Notices
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 819
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: radio isotope dating question.

  1. #101 Re: Flood nonsense 
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    Jollybear has not answered Barry's query about varves. These are cyclical lake bed sediments. Their layers can be counted back, like the rings of a tree, uninterrupted for 12,000 years (to the end of the last ice age).
    You can almost add another zero for the longest uninterrupted lake varve count. 102,000 years for Lake Monticchio, Italy,

    102,000 annual sediment accumulations, convincing enough?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    so your a scientist. Interesting. So i am up ageanst a goliath here. I will continue to do my best, not being a scientist and all. However bare with me, im researching to find the best answers and rebuttles to your points, and gather my thoughts and understanding, and i'll be back with an answer to every point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    im researching to find the best answers and rebuttles to your points
    I have to say that it is not good to initially assume what you will find will be rebuttals. That means you enter your search with a preconceived viewpoint not based on facts. Most of the people here have done this research previously in contrast to you, who are starting from scratch basically. So for you to form a valid viewpoint, you have to look at both sides equally, otherwise you will never form a proper, informed opinion.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So for you to form a valid viewpoint, you have to look at both sides equally, otherwise you will never form a proper, informed opinion.
    Jollybear, Kalster makes an excellent point. In my professional life I am often involved in forensic investigation of equipment failures. A simple pair of alternatives exists in most cases: either the equipment had a defect, or the operating environment led to the failure.
    In the investigation I set out to prove, with direct, circumstantial and contextual evidence, that the equipment was not responsible. At the same time I set out to prove that it was. As the evidence develops and consequences are considered, examined, and accepted or rejected, one or other of these viewpoints begins to dominate based on the facts.
    At the end I shall have reached a conclusion in which my confidence level is high because I know I have not entered the investigation with a prejudice for one solution or another.
    You are entering this debate convinced of the rightness of your belief. You have not examined the data dispassionately, as many of us have done. It will be difficult for you to arrive at a truly objective viewpoint. If you are selective in your choice of evidence you will, rightly, be savaged by many on this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    I have read articles on both sides. Both from ceationism and evolutionism. However, i stand for young earth creationism, based on my stand for the bible. You also have made a stand, a stand for evolutionism and naturalism. Or are you telling me your open minded to believe in young earth and supernaturalism? I have heard of some people out to disprove christanity and in the process, became christains. Its not every case, but it is some cases. So, im out to disprove evolution and make it look bad. Perhaps in the process, i'll convert to evolutionism? I doupt it at this very moment in time. Or perhaps you will convert? You all think im closed minded. If i were closed minded i would not be on here debating and discussing. I am open minded, but not open hearted to the evolution belief. Open minded does not mean i doupt my belief either, it just means im open to discuss and debate, learn, and ask questions, and make points. Debating is another way of learning. Trust me, im learning a great deal from this discussion believe it or not. If you can convince me of evolution, i will believe it. So, if you win the debate, i will believe evolution. That means, this debate might last long. Because my faith in the bible is a stronghold. But i dont just believe it because i was raised that way, on the contrary, i was not raised that way, no one told me to read the bible, i just saw it in the droor and wanted to read it and it all sparked from their. Then i studied the other relegions and so on and so forth the journey started.

    However, bare with me, i have gathered my thoughts on all last points, i just have to gather some stuff on "melting of the earths crust" point. And the "recovery after the flood" point, and the varves point. I have tomorow and the next day off from work, so i should have my responce compleet by then. I printed off everyones responce, and made some notes, and i just got to type them in word perfect and i'll be all set to submit it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    ... Or are you telling me your open minded to believe in young earth and supernaturalism? ...
    you are right - this being a science forum, our minds are probably closed to young earth and supernaturalism, at least when doing science

    as far as the young earth is concerned, this was a debate that was held nearly 200 years ago, and has since been resoundingly decided in favour of the old earth - so if you decide to stick with the young earth, you are backing not only outdated, but also disproven science

    as far as supernaturalism is concerned, science is about explaining the world around us using natural means only
    to decide whether to go for naturalism or supernaturalism is every individual's choice, and sometimes the two can go hand in hand, but if you attempt to explain things using supernatural means, you can't claim to be doing science
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    so your a scientist. Interesting. So i am up ageanst a goliath here. I will continue to do my best, not being a scientist and all. However bare with me, im researching to find the best answers and rebuttles to your points, and gather my thoughts and understanding, and i'll be back with an answer to every point.
    Actually there are more scientists here at this board. And I am one of them. Started out as mineralogist and added two years in grad school to get my Masters Degree. You're not up against giants here, you are up against overwhelming evidence. The problem with "believers" is that you can show them [overwhelming evidence]^2 and most of the time the answer from the supers is: "I know what I know and you can't make me belive otherwise" in one form or another.

    So this makes "discussion" with supers pretty time consuming and often times annoying. And contrary to your believe - I guess Ophiolite mentioned it before - there is abundant evidence not only from one field of science that the earth is indeed 4.3 to 4.6 Billion years old.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
    So this makes "discussion" with supers pretty time consuming and often times annoying. And contrary to your believe - I guess Ophiolite mentioned it before - there is abundant evidence not only from one field of science that the earth is indeed 4.3 to 4.6 Billion years old.
    I spent the weekend reading a bunch of papers on subduction zones, metamorphism, terranes, etc. What struck me was the elegant, even beautiful way in which our understanding of the mechanisms involved explain all the complexity of field observations. The variations in mineralogy and petrology in a three dimensional setting makes sense in such a coordinated, inter-related manner, that the simplistic interpretations of Young Earth Creationists is an insult to God (if he exists, which is possible) and to their intelligence (if it exists, which is less plausible). That is what I find annoying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I spent the weekend reading a bunch of papers on subduction zones, metamorphism, terranes, etc. What struck me was the elegant, even beautiful way in which our understanding of the mechanisms involved explain all the complexity of field observations. The variations in mineralogy and petrology in a three dimensional setting makes sense in such a coordinated, inter-related manner, that the simplistic interpretations of Young Earth Creationists is an insult to God (if he exists, which is possible) and to their intelligence (if it exists, which is less plausible). That is what I find annoying.
    Sheesh....I hope I find the energy to do the same any time soon. There's simply too much material to wade through. But most of the time I end up reading stuff about process controll, DMAIC adn other job-related things.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
    Sheesh....I hope I find the energy to do the same any time soon.
    It was either that or help in the garden. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello all. Yes the Hebrews used metaphors in their writings, but not always, and even when they did, context tells you WHEN they did it. Why is the creation account in genesis 1 considered a metaphor, Adam and Eve a metaphor, the flood either a metaphor or local, the tower of babel a metaphor but the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the 12 patriarchs with Israelite bondage to Egypt NOT a metaphor? Those parts are considered literal parts of history. That is WAY inconsistent. Plus on top of that, context tells you what’s literal and what’s not. Again, fitting evolution with the bible is a compromise. You see, that’s picking and choosing what’s literal and what’s not based on what you WANT to believe and at the same time trying to hold onto background traditions. Its funny how everything supernatural in the bible becomes a metaphor while the natural parts are literal. That’s dishonest interpretation. Either believe it literally, or don’t believe it at all.

    I understand what kinds, species and variations are. Do you agree that wolfs are a species separate from German shepherd dogs? Well, I believe wolfs are amongst the same KIND, called “dog kind”. But their different species from the German shepherds(sort of like a variation). Now variations are German shepherds, labs, Pomeranians ext like what was said, but the wolf is a actual different species if you want to use that word species. Or unless you want to omit it altogether and just call wolf another variation(a more bigger variation) within the dog kind. Dictionary says kind is species, species is a kind. Now you might see this as hypocritical because its sort of believing in evolution. But its not believing in evolution, not micro, and especially not macro evolution(which obviously never happens). This is don through the original created kinds having all the information(DNA has allot of information) in them to pass down to their kids. No new information is created, hence being called micro/macro evolution. There is no new information being created as time passes, on the contrary, information either remains the same, gets lost, or distorted by mutations, but never gained. A mutation is NOT new information, it’s a mess up of the original information. Sort of like a copying machine or typewriter that has an error and smudges the copy. Did it create any new information? Not at all, it just smudged the previous information. Now the information that is in the original kind activates to cause variations through selection or adaptation to environments. In short, no kind changes to another kind of animal. Does not happen. However one kind has many variations, does happen. And did happen at creation, then happened again after the ark landed. When God created all the kinds of animals in genesis chapter 1, he did not create every variation, only the kinds, and from the kinds produced variations. It’s the same with Adam and eve, from them, came Chinese, blacks, Indians, whites, ext. Did God create every variety of human in genesis chapter 1? No, its not their in the record, to interpret it otherwise is incorrect. So likewise with all the KINDS of animals, from them came variations. They produced variations after their own kind. Why don’t I allow more variation within a kind? Because there is a limitation within variation. Also if you say that much variation cannot happen within 6 thousand years, why then has some evolutionists made the claim that evolution can happen rapidly within a short period of time? Like a species can be going along being a species for thousands of years, or millions by your timescale, then within a hundred years or so, evolve to another species swiftly. This is called “punctuated equilibrium”. So if some evolutionists make that claim, me making the claim that all the variations of each kind can happen within a 6 thousand year period, is very feasible in their sight. So why not yours? Oh yes, you must be a different branch.

    So my stand still remains, Noah only needed less then 16 thousand animals on board the ark of original kinds. Given exactly 16 thousand would be a generous number.

    In the bible it talks about two sources for the flood waters, rain, and the flood gates of the deep. The flood gates of the deep could be logically interpreted as deep springs within the earth AND lava. Lava is 70% water in the form of steam. This would cause steam jets into the air and would cause global massive rain as well. Why or how would the lava come you asked? Same way it does now, pressure. How did the pressure form, the same way it forms now to cause volcano’s, plate tectonic movements form pressure. How does that happen, even now? God does it. So how did it happen on a grander scale back then in Noah’s day? God did it. When a plant grows you might say rain did it, or fertilizer did it, or both did it, or the ground did it, or all three did it. But all those are wrong, God gave the ground to it, God gave the rain to it, God gave the fertilizer to it and God gives the actual shape to the plant by his own invisible hand. You can just trace it all back to God. You cant kick God out of the scene, he is in every scene right now, even in your life. God makes the plant grow, weather supernaturally way back in genesis chapter 1, or right now, NATURALLY. Either way, God still makes it grow. Just in most cases, he makes it grow naturally. But he still DOES IT. He is the sustaining creator and grower of what he creates. All the earth does not do nothing without his command or say so. If he decided one day to completely separate himself from his whole creation, the earth would collapse and stop running. Instantly everything would die. Everything would stop moving, radiating, doing its functions in the earth, sky, everything.

    The bible does NOT change its message. It can be changed to different languages, but the language does not change its message. That is a fact. Translation of a language to another is NOT interpretation. Interpretation is explaining the message that is stated in whatever language it’s in at the time. Like we both have don above. You interpreted the genesis account as metaphor, I have interpreted it as literal, but we both have derived our interpretations from a English translation of the bible. We can both read from the English King James bible, or New International Version and have two different interpretations. FROM THE SAME BIBLE. So interpretation and translation are different.

    As for transcription errors, I have already explained twice how this could not have happened. With the comparison of the dead sea scrolls to our modern day bible of today. Showing the scribes did a good job. Plus copying machines which are modern, makes the error less even ten times over.

    As for the canon of the bible not being constant. I will agree here, to an extent. The modern day bible we have today, is complete in its revelation. However at one time, it was not complete. For example in the time of Moses he only had the creation, Adam/Eve, flood and patriarch stories with him, along with the law God gave him on the mountain. So yes, the bible was progressive, because of history and his progressive plan. However, each person had the information they needed at each period of time. Moses said it like this in Deuteronomy 29:29 “the secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us and our children forever.” Another brief example is the prophesies of the messiah, they were not fulfilled in Moses day, but later on down the time line. Then the new testament gets made, and walla completion becomes more progressive. That does not mean Gods will is not complete at any given period of time, for it is. Anyways, this is a subject that should remain brief because it does get off topic I agree. However, I just have to address it since im always up for defending the bible. Now weather you don’t believe the bible is true or not, is your choice, but at least make sure it’s represented correctly. That way you can make a objective choice. Might not be the right choice, but at least an objective one.

    You said the bible is not documented history. I agree its not a history book. It was not made for that purpose. However it has history IN it, and the history that is in it, is I believe true. If you say it has no history in it, and say I need a reality check, this either comes from your belief, or comes from discrepant evidence. And if it does, what might your evidence be for example?(only answer that if you want to get off topic, *hehe* :P ) I also agree that the bible is not a science book, it also was not made for that purpose, however it does have science in it.

    If the whole population of Milton Keynes saw an entire choir of angels, hallucinations would be a very unlikely source. The whole population now. If the whole world saw a choir of angels, it would be very unlikely it would be hallucinations.

    What’s funny is, I have never seen ghosts in my life and I believe they exist and the spirit realm is a normal part of creation. Yet you seen ghosts with your naked eye and still you don’t believe. What then will it take for you to believe? That’s like me if I said I see a computer in front of me, im typing on it, but my computer that I see, it don’t exist. You said hallucinations are a part of nature. I put it this way, the spirit realm or the realm of spirits are a part of nature, or creation. You are a spirit inside a physical body. When you die, your going to have a near death experience, which many of them are claimed and has been explained away. But after your dead for about a half hour to an hour lets say, you will notice that your still conscious and still aware of things, and when that happens, your going to be very alarmed, then you will say “oh o, I was wrong”. But your conscious state will not be in heavens land, but the doomsday place. However I don’t want that to be anyone’s reality here. I would not wish that on my worst enemy. Nor do I state it as a fear tactic as some arguments are out their that say such things. My motive is not instilling fear. Plus I assume you don’t fear it anyways, for if you did, that would mean you believe it, which your telling me you don’t. It’s funny you don’t discount the near death experiences, but yet you do by excepting the explained away statements of biochemical/physiological brain responses. These explanations basically are saying that after the brain reacts like this, it dies out and no more consciousness. Oh, really. Prove it. Actually you ask me for proof of the spirit realm, you got it already, you saw two ghosts. Im asking you to prove there is no spirit realm, you cant prove it don’t exist. And why would you, you got actual prove it does.

    As for you seeing incorrectly the football scene, then later on tv seeing you were mistaken. Not all cases are unclear as yours was here. Seeing a ghost, and that twice, is un mistakenly clear. My mom seeing a angel come right in front of here, is un mistakenly clear. My pastor seeing his sidekick get flung against the wall, is un mistakenly clear, not to mention his friend is not a ghost of any sort, he was a living person, floating in the air, against the wall. You cant mistake those things. Me speaking in another tongue under a strong influence outside myself was un mistakenly clear to me. No I was not drunk.

    Barry you said science is one belief, but religion is not universal and is many ideas. I have to say, this is a grave twist. Science, and the theory of evolution is one belief, granted, but there is many different mechanism that each one claims. Some say evolution works this way, some say that way, some say this way, ext. It’s the same with spiritual religions, some say this is how God is, some say no, this Is how he is. Some say this is his ways, some say no, this is his law. So evolution works no different then many other religions do along with their branches. Evolution, yes one belief, but has many branches, just like religion, Christianity, Muslim and what have you. Example, Christianity is one belief, two branches are Baptist and Pentecostal. Evolution is one belief, two branches are “mutation theory” and “natural selection” and many more.
    Also truth is truth weather one believes it or not, false is false weather one believes it or not. Truth is not truth because one believes it, and false is not false because one believes it so. Truth and false have no barring on our belief.

    Ophiolite you said my vision is too simple and blind, and you said this based on your belief that you don’t know if there is a God or not. Your undecided on that matter. My question is, if your not sure there is a God, how can you be so sure of what his grand rich vision is? For someone so uncertain of the existence of God, he sure sounds like he is sure of what his vision is as if he were existent. How do you know my vision is too simple if you don’t even know there is a God or not? Keep in mind, your only getting the tail end of my vision because this is a debate on beliefs, im not actually telling you the in-depth treasures of my beliefs. So how can you say its simple? The grand things of the spirit realm, the presence of God, peace, joy, revelation, and spiritual knowledge one can receive and satisfy their hungry curious soul can be don through true religion, which I would call revelation of Gods word. Also the spirit realm interacts with the physical realm(which you are so clung to). So it does not throw out the physical realm(which you call the much more grand rich revelation); which is not the much more rich revelation without the spirit and God. The physical is like the pealing skin on a apple, the spirit realm is like the rich apple within the skin going down to the core. Anyhow, I know it sounds like im ranting on and on, but im actually only scratching the surface here.

