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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-19-2010, 11:12 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 3,644,970 times
Reputation: 591

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
If you recall the story of Adam and Eve, God did not create them as children, but as adults. And God has the ability to create things that appear older then they appear.

In the link below, there are 101 evidences for a young earth. Of course, the courts have blocked all of this from getting into the classroom.
Age of the earth

Carbon-14 dating is probably one of the most widely used and best known absolute dating methods.
Radiocarbon Dating (http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html - broken link)

And that method shows us that dinosaur bones are thousands of years old, and not millions. Yet even though science imbraces the dates that are returned from Carbon14 dating, they refuse to believe the dates that are returned by the same method for dinosaur bones. And that is because their personal bias is based not on science, but their persoanl beliefs.
You mean it was debunk years ago, and they had to try to use the courts to get it in school.

Go ahead, pick any 2 (I'll only address 2 per post, post more if you want after I have address them) tell me the number and the post.


Carbon 14 will bring back false results for anything over 60000 years, dating dinosaurs bones would be silly.

Last edited by Gplex; 04-19-2010 at 11:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2010, 11:46 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,689,355 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
You mean it was debunk years ago, and they had to try to use the courts to get it in school.

Go ahead, pick any 2 (I'll only address 2 per post, post more if you want after I have address them) tell me the number and the post.


Carbon 14 will bring back false results for anything over 60000 years, dating dinosaurs bones would be still.



Creationism is not a Biblical course. It is a belief that a Creator was responsible for what we see today. And there is a great deal of evidence which refutes many of the held beliefs of believers in evolution. And this evidence comes to us from numerous fields of science. 61% of the American people believe this evidence shoud be taught in the public schools. Yet the courts once again overruled the will of the American people. Nothing was debunked, it was simply block from consideration.

1. DNA in "ancient" fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are suposed to be 426 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

51. Carbon-14 in coal suggest ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.

And since dinosaur bones have been dated at less then half of the 60,000 years, one would believe such a number to be accurate. And such numbers are accepted for everything else, but dinosaur bones. Why is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2010, 11:58 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 3,644,970 times
Reputation: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Creationism is not a Biblical course. It is a belief that a Creator was responsible for what we see today. And there is a great deal of evidence which refutes many of the held beliefs of believers in evolution. And this evidence comes to us from numerous fields of science. 61% of the American people believe this evidence shoud be taught in the public schools. Yet the courts once again overruled the will of the American people. Nothing was debunked, it was simply block from consideration.
Majority vote does not change the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
1. DNA in "ancient" fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are suposed to be 426 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
As far as I know DNA as never been found in 400+ million year old fossils.. proteins yes, DNA.. no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
51. Carbon-14 in coal suggest ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
First carbon 14 will always return a result less then 60 thousand years. Second Coal is easily contaminated with bacteria, ground water and even the air it is expose to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And since dinosaur bones have been dated at less then half of the 60,000 years, one would believe such a number to be accurate. And such numbers are accepted for everything else, but dinosaur bones. Why is that?
Carbon 14 will always return a result less then 60 thousand years. There are many radiometric dating technique with different isotopes. Many of them without the restriction of the low half life of carbon 14. (if you can call 5000 years low)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2010, 02:55 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,689,355 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
Majority vote does not change the facts.


As far as I know DNA as never been found in 400+ million year old fossils.. proteins yes, DNA.. no.


First carbon 14 will always return a result less then 60 thousand years. Second Coal is easily contaminated with bacteria, ground water and even the air it is expose to.


Carbon 14 will always return a result less then 60 thousand years. There are many radiometric dating technique with different isotopes. Many of them without the restriction of the low half life of carbon 14. (if you can call 5000 years low)



And the facts are, evidence is being blocked from consideration, and a free expression of science will not be found in the public schools. And it appears, certain scientist believe they have a monopoly on the facts, and have found judges that will back up this belief.

