Awww man this stuff is so funny to me. It is now blatently obvious that you have no regard for any evidence at all and
everything you say is based on the already drawn, unscientific claims of the bible. Now I have to ask, why do you even
bother trying to get into an argument on this level? Why do you bother with evidence. It's clear that it's all
faith at this point. What I'm trying to say is pick a side, FAITH or EVIDENCE. There's no in between. What
you're spreading is stupidity, psuedo science, false information and outright lies. You make the world a sadder
place for the religious and non-religious alike. I take solace in the fact that we're probably the only two people
who have bothered to read this thread all the way through :)
And why exactly are you so hung up on the bible's literal accounts of what happened? Your stance would be so much
easier to appreciate if you didn't have to defend such ludacris stories. Noah's ark DID NOT HAPPEN. There is
NO faith at all in that statement. Such a huge event would leave a massive amount of evidence behind, yet there is
little to no evidence to support it. It just didn't happen.
If you want to use the bible to help you morally then fine, but don't pretend it's science because it
isn't.
Quote by Persocom01I'm
not obligated to prove it to you as I've never said that creation is a an undeniable scientific fact, nor did I
ever assert my position as "correct". You, however, regularly assert evolution as truth, and thus bear the
"burden of proof".
Uh huh. And I've provided it.
Quote: Don't know much about = cannot be fact (for a revision of the
definition of a fact, ask)
Yes about that specific part. You don't need the whole puzzle completed before you can see the picture.
Quote: Carbon-14 dating
If. The website already says that it's unrealible for anything over 50-60,000 years. If you want to put forth the
affirmative statement that "carbon-14 dating for objects millions of years old can be correct", prove it. Also
note that there are also people who believe Carbon-14 dating to be inaccurate for ages over
3-4,000.
You make an extremely strong case. For a completely different argument. Radiometric dating and carbon 14 dating are two
totally different methods. Carbon 14 is supported by tree rings and is extremely accurate between 150 years and 40,000
years.
And the people who believe carbon-14 is inaccurate over 4k years are people like you. Christian fundies.
"1. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement
that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as
50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with
younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12c released into the atmosphere from the
Industrial Revolution and excess 14c produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150
years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).
In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse
radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood")
or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the
carbon-14 dating method.
2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which
gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is
known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.;
Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results.
Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990)."
Quote: More stuff about micro vs macro
You know what...I'm having a difficult time taking anything you say even remotely seriously at this point. If I
can't even show you that noah's ark is an impossibility then this stuff is truly out of your league. I mean
you actually believe dinosaurs and humans lived together at the same time. If anyone is still reading this thread
(doubtful) and ever took anything perso said seriously, I want you to smack yourself right now.
Quote: Who said that they eat mainly humans anyway? (Jurassic park is not
proof) And why would humans go to another animal's habitat and get themselves eaten?
Dude it was ALL dinosaur habitat. And humans are not exactly fast nor strong, if I was a dino humans would be like a
free meal to me. RAWR! (how's that for scientific?)
The egyptians probably had raptors climbing up their pyramids and pterodactls attacking their farms along the river
banks, it was pandamonium man! The romans would capture dinosaurs and have gladiators fight them in the arena. Then
there were the ninja squads from japan that hunted down the dinos to protect their villages! That's it! It
wasn't a meteor, it was humans that hunted the dinos down to extinction! SWEET! Anyone who disagrees is a devil
worshiping heathen who's gonna burn in hell for all eternity and be mauled by random dinosaurs while being beaten
with a copy of The Selfish Gene!
Oh here's something I just recently came across....
"Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
(Creationist Institute of California). Refuted. Institute discredited and licence (to grant science degrees) recently
revoked."
Ouch! Good thing I already got my degree in Truthology from Christian Tech!
Quote: Noramally very special conditions are required for
fossilization:
1. A quick and deep burial.
2. Water, in the right amounts.
3. Suitable minerals.
Also note that of the millions (or thousands) of specimens of a living species alive during an era, there can be as few
as 2 (or no) complete fossils, and that only around 1% of vertebrate fossils found consist of more than a single bone.
It's unreasonable to expect a human fossil to be found with a dinosaur fossil even if they existed together.