    How did the fish survive the flood? SOME fish can survive in both salt AND fresh water. Some fish can tolerate low and high temperatures as long as there are prolonged adaptation periods. This would all be going on in the flood. Also many fish can survive turbid waters up to “100,000 ppm” for one week or more and 100,000 is very turbid. Also it’s not likely that every part of the global flood was 100,000 ppm. Plus even if there is parts in the flood that had turbidity up to that amount, which more then likely yes it would, the number would go up and down. Hence the fish could survive easily. As for brackish water, not every single part of space within the water would be brackish. Remember a global flood is allot of space. No one took a big huge spoon and stirred up the flood waters as if it were a boul of soup now, it was like stale juice, the powdery stuff on the bottom, the watery stuff likely on the top. Plus fish would have a feast of dead humans, animals ext. Food is certainly no worry. Also look at spirit lake from mt st Helens eruption. After 10 years the fish reestablished themselves in that lake. Yes some or allot of fish in the global flood would have died, perhaps some almost to extinction, but many would have survived. Remember now, all that NEEDS to survive is TWO of every kind of fish, male and female. That’s all you really need to get it reestablished. And more then likely, allot more then one of each kind survived.

    As for seeds surviving to regrow stuff, that’s easy. Flouting debre can carry certain insects, and certain seeds, so after the flood subsides the seeds would fall to the ground, and start to grow. Yes of course some seeds would parish, but some seeds would survive through flouting debre. Not to mention Noah probably(account does not say one way or the other) took on board seeds of every kind to plant his garden after the landing of the ark. Plus probably took with him other types of seeds just to regrow some stuff. Then all the other seeds from flouting rafts would be growing all over the planet on top of that. Plus certain insects surviving on the flouting rafts as well in dry parts. Plus they don’t breath as we do. They can survive that way. Plus Noah could have brought them on the ark. But even if he did not, they could still survive in great numbers on flouting rafts and vegetation. Yes some would parish, but not all. There is many cases. You say my vision is simple, yours is too general, which is simple.

    As for 8 people looking after thousands of sea sick animals for a year being absurd, I read a article that said that a small group of farmers can raise thousands of animals in small spaces all by themselves. So if they can do that, surely Noah can pull this off. Plus those 185 staff + 74 temporary don’t just look after the animals, but take care of business, take care of visitors, costumers, along with taking care of the animals. In Noah’s case, omit business, visitors and costumers, and all you got is animal care. He can pull it off. Plus if he had water pipes and food already stored in bundles by the cages, this would make his job easier. Plus keep in mind, he don’t have a job, or anything else to do, or place to go, except stay on that ark. He’s got lots of time on his hands for one year. Remember this is not a comfort trip, this is a survival trip. Plus I also read a article about a lion who never eat meat, only milk and certain vegetables and stuff. NO MEAT. That is a fact, this certain lion. So who says the animals could not have eaten vegetables on the ark? Or before Adam and Eve sinned especially. You generalize too much. And that lion was doing just swell. Here is the article about it too by the way. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...22/i2/lion.asp

    As for diseases surviving the flood, I apologize I misunderstood the question before. I thought he was asking me how did they survive disease, and not how did the diseases survive. Sorry. Well, the diseases would survive through the hosts of many on the ark. Their immune power was such that they would not get sick, and their immune power was not strong enough to blow the disease completely out either. It would just suppress the disease. Plus some diseases are symptomless. Also some diseases are choosy about their host, so it could be in some animals aboard the ark, but not spread to everyone. Some diseases can survive outside the body, so don’t necessarily have to be aboard the ark, but can be inside insects on the floating rafts. Plus not every disease again has to be on the ark, because some new strands of disease have been traced back from old ones. So their could have been “original kinds” of diseases on board the ark, and they produced variations of diseases today. Smallpox for example was traced back to cowpox, so measles are probably a variation from rinderpest or canine distemper and influenza from hog diseases. Plus the healthy germ point I made earlier still stands. After the flood healthy germs could have been destroyed more, hence activating more diseases.

    You said my argument of supporting the bible is circular. Evolution also has circular reasoning. Example is rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks. Also the footnote for the lab “we don’t date rocks under a million years old”. So one has to assume first the age. That’s circular. However I will support the biblical long ages with outside sources. The flood event has ancient records in many cultures around the world that have stated long ages for people, not just the bible. There is a flood story for allot of places all over the world, with those stories, comes long ages, funny how it all goes together huh? Example is the Acadian king list, one king ruled around 4 thousand years. Another ruled 125 If I recall correctly. Now the bible says it was in the 900s not above 1 thousand. So this king ruling for 4 thousand years, in my opinion he has a pretty fat ego if you ask me. I think he slightly exaggerated, him being from a pagan culture and all, those kings call themselves gods anyways. However I do believe he lived to a normal age of around 800 to 900, which would have been normal before the flood, NOT supernatural though, but natural, however normal for that time. There are other examples, but I will let it suffice for now.

    I also agree that death and disease was very much a part of life before the flood, however it got worse AFTER the flood. Ages got shorter after the flood in genesis, also in other ancient writings as well.

    You said that carnivores if left to their own devices after being let off the ark would devour each other, which means certain kinds would get eaten and become extinct. Well If God brought the animals aboard the ark as the bible says, then surely its not to hard for God to keep them peacefully during this event in order to get things reestablished. Plus they could eat more dried meat, and vegetables. Especially while the vegetation is growing back, they could eat that until things get established. I already gave the example of the lion who never eat meat, that actually happened. Also for the humidity taking out the dryness in the food, that would only happen if the humidity was steam, which is unlikely. Plus he could also have salted the food. Plus store it in sealed jars too. There is many options to pull it off.

    The few dinosaurs on board the ark, yes they could still eat the grass. You made a point that on the surface appears good, saying a t rex and many animal fossils have been found to have bones crunched up of their last meal in them. I agree 100%. Im not saying they were not carnivores, and most of them eat meat before the flood and after the flood. I believe that, I agree with you. However the TWO of each KIND of dinosaur on the ark DID NOT have to eat the meat of the other animals on the ark. They could have eaten dried vegetables, dried meat, or vegetables that grew back after the flood until things got reestablished. That means almost ALL of the fossils would have evidence of meat or bones in the carnivores, because it was only FEW on the ark amongst the millions that got destroyed by the flood. And the flood would fossilize most of these carnivores.

    You said that carnivores not eating meat but vegetables is nonsense. However before Adam sinned it was not nonsense, because death and killing was not part of the created plan, it was only after the sin that things went this way. And I gave you an example already about the certain lion who did well and never eat meat as to back me up on this. So they can survive this way.

    My assumptions are not special pleading, I believe evolutionists are making special pleading. I believe my logic is more reasonable then theirs. Also those that believe in evolution without God, that is even ten times more special pleading on top of the other pleads. Im assuming Noah’s flood was true, im assuming evolution is false. Your assuming Noah’s flood is false, and your assuming evolution is true. Non of us really can prove it 100% either way. However, I believe my evidence is stronger and more logical then yours by a long shot at that.
    As for “God did it” by bringing the animals to the ark, this is not a copout. Im not using that as an escape to win the argument, im using that because I honestly believe it, because the account says it. Its not a copout, but honest belief. Plus if there is a God, one cannot discount his role. And if there is a God, one cannot discount that he has power OVER his creation and not the apposite. Those things I have been saying that are assumptions, those are ideas on how young earth creationists figure Noah pulled it off, however some of those ideas do not come from the actual account itself. So what the actual account says is what I stand on dogmatically. The other things are ideas that could change, but so far they seam to be pretty good ideas on how the details worked. However the account itself only speaks generally of the event. The account does not say the details worked like this and it does not say it did not. But if the account is true, then these ideas are pretty plausible.

    Also if the account is true, then one can not change the account. And if its true that God sent the animals to the ark, then it stands to reason that he dispersed them to their proper havens after the landing of the ark. Also I don’t believe God materialized them to the ark, like bam boon they disappeared them reappeared In the ark. I believe God gave them supernatural running steam power to get their. Although the account itself is silent on that detail, this is my opinion on it and I believe this because there is a story about a man named Elijah in the bible who when Gods Spirit came on him, he ran faster then a full speed galloping horse, that had a head start. And he outran the horse. This story was after the time period of king David. I know what you might be thinking, its all crazy. However, its not, its reasonable. I know this sounds circular, but I am also using the sediments and fossils for my flood evidence, and im using other ancient records to support me as well. So im not just using the bible for evidence for the bible.

    Egyptian history BEGINS AFTER 3 thousand BC. Noah’s flood happens around 2 thousand 5 hundred BC. Egyptian PRE history was probably VERY short, not 500 years of laying the foundations. It don’t take that long to lay foundations. So the flood would not completely interrupt their massive constructions, since the pre history was very, very short. So the actual beginning is 3 thousand BC for Egypt. As for the Indus civilization period of 3300-1700 BC, that does not contradict the flood. If the date was actually 1700, then yes it would contradict the flood date. However it is between 3300 to 1700. So more then likely it was 3000 to 3300 BC. Hence, no contradiction. Hence also, the archeologists are RIGHT, not wrong.

    The complete compilation of the epic of Gilgamish predates the complete compilation of the genesis account, granted, however their could have and I would say most likely been another compilation record of genesis that was passed down from Adam, or their sons to Noah and then down to Abraham, then down to Moses, and then Moses made a completely new compilation of the same record. If this is how it was, then the bibles message would thus be older then the epic of Gilgamish, since it’s the true account and Gilgamish’s account is not. Also another idea is that even though the epic was written down before Moses wrote genesis, second written does not necessarily mean the first is more true. If that were the case, older evolution textbooks should be more true then up to date ones in your eyes. So first written is not necessarily more accurate. Also God could have gave it to Moses by revelation later on after the epic was written. The epic was just a distorted view of how the flood actually happened. Noah’s was just the true record. This means either way Moses did not get his inspiration from Gilgamish, but either from God directly, or from a tablet record passed down from Abraham. And it is generally agreed upon that reading and writing went as far back as Hammurabi, centuries BEFORE Abraham, which would be before Noah’s time period. That means most likely Noah wrote it down on tablets and passed it on and it got to Moses. Plus by the standards of logic and science if any of these two accounts are true, Noah’s flood would be the true one, based on it being more logical and scientific. Noah’s ark design was more safer for the sea then Gilgamish’s ark. Plus Noah sending out the dove last and the raven first is more logical then the rider on the ark in the epic sending out the dove first and raven last. Since the raven will eat anything it makes more since to send it last, since the last periods is where most of the flood would be subsided. So sending out a dove first to a allot of water would not make since. So Noah’s account makes more since logically and scientifically. As I said before, I am not naive to the fact that their can be many distorted hoaxes of a true event.

    As for the continental drift now and it melting the earths crust through Noah’s flood. Let me give you a website to explain this. My understanding of this is their, but not fully. So here is a source. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...late-tectonics

    You said if God was so powerful, he could give us free will without it all going wrong. If that was so, then he would not have given free will. If someone did not do wrong, then he would have taken free will back. Yes God is all powerful, but free will means he GAVE us SOME power to choose. Does that mean he is now no longer all powerful? No, he is still all powerful In the since of his authority and justice over us. So him giving free will, then making it all turn out good would be in essence him taking back free will. By your logic, sounds like God don’t know what he is doing. I believe he knows what he is doing. If he takes free will away, we become robots. How boring that would be. No one could choose to serve him or reject him, hence there is no love and no hate. What a dull world being around a bunch of robots programmed. You said Gods justice against sin is not love. Justice is a big form of discipline. If one does not discipline their children then they don’t love their children. What if society made a new law that says “anyone can do any criminal activity, you wont be punished for it, no matter what the degree of criminality it is” would those authorities be loving society? No, it would not, it would not care for people. The reason we put criminals in jail is because we care to change their character, and protect the innocent of the harm they can cause, why? Because we love society. Justice IS a part of love. God has a mixture of mercy and justice. And the balance of both is love. And your right, what is this discussion doing in a earth science forum? Im only talking of it because points are made on it by you all.

    Science going with the evidence and young earth creationists going with the bible you said is wrong. Well, I put it this way, evolutionists go with the INTERPRETED evidence, while the young earth creationists go with the correct interpretation of that evidence, which fits the bible. Its not twisted on our part, its twisted to fit evolution.

    Also the fact that most scientists disagreed with the continental drift way back proves my point that just because majority of scientists believe in evolution does not make it right, because majority was wrong back then, who’s to say they are not still wrong right now about other things such as evolution?

    About the science experiments and observations. Sometimes their observations and experiments are right, but in the cases for evolutionists they are not. Its not observable and experiments don’t change one kind of animal to another kind, pig to a horse lets say. Or bird to a lion. Also documented history is not observable, true, but was observed by another who lived in that time period, then he wrote it down. Yes there is the choice of taking the authors word for it, but isn’t that what your all doing when you take the evolutionist authorities word and interpretations for it? Your doing the same thing, just putting your trust in a different source. Its no different, except the source is different. It makes more since to put ones trust in many witnesses then modern day evolutionist interpreting authorities. As I stated before, there is many ancient stories of a flood and with long aged men. This is many witness authors. Not just the biblical witness. Yet modern day science defies all the witnesses that were their back then. They think they can better tell the history even though they were not their and the witnesses were. A little too confident I might add. Science and evolution is powerful, but its not all powerful as to know more then many witnesses. Again it makes more since to put ones trust in a author, rather then a modern day interpreter of past events.

    You said that people would have cooked up stories to make Jesus fulfill the prophesies. Why would they do that knowing they would be persecuted anyway? What would they have to gain by doing so? Being stoned, being cut in two, being crucified, being put in prison with rats and much more? Being put on trial? They have nothing to gain by making up stories, they have everything to lose, their lives. Why would they want to lose their lives for a known lie? Makes no since. The truth is, they were witnesses of the resurrection, of the miracles of Christ and so they knew he fulfilled the prophesies and so they would even die for the faith. That’s how much they believed it, to the point they KNEW it. They did not believe it, they knew it because they witnessed it. And they did die for it. Cooked up stories? Hardly not. Here is a example a prophesy said the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, funny thing is, he was born in Bethlehem. That prophesy was said in the OLD testament, was fulfilled in the new. Which was few hundred years after the fact. Made up story? I strongly doubt it.

    Now for the varves. I certainly don’t fear this at all. I am going to tear this argument to pieces. In some places varve layers can accumulate multiple layers a year, in other places its around one layer a year, and that’s speculated at that. If you got multiple layers forming a year, and in other places one layer forming a year, how can you count millions of them and say they all represent millions of years? How foolish. Not only that, in the usa the green river varves they stress are proof of a old earth, actually have fossils within the varves. If one layer formed a year these fossils would not fossilize. THINK OF IT, and you think I am afraid of that? I call that a joke, even if I did NOT believe the bible, I would still call that a joke. Dead fish and birds cannot fossilize by waiting hundreds of years for varves to cover them, the fossil would decay and turn to nothing, or be eaten by other creatures. The fact that they are fossilized shows they were buried rapidly. And how would they get rapidly berried? Non other then, a global flood pounding sediment on top of them quickly. In defense evolutionists say alkali would have preserved the fossil until the varves berried them. No, alkali would have HELPED IT decay even more so. A fossil cannot be a fossil without being covered up quickly. Something to strongly think about. I certainly have no fear of varves, If I were to fear anything here, it would be more so your point about the crust melting, but varves? Certainly not. Also some varve locations have volcanic ash in between them, which is caused by a single event, rapid event. Which would make these varves look even younger.

    Their is no overwelming evedence for evolution or a old earth, more like overwelming strached out interpretations based on huge assumptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Lava is 70% water in the form of steam.
    that is most definitely NOT true
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I am no scientist and my untrained eye could pick up an astounding array of errors. Jolly, you should prepare yourself for a soul destroying roasting. That is, if anyone bothers.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I am no scientist and my untrained eye could pick up an astounding array of errors. Jolly, you should prepare yourself for a soul destroying roasting. That is, if anyone bothers.
    Indeed, he may soon be well and truly crucified. Right now I havn't the time, but maybe next week...

    As for his vegetarian lion, "Little Tyke" Jollybear tells only half the truth, if even that. The lioness appears to have have had a meat or blood allergy, hence her aversion to those foods. Like all cats, however, she'd have needed taurine, which she could only get from animal protein. In fact milk and eggs formed large parts of her diet. The vegetable portion, grain-based food, had to be cooked first. Unsurprising as cats cannot digest uncooked grain. [So Noah would have had to spend a lot of time cooking grain for the carnivores, milking any animals that were conveniently lactating, and hoping that all the birds were busily egg-laying to keep those carnivores supplied with animal protein. Yet more work for him.] Nor is there any evidence that Little Tyke was healthy. Just a few uncorroborated reports from people who saw her, maybe on a good day, and thought she looked fit. No veterinary examinations, no blood tests. Just take people's word for it. The fact that she died aged 9, when captive lions normally manage 25 years, suggests a different story.

    When I get time I'll return to give Jollybear a good mauling - if others don't do so first. He has really set himself up well with the varves, and could have spared himself the embarrassment that will follow if he'd just bothered to check out anti-creationist sites first. And, yes, Jollybear, the crust would have melted if the creationists' accelerated continental drift had really happened, and your link does not even address that point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Apologies to others for taking some of the rich pickings .

    God does it.
    God did it.
    God to keep them peacefully during this event in order to get things reestablished.
    I believe God gave them supernatural running steam power to get their.
    You believe a lot of things...

    I thought we discussed this already and that if you said this you would be forfeiting what little argument you already had.