DNA in "ancient fossils". DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Operation 513 - Apologetics Blog: The Age of the Earth - Biological Evidence

Traces of 425 million-year-old microbial DNA have been found in samples of rock salt, claim a UK team.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ldest-dna.html

And if the results of C-14 cannot be trusted on coal. Why would you trust it on anything else? One could say the samething about anything found in the ground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 02:15 AM
 
Location: England
3,243 posts, read 3,031,062 times
Reputation: 3182
C34 is the poster boy for one dimensional thinkers, incapeable of any original or insightful thought & always in constant denial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 03:15 AM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 3,644,970 times
Reputation: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And the facts are, evidence is being blocked from consideration, and a free expression of science will not be found in the public schools. And it appears, certain scientist believe they have a monopoly on the facts, and have found judges that will back up this belief.

DNA in "ancient fossils". DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Operation 513 - Apologetics Blog: The Age of the Earth - Biological Evidence

Traces of 425 million-year-old microbial DNA have been found in samples of rock salt, claim a UK team.
Row unravels over claim of oldest DNA - 22 May 2002 - New Scientist

And if the results of C-14 cannot be trusted on coal. Why would you trust it on anything else? One could say the samething about anything found in the ground.
Sigh..
How about you read it..
"Traces of 425 million-year-old microbial DNA have been found in samples of rock salt, claim a UK team. "This is the oldest DNA described to date," says Bill Grant at Leicester University, who led the research. Other experts on ancient DNA are far from convinced.
Grant's team studied salt crystals taken from ancient sea beds in the US, Poland and Thailand. They say they sequenced rRNA from bacteria in single crystals dating back from 11 million to 425 million years."

You might find this interesting Crystal clumps preserve fossilised DNA - life - 12 September 2005 - New Scientist
Look, I know that words automatically pop out at you when you read things, and you probably have the tendency to ignore the rest, but please try and read the entire article.
Finding traces of DNA in salt crystals does not disprove evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
First carbon 14 will always return a result less then 60 thousand years. Second Coal is easily contaminated with bacteria, ground water and even the air it is expose to.
As I said samples must avoid contamination, and trying to date something older than 60 thousand years with carbon 14 is just, maybe even more so, silly as trying to saw some planks of wood with a screw driver.

Even if we found a living t-rex tomorrow, it would not disprove the theory of evolution. It would only mean, that the assumption that t-rex has become extinct was wrong.

Even if we did find fully intact DNA (not traces) from ancient creatures that date back to hundreds of millions of years, it would not disprove the theory of evolution, it would only prove that under the right circumstances DNA can survive for such a long period of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2010, 06:44 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 3,644,970 times
Reputation: 591
Are you not going to pick another 2 claims Campbell?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2010, 07:26 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,151,815 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Creationism is not a Biblical course. It is a belief that a Creator was responsible for what we see today.
Ah, based upon the Biblical narrative.

Quote:
And there is a great deal of evidence which refutes many of the held beliefs of believers in evolution.
None that has stood up to objective review.

Quote:
61% of the American people believe this evidence shoud be taught in the public schools. Yet the courts once again overruled the will of the American people.
Funny thing about courts, they don't make rulings to please opinion polls.

Quote:
Nothing was debunked, it was simply block from consideration.
You should watch the documentary on the Dover School Board's attempt to introduce creationism, there was so much debunking a born again Republican judge ruled against them.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

I trust your other points to the Evolution Geek Squad since they have been doing a spectacular job so far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2010, 08:09 PM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 3,644,970 times
Reputation: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
Are you not going to pick another 2 claims Campbell?
I guess not...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2010, 01:47 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,689,355 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Ah, based upon the Biblical narrative.



None that has stood up to objective review.



Funny thing about courts, they don't make rulings to please opinion polls.



You should watch the documentary on the Dover School Board's attempt to introduce creationism, there was so much debunking a born again Republican judge ruled against them.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

I trust your other points to the Evolution Geek Squad since they have been doing a spectacular job so far.



Much of the evidence against evolution has not stood up to objective review, only because those in science (REFUSE) to consider it. And that is why we see no scientific review of much of this evidence. The El Toro figurines, the Delk Track, the Ica burial stones, the list could go on. Yet it is evidence like this, that has been ignored. So your belief that this evidence has not stood up to an objective scientific review, is based on pure nonsense.

Investigating the "Delk track"

omniology.com

Dinosaur Figurines, Fact or Fraud - Video
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