Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

1. Radiometric dating does not confirm ancient ages for fossils. Regardless, you should qualify "ancient" when you use it in a sentence in this forum.
2. Those "approximate dates" you reference are concocted and bogus. They do not reveal "surprising amount of detail on dinosaurs." Some of the evidence already shown confirming man and dinosaur coexistence already contradicts your assumption.

All you've done here is say "No it isn't". I mean, do you honestly think you merely saying "Radiometric dating does not confirm ancient ages for fossils" makes it so and everyone here will just accept your assertion as unquestioned gospel?

3. We already know that the evolutionists toss out dates they don't like all over the place.

Another empty "because I say so" assertion.

4. Carbon dating would only be reliable when certain assumptions are true. One of the assumptions is the object is less than 50,000 years old. Another assumption is that the earth environment has been relatively constant during those 50,000 years and that radioactive carbon has been at an equilibrium, rather than still increasing.

Your ignorance of the very subject you're denying is obvious. For example, you assert that scientists merely "assume" that objects are younger than 50,000 years, when in reality C-14 curves are calibrated with objects of known age. Also, C-14 does not assume constant conditions. That's why C-14 curves are calibrated against other independent methods. Here, educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates

5. Rather, the evolutionists leap into logical fallacy. They start by assuming an old earth where more than 50,000 years exist. Then the constant (uniform) environment is assumed. Then the age of the objects is assumed. So when it is inconvenient to submit the objects to the same tests, they say "it wouldn't work anyway" and won't do the test. Why? Because the results are inconvenient.

Again your series of "Nuh uh" assertions aren't compelling. For example, an ancient earth is not "assumed" but is derived from a series of independent data points from diverse fields. If you truly think scientists for the last 250 years have done nothing more than "assume an old earth", as in "We never did any actual science, we always just assumed it", then you're far more delusional than even I thought.

6. You don't have congruent results silly. If coal beds and soft dinosaur tissue register at all on carbon dating tests, it proves that your initial assumption was wrong. But you won't question your assumption, that's your Holy Cow that you dare not kick. That's why it's circular logic. You start off by assuming (old earth) what it is you wish to prove (old earth). Those carbon dating tests do with a young earth model. I'm not saying that you will get accurate dates from them, but they are at least somewhat ballpark.

Again, all you've done is respond with "No it isn't" and bizarre accusations that scientists have never conducted tests or collected data and from day one have merely "assumed an old earth".

If that's honestly how you think the earth sciences have operated for the last 250 years, well......you're just too delusional to bother with.

 

[Jose Fly]

Rosenritter's last post illustrates the intellectual laziness of the denialist position. No matter what's posted, all the denialist has to do is respond "No it isn't" and think themselves victorious.

 

[redfern]

Dear Redfern,

Who is to say that C-14 dating can be used on something as old as 20,000 years, the number of years in question? Frankly, I don't think it can. And there are also other factors that need to be included. I don't believe C-14 does the trick. Most of the stuff that science says surely offers astounding limits in miles {distances, i,e, galaxy to galaxy to star, to black hole, etc.}, years {mankind's age, Earth's and the Universe's age, and also different star's ages, etc.}. Frankly, I don't trust ANY measuring devices for all that Science purports, except the easy things. The rest of it, I could flush. Who is there to guarantee that Science's tools are just another mistake waiting to happen. I'm not just talking about C-14 dating, but Uranium dating, etc., and light spectrum devising. It could all be proven false depending upon the next error-discovery. Right? And the Universe being billions of years old, and the Earth being millions of years old {even though God says in our Bible that it isn't}, the vast distances in 20,000 light years, and dinosaurs living millions of years ago. All of these astronomical amounts that could not be proven one way or the other, since no one was keeping score a million years ago. Lord, Help Us All!!

Thanks, redfern,

Michael

Michael, let me summarize what your post really says

Who is to say … I don't think it can. … I don't believe … I don't trust … Who is there to guarantee … It could all be proven false … could not be proven one way or the other

Nowhere in your post did I see one iota of actual science. My interest is in science, not in responding to posts with nothing but a litany of complaints based on your personal feelings.