    What a dull world being around a bunch of robots programmed.
    Kind of sounds like Christianity to me. Going to Church every Sunday, mumbling in cohesion about some stuff. A devout Christian who does not question a book of unending faults sounds like as much a robot as any.

    Science and evolution is powerful, but its not all powerful as to know more then many witnesses.
    Yes it is. People's accounts are meaningless versus science. Science is the true god of our times.

    You cant kick God out of the scene, he is in every scene right now, even in your life.

    No he is not. God has nothing to do with my life.
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    is it just me or has this thread become more like a 'what is proper science' thread rather than one specific to earth sciences ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Jollybear:
    These posts are getting HUGE, and way off-topic. Your ramblings about ghosts, the Bible etc, really don't belong here at all, but in some other section. As Noah's flood inevitably touches on biology as well as earth science it is hard to avoid bringing biology into it, but there is already a biological section in this forum. Would you mind if I split the discussion by starting a new thread in the biology section, dealing with biological aspects of Noah's flood? That way we could keep the biological arguments (diseases, looking after lots of animals, "kinds" etc.) there, and deal with the earth science (plate tectonics, sediments etc.) here? It would keep the overall size of each post manageable, and be less off-topic.

    I note you still have not addressed my points in my first 24th January post (the 8:14 am one). Ie. fossil forests, reefs, chalk, rock salt beds, dino nests, sand dunes, desiccation cracks, raindrop marks, worm burrows & footprints, all in the middle of sequences of rocks supposedly laid down by the flood, with fossil layers below and above. Note some of these are "answered" in answersingenesis (AiG) but the answers fail. To save yourself the embarrassment of being caught out repeating the lies (and I mean lies) that you will find in AiG I advise you to check out the counter-arguments in answersincreation (or talkorigins etc) first. I deliberately picked things like forests, chalk and rock salt beds because I have seen the creationists' attempts at rebutting them and found their rebuttals so pathetic I was left unsure as to whether I should laugh or cry. Be warned!

    I note also that my second post of 24th January (the 10:28 am one) has gone largely unanswered. Does this mean you accept my arguments and accept that K-Ar dating is NOT discredited by Austin's dishonest ploy of sending Mt Helens dacite to be tested by this method? It is an entirely inappropriate method to use for modern material. It is like trying to measure millimetres with a yardstick.

    Finally (for now) as you are clearly starting with the premise that the Bible is correct and reliable, and are trying to fit everything to that position, perhaps you ought to challenge your basic premise. I am not going to get drawn into a detailed Biblical debate on an earth science thread, but you really need to take a closer look at the credibility of your Bible. You will find an extensive resource of articles and lists of Biblical errors and contradictions here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...y/errancy.html I recommend you check it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Yes the Hebrews used metaphors in their writings, but not always,........ Its funny how everything supernatural in the bible becomes a metaphor while the natural parts are literal. That’s dishonest interpretation. Either believe it literally, or don’t believe it at all.
    No, that is thoughful, scholarly, considered interpretation, something you seem unfamiliar with.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    ....but the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the 12 patriarchs with Israelite bondage to Egypt NOT a metaphor?
    There are plenty of historians who do not consider any of those tales to have any relationship to historical events.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I understand what kinds, species and variations are. Do you agree that wolfs are a species separate from German shepherd dogs? Well, I believe wolfs are amongst the same KIND, called “dog kind”. But their different species from the German shepherds(sort of like a variation). Now variations are German shepherds, labs, Pomeranians ext like what was said, but the wolf is a actual different species if you want to use that word species. Or unless you want to omit it altogether and just call wolf another variation(a more bigger variation) within the dog kind. Dictionary says kind is species, species is a kind.
    Please don't take this the wrong way, but I sincerely beleive that if you could learn to write clearly you would be able to think more clearly. And while we are at it scientists do not use dictionaries to obtain scientific definitions.......Ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    There is no new information being created as time passes, on the contrary, information either remains the same, gets lost, or distorted by mutations, but never gained. A mutation is NOT new information, it’s a mess up of the original information.
    You are wholly, irrevocably, completely, undeniably mistaken in this regard. How you ever reached this wild, inaccurate, false concept, unless it was by believing the lies (I am tempted to say the evil lies) of creationists, Ido not know. Mutations can and do create new information within DNA. This has been observed many times in many creatures. Your blatant denial suggest that your mind is so firmly shut there is little point in carrying on further discussion.

    Given the turn this ridiculous thread has taken and your commitment to ignoring facts as large as the entire biosphere, I am moving it to a more suitable location.
    . I'll decide later, perhaps based upon other posters suggestions, precisely where to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    is it possible to split the thread in 2 ? the first part was specifically about the K-Ar method and the solubility of uranium and potassium, which definitely has an earth science flavour to it (even though it now appears that the purpose all along was trying to prove that dating methods are suspect through the action of the Noachian flood)

    at some point, however, religion and references to the bible become predominant, and that portion belongs either under religion or philosophy of science
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I agree
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I'll take a look at splitting it. It may need multiple splits and reassembling and that is a pain. Hang fire, I'm jet lagged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Marnix, I read that 70% or more of what comes out of volcano’s is water in the form of vapor. Here is the short article I got it from http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i3/drowned.asp . If you deny this, tell me why?

    Hi Stephen. As for little tyke, here is a quote “Mr Westbeau’s observation of the lioness that ‘To condition her stomach she would spend an hour at a time eating the succulent tall grass in the fields’, is also a vivid reminder of the prophecies of 1. Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25, ‘… the lion will eat straw like the ox.” Yet you said that Noah would have to be busy cooking grain all day long. Little tyke, yes eat cooked grain, but she eat tall grass in the fields too. What’s up with that now? If she did that, surely in a period of time where man and animals lived long ages, plus had certain plants that are now extinct could more readily thrive then little tyke all the more so. And just by the fact of little tyke surviving to 9 years of age, tells you that lions can survive without meat. True the average age for lion is 12 to 15 years in the wild, 25 in captivity, but keep in mind little tyke did not die of old age, but of pneumonia. So if she did not die of pneumonia, would she have lived longer? It’s only speculative since she is dead. But IF the bible is true(which I believe it is) then during the time of Adam before sin, it would have been easy for animals, lions to eat only plants since the age would have been very long, bodies strong, and plants thriving with nutrients to a grander scale then today’s plants. And Their has been other carnivorous animals that have not eaten meat according to that article. Although I have not read about those cases(perhaps I will either soon, or at some point).

    1. Hi Barry. Well what the bible says God did, that I have to go with, and what the bible says Noah did, that I have to go with, and what the bible says nature did, that I have to go with. But what the bible is silent on, I sometimes resort to God, or to nature doing it. One does not always have to resort to “God did it” when the bible is silent on a detail or issue. And no this does not weaken my argument if I say “God did it” in some cases. Because what if he really DID IT? How then could we say otherwise then?

    2. You said “Kind of sounds like Christianity to me. Going to Church every Sunday, mumbling in cohesion about some stuff. A devout Christian who does not question a book of unending faults sounds like as much a robot as any. “
    1. To this I have to say, no, to not question the bible does not mean your being a robot. Because you still have made the choice to not question it. See the choice is still their, the lack of choice becomes robotic. However I do want to say that some people who go to church do question it in their hearts, but wont say so with their mouths because of “peer pressure” from their Christian peers, they want to fit in with the crowd. Basically, they are fake. I would rather someone question the bible to my face rather then pretend in my presents. PLUS I will know it anyways if their pretending, its not that difficult to pick it up. I find it so foolish why they fear. And personally from a bible viewpoint even if a preacher were to scold or look down upon and judge harshly someone who questions the bible because they doubt and are searching, how dare that preacher be in a pulpit stand. A true leader should have compassion and understanding and let others be themselves and come open with their doubts. However in my case, I TRULY believe the bible from my heart, with me its an honest belief. Call me deceived or gullible all you wish, but it’s a honest belief in my case. However I agree with you, if one has questions, they should not fake them by covering them up. Also to question, and to ASK questions, is different. To question is more like rebel, fight, or renounce, but to ask questions is to be open to learn. Two different motivations. This is why I believe in patience and love for the fellow man.

    Also are you telling me that if a TRUE witness says thus and thus, and science says this and this, the true witness is wrong?

    Also, you might not have anything to do with God, but he DOES have everything to do with you. You might fight him, but he still is their, and still cares for you weather you believe it or not.

    Hi Stephen, sure I don’t mind if you split the forum discussion up. It is probably best to do that in order to keep things shorter and on topic.

    Also I have planed on reading articles from “talk origins” website. Perhaps I will start that now and get back to you about the fossil forests, reefs, chalk, rock salt beds, dino nests, sand dunes, desiccation cracks, raindrop marks, worm burrows & footprints. I have already read some stuff on “answersingenesis” about some of this list, but I will read more, and to make it objective I will read on talk origins too. Then I will get back to you on this list. It might take some time though.

    Plus you said answersingenesis was giving deliberate lies. How so? I can understand misunderstanding, or deception, but lies? A strong Christian website, promoting the bible, which commands to tell truth, is lying? Although yes, im not nieve to the fact an organization can hide behind Gods name and lie. True, but still, it don’t seam likely in this case. Plus if they are lying, how do you know? How do you know your sources are not lying in that case?

    Also I still disagree with you about Kevin/Austin argument. However I had mentioned that I would put that on the shelf until I got through all the other questions and stuff, then we could go back to that. Did you want to go back to that now? Or later? Im at a loss on what to answer first in this forum, since its getting so huge with many branches of topics and things to defend, address, and answer. So many trees to bark up. Hehe, when I first came on here, I planed on debating and gaining some more insights on radiometric dating of rocks, and boy it has sky rocketed all over the place. But its all good anyhow, I love challenging discussions.

    As for the website you gave me about the bible being challenged, I have looked at it, and will continue to look at it. However I have been addressed with this thing before awhile back. This person sent me a email once of 100 seemingly contradictions in the bible. I had emailed this person back reconciling and putting into context 50 of them, and planed on reconciling the other 50 later because of a lack of time. They wrote me back saying “no more no more, its too long, I get the point”. But yes, I am well aware already of those things that “appear” to be contradictions. But their really not when you look at it closer. For example on that website you gave me, it says this “Genesis 1:11-12 26-27 trees were created before man was created. Genesis 2:4-9 “man was created before trees were created”. This is not a contradicting the former order of creation, its just giving different details of that creation. Plus it does not say blatantly in gen 2 “man was created before the trees” < the website put it that way, so as to put their twist on the verse. Non of the actual verses say this though.

    Let me say it like this. Me and my wife today ordered pizza, papa johns, it was good. Also today at work It was very busy, and right now I am drinking water.

    From the above short story of what I did today, what actually came first? Sentence wise pizza first, work second, water third. The real sequence is work first, pizza, then water. But in between all that is allot more details that I left out. And just because I did not put it in the right sequence does not make what I said inaccurate, its still accurate. Plus just because I left out allot of details does not make my little story dishonest either, it just makes it general. Im just highlighting the most important parts of the day, you know the big things. Well that’s how chapter 2 of genesis style was. It worked like this. The author was generalizing the story. Theirs really no contradiction. Now if I reconciled every single one, id mise well write a book because this forum will get way to big.

    Hi ophiolite. So it is a scholarly considered interpretation hey? What divinity college did they go to, to get their PHD scholarship. Maybe I should go their and save allot of money, perhaps its quite cheap. Maybe they spent a dollar to get their degree. Like seriously though, you don’t have to have a scholarship to have a brain and use it and know how to read. When I read something, I know what’s being said, now do I believe everything I read? No, no one does for that matter. However, I know how to read, I know what’s being said and what’s not, then its up to me to believe it or not. Well If one wants to understand a verse all they have to do is “read it”, perhaps look at the Hebrew and Greek behind it. And that’s it. And allot of times one does not even need to go back to the Hebrew and Greek. Most times it’s just clear as day. Its funny that Paul in the new testament says “God has frustrated the scholar and wise man”. Way to go Paul. Basically the bible interpreted itself their. Im not the only one downing on the scholar on this case. So is Paul. Jesus said “father I thank you that you revealed these things to those that are like little children but have hidden them from the wise and learned”. Wise and learned is the scholarly. Well, Jesus also downs them too. You know, nothing wrong with scholars, that’s not what im saying, what im saying is, if a scholar who is well learnt, or suppose to be at least, comes up with a very foolish statement like this that the genesis account is metaphors, and the supernatural parts in it are metaphors; he then needs just a tad bit more learning and scholarship. If you read the newspaper and it told you it was going to rain tomorrow by a 90% chance would you interpret that as it was going to be sunny tomorrow by 90% chance? If we did that, were not using the brain God gave us anymore. Same way with bible reading or any reading for that matter. Now I do realize too that some reading can leave out some very important little tiny peace of information that could be very misleading. I do realize those things too, and that’s where we all have to be careful.

    How do you know the DNA created more new information?

    Stepen, i will get back to you with an exhustive answer on your list, but i will look at it objectively as well before i answer. And i look forword to your responce at your own time. Take your time, im not going anywere, i dont care how long this discussion lasts, i am up for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Marnix, I read that 70% or more of what comes out of volcano’s is water in the form of vapor.
    I think I have suggested this before - and I really do not intend disrespect - you need to learn to read properly. The site you quote says "It is interesting that even today, up to 70% or more of what comes out of volcanoes is water, mostly in the form of vapour."
    Up to 70% is radically different from 70% or more. You state that 70% is a minimum. The article states that 70% is a maximum. The two points are completely different, yet you have mistakenly adopted a meaning which seems to favour your argument. This is no question of misinterpretation, your take is just plain wrong. I wonder just how many other similar mistakes you may have made when doing your reading. Do not misunderstand me, I continue to applaud you for the effort, I just see worrying evidence that you are approaching that reading with blinkered vision.
    I should also like to see the source for that 70% maximum. It seems that the authors of the article you referenced have either misunderstood their sources, or have been loose (very loose) in how they have explained it. It would be correct to say that of the volatile component of a magma released during volcanic eruptions up to 70% of this is water. This is also quite different from saying that 70% of what comes out of a volcano today is water - it isn't. Most of what comes out, in all but the most exceptional cases, is lava.
    How do you know the DNA created more new information?
    I didn't say that it did. I said "Mutations can and do create new information within DNA."
    (I really do urge you to make more precise use of language. You are muddying your thinking by the sloppy use of words. From where I am sitting - and I readily admit this is a very subjective perception - this is one of the principal reasons you are having so much difficulty with many of these ideas.)
    As is so often the case, this has been adequately dealt with by the TalkOrigins site. I give you a partial quotation from that site:
    It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:
    increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
    increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
    novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
    novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


    Please refer to the original article, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html, for full details of the references and for further examples.

    I would really like you then jollybear, to return here in due course and admit that you were mistaken and misled about the possibility of new information to be added to DNA. If you can do that, based upon the evidence, I shall have some hope for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124 New thread in biology section 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Attention all! Especially Jollybear. To try and keep the size of these posts down, and on-topic, I have split off the life science aspects and posted them in a new thread in the biology section under the heading "Noah's flood - is it biologically plausible?" I suggest we try and deal with the biological stuff there, and the earth science stuff here.

    Jollybear - your comments about the Bible etc. are way off-topic. I only mentioned the website about the Bible in passing, in the hope that you'd look at it for your own benefit, not in the hope of triggering yet another discussion. Just keeping up with the science stuff is consuming too much of my time already. If you want to debate the Bible then I suggest you start a new thread in an appropriate section. Here we deal with earth science.

    I'll try and get back with some more demolitions of Jollybear's nonsense later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    I have answered the biological parts of Jollybear’s post (7 Feb) in the biology section. The earth science, and some other parts, I’ll deal with here.

    Jollybear wrote:
    “Lava is 70% water in the form of steam.”
    Even by the standards of answersingenesis.org this claim is dire (I’m assuming they have standards – I may be wrong). Perhaps he means by volume, but even then the volatile content of lavas varies enormously, making this figure meaningless.

    Jollybear wrote:
    “If he decided one day to completely separate himself from his whole creation, the earth would collapse and stop running. Instantly everything would die. Everything would stop moving, radiating, doing its functions in the earth, sky, everything.”
    So Jollybear is a comedian too? Everything operates according to natural laws and God does not feature anywhere in them. One does not need a God to keep the planets moving, stars radiating, plants photosynthesising etc. Most Christians know this, and just believe that God set it all up and left it running. The concept of a collapsing earth is especially intriguing. Is it hollow?

    Jollybear wrote:
    “Evolution also has circular reasoning. Example is rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks.”
    Typical creationist misrepresentation. It was established in the early 19th century (even before Darwin), from a huge amount of empirical observation (vastly more now) that different fossils are found in rocks of different ages. Radioisotope dating later gave actual dates to those rocks. It is known from a huge empirical database that rocks of a particular age only contain certain fossils and no others. So when one finds those certain fossils (they are called “index fossils”) one can say with a very high degree of reliability that the rocks enclosing them will be of a specific age, because the age of the strata bearing them has already been determined by other means and found to be the same each time. Where is the circularity?

