Carbon 14 is only used where it applies...
Did you really expect him to? Give him 20 questions and you'll be lucky if he answers 1.
He's already made me break my New Year resolution not to discuss thing with people who have no knowledge of the subject at hand.
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.
ating_methods