If you come up with something actually scientific, then let me know. Till then, I am not much interested in what you have to say.

 

[redfern]

… fire {add Helium} …

Michael, I just read what you said here. I recommend if you are going to talk about physical processes, you limit yourself to what you actually know (or at least are willing to look up information on before posting). Specifically, Helium is just about the most “unfiery” element in the universe. It does not react chemically with much of anything.

 

[6days]

Also, C-14 does not assume constant conditions.

Yes.....Dates in the 30,000 year range of dinosaurs, by c14 dating is actually consistent with the global flood of 4500 years ago.

 

[6days]

(And no, I don't believe in God, or Allah, or Yaweh, Zeus, The Sun God of Egypt, or any other deity. Just for clarity. :up: )

You might not believe in God, but you surely have one.

 

[6days]

You accept that uncaused causes are a usable concept, but they can only apply to the Christan conception of a God, and not to other things? Seems rather arbitrary to me.

EVERYTHING that has a beginning has a cause.
Since our universe had a beginning, there has to be a cause.
The cause had to have existed eternally, therefore is uncaused.
The design of the universe... complex sophisticated biological systems....the origin of life...etc provides evidence that the uncaused cause is omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[chair]

All you've done here is ...

This is an exercise in futility.

You, as well as the vast majorty of scientists, consider a huge set of facts, and come to the conclusion that Earth is very old, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and that life developed through a process called evolution.

The Creationist, however, includes the number one Super_Fact that you ignore. The bible is God's word, and 100% accurate and inerrant. That Super_Fact trumps everything and anybody else. Any facts that do not fit that will be- no must be- explained away, ignored, or twisted about to make them match the Super_Fact. If the scientific consensus disagrees, then scientists are all wrong, and likely part of a conspiracy. How else could they deny the obvious truth of the Super_Fact?

Of course the Super_Fact is wrong. The Bible is not a history book or biology text, and was never meant to be (but not to worry- I am obviously part of a conspiracy as well).

So don't waste your time with these people who claim to have the Truth (TM), when all they have is a lie they are not capable of giving up.

 

[Rosenritter]

All you've done here is say "No it isn't". I mean, do you honestly think you merely saying "Radiometric dating does not confirm ancient ages for fossils" makes it so and everyone here will just accept your assertion as unquestioned gospel?



Another empty "because I say so" assertion.



Your ignorance of the very subject you're denying is obvious. For example, you assert that scientists merely "assume" that objects are younger than 50,000 years, when in reality C-14 curves are calibrated with objects of known age. Also, C-14 does not assume constant conditions. That's why C-14 curves are calibrated against other independent methods. Here, educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates



Again your series of "Nuh uh" assertions aren't compelling. For example, an ancient earth is not "assumed" but is derived from a series of independent data points from diverse fields. If you truly think scientists for the last 250 years have done nothing more than "assume an old earth", as in "We never did any actual science, we always just assumed it", then you're far more delusional than even I thought.



Again, all you've done is respond with "No it isn't" and bizarre accusations that scientists have never conducted tests or collected data and from day one have merely "assumed an old earth".

If that's honestly how you think the earth sciences have operated for the last 250 years, well......you're just too delusional to bother with.

Blah, blah. Blah, blah. That is what I hear from you Jose. We have been over the details before, you just like to forget them. Circular reasoning is where you will stay.

 

[Rosenritter]

This is an exercise in futility.

You, as well as the vast majorty of scientists, consider a huge set of facts, and come to the conclusion that Earth is very old, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and that life developed through a process called evolution.

The Creationist, however, includes the number one Super_Fact that you ignore. The bible is God's word, and 100% accurate and inerrant. That Super_Fact trumps everything and anybody else. Any facts that do not fit that will be- no must be- explained away, ignored, or twisted about to make them match the Super_Fact. If the scientific consensus disagrees, then scientists are all wrong, and likely part of a conspiracy. How else could they deny the obvious truth of the Super_Fact?