    Jollybear wrote:
    “Also the footnote for the lab “we don’t date rocks under a million years old”. So one has to assume first the age. That’s circular.”
    I have already patiently explained to Jollybear that no assumption is required (my post 24 Jan, 10.28 am, 2nd paragraph). I wonder if I am wasting my time if Jollybear simply ignores what he is told. I probably am wasting time. If it was not for the fact I’m presently off work with a broken leg, and so have time on my hands, I would not be wasting valuable time on someone so determined to be ignorant.

    Jollybear wrote:
    “There is a flood story for allot of places all over the world”
    Hardly surprising when one considers that most ancient civilisations lived in river valleys, which are prone to disastrous floods from time to time.

    Jollybear wrote:
    “My assumptions are not special pleading, I believe evolutionists are making special pleading. I believe my logic is more reasonable then theirs.”
    We’ve definitely got a comedian here folks, although I’m not sure he realises it. I guess a flat earther would regard his “logic” as more reasonable than that of round earthers.

    Jollybear wrote:
    “Egyptian history BEGINS AFTER 3 thousand BC. Noah’s flood happens around 2 thousand 5 hundred BC…”
    Creationists date the flood to about 2300 BC. The first pharaohs of the early dynastic period emerged around 3150 BC based at Memphis (no, not in Tennessee Jollybear). This grew into the Old Kingdom, which thrived uninterrupted right through the flood until it ended in a period of drought around 2200 BC.

    Jollybear wrote:
    “As for the Indus civilization period of 3300-1700 BC, that does not contradict the flood. If the date was actually 1700, then yes it would contradict the flood date. However it is between 3300 to 1700. So more then likely it was 3000 to 3300 BC.”
    What on earth is he rambling on about? The Indus civilisation period STRADDLES the flood date. 2300 BC (or Jollybear’s 2500 BC) is right, slap, bang, in the middle! Get out of that Jollybear!

    Jollybear wrote:
    “the archeologists are RIGHT, not wrong.”
    Yes Jollybear. They are right, and that means you are wrong. Egyptian and Indus civilisations both continued right through the flood without a break. As do Mesopotamian culture and the city of Jericho.

    More to follow…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126 Varves 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Varves, varves, varves.

    For those who don’t know, varves are lake bed sediments that form in pairs of annual layers. Spring melt water and summer rains wash in coarse sediment and form a coarse layer. Wintertime sees less input so the finer clays settle out. The result is pairs of coarse/fine layers that can be counted back like the rings of a tree, often as far back as 12,000 years (the end of the last Ice Age), although an Italian one cited above by Andre (4 Feb) goes back 102,000 years ( Lake Monticchio ). Fossil examples can contain millions of annual layers. Also, the summer layers commonly contain organic matter (from algal blooms) making them amenable to C-14 dating, which confirms their age (in fact, they are even used to calibrate C-14, they are that reliable).

    Jollybear wrote:
    “Now for the varves. I certainly don’t fear this at all. I am going to tear this argument to pieces.”
    OK, should be interesting.

    Jollybear wrote:
    “In some places varve layers can accumulate multiple layers a year, in other places its around one layer a year, and that’s speculated at that. If you got multiple layers forming a year, and in other places one layer forming a year, how can you count millions of them and say they all represent millions of years? How foolish.”
    I was expecting the “multiple layers a year” response. Had Jollybear bothered to do his homework, instead of just repeating the half-truths on Answers in Genesis (AiG), he could have spared himself the egg he is about to get on his face. Multiple layers happen as a result of storms and the resulting floods causing surges of sediment into the lake. They are often distinct from the regular seasonal layers and can be recognised and taken into account. Even so, there are fossil varves with up to 20 million couplet layers. Even if we generously assume an unlikely one storm a day, every day, that’s still over 50,000 years needed. The extra layers argument doesn’t work. We also know from independent measurements that extra layers are too rare to be significant (see comments at bottom of this post).

    Jollybear wrote:
    “Not only that, in the usa the green river varves they stress are proof of a old earth, actually have fossils within the varves. If one layer formed a year these fossils would not fossilize. THINK OF IT, and you think I am afraid of that? I call that a joke, even if I did NOT believe the bible, I would still call that a joke. Dead fish and birds cannot fossilize by waiting hundreds of years for varves to cover them, the fossil would decay and turn to nothing, or be eaten by other creatures. The fact that they are fossilized shows they were buried rapidly”
    This is embarrassingly easy to answer. The conditions at the bottoms of varve-forming lakes are static. That is why they form varves. If they are even slightly turbulent then no regular layers can form. Without turbulence there is no mixing of surface oxygenated waters with deeper ones, so very swiftly they become cold, stagnant and anoxic (no oxygen at all). Almost nothing can live down there, certainly not scavengers. They also tend to get acidic (from hydrogen sulphide). These cold, acidic, anoxic, stagnant waters preserve whatever dead things fall into them. This is well known to forensic scientists who have studied bodies retrieved after long periods of immersion and found them remarkably well preserved. An example is the famous “Lady in the lake” murder case. After 8 years in the cold, anoxic depths of Wastwater the body of Margaret Hogg was still recognisable, her flesh described as “wax-like”. In a similar case, the body of Carol Park was retrieved from nearby Coniston water, still wearing her blue dress after 21 years. Still think varves are a joke Jollybear? Still think fossils pose a problem for me? I would call your pathetic, feeble counter-argument “a joke”. And if you ever want to dispose of a body, DO NOT dump it in a lake! You might end up preserving it.

    Jollybear wrote:
    “Also some varve locations have volcanic ash in between them, which is caused by a single event, rapid event. Which would make these varves look even younger”
    How so? One can easily identify the ash bands. One could even date them by K-Ar, but Jollybear wouldn’t like that. And Jollybear, before you try to fob me off with the story of the two ash bands in the Green River formation with varying numbers of couplet layers between them, check out www.answersincreation.org/varves.htm

    Now for a few more facts about varves that Jollybear will not like. As I said at the outset the summer layers contain organic matter. They can therefore be dated by C-14. Guess what? The dates agree! In fact varves can be used to calibrate C-14 and give the same calibration as tree rings, allowing an independent check. Expect Jollybear to now trot out the usual creationist bullsh!t about C-14 (a freshly dead seal was dated too old, fossil carbon gave young dates etc., the usual crap that is easily answered). Then he’ll follow it up with the usual criticisms of tree ring dating (extra rings etc., but he won’t mention missing ones because that doesn’t suit the creationists, but I digress).
    Varves also carry records of human activities. They can be used to trace lead pollution, for example, from the Roman period to the present (for one example of many see http://www.cprm.gov.br/pgagem/Manusc...brannvallm.htm ). We know the Romans smelted lead on an industrial scale, and it stopped when their empire collapsed. We know it resumed in the industrial revolution. So one can count back varve layers to the Roman period and analyse them for lead. What do we find? Lead! It disappears during the Dark Ages. Then comes back in the industrial revolution. Even World War II shows up! That 2000 years of couplet layers can be correlated with historical record is proof that the explanation of varves as summer/winter layers is correct, and that extra layers are not significant.
    If that is not bad enough (for Jollybear) even sunspot cycles can show up. The well known 11 year cycle, and even the 88 and 208 ones, show up in varves going back 22,500 years in Germany (www.springerlink.com/index/H1226XTK04782311.pdf ). Oh dear Jollybear, it is not looking good for you, now is it? If those 22,500 layers were all formed rapidly, how come they show 11, 88 and 208 year rythmns corresponding to known solar cycles?
    Still confident that varves present you with no problem Jollybear? I am also still waiting for you to tear the argument to pieces. In fact, it is the other way around. I have torn your counter-arguments to pieces! For most of what I wrote above I did not even need to go to the usual anti-creationist sites. I either knew it already or could quickly think of an obvious response (like the Lady in the Lake). This is so easy!

    Next, Jollybear, I will remind you that the ocean floors would indeed have melted, but I’ve done enough for one day. You might want a rest before the next well-earned drubbing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    found some material that may have some bearing on the quantity of water compared with lava in eruptions :

    THE AQUEOUS EMANATION FROM PARICUTIN VOLCANO

    17,000 tonnes of water emitted daily compared with 100,000 tonnes of lava (= 17%), followed by the statement that "This quantity of water is believed to be larger than the amount of water one could reasonably expect from the magma rising in the eruptive conduit"

    so this means that the solubility of water in lava is less than 17% - quite a difference from the 70% quoted by jollybear
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Man this is even better than I thought! :-D But seriously Jolly, I think you honestly think that you are doing a good job with your "research", but from personal experience, some people just aren't able to think in a scientific way. They just can't. In that light I feel sorry for you almost. And I realize that this sounds patronizing, but it is the truth. I believe you when you say that you are a believer in God and that you truly have that in your heart. That just makes it even harder for you to really make sense of this. I am not sure if you will be able to concede that you have been led astray. I guess with you putting your faith in your religious leaders, you would be much more inclined to believe them. But Stephen has done a great job of showing you exactly were you, or your sources, have gone wrong. Please think a bit about all of this before replying in jest and with the usual arguments from incredulity.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    This is not a rebuttal, I am fixing my mistake that I made. I know I said that if the indus civilization were 1700 BC then it would contradict the flood. However the numbers got scrambled in my head and I made a simple mistake as I was typing my point. Now that I re read my point, I see the obvious mistake I made. That’s why you were probably wondering what I was rambling on about. What I meant to say was, if the indus was dated at 1700 that then does NOT contradict the flood, since the flood would be around 2500 BC. So I apologize for my confusing mistake. My mistake actually helped your rebuttal against me. So, im just fixing that.

    Also I hope you don’t think I am ignoring your points about Austins dating of rocks. I already mentioned that I was not doing that, I just simply was addressing so many other things we were attempting to cover. However I will go back to that, and I will mull that over and address your last article on that in my next response.

    As for all the other points, I am going to take some time to mull them over, and do some digging. Grant me some time, and I will be back. I know you split the forum, however I think for now I am going to stay on this forum and deal with these points for now. After we finish this, I will go to the next forum section on here dealing with Noah’s ark and what not. Theirs only so much time and so much straining of the brain one can do at any given time. So, I will be back with my response, should be this week sometime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    As for all the other points, I am going to take some time to mull them over, and do some digging.
    you know, i've always been told "when in a hole, stop digging" :wink:
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    I have already patiently explained to Jollybear that no assumption is required (my post 24 Jan, 10.28 am, 2nd paragraph). I wonder if I am wasting my time if Jollybear simply ignores what he is told. I probably am wasting time.
    Replace "probably" by "absolutely positively damn sure"
    The problem with people wanting to uphold the "truth" of the bible is that they most of the time lack the knowledge of scientific way of working. And whatever they pick from scientific results i.e. when there are open questions one theory can not explain 100% they assume (and most of the time twist scientific results to suit their needs) that this is proof that the bible is right and the scientific theory (which in most cases explain 95% of all cases) is dead wrong. This is called false dichotomy. Reasoning goes:
    Your explanation A does not have an explanation for 1% of all observations, thus my explanation B explaining this 1% (but not the rest) has to be right.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    I will be back after i have dug and found the gold. One canot stop digging after they are in a hole, they can only stop once they hit gold.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133 All that heat 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Oceans of lava.

    As I pointed out to Jollybear, the heat of the runaway continental drift and massive volcanism invoked by the creationists would have melted the earth’s crust. His “rebuttal” is a link to an appalling piece of creationist fantasy ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...late-tectonics ), which does not address the issue of the amount of energy liberated, and the effect it would have. It is also refuted, point by point, here: http://www.answersincreation.org/reb..._tectonics.htm
    Jollybear has also ignored the point I made that the deep ocean floor is made of basalt, 7 km thick. Basalt is an igneous rock. That means it was once molten. All of it. Now this is no problem for an old earth as it was only ever molten a little at a time, with plenty of cooling off time in between. For the creationists it has to have all been molten either all at once, or over a timescale of the flood year, and maybe a few years after (which would still be all at once as that quantity of basalt would take thousands of years to cool).
    Does Jollybear have any idea what would happen to the world’s oceans, a few km of water, sitting on top of an even deeper ocean of 1000 oC molten lava? Not only would they completely, and rapidly, boil off, the resulting steam would raise the atmospheric temperature to the high hundreds of degrees C. Probably more when one adds in the latent heat of crystallisation of the constituent minerals.
    It gets worse. It is not just the ocean floor that is made of basalt. The Deccan traps of India cover an area of 500,000 square km 2 km thick. They are part of the sequence of rocks supposedly laid down by the flood. Other huge expanses of once molten rock include the Antrim basalts of N. Ireland extending across to the western Isles of Scotland, the Columbia River basalts covering ovder 160,000 square km and the Siberian traps covering 2 million square km, and also the islands of Iceland and Hawaii. All of these are part of the post Cambrian sequence of rocks and therefore were formed during the flood year.
    Of course basalt is not the only once molten rock. From andesite to granite, igneous rocks account for a considerable volume of continental crust, and many were variously intruded (eg. granite, gabbro) or erupted (eg. rhyolite, andesite) during the post Cambrian period, ie. during the flood. So now we have to include the heat from the vast volumes of continental intrusive igneous rocks as well as the gigantic outpourings of lavas (those Deccan traps etc.), and from volcanic islands like Iceland & Hawaii etc, as well as from the great oceans of magma under what became the Atlantic....
    Jollybear, and his fellow creationists, simply ignore, or gloss over, this problem because they have no answer. Expect to be told, “God did it.”
    Molten lava is not the only heat source that embarrasses creationists. The formation of limestone is exothermic. That is it liberates heat. Not a lot, and normally slowly over long timescales as the limestone is slowly formed so that it is not even noticed. But there is so much limestone that the total amount of heat produced, if liberated all at once would amount to around 5.6 X 1027 joules, even just a tenth of that would boil the oceans (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...html#georecord).
    According to the creationists all the world’s limestone was deposited during the one year of the flood. So all that heat was liberated during that one year, together with the heat from the continental igneous rocks, the formation of Iceland, Hawaii and many other oceanic islands, the molten basalt of the ocean floor, the frictional heat of the fast moving continents and the volcanic heat from the massive eruptions. At this rate of heat input, it is not just the oceans that would boil away, the atmosphere itself would be in serious danger of being lost to space!
    Now to return to the ocean floor basalts. These provided some of the clinching evidence for plate tectonics. Molten basalt is intruded up the mid-Atlantic ridge as the ocean floor moves apart. It is a continuous process. One would therefore expect the basalt at the ridge to be young, and that it will get progressively older as one moves away in either direction. When one carries out radioisotope dating what does one find? Why, surprise, surprise! It is very young at the mid-ocean ridge, and gets progressively older as one moves away, either towards Africa to the east, or the Americas to the west. Similar patterns are observed in the other oceans.
    How can this be if radioisotope dating does not work? The dates should be all over the place. How can an unreliable and discredited (in the creationists’ eyes) method give consistent patterns over the entire planet’s ocean floors?
    Now I’ll tell Jollybear (who must by now be feeling a lot less jolly) about palaeomagnetism. When molten rock, like basalt, solidifies, tiny particles of magnetic minerals in them line up like little compasses, pointing to wherever the earth’s magnetic poles are at the time. Then they are frozen in place. Later the earth’s magnetic field can increase or decrease in intensity, and even reverse polarity, so that what was once the north magnetic pole becomes the south magnetic pole and vice versa.
    It is a straightforward matter to sail a ship over the oceans, with a magnetometer, and measure the magnetic polarity frozen into the rocks below. What one finds are magnetic “stripes” paralleling the mid-ocean ridges. When basalt emerges onto the sea floor along the ridge it is chilled suddenly and a record of the polarity of the earth’s magnetic field at that time is frozen into the rock.
    As the ocean floor moves apart, and the earth’s magnetic field switches polarity, one gets a series of bands of alternating magnetic polarity on the ocean floor, each one reflecting the orientation of the earth’s magnetic field at the time those particular rocks solidified. These bands are symmetrical about the mid-ocean ridge.
    Creationists complain that these are a surface effect only, that drilling deep into the ocean floor reveals erratic magnetic polarities. But, as usual, they are telling only part of the truth. The bands are best seen on the ocean floor, rather than deeper down, because that is where the rock cooled quickly and recorded the magnetic field at that time. Deeper down cooling is slower and uneven, so the recorded polarities are uneven and often different to those on the ocean floor as the rock solidified at a different time. In any case it does not affect the argument, an argument which will cause Jollybear yet more headaches. Take a painkiller now, Jollybear, you are about to need it.
    These magnetic polarity stripes correlate with radioisotopic dates. Take an ocean floor rock with a particular radioisotope date and measure its polarity. Now look for ocean floor rocks from anywhere else in the world (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic oceans – take your pick) of the same radioisotopic age. Guess what? They all have the same polarity! They even correlate with continental lava flows. One gets the same fossil magnetism in lava flows on land, and they show the same correlations with radioisotope dates.
    Oh dear, poor little Jollybear! If radioisotope dates are all wrong why do they show the same patterns all over the planet’s ocean floors, and why do they tie in with palaeomagnetism? Again all over the planet!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134 Meteor bombardment and poor old Noah. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Lunar craters
    Jollybear, have you ever looked at the moon through binoculars? Have you considered the implications of all those craters? Mercury, the moon, Callisto, in fact any ancient surface in the solar system, where there is no erosion or resurfacing, is absolutely smothered in impact craters. The kinetic energy of impacting asteroids and comets is enormous, and easily calculated. It is simply a function of mass and velocity. We have witnessed the awesome amount of energy involved in 1994 when comet Shoemaker-Levy struck Jupiter and produced fireballs the size of the earth.
    There are parts of the moon where molten basalt has poured out and resurfaced it. We call these the Mare, and they are obviously younger than the older surfaces where this has not happened. One can even see craters partly filled in by later lava. The older surfaces are completely smothered in craters of all sizes. Being younger the Mare have a lighter scattering of craters.
    Craters do not survive long on earth, they get obliterated by erosion, and eventually by plate tectonics, but it is clear from our neighbour the moon that the earth must have received even more impacts, being bigger and so having a larger cross-sectional area, and a stronger gravitational pull. In short there is not a single spot on the earth’s surface that has not been hit at some time by a crater-forming impact. In fact several times, as craters on the moon commonly overlap.
    This is no problem if the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and most of the cratering took place in the first few hundred million years, with very little since. It is fatal to young earth creationism, when all that bombardment has to be crammed into 6000 years. In fact there is no room for it at all, as the only planetary catastrophe in Biblical history is the flood. One might describe the Sodom and Gomorrah incident as a meteor strike (in fact that’s perfectly plausible, a Tunguska-type air burst would neatly explain it) but that is one minor, local event. Will Jollybear please tell us at what point in earth history did the planet receive its bombardment, how it survived, and how did the heat liberated fail to melt the crust, boil the oceans and blast the atmosphere off into space?
    While Jollybear is trawling through the bullsh!t in Answers in Genesis for “answers” he might also ask himself this. Why do the rocks from the Lunar Mare, which we can see are younger than the heavily cratered areas, (because they have flowed out over them, and filled older craters) give radioisotope dates mostly around 3.1 – 3.8 billion years (a few are older and a few younger), whilst the rocks from the older, densely cratered, highland areas give dates of 4 – 4.4 billion years? If radioisotope dates are wrong they should not correspond with crater density.
    He might also consider the Chixulub crater, 180 km across, in the sedimentary rocks of Yucatan. Right in the middle of rocks supposedly laid down by Noah’s flood. Similarly for the 31 km diameter Kebira crater in the Cretaceous sandstones of western Egypt. Other craters include the 100 km Manicouagan crater in Quebec, the 45 km Kara-Kul crater in Tajikistan, the 25 km Rochechouart crater in France and the huge 500 km Wilkes crater in Antarctica. There are many others, some in “flood” rocks, some in pre-Cambrian (i.e. pre-flood) rocks. So it seems that as well as having the heat from oceans of molten basalt, continental lavas and intrusions, limestone formation etc, etc, Noah’s family also had to contend with heat from multiple massive impacts. Not to mention the giant tsunamis, shock waves, raining down debris, fireballs, toxic gases etc. produced by these impacts.
    Jollybear, a word of advice: give up! The earth is billions of years old, and no amount of bullsh!t, half-truths and garbage from Answers in Genesis will change that. Get used to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I will be back after i have dug and found the gold. One canot stop digging after they are in a hole, they can only stop once they hit gold.
    beware of gold diggers !
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136 Re: Meteor bombardment and poor old Noah. 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    Why do the rocks from the Lunar Mare, which we can see are younger than the heavily cratered areas, (because they have flowed out over them, and filled older craters) give radioisotope dates mostly around 3.1 – 3.8 billion years (a few are older and a few younger), whilst the rocks from the older, densely cratered, highland areas give dates of 4 – 4.4 billion years?
    it might be worth noting at this stage that there is no water on the moon that might change the composition of rocks through selective leaching of certain elements
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    I will be back after i have dug and found the gold. One canot stop digging after they are in a hole, they can only stop once they hit gold.
    Ever hear of fool's gold Jollybear? I think you're knee deep in it.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    I read more of your recent points, i have allot to dig for. I was not going to get into the cosmos just yet(allthough i did plan on it in the future), however since im challenged with it, i will take up the challenge. However i will first answer the other points first.

