U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:43 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,951,040 times
Reputation: 909

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Radiometric dating is only good up to thousands of years. Not millions of years.
Radiocarbon dating takes you back about 50,000 if I remember correctly. Other radiometric dating methods, like Uranium\Lead dating, can take you back several billion years. Carbon-14 Dating is radiometric dating, but radiometric dating is not always carbon-14 dating.

Feel free to expound your ignorance of science some more.

Quote:
And when such dating has been done on dinosaure bones, they have been shown to be thousands of years old.
HowStuffWorks "How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?"

Comfy narratives requires a story to be based on truth, and not wild speculation.[/quote]

Look forward to the destruction of Genesis. I'll probably do it tomorrow, it's late, I'm tired, and point-by-point refutations take time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2010, 11:52 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,671,240 times
Reputation: 12213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
I find it fascinating that he accepts radiometric dating for this, but not dating for the fossils that tell us that the Dinos lived millions of years before the first humans.

How exactly is that even possible?

I guess the problem with evolution is that it doesn't allow one to keep their comfy narrative.
Well for one thing ceramics cannot be dated using radio carbon...

That is exactly the problem...The more science learns the more foolish creationists look. They have no choice but to dismiss and ignore all the data pouring in in order to hang on to their beliefs....Considering how much bio science has advanced in the last two decades, I think what is learned in the next two will be amazing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 12:34 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,951,040 times
Reputation: 909
Let's break down the biblical account, shall we?

Quote:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
We currently have a giant lake of water upon which God is hanging out over.
Quote:
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
We now have electromagnetic radiation without any sources. Hmm...

Quote:
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Let's start with definitions! A day is defined by one complete rotation of the Earth on its axis. On Earth, we can measure a day from the time it takes for the sun to return it its position in the sky. You'll ignore that the early people were counting creation time in something that couldn't have possibly been measured yet.

Then we have Night and Day, defined by when the sun is in the sky, and when it is not. We don't even have the Sun yet.
Quote:
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Probably my favorite passage. God separates this lake of water with basically an air bubble. Water below--water above (which totally makes sense. Water is blue, the sky is blue, they must be made of the same thing, especially considering it rains).

And of course, we have Heaven literally being the sky.

Quote:
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Here we have water draining from the dry land into basically giant puddles. You see rivers, you see them emptying into lakes and seas, makes total sense.

Quote:
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Ah, joy. We have complex plant life--without a source of energy or water.

Quote:
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Finally we get the Sun. Of course, we also get seasons as well (which are the result of Earth's tilt).

God also screws up. The moon isn't a light, but a mirror. Ancient people didn't know this though (why would they?). And then he throws some stars in there like they are some kind of separate entity from our Sun--they aren't. They are "great lights" for other planets.

And then after creating them, he throws them into the firmament--the Sky--in order to give the Earth light. We have plants on Earth before their required energy. Strange.

Moving on.

Quote:
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
This is interesting. Here we have mammals and fish and birds already, without any land creatures. Impossible, unless of course, God poofs everything into existence--itself an absurd claim with no evidence and contradicted by the figurative mountains of evidence supporting Evolution (which you ignore).

It goes on with the creation of land animals (finally), and than man. Of course, Genesis 2 is actually backward of Genesis 1 (which I'm sure you know, being such an astute reader of the Bible), showing the creation man before anything else, and then plants were grown, land animals and air animals finally created, and the poor fish left to--well--not exist.

Last edited by Konraden; 04-14-2010 at 12:36 AM.. Reason: Fixed quote bracketing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 01:54 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,673,656 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Radiocarbon dating takes you back about 50,000 if I remember correctly. Other radiometric dating methods, like Uranium\Lead dating, can take you back several billion years. Carbon-14 Dating is radiometric dating, but radiometric dating is not always carbon-14 dating.

Feel free to expound your ignorance of science some more.



HowStuffWorks "How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?"

Comfy narratives requires a story to be based on truth, and not wild speculation.
Look forward to the destruction of Genesis. I'll probably do it tomorrow, it's late, I'm tired, and point-by-point refutations take time.[/quote]







Of course, Uranium Lead/Dating is based on three assumptions. 1. Constant decay rate. 2. No loss or gain of uranium or lead during the life of the rock. 3. And it is assumed that no lead was in the specimen when it was formed.

And are you in a position to confirm to us, that all this has remained constant for millions of years in any sample tested?

And as your link points out, scientist do not actually test the dinosaur bones themselves for age, they use the sedimentary rock that surrounds them to determin that. And that requires science to make three assumptions about that sedimentary rock that cannot be confirmed by anyone. The recent soft tissue find in dinosaur bones only reveals how much science has been in error. For not so long ago, science was telling us that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaur bones. Because soft tissue could last no longer then 100,000 years. Now they want us to believe that soft tissue with stretchable blood vessels can last 80 million years. Oh well, what's 80 million years one way or the other. LOL

Science simply assumes the dinosaur bones to be millions of years old. Carbon-14 has been used to test the age of mammoth bones. And dates have come back showing them to be thousands of years old. Yet when they have tested dinosaur bones useing Carbon-14, and they to show dates of thousands of years. They reject those dates, because they put their faith in unfounded assumptions that cannot be proven. And that is what you call solid science?