Moreover, humans are unlikely to live with wild animals, let alone dinosaurs.
How come you can use the "it's hard to find fossils" excuse but I can't? Doesnt' really seem
fair....I'm gonna go pout now.
Quote: From the Bible:
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and
his force [is] in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped
together. His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron." - Job 40:15-18
No animal alive today fits this description. It does however sounds alot like a plant eating
dinosaur.
lolz!
"The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail.
"Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is,
"His penis stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison
referred to its virility."
Nah you're right...It was probably a biblical dinosaur! Infact I'm not sure which one of these makes me giggle
more.
Quote: And about the separation... fossilization was most likely to occur
during the great flood and unlikely to occur after. For a creature as large as the dinosaur, any burial, let alone a
quick and deep one, requires a great deal of earth to be moved. This condition is provided by the great flood. Under
non-flood conditions, bodies tend to be scavanged, taken apart... etc (what you see on discovery channel) and are not
fossilized. That brings us to the other question by logic:
Why are there no human fossils during the
flood?
Hahahahaha. This made my day. I knew it was only a matter of time before you started dropping christian answers links on
me. I'll continue to humor you but to be perfectly honest right here is where I officially declare VICTORY! I just
impaled a living dinosaur with a flag right this second.
Anyway I can't be bothered to actually read much of christian answers because every second I spend on that page I
can literally feel myself growing stupider. So instead, here's a quick review of that specific page...
"Let's take the following nonsense for truth... just for a moment. We've already been told that dinosaurs
lived with Adam & Eve and went on Noah's Ark. And, that fossils aren't old and were just a result of the
Great Flood. And, that sedimentary rock formations are laid down in hours and minutes. So, wouldn't we find all the human sinners and heathens that died in the Great Flood RIGHT NEXT TO THE
DINOSAUR FOSSILS? Well, we would but according to www.ChristianAnswers.net, the reason we haven't is because of a bunch of
shoddy work by paleontologist! Scientists are expected to take blame for not producing
the creationist evidence?! The site states, "There are some claims and reports of human artifacts...
However, many of these claims are not adequately documented in any scientific sense. Often lay scientists claiming to
have found human artifacts or fossils have not recorded specific location details. ALSO, lay scientists have in the past
not kept some of the rock which encloses the fossil or artifact as proof of its in situ occurrence. These two oversights
have often made it well nigh impossible to reconstruct and/or prove where fossils or artifacts came from, thus rendering
such finds virtually useless." [7] Bad Scientists! BAD! Surely, the exact
opposite is true: Paleontologists take excruciating pain to preserve all evidence related to human fossil records
because of their importance."
Quote: Noah's Ark
I'll say it is possible. There's always another side to an argument.
Ohhhhh, CHRISTIANANSWERS.NET says the ark is possible? Well gee now I'm stumped. Just imagining all the scientific
experments that go on behind the scenes of that website makes me quiver with joy. I mean everyone else might say that a
450 foot long wooden boat would be an unstable piece of crap but now I'm finally convinced!
Quote: What happened to the water? And where did it
go?
Haha. [See comic at top]
Quote: About the mountains: why should they be?
Uh...because there was supposedly a massive flood? I don't understand the question.
Quote: Also note that present day mountains might not have existed during
the flood.
The more I talk to you the more I think that maybe this forum is a connection to an alternate dimension, where I'm
in a normal reality and you're in some weird christian reality.
Quote: Fossils of sea creatures have been found on
mountains.
"1. Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed
happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and
paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were
not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
2. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
* Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
* In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited
by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
* Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the
sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea."
Quote: The rate of evaporation after the flood can result in snowfall over
the greenland ice cap being much larger than what is observed under modern climatic conditions. With this assumption,
dating modern ice cores will also be inaccurate.
If there was a flood IT WOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST FREAKIN PLACE. The ice caps would have been floated off their
beds and destroyed and it would have been impossible to grow back under modern conditions.
The icecores show no evidence of massive geological changes (Massive floods).
Quote: Is ice core dating
accurate?
Yeah it's accurate, and I'm not reading that whole page. Specify exactly what your point is so I can refute
it.
Quote: A massive extinction of what? Fish?