    I am going to find true gold, not rocks painted gold. You can bet on it. I'll be back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I am going to find true gold, not rocks painted gold. You can bet on it. I'll be back.
    So basically you already know you're right, despite not having done your research yet? That's what it sounds like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Poor Jollybear, so deluded and convinced he's right that he really thinks he can find answers to the overwhelming, and interlocking, evidence stacked up against him. Religion really does screw up the mind.

    Jollybear, when you tackle the heat problem, don't forget to include the gravitational energy of the "rapidly sinking ocean-floor slabs" of Snelling, which alone would release enough heat to melt not just the crust, but much of the mantle too. Then there's the heat of condensation of that collapsing water vapour canopy.
    Also, when you go to the varves, be warned, I've got a whole lot more well-preserved lake bodies for you, seems Lake Superior is full of them, like the one from the early 1900s, still with discernable facial features, lying exposed on the lake bed, near the (much later) wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald (which has well-preserved bodies inside it).
    Jollybear, you have commented on how you did not expect your original question to grow and diversify so quickly into so many areas (it has evolved!). The fact that it has should surely indicate the sheer volume of evidence, from so many diverse branches of science, for the great age of the earth, and how it all interlocks - each branch confirming others, like the way varves tie in with C-14, tree rings, lead pollution records and solar cycles (could have included Milankovich cycles, pollens, volcanic ash from various known eruptions, and greenland ice cores too), for example. Or the patterns that emerge from radioisotope dates which in turn correlate which such unrelated things as palaeomagnetism and lunar craters. The things I have described here are the tip of the iceberg. There are many more, and they all fit into a consistent scenario - a billions years old earth, and no global flood.
    As for "interpretation", there is only one way it can all be interpreted, and I have just told you it. What the creationists call their "interpretation" is more often distortion, cherry picking and misinterpretation. You can waste your time if you want chasing wild geese on creationist sites, but to save yourself more egg on face you would be well advised to check the facts on the anti-creationist sites before you post any more rubbish. You really don't seem to have any conception of just how extensive, and conclusive, and multiply independently corroborated, the evidence is. It is no wonder there are very few young earth creationist geologists. In fact when creationists tried to address this problem by planting evangelical students in university geology courses most abandoned creationism. Only 3 made it through (Austin was one). I am reminded of one young earther geology student from my own student days in the 1980s. He was in the year below me. He dropped out with a nervous breakdown.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Now mat i have had "experiences with God" plus on top of all this, don research on all the religions of the world too. And I’ve don some general study on evolution and science. And im still learning it. And i learn as i go along. So yes, i believe im right and your wrong, and im presenting my arguments for it. So when you say "you think your right despite not having done your research yet". I’ve don my research, and i need to do MORE research. Things don’t get don all in one day. Im sure you don’t know everything all in one day, do you? Have you studied all the religions in the world, the whole bible, tried this and that out ext? I doubt it. No one has, we are all still learning and being educated. Now information is different then revelation. I believe you all got only information, i got the revelation. You believe its visa versa. However, grant me some time, i got my Egypt date points already prepared, i still got to get through the other points. Grant me some time, i am a very determined man to win this. I’ve don research on the carbon dating, some of the so called transitional forms, and the potassium argon dating, and i am in the process of studying the varves now. As for the cosmos, i have not even touched on that yet, my knowledge of that is very general. One cannot know everything all in one day. Remember i had said before, that some have ventured out to disprove something, and in the process came to believe it. Perhaps that will be me? Perhaps not, perhaps i will expose and show you the light. Lets find out, give it a chance. I said before, if one does not take a stand for something they will fall for anything. I still stand by that statement.

    Stephan as for that guy that dropped out ready to take a break down. He was weak, he should have known who his God was and how powerful he is and how sovereign. You see, its indoctrination. This is like a trial in a court, the person who first presents their case seams right, until the other presents theirs and questions the other. The judge has to give it a chance.

    However, give me some time, im still doing lots of reading and gathering my thoughts on some of these other points you gave me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    This is like a trial in a court, the person who first presents their case seams right, until the other presents theirs and questions the other. The judge has to give it a chance.
    in fact, creationism has historically speaking been the first to present their case and were not contradicted for centuries until science presented a more convincing alternative explanation of the facts starting from the 19th century onwards

    so your simile is back to front
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    I dont understand why you bother actually arguing about it? Faith only requires belief, not fact, hence its popularity. It tells people what they want to hear, reassures them of the unknown road ahead. The burden is on the beleiver to prove his case, but frankly they dont care, there is nothing wrong with that. Firsty i dont think creationists should bother trying to refute scientific fact, and second i dont think scientists (or like minded) should attempt to refute faith. The thinking patterns of the two kinds are in direct conflict, and no debate will ever be resolved without a royal rumble kicking off. All these debates eventually reduce to repitition and insults. Scientists look at creationists like foolish cannon fodder so they can flex there intellectual ego's and creationists look at scientists as stuck up closed minded dictators. The earth was flat once remember.
    Im not a creationist, im not a scientist either. But i can plainly see the bottomless pit your falling into. And whoever put this topic into a new thread elswhere on the forum should be hung out to dry!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    I dont understand why you bother actually arguing about it?
    because jollybear made several claims that are contrary to current scientific knowledge - not replying would imply that there might even be a grain of truth in his claims

    btw this is not a debate about faith, it is about the correctness of provable facts
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    I didnt say it was a debate about faith. Just think calling someone deluded and a crackpot is a bit disproportionate considering all hes done is test a few scientific theories with argument, to no avail. You cant say every creationist/religious person is deluded just because they refute what you hold to be fact as they have a different belief system from yours. This is what im referring to. You wont change anyones mind by throwing numbers and facts at them because thats not how everybody creates there belief system. You can quite easily construct an argument that discounts science completely, doesnt make it fact, but you would be unable to disprove it and therefor that allows a minority of people to continue beleiving in it no matter how many insults and infinte amount of facts you throw at them.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    anyway your entitled to continue berating him endlessly. I just thought id say what i thought. You can count me out from this one from now on. 8)
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    You cant say every creationist/religious person is deluded just because they refute what you hold to be fact as they have a different belief system from yours.
    To refute something is quite different from rejecting it. A lot of Creationists reject science, but, unless logic has changed, I haven't seen any of them refute it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    there is a difference between believing something because there is good evidence to support your belief and believing something just because you want it to be true

    besides, unless i'm very much mistaken, i've never called jollybear deluded - it's just that his claims are factually wrong
    there is a difference between casting doubt on someone's assertions and attacking the person in an ad hominem way - i hope that i do the former without resorting to the latter
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Harvestein there is a great point in debating faith and evolution. Keep in mind, im not debating science, observable science is FACT, evolution is NOT fact. It’s theory. The point in debating evolution and faith is very important. Not just any faith either. The biblical faith. The bibles faith is a faith based on knowledge, not blind faith. I don’t believe we should except blind faith, to do so is to be very if I might be frank, stupid. Nor do I believe in telling others what they “want” to hear. I believe in the bible as truth, and telling THAT truth allot of times is NOT what people want to hear. You said that its explaining and reassuring them of the unknown road ahead. It is if it’s the true faith, not the false ones. However there is two things in that “unknown” realm ahead, its heaven and hell. So the whole point of debating faiths with other faiths(and evolution is a faith) is to get at truth, because here is the verdict, if you evolutionists and naturalists are right and im wrong, then it don’t matter, were all ok after we die. However if im right and your wrong, your soul is in peril danger, and mine is secure in God through Christ. That is the point of debating faiths. It’s something to be sure of. Its very important to be SURE of what the truth really is and what’s going to happen to you after you die. Nothing to toe with. I don’t like it when people take things lightly and say “well I’ll find out what the truth is when I die”. Such a statement is taking things so lightly. That to me is an insult and stupid and dangerous.

    Also harvestein the bible does not say the earth is flat.

    My belief system is shaped by study and a part of study for me personally is debate. I don’t know about anyone else out their, speak for yourself, but as for me, I don’t have a pride problem, if im wrong, I’ll change, if I still believe honestly that im right, I will still attempt to refute evolution. I dont believe in puting my faith in something i dont understand, and i dont believe in rejecting something i dont understand. Im not just rejecting evolution, im attempting to refute it, and I have presented arguments in refuting it, and I hope you will all remain patient with me, I am still building my “varve” argument in word perfect and I am going to build the rest of my arguments for the rest of Stephens arguments. Bare with me, and I will be back.

    There is two things that can make either of us lose this debate. 1 If I bail out of the debate before it finishes, you win, if you bail out before I do, I win. And 2 If I present arguments that you cannot account for, I win, if you present arguments to me that I cannot account for, you win. Those are the two things that will make one of us lose here.

    However I just had to reply, but bar with me, im working on those big challenges Stephen gave me. Also I don’t believe in insulting anyone personally, as a person, or thinking their dummies. Nor do I believe in retaliation or getting enraged through debates. I don’t know about others, but I don’t believe in that. Plus, anyone who’s got to insult and get enraged, that also shows they losing the debate too. Usually those type of people are the ones that are stumped and got a pride problem. You cant help pride, ignorance can be helped, but not pride. The only possible way for pride to be helped is through great patience and love. Quite the challenge.

    Nor do I believe that “all” scientists have a big fat ego and they just want to flash their knowledge at you. I believe SOME scientists are like that, but not all. Not everyone is the same. Some scientists are open minded, some are not, some are humble, some are not. I dont judge everything and everyone the same, thats just wrong, plain and simple. Heck, even some Christian have fat ego’s. I personally don’t like to call them Christians though, but they call themselves it. I believe in just being true. Find the true faith, and be true to that faith. That’s my moto. And not every faith is true, those people out their that say “well all faiths are really saying the same thing basically.” Well, those people need a new brain, because that’s obviously not correct. Here is something crazy I need to tell you, someone at my work actually said to me and I quot. “you say the earth is 6 thousand years, the next guy says its billions, cant you both be right?” I looked at him in amazement and said “what?” I mean my jaw could have dropped to the floor. Seriously I did not think such stupidity existed, yet it does.

    Anyways, im still working on my points for Stephen and im preparing my arguments. I’ll be back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Keep in mind, im not debating science, observable science is FACT, evolution is NOT fact. It’s theory.
    you see, that's where differ : evolution is fact, darwin's theory of natural selection is, as the name says it, a theory - i.e. an explanation of the facts of evolution (and a lot more too)

    a bit like gravity is a fact, but newton's and einstein's explanations of how gravity works are theories
    or plate tectonics is a fact, but there's still plenty of debate over exactly how it operates

    as i've said before, theissue about whether evolution is fact was one of the main topics of scientific debate in the 19th century, and (at least within the scientific community) it has been decisively been concluded that evolution is fact - any subsequent debate was about exactly how evolution operates, not about its factuality
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Also harvestein the bible does not say the earth is flat
    I was referring to the old scientific 'fact' that the earth was flat. Not that the bible said it was.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Harvestein there is a great point in debating faith and evolution. Keep in mind, im not debating science, observable science is FACT, evolution is NOT fact. It’s theory. The point in debating evolution and faith is very important. Not just any faith either. The biblical faith. The bibles faith is a faith based on knowledge, not blind faith.
    How do you know that only "your" holy book is based on facts?? I mean, the muslims claim the same. Take a look at some of the threads in the "religion" section. Same stuff. We know what we know and we do not care what the others say.


    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I don’t believe we should except blind faith, to do so is to be very if I might be frank, stupid. Nor do I believe in telling others what they “want” to hear. I believe in the bible as truth, and telling THAT truth allot of times is NOT what people want to hear. You said that its explaining and reassuring them of the unknown road ahead. It is if it’s the true faith, not the false ones.
    Same question: What is the "right" faith, and why are all the others "wrong". Both have only one piece of supporting "evidence": their respective holy books. Mind you, not a couple of books that actually have what we call "data" pieced together and deducted: Hey, there's irrefutable evidence for the existence of a devine entity. Nooooooooooooo.......we have books talking about a person called "Jesus" written at least 50 years after his death. And none of the authors even met this guy. And some people actually edited a those documents to suit their needs/desires/wishes. Allthough the muslims claim that the Qu'ran is unaltered also this book was edited. And the editing went onandonandonandon. So: how do you know that you are right and end up in paradise with all the other that lucked out and believed the "right" thing? And all the other poor souls basicall farted in the wind? Oh, just one other thing: let's pretend for a mo´ment that your killer argument "I just know" and the other one .......what was it..........ah yes, "God did it" are no valid answer in this thread any more.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    However there is two things in that “unknown” realm ahead, its heaven and hell. So the whole point of debating faiths with other faiths(and evolution is a faith) is to get at truth, because here is the verdict, if you evolutionists and naturalists are right and im wrong, then it don’t matter, were all ok after we die.
    Actually we're all dead after we die

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    However if im right and your wrong, your soul is in peril danger, and mine is secure in God through Christ. That is the point of debating faiths. It’s something to be sure of. Its very important to be SURE of what the truth really is and what’s going to happen to you after you die. Nothing to toe with. I don’t like it when people take things lightly and say “well I’ll find out what the truth is when I die”. Such a statement is taking things so lightly. That to me is an insult and stupid and dangerous.
    Didn't I tell you the "I know"-answer is invalid in this thread?? This also includes variations thereof like "I am shure", "God/the pope/my minister said so" and somesuch........