Of course the Super_Fact is wrong. The Bible is not a history book or biology text, and was never meant to be (but not to worry- I am obviously part of a conspiracy as well).

So don't waste your time with these people who claim to have the Truth (TM), when all they have is a lie they are not capable of giving up.

All of that balanced on accepting certain "facts" not in evidence and ignoring the evidence that contradicts those "facts."

 

[Stripe]

This is an exercise in futility.

You, as well as the vast majorty of scientists, consider a huge set of facts, and come to the conclusion that Earth is very old, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and that life developed through a process called evolution.

The Creationist, however, includes the number one Super_Fact that you ignore. The bible is God's word, and 100% accurate and inerrant. That Super_Fact trumps everything and anybody else. Any facts that do not fit that will be- no must be- explained away, ignored, or twisted about to make them match the Super_Fact. If the scientific consensus disagrees, then scientists are all wrong, and likely part of a conspiracy. How else could they deny the obvious truth of the Super_Fact?

Of course the Super_Fact is wrong. The Bible is not a history book or biology text, and was never meant to be (but not to worry- I am obviously part of a conspiracy as well).

So don't waste your time with these people who claim to have the Truth (TM), when all they have is a lie they are not capable of giving up.

Nope. Evidence, remember?

The Earth-moon system puts an upper limit on the length of history.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[chair]

Nope. Evidence, remember?

Uh huh.
And scientists are all members of a conspiracy...
There is no fact that will change a Creationist's mind.

 

[MichaelCadry]

At the end of ALL intelligent reasoning, God has been determined to be an "Uncaused Cause". Love "uncaused". Take this into your thinking: Only Love can create. Arrange all your theological precepts around that fact.

Dear Cross Reference,

I know that God is Love and God creates everything that is anywhere and everywhere. So, I don't disagree with you at all. I'm now guessing that I shouldn't converse with certain things to everyone here. Some things yes, other things, no!!

Thanks for caring and showing Love!!

May Jesus Always Remain In Your Heart,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

You said that believing that God was an uncaused cause was necessary because it was God's Word, but now it is just the Philosophers' Word, but that is the same since they believed in God. Is that what you meant to say?



(And no, I don't believe in God, or Allah, or Yaweh, Zeus, The Sun God of Egypt, or any other deity. Just for clarity. :up: )

Dear gcthomas,

Ah, but you do believe in a god called Science or whatever word you don't want to use. You do have a belief system and that that system is a belief that is the opposite of God. God's Adversary does that to you. That is Satan who you are intellectually confused by. You are your own god, and your belief in Science. Nothing can sway you out of your religion {Atheism} for you to even consider believing in the True God, who created the Universe and Every Thing in it.

Do you know how the Universe is expanding? Well, along with that, it is counter-expanding by the parts of it that are sucked into Black Holes. They have to keep sucking in all of the matter and space as fast as they can. The more black holes that come into existence, the more space is eaten up.

Warm Wishes and Cheerio, Mate!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

All of that balanced on accepting certain "facts" not in evidence and ignoring the evidence that contradicts those "facts."

Did you just miss all the independent multiple methods of dating that meteor sample at 4.6 billion years old, that I posted earlier? Or are you ignoring the multiple lines of evidence that contradict you, so you can focus on one cherry picked method?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Yes.....Dates in the 30,000 year range of dinosaurs, by c14 dating is actually consistent with the global flood of 4500 years ago.

Dear 6days,

How can dinosaurs be that old when it says that God created the creatures on the 6th day, right before He created man. That would make the dinosaurs not older than man and buffaloes, and alligators, and probably cockroaches. That means ~6,000 years ago, right?

An Abundance Of Blessing, From God, Upon You And Your Household!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Did you just miss all the independent multiple methods of dating that meteor sample at 4.6 billion years old, that I posted earlier? Or are you ignoring the multiple lines of evidence that contradict you, so you can focus on one cherry picked method?

