The Christian God, the only God
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Stuart
And how is the whatever all around us not proof of Zeus, a non-christian god?
Stuart
I remind all of the silliness of the suggestion that water flowing onto the end of a tectonic plate would cause the plate to buckle and form mountains.
When you finally give an answer and I proceed to ask why you chose that answer, that is what makes a troll? Goofy definitions you creationists have.
Not gonna change your diaper for you. When you are ready to give an answer with some actual meaningful content in it, let me know.
Why does the level of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere have to be at equilibrium?
How much moon dust do you think there should be to be compatible with an old earth?
Specifically what about Saturn’s rings shows they were recently formed?
This exchange is pursuant to Lon bringing up the claim that a careful examination of the logic used by Einstein (and Spinoza) proves that a God has to exist.
Jose Fly
New member
Oh Davis.....really? You're going to follow Rosenritter's red herrings?
Have fun reading a bunch of copy and pasted creationist webpages, responding, and seeing RR ignore your responses and just throw out more red herrings and copied articles.
It's called "sitting at the end of the creationist conveyor belt".
Asking why you choose Brown over Baumgardner is a reasonable question.
If he thinks he has legitimate arguments that have not been answered, I would like to see what they are. If it turns out he is just parroting stale arguments, then that will show him to be a troll.
Jose Fly
New member
Well if you look at the post where he first put up those old stale talking points, they had absolutely nothing to do with what he was supposed to be responding to.
And if you're waiting for him to ignore responses and just keep posting more copied creationist nonsense, then you can stop waiting. He's done that already (HERE and my response HERE).
But then if you're willing to sit at the bottom of that conveyor belt and respond to whatever goofy stuff he sends down, only to have him ignore your responses and just send down even more goofy stuff, then have at it.
And if you're waiting for him to ignore responses and just keep posting more copied creationist nonsense, then you can stop waiting. He's done that already (HERE and my response HERE).
But then if you're willing to sit at the bottom of that conveyor belt and respond to whatever goofy stuff he sends down, only to have him ignore your responses and just send down even more goofy stuff, then have at it.
And lying doesn't make you not a troll.
Rosenritter
New member
Jose, I have a question for you. Does your understanding of the workings of our world around us (aka "science") allow for the earth to be older than the surrounding solar system?
If yes, then I understand your objection, and this is indeed a red herring.
If no, then the question is entirely relevant, and I appreciate a change of pace from the poop-slinging that sometimes abounds in these forums.
Rosenritter
New member
Yet the mountain ranges we see are composed of metamorphic rock, that has been folded and bent. Other areas of the earth are covered with sedimentary layers. That is not inconsistent with the mountain ranges being pushed up and sediment being washed down into the lower places.
I would also like to post this reminder that I have consistently objected that I did not accept the theory / equations that proposed an absurd heat value would result from increased water weight deforming tectonic plates. That such an argument was assigned to me and then argued against to such a degree seems to be an illustration of the "straw man" argument.
Asking why you choose Brown over Baumgardner is a reasonable question, not a lie.
Rosenritter
New member
Well, under an old earth interpretation of the world, the problem is that carbon 14 is something that is (mostly) produced when the sun interacts with the earth atmosphere. If you start counting from when the planet has carbon in the air to react with the sun's radiation, carbon-14 starts to be produced, and at the same time starts to decay. The more radioactive carbon in the air, the faster it decays, until after a sufficiently long period of time the amounts entering and exiting in this fashion arrive at a balance.
Radioactive atmospheric carbon does not have to be at equilibrium according to my understanding of our world, but it is required by the old earth theory. The typical evolution theory requires an extremely old earth to allow for a near infinity of time to allow for "evolution" to happen... a process that is so slow that no one has ever observed it in action. It somehow seems more plausible if "millions of years" is prefixed to the explanations.
The entire carbon-14 dating scheme makes the assumption that radioactive carbon in the atmosphere is constant and has always been at current levels. If the earth is indeed extremely old, then this would be the expected result. But using an assumption of "old earth" (for constant C14 levels) as a way to generate numbers (from measuring C14 levels) to prove "old earth" is a classic example of circular reasoning.
On the other hand, if Carbon-14 is still increasing and has not reached equilibrium, that would be consistent with what one would expect from a young earth. I have seen evolutionists react to this before. Whereas before they insisted that C14 was constant and could always be relied on, afterwards the argument changes that now C14 must be fluxing back and forth. they figure. I suppose "unreliable" feels better than "plain wrong."
Do you remember anyone putting forth a study to make sure that Carbon-14 was both constant and at equilibrium before it was assumed to be so for the purpose of dating organic samples? Because with the wrong assumptions in place, measuring an early sample from a young earth could appear to absurdly old, simply because its world wouldn't have accumulated the present-day levels of C14.
Again, according to my theory, the pre-flood world had a different atmosphere than today's world: Genesis describes an environment with "no rain", where "mists covered the earth", and where life forms didn't age as fiercely as today. That could be consistent with a planet that was less subject (or perhaps shielded) from radiation. After the end of that flood, recorded life spans started to decrease in a nice mathematical curve, approaching today's accepted norms. (We realize today that radiation has a large effect on our aging process.)
Anyway, just recapping your question. Why does atmospheric radioactive carbon have to be at equilibrium? Because an increasing amount indicates a young earth, and a variable amount nullifies the accuracy of numbers obtained through carbon dating. The circular reasoning employed to proclaim Carbon dating reliable demonstrates the bias present within that community.
- Status