    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    My belief system is shaped by study and a part of study for me personally is debate. I don’t know about anyone else out their, speak for yourself, but as for me, I don’t have a pride problem, if im wrong, I’ll change, if I still believe honestly that im right, I will still attempt to refute evolution.
    I have the feeling this will become a very looooooooooooong thread. At least as long you'll get a reply by someone.





    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    There is two things that can make either of us lose this debate. 1 If I bail out of the debate before it finishes, you win, if you bail out before I do, I win. And 2 If I present arguments that you cannot account for, I win, if you present arguments to me that I cannot account for, you win. Those are the two things that will make one of us lose here
    There's no winning and losing in science. And yes there are some morons that actually have such a big ego that they think they have to fabricate data to make their point like the Korean buttnutt who claimed to have cloned human embryos. Or the German physicist who actually duped both Nature and Science (for a couple of months). But this is the reason why you publish your work in a journal and have others take a look at it. When they can reproduce your work-good. When they can't - bad luck for cold fusion (if you knwo what I mean)
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    if it's ok with everyone, i'd like to keep the content of this thread restricted to earth sciences - let's leave discussions about religion and other belief systems out of it
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Marnix is right, it is best to keep this thried to earth sciences. However i do have a answer to all those questions and relegious arguments. Mind you, ive had debates with other relegions in the past, ive been down that road too. However i am not making the claim in ALL things that "i just know" or "God did it". I do make that claim with SOME things, but not all. I do have backups to support my arguments. If their is a God, then he does some things, that means "God did it, "it" meaning some things." Although, not all things. However when i say not all things, still he does do all things, by means of even natural things. Which ive made this point already. Like a flower when it grows, water and sun and earth is making it grow, but its God that sustains it all. And you trace it all back to him. He's the one that shapes the flower as well. Were does the dirt come from? Him, where does the light come from? Him, where does the water come from him? You will say, well no, the light comes from the sun, the water from the sky, the earth from matter from the big bang. Ok, where did all that come from? Thats what i mean by trace it all back to God. However i dont believe its traced back to the big bang though. However we will get into all that too if your all willing. But we got to accomplish one argument at a time.

    As for facts now. Within the belief of evolution which they call a fact their is many theories on how it works, i understand. The same type of thing goes on in christainity for example. All the christain branches say Jesus is the way the truth and the life and his message. They all say this is a fact, they all say the bible is a fact, however they all got different theories as to the meaning to certain passages, hence got different branches. What im saying is, their is only ONE TRUE fact, it's either mine, or yours, or were both wrong and someone else is right. However, i believe im right, obviously, otherwise i would not believe it. Also facts can change sometimes, and they have through scientific history at times. So there is a difference between fact and truth. Facts can possibly change, but truth can NEVER change. Purpose of debates is to find and know truth.

    I would like to in the future in another section on this website to get into the relegious debates. However its a job and challenge to prepare my arguments for these varves. Im still preparing for that and for the other arguments stephan made. I have to admit, debating with evolution/science is more challeging then debating within the field of christanity and other relegions, for me anyways. But im always up for the challenges. Anyhow I'll be back after i prepare all my points that stephen gave me. It might be another week or so, maby less. It's taking allot of time finding stuff that i need for supports. But you can be assured i will be back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also facts can change sometimes, and they have through scientific history at times. So there is a difference between fact and truth.
    have to disagree here : facts don't change - our understanding of the facts may change, and new knowledge may change what we consider to be fact, but that's our fault, not the facts
    if we change our mind about what is fact, that's because we were mistaken in calling it a fact in the first place

    tbh, your understanding of truth and my understanding of fact probably indicates that we're talking about the same type of thing
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Ok, so your using the word "fact" in the same context im using the word "truth". Well in that case, yes i agree with you then. Facts or truth dont change, ones understanding can change. Agree. And also their is only one correct fact or truth. Its either yours or mine, but were both not right at the same time, its either one right, one wrong, or both wrong.

    (still working on the varves) i'll be back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    And also their is only one correct fact or truth. Its either yours or mine, but were both not right at the same time, its either one right, one wrong, or both wrong.
    Ho, hum. Have a word with Mr Einstein or ask a friend to run the double slit experiment for you.

    Any one got a cat, a box and a geiger counter handy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    pls take note that we're talking about the vernacular definition of fact or truth here - haven't seen much evidence of quantum events affecting the cause and effect of the macroscopic life that we're living (as opposed to life at the Planck level)

    [+ Schrodinger's cat was a thought experiment]
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Ho, hum. Have a word with Mr Einstein or ask a friend to run the double slit experiment for you.

    Any one got a cat, a box and a geiger counter handy?

    But you know the Albert seeez: HE does not throw dice!

    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    pls take note that we're talking about the vernacular definition of fact or truth here - haven't seen much evidence of quantum events affecting the cause and effect of the macroscopic life that we're living (as opposed to life at the Planck level)[+ Schrodinger's cat was a thought experiment]
    So you believe there is a hiatus, a rupture, between events at the quantum level and the macroscopic?

    But you know the Albert seeez: HE does not throw dice!
    But he also says all is relative. Perhaps your observation of his views, while true, is in conflict with my observation of his views, though true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    So you believe there is a hiatus, a rupture, between events at the quantum level and the macroscopic?
    no, but as you go up in size from the quantum level to macroscopic events there's a major chance that coherence between individual particles is lost and hence the macroscopic object consisting of billions of particles no longer the characteristics of single elementary particles

    hence, a single elementary particle can be observed in 2 places at once, but unless coherence between billions of elementary particles is maintained a rain drop no longer is capable of doing so
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    unless coherence between billions of elementary particles is maintained a rain drop no longer is capable of doing so
    The raindrop could theoretically be in two places at once but the probability is extremely small? This is what i thought to be the case. For example, my entire body could disentegrate into a shower of particles, but the larger the object were talking about gets, the probability of the macroscopic behaviour being widespread enough to be visible on the normal scale becomes so small its regarded virtually impossible. Am i right in thinking this? Because if not i will cry with confusion.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    The raindrop could theoretically be in two places at once but the probability is extremely small?
    correct - probabilities run to several orders of magnitude smaller than once in the age of the universe
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello folks, i finished analyzing all your points, doing some digging and here is what i found, read it over carefully, consider it, and then reply if you are willing. You said most Christians believe God could have made everything and left the earth running by itself and not be around. Oh boy, those are not Christians by true definition, those are deists(deist is one that believes God created things, then flew the coop). If one wants to call themselves by the name Christian they have to believe if God separated himself from creation completely, things would thus collapse. Why? Because the bible says so. It says “in him(God) we live and move and have our being” that’s just one verse among’s others. So if one says their Christian then they have to believe that verse. Because the authority of Christianity is the bible. Now the bible says God is life among’s other things too. Well just think for a moment, if you separate life from something, what happens? It dies. Yes God made the earth and its laws to function, true enough, and true enough the earth is not hollow. But without God, those laws are not even sustained. You misunderstand something, all PHYSICAL things created were not created out of something else that was physical outside of God. All physical created things were created from within God, and he is Spirit(apposite of the physical), and within him is all life. When man creates something, such as a house, he builds it from other materiel outside himself; he reshapes it and builds his house. When God creates or builds something, he don’t use something already created like man does, he creates it from within himself by speaking it into existence. So without him, nothing is sustained. Those others calling themselves Christians don’t know their God to well it appears. False Christianity makes me very angry, because I am a Christian. And if someone is being a false one, its insulting to me.


    Now about the circular reasoning part. Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks. This is not a misrepresentation. You just don’t see it, that’s all. You said that different fossils are found in rocks of different ages, and radioisotope dating gave the dates to the rocks. You also said that rocks of a particular age only contain certain fossils and no others. So when one finds those certain index fossils they can know with a high degree of reliability that the rocks inclosing the fossils are of a particular age, and the age is found out by radioisotope dating. You cant see the circularity in that? Are you sure? Just think for a moment what you said, what you said is, the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. That’s basically what you just said there. The rock layers are assigned certain ages based on the geologic column. And the fossils are interpreted as evolving as one goes upward in the geologic column, hence the fossils are aged older as one goes down the geologic column. So, the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks. Now you might say well radioisotope dating takes out that circularity. No, it don’t. The labs footnote says “we date only rocks a million years old or more, but not under” hence one has to assume first the age of the rock before they date the age of the rock by the lab. The whole thing is completely circular. Why don’t you see it? Now if you want to make an assumption, that’s fine, but realize its an assumption, that’s exactly what this is. Your trying to prove it, but your doing so with circular reasoning. Yet you say im using circular reasoning by trying to support the bible with the bible, and NO im not, im using other historic ancient records that are outside the bible to support the bible. And im using the scientific data, of fossils and geology and the earth, ext with the lense of the biblical catastrophic flood, your seeing it through the lense of evolution.

    Ok I had made a point about the footnote of the lab, that one has to make an assumption of how old the rock is before getting it dated by the lab. You had said no assumption was needed. Lets look at this again, the footnote says “we do not date rocks younger then 2 million years old, either 2 million or over, but not under”. Ok in other words, to find out the age of the rock, you first have to know the age of the rock. To find out the age of the rock, you cant date it first by the radiometric dating method. Well, how then do you know roughly the age of the rock before you send it in to get it dated by the dating method? Well, assumption. You assume the rock is 2 million years old or more based on the geologic time scale were you found the rock.. depending on what layer the rock was in when it was found, you assume its age is millions, then send it in to get dated, then it gives millions of years old by the radiometric date. That is not logical. The geologic timescale is assigned ages, so if you find a rock down their, you figure out what geologic layer its in, if it was in a layer that’s assigned millions for example, then you know its millions of years old, then you send it to the lab to get dated, the date also confirms millions of years old as well, but gives a more specific date at the same time. Do you see the huge circular assumptions here? If you don’t, im amazed. KEEP IN MIND im not at this second saying your assumption is either good or bad, im just merely pointing out the OBVIOUS assumption. You said this particular method is unreliable for very young ages, less then two million years old. I understand. However your statement fails to realize the obvious assumption. Your premise is that the earth is billions of years old, based on this premise and the geologic timescale you realize that certain rocks lower then 2 millions years cannot be dated by the lab. However rocks older then 2 million can be dated by the lab. But your assuming that rocks 2 million years old or older even exist. My belief is that all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years old. Some younger through volcano’s. My point is, when Austin deliberately defied the labs footnote, he did that because he believes there is no rock on the planet that is at least 2 million years old, so it would not matter what rock he sent in, or anyone sent in for that matter. Any rock you send into the lab, is going to be younger then 2 million years old, hence is not reliable for the dating method from the lab. Not to mention the very assumption itself is unreliable because I believe it’s an incorrect assumption, plus it’s circular at the same time. Plus by Austin sending in a rock that he definately knew the exact age to, then getting the results that it was millions of years old, even clearifies ten times more the unreliability of the dating method. And when I say that, I understand the footnote. But you need to understand your assumptions attached to your arguments. I can admit that I have assumptions, why is it hard for you to admit you have assumptions too? Assumptions are not anything to be ashamed necessarily because an assumption can be right, but then again it can be wrong to.

    Next you said “So if you get such a young age for a rock then you know it is not reliable.”Again, what does the footnote say? It says 2 million years or older, but not under. What was the results for Austins rock? It was around 2 million to 2.8 million years old. Very close to the range of the footnote. If I believed the earth were billions of years old, I would agree with you that the mt st Helens rock could not be dated by the lab. However a rock exactly 2 million years could be dated by the lab, and a rock over 2 million could. However, no rock can be dated by the lab since I believe all rocks are 6 thousand years old and less for some. So by you saying if you get such a young age for a rock then you know it is not reliable, again this statement is based on the assumption rocks exist that are millions and billions of years old.

    Then you said “if you already know the age of the rock because it came from mt st helens, theirs no point in sending it in to get dated, since it will be meaningless results”. Again, this statement assumes there are rocks that exist that are millions of years old and older. If I assume all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years old, then ANY rock being sent into the lab would thus give meaningless results.

    Then you said “where are the assumptions”. I’ve clearly pointed them out. If you deny there is assumptions because you feel that is a threat to your belief in evolution, keep in mind when I admit I have assumptions, I don’t feel by admitting that, it makes it a threat to what I believe. If my belief makes no sense, then THAT would threaten the belief but it having actual assumptions does not threaten it in and of itself.

    Now for the point about “one does not need eyewitness account in order to know what happened”. I still make the stand that recent cases are easier for forensic science, and older cases are harder, however it is not impossible for them to figure it out, I don’t deny that. However do you deny that many innocent people have gon to jail? The fact is, innocent people HAVE gon to jail, hence forensics can be wrong at times in regards to old cases. How much more so with cases of “billions of years old”. So if forensics are mistaken at times, why would they not be mistaken in the big case for evolution? You assume they are correct in this case. But no one has invented a time machine to go back and actually see what happened. However we do have written records that go way back in time. Those records are witnesses. Not only do we have one witness(the bible) we have MANY witnesses of ancient civilizations. One witness makes a good case, if you got TONS of witnesses, that makes for an even more persuasive case. So why not go with the MANY witnesses back in ancient history? It stands to reason that this would make allot more sense to go with, rather then MODERN secular scientific blurred interpretations of history, that actually CHANGE history. You cant change history that is written. Here is the verdict, you TRUST modern interpretations of history but you do not TRUST the witnesses back in history. So, we both are TRUSTING something, im trusting the witnesses, you trust the modern interpretations of history. If you tell me you do not trust the modern interpretations because their fact, I will tell you, you trust that they have given you the facts, just like I trust the witnesses gave me the facts. But there is only one fact, I believe the witnesses got it. You believe the modern science got it. But that’s just it, it’s a BELIEF. Next when you say “It actually helps for cases to be older with the K-Ar dating”. Again you assume rocks are millions and some billions through this statement.

    As for you saying multiple methods do give the same dates. This is false. They might give CLOSE to the same dates, but not the EXACT same date. Like Potasium argon might date a rock at 5 million were uranium to lead might date it at 5 million and 100. It’s close, but not the same exact date. And some dates are just plain WAY off, not close at all. And example is here http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...oactive-dating

    Ok when I said God could zap more argon into rocks, you said I had abandoned the scientific method of finding out how things work, that I was seeking supernatural means, not natural means which science goes by. Well what I have to say to this is, you or your science is assuming there is NO supernatural that exists. If the supernatural really does exist, then it would be a part of TRUE science. I had already mentioned that there is a science that researches the supernatural. Also something I read recently is that your evolution faith believes that history that came on the scene abruptly, did so by aliens coming down and educating mankind, or happened by some other mystery. If you believe that nonsense that “aliens did it” why do you have a problem with me saying “God did it”? If evolution were true, how does history abruptly come on the scene? Some evolutionists theorize that aliens educated us in writing and skills and technology. If that’s so, why did they not get it right the first time? Why don’t we have the same technology as they do now, like flying saucers that can go outside of our galaxy? Theirs the problem. Now if you personally don’t believe in the ‘aliens did it” how then did the history abruptly come on the scene? That leaves a problem for evolution right there. Oh yes “some mystery DID IT”. And you have a problem with me saying “God did it”? Not to mention when God created the trees and Adam and Eve, he created them in one day, fully grown. The same with the earth, and did more supernatural or special sovereign, purposeful things through mans history, even right up to the present time. As I said before, I don’t make the claim that “God did it” for everything in a supernatural way, but he did do some things in supernatural ways, and he did everything else in natural ways. Note, that I say HE did it all, but some things naturally, some things supernaturally. For instance when he created Adam and Eve, it was supernaturally, but when Adam and Eve had a baby, God gave them a baby NATURALLY, just like one is born today. This is not a copout. If there is a God, then he is not subject to natural laws, natural laws are subject to him, since he is the maker of them. The theistic evolution God, is a weak God, he is portrayed as subject to his creation, he is portrayed as NOT all knowing, he is portrayed as a God of death, a God who does not reveal his will ext. Such a God by definition is NOT God at all. A true God implies ALL powerful, ALL knowing, ALL wise, ALL glorious, ALL good, ALL pure, ALL loving, ALL true ext. And you know what’s funny? All the old ancient civilization stories have a creation account, along with long aged men accounts, along with a flood account. How does that happen by accident?

    Im going to tell this story, it don’t matter if it makes me look silly or not. My pastor that I knew in Canada for 5 years closely went on a mission trip to a Indian reserve, their he had some revival meetings, and one of the things he witnessed was a mans arm that was not their GREW BACK right before his very eyes. I was not there personally, I wish I was, however I believe my pastor was telling me the truth. He told me it was his very first time ever witnessing something like that in his 20 years of ministry. Here is a correspondent story from a person I met in the united states where I live now, she told me her daughter was in church one day, and her daughter looked back from being near the front of the church pews, and she saw a woman in the church with no arms. She did not think much of it and turned around and presumed on taking in the service. Periodically she looked back, she noticed the women’s arms were growing. Finally it took the whole service for the arms to fully grow in their completeness. At the end of the service the woman’s arms were fully grown back. I also believe this woman was telling me the truth, I had gotten to know her for a few months at work, she was a strong church goer and bible believer, and she seamed quite sincere with her Christian faith. Plus im not stupid, I can tell when people are messing and when their not, when their mocking and when their not. True there is some pretty good cons out their, but if your sensitive enough you can tell who’s lying and who’s not, who’s messing and who’s not. Why is it that two independent stories the same miracle happens? You see if God grew the arm back supernaturally, why would it be so hard for him to create a earth in one day?