Last edited by Campbell34; 04-14-2010 at 02:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 01:58 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,671,240 times
Reputation: 12213
Konraden, now you've done it!....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 02:05 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,671,240 times
Reputation: 12213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Of course, Uranium Lead/Dating is based on three assumptions. 1. Constant decay rate. 2. No loss or gain of uranium or lead during the life of the rock. 3. And it is assumed that no lead was in the specimen when it was formed.

And are you in a position to confirm to us, that all this has remained constant for millions of years in any sample tested?

And as your link points out, scientist do not actually test the dinosaur bones themselves for age, they use the sedimentary rock that surrounds them to determin that. And that requires science to make three assumptions about that sedimentary rock that cannot be confirmed by anyone.

Science simply assumes the dinosaur bones to be millions of years old. Carbon-14 has been used to test the age of mammoth bones. And dates have come back showing them to be thousands of years old. Yet when they have tested dinosaur bones useing Carbon-14, and they to show dates of thousands of years. They reject those dates, because they put their faith in unfounded assumptions that cannot be proven. And that is what you call solid science?
LOL, no scientist dates dino bones with C 14. So tell me Campbell, how do these fossilized bones become buried in the rock that is dated? They are actually (the fossils) mineral (turned into rock) themselves and are actually part of the rock they are found in.

Quote:
The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.
HowStuffWorks "How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?"

Last edited by sanspeur; 04-14-2010 at 02:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 02:32 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,673,656 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
In defense, Sanspeur, his claims are that the figurines show that dinosaurs lived with humans (which if anything only offsets the date of humans and dinosaurs). Again, states nothing about the evolutionary process, and every source I've looked at lists these figurines are fraudulent.

Acambaro Artifacts (http://ooparts.us/acambaro-figures.htm - broken link)

The only "debunking" I'm seeing is that the lab reported the results were inconclusive, and a host of conspiracy theories about it being something to maintain the lie. I haven't seen anything else. Everything I've read about the Acambro Figures is that they are false.

EDIT: Interesting, Rifleman--almost a full YTD--debunked this creationist crap.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...on-day-43.html

The lab that stated their results were inconclusive, first sent a follow up letter stating the accuracy of their first finding. And only after they discovered they had tested the figurines from El Toro mountain, did they suddenly get cold feet. Another lab shortly after that, tested them again, and confirmed the accuracy of the first labs findings. And they were tested again in 1997, and that test confirmed that the dinosaur figurine was 1500 B.P. I believe there have been no less, then four such tests. And every test shows them to be ancient. And the last test that was done was not done by creationist, but by those who tried to show us the figurines were fakes. To bad for them, the test results backfired on their attempt. You can't blame the results coming back from these labs on creationist. And everything you have read negative about the figurines, pretty much came from one mans opinion from the 1950s. And that is why no matter what information you read about them, you cannot show us any real scientific review. And that is because they have been ignored by science.

Charles Hapgood went down there and had the concrete floor of a home in the area removed. The house had been built on the site for 30 years. And under the floor they discovered even more dinosaur figurines. I mean really, who builds a house on fake dinosuar figurines? At some point in time you really have to put 2+2 together here. The link below tells the whole story.

World Site of Dinosaur Figurines of Mexico: evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 02:59 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,673,656 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
LOL, no scientist dates dino bones with C 14. So tell me Campbell, how do these fossilized bones become buried in the rock that is dated? They are actually (the fossils) mineral (turned into rock) themselves and are actually part of the rock they are found in.


HowStuffWorks "How do scientists determine the age of dinosaur bones?"





No scientist makes a pratice of dating dinosaur bones with C-14. Yet it has occured. And when such (unfossilized dinosaur bones) are tested if by design or accident. The dates that come back are often found to be in the thousands of years.

http://creationwiki.org/unfossilized_dinosaur_bones

Oak Ridge National Laboratory did such a test, and the result from a dinosaur bone came back 3,000 years.

Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric dating methods. creation evolution young earth evidence old earth bible



And your rock that is dated, is an assumed date that cannot be verified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 03:10 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,671,240 times
Reputation: 12213
How many times do you need to be told those creationists sites are not credible...They lie like sidewalks. Creation Wiki, is one of the worst of the lot. It's a joke.

Quote:
CreationWiki

This site was a joint winner of an Encouragement Award in the 2009 Millenium Awards. The award citation read:

There is not enough humour in the world of irrational and uncritical thinking these days, so it was exceptionally pleasing to see not one but two sites which promise hours of fun. Both Conservapedia and CreationWiki are based on the wiki platform, thus ensuring enormous amusement as competing anonymous parties make changes, undo the changes, make the changes again, undo again and so on. The two sites should be encouraged to continue building their respective stores of nonsense and pseudoscience so that the world's supply of laughter can be continually replenished.
CreationWiki
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 03:43 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,842 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post

Oak Ridge National Laboratory did such a test, and the result from a dinosaur bone came back 3,000 years.
Then Oak Ridge National Laboratory should be struck off as a reputable research establishment if they use C14 to date dinosaur bones since C14 is only used to date organic material that is less that 50,000 years old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top