"In the initial part of the Flood we would expect large numbers of fossils and a large number of species to go
extinct. However no baramin of land animals or birds would go extinct [Gen 7:3]. Extinction is possible for fish or
plant baramins. Each land animal baramin would be reduced to a single species. Bird baramins may have more than one
species as there were evidently both ravens and doves on the ark; I am not sure if these two are in the same baramin or
in different baramins."
So yeah sure...fish...pretty much anything really.
Quote: Besides, thare's the possiblity that the (current) sea floor
did not exist during those times. Remember that fossils of sea creatures have been found on mountains. There's
reason to believe that the sea floor hasn't always been the sea floor. (plate
tectonics)
"1. Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics:
* Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot
spots." Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much
older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require.
* Catastrophic plate tectonics says that all ocean floor should be essentially the same age. But both radiometric dating
and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years
old.
* As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling
appropriate for its age, assuming gradual spreading.
* Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains. The tops were eroded flat from a long time at the ocean surface, and they
sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and
sink.
* Runaway subduction does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate.
2. Catastrophic plate tectonics has no plausible mechanism. In particular, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle,
the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under
conventional physics.
3. Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the evidence already and does a much better job of it. It explains
innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada,
salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania (McPhee 1998). It requires no extraordinary mechanisms to do so.
Catastrophic plate tectonics would be a giant step backwards in the progress of science."
Quote: I'm curious to know how you got the figure 10,000, because I
can't find reliable records of that. However on the topic of tree ring dating:
*sigh*
Yeah of course you can't when you look at nothing but sites called "apologeticspress" and
"answersingenesis".....Christ!
This should explain tree-ring dating if you don't understand it.
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
At the bottom I think it says it says up to about 9000 years. I know for a fact that there's dead wood from
wisconsin at like 11,800 years but I'm not sure if they actually use those for dating. There's probably older
trees but I'm not gonna bother looking them up. You could probably find stuff on dead wood if you wanted to.
Quote: Tree ring dating
Review of dating methods
Also on tree ring
dating
This is why we don't use christian propaganda sites for evidence. Scientific confidence in tree ring dating has
been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote: 1. I believe that that's what seeds are
for.
- Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. This is especially true if they were
soaked in salt water. Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive
the Flood itself, but what of the rest?
- Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent
spouting.
- Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood.
- Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be
rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood.
- Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds
can't survive a year before germinating. [Garwood, 1989; Benzing, 1990; Densmore & Zasada, 1983] Also, how did
he distribute them all over the world?
Quote: 2. What about saltwater and freshwater
fish?
Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood
would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
Quote: 3. Why would coral reefs be destroyed? (more detailed explanation if
you may.)
[url=http://www.coralreefalliance.org/aboutcoralreefs/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=72[/url]
Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut
them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral.
Corals are extremely fragile and support a lot of marine life, they couldn't possibly survive a flood.
Quote:
Doubtful? That's not proof that it didn't happen. And "Isolated populations with fewer than 20 members
are usually doomed even when extraordinary measures are taken to protect them" refers to the present day context I
believe, and are not neccessarily true for the time period in question.
Yeah present day context, with a lot of human help and technology at their disposal they still can't do it at
times.
And sure "doubtful" isn't proof that it didn't happen, but it sure as hell doesn't help your
flood and there's plenty of ACTUAL proof that it didn't happen (Which you also readily ignore).
Quote: How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as
Australia?
Yay more christiananswers.net stuff! Notice how they have no evidence and they just kinda make up ways for the animals
to get where they should be! Geez even when making stuff up without the restrictions of needing evidence they STILL do a
pretty awful job of it. I think they should just replace every article on that site with the phrase "goddidit"
in big bold letters.
Quote:
Note in the Biblical world view, living things were created perfect and degenerated from there due to sin. There were no
"Harmful recessive alleles" (which are the result of mutations that evolutionists are so fond of) originally
and thus inbreeding is not a problem.
For related information on this issue:
Yeah that was during the garden of eden times. Get your mythology straight buddy :) Inbreeding would have been a problem
in noah's time.
Quote: 1. The Bible is historical. Moreover there were legends about the
flood in different cultures as far as I've heard. (if you want more information, ask)
"Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if
they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity.