    Plus by God adding more argon or more tree rings ext this does not mean he is being deceitful. When a builder builds a house, he builds with either layers of bricks, or layers of wood, is the builder thinking the layers of brick or wood mean different ages? No, the builder just builds that way, he is not trying to trick anyone, he is just building. The same with God, he made the elements, the trees, the earth, and made it with certain rings, layers ext, this is not a deception. Because he did not create the layers for the purpose of counting no more then a builder uses the layers of brick for the purpose of counting.

    As for you using the story of God striking the firstborn of the Egyptian sons and calling God a monster because of it. Keep in mind who killed first? If you read the whole story it says that Egypt killed many of the sons of the Israelite when they were first born because they feared them growing and that might become a threat to their kingdom, so they wanted to control them and keep them as slaves. Not only that but Egypt worshiped other gods. In the first commandment God says he is a jealous God. So God is basically taking vengeance and justice on the Egyptians for what they did to Israel. Basically God was saying ‘you want to mess with my servant Israel, then I will make you reap what you sow back on your own head.’ That does not make God a monster, that makes him a God of authority and justice. As an alternative God himself did not kill the firstborn of the Egyptian sons, the account actually says in exodus 12:23 “When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.”. Notice it says God wont PERMIT the destroyer to enter Israel’s houses. That means the destroyer is independent of God, he is NOT God himself, because God permits and restrains this destroyer. Job is a more well example of what I am trying to say here. Job suffered allot, but it was not God making him suffer, it was Satan, but God PERMITTED Satan to do him harm, while all along job THOUGHT it was God doing it. Finally God shows up in the end and says job was mistaken. Satan HATES everyone, he even hates those who serve him(such as the Egyptians), but God still has restraints on Satan, if God did not have any restraints on him, you can be assured we would all be dead by now. Its not God that is the monster, ITS SATAN who is. Bad things don’t happen by God, don’t blame him, they happen by Satan or your own bad choices. You see its not God striking his hand that kills, its God WITHDRAWING his hand, that brings in death. As for God telling Israel to take over the land and kill the Canaanite’s. Keep in mind of what those Canaanite’s were doing. They were worshiping other gods, spreading a damning message to the world, and they were sacrificing their sons and daughters in the fire to their idol gods. God being a God of justice was sick of this and so did justice on THEM through using Israel as his sword of judgment. And if you think God being a God of vengeance and justice is too harsh, why is it then when society administers justice to criminals, this is perfectly fine in your eyes? But when the God of ALL authority administers justice by his own sovereignty, this raises a bar of problems for you? Why does justice get administered in the first place? Because someone is angry at wrong doing. It’s the same with God.

    Now for Jesus trying to confuse people through telling parables. Not so. Parables actually help you understand things better. As for Matthew 13:11-15 this is talking about people who have pride, those people wont receive the “secrets of the knowledge of heaven”. Why? Because pride blocks it. He who has will be given more, he who does not have, even what he thinks he has, will be taken away. This is talking about people of pride. Those who are humble and wish to learn, will receive more and learn more, those who think they know it all, wont learn anything else and even what they do know, is hardly nothing since their pride blocks things and blinds them. This is the whole thing Jesus was getting at in the context of those verses. Jesus was not trying to reduce the numbers to enter salvation, that would contradict his purpose for coming to earth.


    You said science does not just go by what’s observed. I will agree there is different branches of science, yes. However my stand still remains with the “witnesses are better then modern interpretations”. And if you believe things that you cant see, such as an atom or a neutron or Neptune or any other galaxy even, if you believe those things that you cant see, why is it such a problem believing God whom we cant see? Is it really because one can’t fully prove it, or is it because that would make you accountable to him? And who wants to live for God, this world selfishly wants to live for itself.

    As for the science investigating the supernatural and gathering proof; Here is a quote I found from someone who saw a film “Many years ago I saw footage [film I think but it may have been video] from an investigation of a haunted house in Los Angeles. The investigative team was a respectable team of graduates and a professor from UCLA; I don't remember what department but it involved quite a few people. They set up cameras and equipment all around the house and left it running [in total] for several days and nights. The whole thing was allegedly run as any other science experiment; with all of the rigor to withstand peer review. At one point, just a clear as day, with no one in the house and the entire room in view, one could see a toy car running all around the room by itself. The footage wasn't fuzzy or dark. There were no indications of anything odd and the car was in focus. I thought, well, that's it! They got proof.

    I never heard another thing. No claims of fraud. No claims of proof. Nothing. I have come to suspect that peer pressure stifles results like this. We can't prove that the film wasn't faked. That's at least part of the problem IMO. I have seen an awful lot of this stuff, from the least to the most credible, and I believe that I have seen things on film and tape that can't be explained. But, less the obvious or debunked hoaxes, there is no way to tell with any degree of certainty what, if anything, is genuine.” And films don’t hallucinate! Also I’ve seen a few films myself that are claimed to be real. Also the history channel that appears to believe in evolution, also documents things about the supernatural. Also we have Obhiolite’s testimony of seeing ghosts and he still don’t believe in ghosts even after seeing them. The fact he was honest to say he saw them, then was still trying to debunk what he saw, this seams even more convincing that there is a spirit realm, since were hearing it from a source that is trying to debunk it, yet saw it and was honest about it. So instead of him persuading me to NOT believe in the spirit realm, he has helped me believe it all the more. Jesus put it this way “if they don’t believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even if someone rises from the dead”. The reason it is so hard to believe for so many is because we are so accustomed to the natural realm everyday. Eastern cultures are more prone to be open to the spirit realm then western, sad but true. Faith is a channel of connection between the natural world and the spirit world.


    Now I had said that most rock could have failed to degas argon(which we also have proof happens). Then you said that’s one of the reasons one should only date older rock. That way as the rock gets older the proportion of argon that was trapped at formation becomes less and less, so the date gets more and more accurate. This is flawed logic and reasoning. You say this based on the assumption AGAIN that the rocks are millions and billions of years old. If there is excess argon within the rock, to the point that it could give ages resulting in millions of years old, how do you not know that ANY argon from the time of solidification is a very low % of decayed argon, which in essence make the rock still 6 thousand years old. Let me say it another way. Lets assume for the moment a rock sample is 4 to 6 thousand years old, and it has excess argon in it from the time of solidification. Now 4 to 6 thousand years ago from that starting time, potassium begins to decay to argon, and it decays for 4 to 6 thousand years, adding to the excess argon, more argon. But the more argon which is decayed argon is a very extremely low % since its decay rate is very slow. Now by the time 4 to 6 thousand years is don, a modern scientist finds this rock sample, and dates it by the potassium-argon method, and it results in millions of years old, but he first assumes the rock is millions or billions. And it will still result in these long ages even though the rock is only 4 to 6 thousand years old, proof of this is Austin’s rock sample from mt st Helens. Plus there are other examples. It would still date old because of the excess argon. So do you see your logic is flawed based on your assumption. Again im not at this moment attacking the obvious assumption, im just clearly pointing out the obvious assumption. Lets separate assumption from logic here.


    Also you said the problem disappears when you apply other dating methods to compare to. No the problem does not disappear, because with uranium-lead dating is the same problem with potassium-argon dating. You got the same problems with that. The very same assumption also applies to uranium-lead dating. Again im not at this very second attacking the assumption, just pointing out the obvious assumption. There can also be excess lead in the rock sample. “A case where a rock was known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age. That is a 14 billion year error in dating with the uranium-lead method. Also a sample dating from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years. “

    As for rubidium-strontium dating here is a quote “
    rubidium All aside from leaching and other contamination, the experts have so far been unable to agree on the length of a rubidium half-life. This renders it useless for dating purposes. This is because the samples vary so widely. *Abrams compiled a list of rubidium half-lives suggested by various research specialists. Estimates, by the experts, of the half-life of rubidium varied between 48 and 120 billion years! That is a variation spread of 72 billion years: a number so inconceivably large as to render Rb-Sr dating worthless.
    Strontium: In addition, only a very small amount of strontium results from the decay; and much of the strontium may be non-radiogenic, that is, not caused by the decay process. This is due to the fact that strontium 87 is easily leached from one mineral to another, thus producing highly contaminated dating test results.”


    So other methods do not clear away the problem at all because there is problems with them too. How can these other methods which have problems take away the problems of the former? It doesn’t, it only ADDS more problems to the existent one, making the problem worse then at first. As for the consistent date comparisons between these methods, what about all those discarded inconsistent ones? Plus again even the consistent comparisons are not EXACTLY the same between each method. There only generally AROUND the same, but NOT the same. Plus the discarded ones make it worse for you. When they discard certain dates by the methods it’s because it would make a problem for them, and so they throw them out dishonestly.


    I had said if the spectrometer caused contamination within the samples, that would cast a slur on the lab. You said in response that I had not paid attention to what was said. “That the lab stated that it could not guarantee accuracy for young samples. One reason for this, as Kevin pointed out, may be due to traces of argon carrying over from previous samples. In most cases this would not matter because the carry over is so small. When measuring something that’s 200 million years old, then what’s an extra million or two? “

    In rebuttal to this I say: when the lab gave that footnote that they could not date rocks under 2 million years old, and Kevin says it’s probably because argon in the spectrometer could carry over into the present sample from previous samples, hence contaminating the present young sample and making it look older then what the young sample really is. Again this ASSUMES that there are rocks millions and billions of years old. Even if Kevin is correct that this is what the lab was thinking, the lab ASSUMES there are rocks millions of years old. But if we assume there are rocks no older then 6 thousand years old, then the spectrometer will contaminate every sample of rock. Plus the spectrometer IS suppose to be clean. If not, then the spectrometer method for dating is not reliable. So if it is not clean, it’s not reliable, and even if it were clean, then Austin samples are GOOD. Now when you said that in most cases such as OLD cases of rocks, such as millions of years old, argon from the spectrometer overlapping onto the new samples being dated would not matter, because the rocks are not young, but already very old, so what is another million years or so? Again, this assumes there are rocks that exist as millions of years old, plus even if there were rocks millions of years old, what’s an extra million going to do? Do you mean to tell me that you don’t care if the spectrometer gives a excess of one million years old? That says it all folks, deliberately keep trusting the method, even when you KNOW it can give excess years. As an alternative response you are assuming that even if the spectrometer was not thoroughly clean, it would caus an extra million years. You don’t know that. It could cause only a few hundred extra years. Depends on how clean it was. Who knows? Weather we assume rocks are no older then 6 thousand years, or millions of years, the spectrometer wont work to give it to you accurately because well, it is not clean. Plus both my view and yours is assuming something. So we don’t need in either case a spectrometer because we both would have to make an assumption before we even use it. So the spectrometer is useless with both of our views.

    Also you said “But when measuring something recent even a small carry over becomes a significant % of the total Ar measured. Another reason for the inappropriateness of the K-Ar method for such recent samples. This is not a slur on the lab. Purging mass spectrometers is not always quick and easy, the labs know this, they know the limitations of their instrument and they make this clear when they specify that samples younger than 2 Ma should not be tested on their equipment. The labs state that they can't date anything below 2 Ma, yet a creationist submits something he knows is less than 2 Ma and whines when he gets a nonsense answer. This is churlish, and downright dishonest. It is the creationists who are casting a slur – and a false and slanderous one at that – on the innocent labs.”

    I understand what your saying. If there is a small % of argon that was not cleaned out from the spectrometer then that carry over onto a 4 to 6 thousand year old rock is going to have a big effect on blurring the resultant date, and yes it would blur even the date on a older rock as well such as millions of years old, but the blur on the younger rock would be greater then the older, since the % of the uncleaned argon in the spectrometer would be less then the decayed argon in the millions of years old rock. So the blur would be greater on the younger rock apposed to the older one since the younger rock has hardly any decayed argon. Yes I AGREE with you IF your assumption that millions of years old rocks even exist, but AGAIN, your making that obvious assumption. If your assumption is correct, then I can agree with you, your logic in this instance is correct, but your assumption is I believe incorrect. Again your logic in THIS statement is correct, but your assumption is not according to my assumption. Your assuming there exists rocks in the millions and billions. If we assume no rocks are older then 6 thousand years old, then the spectrometer having a low % of uncleaned argon in it, would blur every single sample of rock dated by this method. If you don’t agree with my assumption that all the rocks that exist are 6 thousand years or under then please just realize that yours IS an assumption, at least come to realize that. Im not at this moment even asking you to agree with my assumption, im just trying to get you to see, yours IS an assumption. Also even if by the lab not thoroughly cleaning it’s equipment does not cast a slur on the lab, it still makes the spectrometer unreliable in dating. Next you say by Austin sending in a known young rock to get dated by the lab, that this is dishonest. No it’s not BECAUSE Austin assumes no matter what rock you send in, there ALL going to be young, because he assumes there are NO rocks millions of years old, but all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years old. So he is not being dishonest, because he don’t believe there are rocks that exist that are over 2 million years old that he can EVEN SEND into the lab and get dated. So to test his assumption, he sends in a rock of which he knows the age too, and BOOM, it proves what he expected. So if we cant get a age for a rock of known age correct, why would we trust it for rocks of unknown age? That’s were your assumption comes in for unknown rock ages, and your assumption is not reasonable since the spectrometer cant give correct ages on rocks of known age. Next you said the labs are innocent. I can agree to an extant, however if they are careless in cleaning there spectrometer, I wont agree. However if they are careful, I can agree, AND if they realize that there footnote is an assumption, then I will call them honest. If they don’t realize that, there not honest labs. So it’s not Austin who is dishonest, it’s you and the labs that are, IF you don’t realize that you have to make an assumption. Again that’s not admitting your assumption is wrong, it’s just honestly realizing it’s an assumption. If you don’t know if the rock is 2 million years old before sending it into the lab, then how do you know how old it is before you can send it in? Assumption? Or if you say other dating methods, well how do you know if the rock samples are old enough to be dated by these? Assumption? If not assumption, how do you know? Geologic column? Then that has it’s assumptions. You have not proven a single thing for evolution.



    Next you said “if the greater age is due to contamination by older rock then that rock must be millions of years old to give a date of millions of years to fresh rock. How can that millions of years old rock exist on a 6000 year old planet?” The old rock in the new rock, is not millions of years old. True it is older then the new rock, but not that old. Why then does the dating method give a date as millions of years? Based on the assumption. In other words when you take a rock out of the ground, there is nothing on it that says “I am one million years old”. What happens is scientists count the number of parent-daughter isotopes and check the decay rate and count backward. Well they assume the decay rate has been the same in the past, which is not necessarily true, because some isotopes decay faster then others, such as carbon apposed to potassium. It is known that certain factors can make something decay faster. Here is a quote I found “
    we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct.
    Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.
    The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.
    The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.
    (4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!
    "His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.”


    So if the decay rate is known to change, the very assumption that the decay rate has always been the same is not even realistic. Let me make it more real, a rocks isotopes decay faster in the past for a period of time by certain factors, then the remaining parent isotopes start to decay slower by certain factors, now today we see them decay at a slow steady rate. Then we calculate backward and see its millions or billions, this date would not be correct if in fact it decayed faster in the past.


    Also daughter isotopes can get into a rock by some other way other then through decay from parent isotopes. Here is another quote “
    A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age."
    By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc.
    Evolutionist theorists tell us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed later. But "appearance of maturity" at the Creation would mean that, much of the elements, now classified by evolutionists as "daughter products," were actually original—not daughter—products and were already in the ground along with uranium instead of being produced by it. We already know, from Robert Gentry’s studies, that original (primordial) polonium 218 was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly and in solid form; yet polonium is thought by evolutionists to only occur as an eventual daughter product of uranium disintegration.”

    So the daughter element can exist somewhere else other then the rock, and God can give the rock an appearance of age, like the rest of things in the creation. You ASSUME both of these explanations are NOT true. You can’t prove your assumption is true, and you can’t disprove my assumption is wrong. Also the polonium was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence which makes it realistic that the daughter elements are not all daughters at the beginning, yet are there. By this your assumptions are not disprovin persa, but they certainly don’t make sense by this.


    As for all the dating methods agreeing, again there all based on the same assumptions even if they do agree, and they all don’t agree in the EXACT number, and some are discordant because they don’t agree AT ALL by a long shot.


    As for these radiometric dates agreeing perfectly with classical stratigraphy. Perfectly? No, generally, could be. Young rocks overly older rocks because over time catastrophes such as volcano’s will make new rock to cover the old. During Noah’s flood, lots of volcano’s would happen. Also younger rock being on top of older is not always the case either. There is cases were older rocks are on top of younger, and certain fossils are NOT in the order that there suppose to be in according to evolutionary models and textbooks. By this fact there is problems with your belief.