Dear gcthomas,

And by just what 'fancy' methods do you use to discover that something is THAT MANY years old? I don't put much stock into any of them. Just like the C-14 dating, your dating methods aren't Trustworthy. Somehow, down the hill, you will find that out also, just as you did with C-14. So you have a meteor sample that you date to be older than anyone can think of. Especially when God said that He didn't create the Universe until a few days before mankind and creatures, which we've established at ~6,000 years old. So your uranium just isn't reliable at all. There are MANY WAYS that could be wrong but there is only ONE WAY that is Truth! It's like talking to a brick wall. Something is very wrong with your Applied Science. Do you actually think the a meteor rock would remain it's composition for 1 billion years?! Do you even hear what you are saying?

You all say that because you want to stymie the public with vast amounts of time that are highly improbable that none of us can dispute because NO ONE can measure something that far back. How about I say a stone in my hand is 60,000 years old. It could be because it can't be measured correctly and no one was here that long ago to corroborate my claim. So that ends things right there. I don't believe in all of your testing methods, so forget it. To heck with your Uranium, or your spectrometer. Man-made ways to date God-created phenomena. Ah well, this is getting tiring, so I'll close. Your last dating method couldn't even date the Shroud of Turin. Now, if I trusted carbon dating, I'd say, it may have worked had the test been done on a different part of the shroud, like a bit closer to the actual image of Jesus. Who is to know that the samples of the cloth that was tested was not put there until later, also?

I believe that the energy of God's Spirit being put back within his dead human body caused the image; an image that surely was not painted on, and no one has a clue how in the world the image was put upon the cloth. Surely, Mary, Jesus' mother would want to take his burial shroud, or even Mary Magdalene, or the disciples. If it were possibly the shroud of some other crucified man, then what about all of wounds involved, that show up {as dried blood?} appear, like the crown of thorns on his head, or the wounds through the hands and feet, or the sword being thrust into his side? Why would anyone keep the shroud for all of these 2,000 years, if it was someone else? Oh well, it is not easy for me to explain myself as I'd like to. I don't want to go into even more lengthy depth. Will close for now.

Warmest Regards, gct,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

And by just what 'fancy' methods do you use to discover that something is THAT MANY years old? I don't put much stock into any of them.

You don't understand the first thing about the quantitative dating methods, so to hear that you don't trust them is of little interest, really.

Do you actually think the a meteor rock would remain it's composition for 1 billion years?! Do you even hear what you are saying?

Generally yes, except for the unstable atoms, which decay into other elements in a predictable and completely understood quantum process. You are aware, are you not that quantum theory is by several orders of magnitude the most precise theory for making physical predictions that humanity has every produced? Your "I don't like it so it can't be true" argument doesn't make much headway against the huge number of experimental verifications of the theory.

Don't you know that there has NEVER been an experiment whose result is clearly in disagreement with the calculations of Standard Model quantum theory? Never. Think about it, Michael. There is no experimental problem, no practical issue to resolve, no rough edges to the theory. Fantastic accuracy is what is left. Reliability. When you have tested something so much, there is nothing else to do but to trust it when pitted against your feebly fuzzy dislike of the implications.

You all say that because you want to stymie the public with vast amounts of time that are highly improbable that none of us can dispute because NO ONE can measure something that far back.

You can dispute all you want, and scientists do that all the time. It is how Physics gets its feedback to constantly improve. Just because you cannot see how it can be done does not mean that measurements cannot be done, accurately and reliably. To deny deep time is to put yourself on the wrong side of history.

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,

How can dinosaurs be that old when it says that God created the creatures on the 6th day, right before He created man. That would make the dinosaurs not older than man and buffaloes, and alligators, and probably cockroaches. That means ~6,000 years ago, right?

An Abundance Of Blessing, From God, Upon You And Your Household!!

Michael

yes... God did create everything about 6000 years ago. C14 dating is just one of MANY methods to help confirm the truth of God's Word. But, as Christians the most reliable way we know about our beginnings is the historical record supplied by the One who was there.

 

[Hawkins]

Uh huh.
And scientists are all members of a conspiracy...
There is no fact that will change a Creationist's mind.

Scientists are working under limits. They become much less efficient under the circumstance that repetition of the study object cannot be observed.