[Bailey, 1989, pp. 5-10; Isaak, 1997] For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as
on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again."
"Why should we expect Genesis to be accurate? We know that other people's sacred stories change over time
[Baaren, 1972] and that changes to the Genesis Flood story have occurred in later traditions [Ginzberg, 1909; Utley,
1961]. Is it not reasonable to assume that changes occurred between the story's origin and its being written down
in its present form?"
Quote: 2. What makes you doubt the reproductive ability of
humans?
Well I sure as hell don't doubt mine. Nevertheless siring an entire city within 150 years seems like quite a
challenge don't you think?
"Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the
time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years
before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for
Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but
supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to
950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have
written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300
years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250
B.C."
"How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years
after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the
city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids,
rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc."
Quote: I must say it's been a pleasure up to this point.
However I'll rather you ask for for the purpose of seeking the truth and not for the purpose of belittling or
ridiculing others.
Sorry. I think I'm one of those arrogant intellectual atheists you hear so much about. Oh well. To be honest your
psuedo-science drives me to the brink of insanity. Sorry if I vent a bit.
Quote: "give or take a few million" - Plunkies
Even scientists don't believe that the margin of error is that small. If you do, prove
it.
Heh, I was just being cute. However...
"The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or
minus about 1%)."
Here's a link everyone but you
can visit
Here's a highlight.....
"Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence
that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and
crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several
radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as
4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in
age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as
old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55
billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth
and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A
plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204."
From there it gets somewhat complicated and a bit boring, but you get the picture....(more devil science)
Quote: Besides, I've already said that there are possible flaws in
carbon-14 dating. And provide the evidence why you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old if you wish to state that
it is true.
Again you confuse carbon-14 dating with radiometric.
Quote: How can light get to us from stars which are millions of
light-years away in a universe which the Bible claims is only thousands of years old?
Gosh I really hate that silly site. I'll ignore the one that paints god as a lier and a deciever with his light
creating stuff. I don't see why your god wanted to go through all the trouble of tricking everyone into thinking
the Earth was old anyway....
On speed of light changes...
"1. The possibility that the speed of light has not been constant has received much attention from physicists, but
they have found no evidence for any change. Many different measurements of the speed of light have been made in the last
180 or so years. The older measurements were not as accurate as the latest ones. Setterfield chose 120 data points from
193 measurements available (see Dolphin n.d. for the data), and the line of best fit for these points shows the speed of
light decreasing. If you use the entire data set, though, the line of best fit shows the speed increasing. However, a
constant speed of light is well within the experimental error of the data.
2. If Setterfield's formulation of the changes in physical parameters were true, then there should have been 417
days per year around 1 C.E., and the earth would have melted during the creation week as a result of the extremely rapid
radioactive decay (Morton et al. 1983). "
Quote: Looking like a monkey is not valid evidence that we came from
ape-like ancestors, moreover, I do not think we look like monkeys.
Heh, I never meant to imply we look like monkeys. I was talking about the fossils :)
Quote: According to my bible commentry eating dust signifies a base or
dispicable condition, and since there is evidence that snakes did have legs at one point it supports the Bible
doesn't it?
Oh NOW the bible isn't literal. Fantastic....
Quote: Besides... you shouldn't assert that evolution is true when you
have yet to find a fossil of a 1/2 legged snake.
"Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes
might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000).
Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997)."
That sound you just heard was me screaming at the top of my lungs "BOOM! HEADSHOT!"
(Not that I'm one to gloat or anything :) )
Quote: Anyway... the list of "vestigial organs" has been
decreasing ever since their existance was first proposed. I don't know what other organs you have on your list but
they might not be there in future.
On vestigial organs
Are there really vestigal
organs?
Yeah you're right, even the appendix has a use!
"Its major importance would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession."
Quote: Besides, what I believe is grounded in the Bible. The Bible never
said that living things were incapable of change. So stick to proving the evolutionist claims that humans came from
ape-like ancestors, or birds came from reptiles, or a mammal went back into the sea and became a whale, since it
directly contradicts the Bible.
So you believe in science to the extent that it doesn't encroach on your mythology. At that point it's all bs
and devil-worshiping right?