    Next I had said no one was down below with a microscope in the past observing phenocrystals grow. Then you said “back to the old YEC only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories scam”. Not really, im not at this moment even resorting to the bible or any other ancient record as a eyewitness, im just saying ME NOR my sources NOR YOUR sources have swam in lava in the past with a microscope, hence you don’t know how they can grow, nor the rate at which they grow.

    Next I had said God could have zaped some stuff fully grown in the beginning. You had said “Undisprovable non science as explained earlier. Any refuting evidence can be explained by saying ‘God made it like that.’ This is not science! Jollybear even has the effrontery to call it logic. As it seams jollybear will dismiss any contrary evidence as having been made that way by God it begs the question, just what will jollybear accept as proof that he is wrong? If the answer is nothing, because any contrary evidence is simply the result of God making it appear so, then we have ourselves a closed minded bigot, for the definition of closed minded bigotry is refusal to accept contrary evidence. I am reminded of the pastafarians, who say that everything was created by the flying spaghetti monster. If there is any evidence to the contrary it is because the FSM made it so with his noodly appendage. Brilliant I love the pastafarians.”

    To this I say, what is science? It is to attain knowledge by observation and experimentation and testings. That would include the field of naturalism(obviously) but it would also INCLUDE supernaturalism(which some science works in that area, weather they proved something or not, they still work in that area). So how can you say im not being scientific when I resort to “GOD created everything”? If God really does exist, then he would be included into science. Now if your saying NO science only includes the field of naturalism, then I would call science “the closed minded bigot”and not me. If the spirit realm and other dimensions exist, then according to your definition of science, it would thus be closed minded. However since some branches of science do work in the field of the supernatural, then your definition of science would thus be very tunnel vision. So I am very open minded, the fact that I have taken extensive time to analyze all your points and put lots of thought into understanding your points and making counter arguments for them, speaks volumes of proof that I am open minded. However if there is any Christian that say “well I believe in the bible and im not interested to be educated on what science has to say, and I don’t care to know the other side of anything else, this is what my parents raised me with and I don’t care to hear what you have to say” < THAT is closed minded, and to get technical, I would dare boldly say such a one is NOT even a Christian. Actually I would side with you in saying to that person there close minded. So yes, I am definitely open minded. However open minded does not mean I have to agree with your stand, it does not of yet make sense to me. And if I can say to you that I believe YOU are open minded, why is it hard for you to realize I am open minded? I believe you are open minded by the fact you care to debate me and discuss these things with me. However I still realize you don’t agree with me. What I am saying is analogous to a water filter. The water filter is open to the water, but keeps out the dirt. You see im open to discussion, open to evidence and proof, open to reason and logic but im not open to falsehood.

    Now as for evidence that goes contrary to the bible. The thing is, there is no evidence that exists that goes contrary to the bibles creation account. What does exist is INTERPRETED evidence that goes against the biblical account. This evidence however is the bibles evidence for creation and global flood. So we both have the same data, but two different interpretations on that data. So you ask what will I except as evidence that the bible is wrong? Here is what I will except, find me either a LIVING transitional form, perhaps of half man half horse, like legs of horse and torso of a man and head of a man. Or a fossil of this even(which would thus be more subjective, however at least it’s something). Or find me half a fish, half human being, sort of like a mermaid perhaps. Or as an alternative, invent a time machine to take us back in time to see what actually happened? OR invent something that can keep my body alive for millions of years, so I can observe if macro evolution will take place? Or just account for abrupt history, account for missing links, account for problems with some radiometric dated cases, such as wood stump found in a layer classified to be millions of years old, this wood had carbon 14 in it, also a sabertooth tiger had carbon in it. Account for a dinosaur case that had some blood or flesh. And the list goes on and on. There’s so many things you would have to account for. Im still studying all of them. I will except proof from you, but what you have given is not proof, its subjective things attached with assumptions that you have given. If you had given REAL proof I would not have been that stupid and prideful as to refute it. That’s like if a person said they have something in there hand and I say “prove it?” then they show me the thing and I say “that’s not proof”. If I said that, I would need mental help. By the person showing me the thing, that is proof they have the something in there hand. No question about it. You on the other hand or any other evolutionists cannot give this proof. Yet you say you are giving me proof and im not excepting it and im close minded. Not so, give real proof and I will except it.

    But it stands to reason that if there is a God, surely he is powerful enough to create something in a fully matured state. Do you believe there is a God yourself? If not, why not? If so, why is it hard to believe he has power over his creation?

    As for the pastafarians, there very belief in itself is ridiculous, on top of the fact that if evidence was given that REALLY disproved there belief they would still reject it, then there close minded. But your evidence has not disproved that my God has created all things in the beginning in a matured state.


    Next I had said Kevin realized there are anomalous results. Then you said that Austins was not just anomalous but bogus. I don’t believe it was bogus, and this case is saturated with assumptions. However Kevin admits there are anomalous cases, my question is, how do you account for the anomalous cases that you BELIEVE to be actual anomalies?


    Also you mentioned that I don’t have credentials and am not a scientist. I had already admitted from the beginning that I was not a scientist and that I am still learning. However when you say “zero knowledge” this part is incorrect. I do have SOME knowledge, however im not a expert in the field of science, im sure other creationists especially creation scientists would be better at debating in this field with you, and it’s not because there better debaters persa, but because of there knowledge. I know my debating skill is sufficient, but my science knowledge has to grow. However I know how to read, and from my reading, I can detect when I see assumptions and when I don’t. However when I read in a article someone giving an assumption and then I read somewhere else someone making the same argument but coming across as if it’s not a assumption, I begin to wonder, am I being misled here?

    Next you said “would one reject all diagnoses of an illness just because occasionally doctors get them wrong?” You were applying this logic to radiometric dating. Just because some come out wrong, should we reject them all? Here is the thing, I realize some come out wrong, and a lot of others come out correct. When I say correct, I mean the method was correctly don, however I believe your assumptions that are attached to the method are completely barking up the wrong tree. To explain further the doctors diagnose then prescribe a certain drug to help the illness. But what is actually better, medicine, or natural remedies? It is known that medicine can caus other illness. So is the medical field barking up the wrong tree? It is known that when doctors go on strike, about 90% of the people DON’T DIE apposed to when there not on strike. So is the medical field barking up the wrong tree? When it comes to that question it don’t matter to me at this time, since it’s not on our topic, it is only mentioned as an analogy. However in regards to your dating methods, even when there correctly don, the assumptions still apply, and I believe your assumptions are barking up the wrong tree. As for the apples, if one is bad do we reject all them as bad? Well radiometric dating is not a bunch of apples, we except the good apples, throw out the bad. But all the good dates from radiometric dating apposed from the bad dates, are not actually good dates but selected dates based on the assumption. Its not the method that is bad, and it’s not the bad dates that are bad, nor the good dates that are bad, the method, nor it’s good or bad dates are bad, it’s the assumption attached to it all that IS bad. My assumption is that your assumption IS BAD, its barking up the wrong tree completely. You missed it entirely. It’s sorta like having a map from charlotte to florida, however you take one wrong turn and you missed the maps instructions entirely, and you keep going thinking your on the right road, but all along your barking up the wrong road until finally it dawns on you near the end, and now you realize your lost. You see there was nothing wrong with the map, the map was good, the road was good, you making the wrong turn assuming it was correct, was not good.

    Ok my brain is fried from all that research and preparing and working on my article. I have not even gotten into YET the point about the earths crust melting point you made. BUT I AM STILL GOING TO. I still even have to understand it first before I talk about anything on that. I hate talking about something I don’t understand, that’s why I have not mentioned anything on it yet. But im not ignoring your point, im going to find some stuff out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Ok, from my digging, this is what I found for Egypt, and this is even better then the date 3200 BC. The true date for Egypt being founded would have to be 2188 BC. Now don’t come back and say ‘well you changed your mind, therefor what you say is not reliable’. The more you research and dig, the more your belief system is shaped(if you believe what you found). Because after you dig, you find gold, after you find gold, you shape the gold into a coin.

    “The Byzantine chronicler Constantinus Manasses wrote that the Egyptian state lasted 1663 years. If correct, then counting backward from the time that Cambyses, king of Persia, conquered Egypt in 526 BC, gives us the year of 2188 BC for the founding of Egypt,about 60 years after the birth of Peleg(recent descendent of Noah). About this time Mizraim(another recent descendent of Noah), the son of Ham, led his colony into Egypt. Hence the Hebrew word for Egypt is Mizraim”And Manasses was not even in the bible, so you cant say im using circular reasoning now. He is a outside source. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/i1/peleg.asp

    “In 1991, Peter James published his book Centuries of Darkness, claiming that the chronology of Egypt should be reduced by 250 years.James was a reputable scholar, and his book carried a preface by Professor Colin Renfrew of Cambridge University recognizing that ‘a chronological revolution is on its way’, claiming that ‘history will have to be rewritten’. In 1995, David Rohl published A Test of Time, in which he claimed that the chronology of Egypt should be reduced by 350 years.All this meant that the end of the 12th dynasty of Egypt would be dated to the 15th century BC, which would be about the time of the Biblical Exodus, and the slaves known to have lived at Kahun and laboured on the building of the 12th dynasty pyramids were the Israelite slaves.”

    “there are a number of scholars who claim that a gross error in chronology has been made in calculating the dates of Egyptian history and that they should be reduced by centuries.”

    This reduction would thus make tons of evidence fit the bible perfectly. Both for Israelite slaves, the exodus and Jericho invasion under Joshua and much more. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/moses.asp

    When secularists make prolonged dates for Egypt by carbon dating artifacts, well carbon dating has its problems. It’s not at equilibrium, their was less carbon way back then there is today. So if you date things from way back, they will appear older then they really are; because the less carbon the older it suppose to be. Hence a prolonged date for Egypt would be incorrect.

    As for the other method, called the “Sothic THEORY” for dating Egypt older then the flood, was discredited, yet still used for dating Egypt. Not only was it discredited, but has assumptions attached to it. For more on the Sothic theory check here http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v...hic_theory.asp

    Also if different civilizations have different dates(which they do), one of them has the fix all the other ones. Which one is that? For example, does Egypt’s interpreted secular date fix the bibles chronological dates? Or does the bibles dates fix Egyptian interpreted secular dates? Even if Egypt were said by Egypt itself that it was older then Noah, still, does the bible fix Egypt’s date, or visa versa? I believe the bible fixes Egypt’s date, you believe the apposite. My belief makes more sense, because reducing the date for Egypt fits the records and stories of the bible. And if you don’t reduce the dates for Egypt, then what else do you have to fit the evidence of the exodus, slaves in Egypt, Jericho’s walls tumbling, ext? To term it another way, if the interpreted dates for Egypt are reduced then archeological discoveries, and other records fit like a perfectly nice puzzle with all the sequences of events in the bible. So it makes perfect SENSE that Egypt’s true date is 2188 BC. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../2006/0630.asp

    Also each DOCUMENTED witnessed date for each civilization ALL of them defy modern interpreted dates given by secular science or archeologists! It’s not just the bible that defies modern interpreted dates, ALL documented civilization dates do. However, each documented civilization dates come to different dates for each civilization. So one civilization has to fix the others, I believe the bibles documented dates fixes the others and not visa versa. HOWEVER if you take a civilizations dates and let that fix the biblical documented dates, still it defies modern interpreted dates!

    Also Egypt is looked at as made of dynasties, separate periods, however some scholars suggest that the dynasties of Egypt did not even exist, at least as independent dynasties, another reason for the shortening of Egypt’s date.

    Also Noah’s sixteen sons that are mentioned in the bible, there are places today that are still called by their names from way back. How can Noah and his genealogies be myth if there is places called by all their names? And if they are not myths, why would the rest of the story be myth? More on this is here http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...20/i4/noah.asp
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Now for the varves.Your saying that counting the layers of varves gives you the year of the earth. Well, you said the tree rings go back as far as 12 thousand years, then a location called the lake Monticchio counted 102,000 layers of varves. And the fossil ones contain millions of layers of varves. All these layers are interpreted as years according to their number. Well my reasonable question is, what then is the age of the earth? Is it 12 thousand, 102 thousand, or millions? Which one folks, take your pick? How’s that for exact science. But of course your going to pick the millions one because that suits your evolutionary timescale better. However that’s still picking and choosing. Not to mention, even if you do pick the million year interpretation still that’s a far cry from 4.5 billion years old which you believe. Why is it that during the rest of the millions of years till you get to the 4 billion years, nothing was happening to the previous varves, or no new varves were being made? You know why, because what you believe makes no sense. Also another thing is, have they actually counted one by one right up to millions? Or did they take a guise and estimated, or measure? If they took a guise and estimated or measured it, that’s not reliable because some varves are thicker then others and some varves are not true varves. Also another thing is your assuming that all of those thousands or millions of varves are annually deposited varves. You assume the present is the key to the past, and that’s not always a fact. The present is NOT the key to the past in allot of cases. That’s proven because storms can lay down multiple layers annually.

    Next your saying that annual layers can be distinct in appearance from storm deposited layers. Note to the viewers, a true varve consists of fine and course sediment that deposits through the winter and summers annually. Their supposedly distinct from storm deposited layers. But the fact is, storm deposited layers and annual varve layers LOOK the SAME. At least according to what I have read. Here is a quote I found “Oard a meteorologist discusses the attempts to distinguish varves from other forms of rhythmites, but shows that the criteria are nowhere near accurate enough for us to know when there is only yearly deposition and when it might even be daily, or twice a day. In each case, couplets of light and dark material are formed.” In other words they look the SAME.

    Here is another thing I found “In some cases, the varves were known to form more rapidly simply because someone could watch them form. Oard also states that it is difficult to distinguish yearly varves from more frequent ones. In other cases, evidence may have shown a more rapid formation but this evidence may have been external to the varves themselves.”

    Here is another thing I found “Dr. Elaine Kennedy, GEOLOGIST at GRI, she says that although varves were known to have the dark and light alternating bands, other depositions could do this as well and that the distinctions between varves, rhythmites, and any forms of layering becomes quite, if you will excuse the expression, muddy. Different explanations trade places regarding different areas depending on different ideas and discoveries. In short, there is almost no exact way to look at any series of thin layers and say “these are varves.” There are ways to say, with pretty good certainty, that certain depositional series are NOT varves, but there is no way to definitely define varves so as to exclude any other possibilities.

    As for the green river formations, the CURRENT thinking among many GEOLOGISTS is that those millions of layers are definitely NOT varves. There are too many evidences going against them, including multistrata(or polystrate) fossils, different numbers of varves per unit area in different sections, and the impossibility of that many years of uninterrupted layering.
    Thus, while varves do exist, certainly, they cannot always be defined as clearly as some would like them to be. She also mentioned that those geologists who said they could, KNOW BETTER.” End of quote. Now that’s coming from a actual geologist, not me. So there you have it, three supports that annual varves opposed to multiple layers are HARD to distinguish.

    Now as for the fossil varves of up to twenty million couplet layers. Most of these layers are probably NOT ALL true annual varve layers. And I can back that up from a quote from a expert in the field of geology. Someone from a Baptist forum consulted this expert and here is the quote
    “Several people have raised questions about varves that I personally could
    not answer. So I contacted an expert:
    http://www.llu.edu/llu/grad/natsci/b.../buchheim.html

    Here are my questions and his responses:
    1. How sure are we that the Green River varves represent an annual formation and not
    something more frequent? What are the key lines of evidence that support
    this conclusion?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We do not know the answer to this question yet. All we can say is that the laminae couplets are probably NOT varves; that is annual couplets. The papers listed below discuss this issue:

    Buchheim, H. P., 1994, Paleoenvironments, lithofacies and varves of the
    Fossil Butte Member of the Eocene Green River Formation, Southwestern
    Wyoming: Contributions to Geology, vol. 30, No. 1, p. 3-14.

    Buchheim, H.P., and H. P. Eugster, 1998, Eocene Fossil Lake: The Green
    River Formation of Fossil Basin, Southwestern Wyoming, p. 1-17. In J.
    Pittman, and A. Carroll (eds.), Modern and Ancient Lacustrine Depositional
    Systems. Utah Geological Association Guidebook 26.

    Buchheim, H.P. and Biaggi, R.E., 1988, Laminae counts within a synchronous
    oil shale unit: a challenge to the "varve" concept. (Abstract) Geol. Soc.
    America, Abstracts with programs, 20(7):A317.

    Grande, L., and Buchheim, H.P., 1994, Paleontological and sedimentological
    variation in early Eocene Fossil Lake: Contributions to Geology, v. 30, no.
    1, p.33-56.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> “

    Their you have it, a expert in the field of geology says they don’t know the answer yet, that in itself does not prove your point nor mine, however he does say they are probably NOT all annual varves, and that supports my stand.

    Again I will re quote the other geologist “As for the Green River formations, the current thinking among many geologists is that they are definitely NOT varves. There are too many evidences going against them, including multistrata (or polystrate) fossils, differing numbers of varves per unit area in different sections, and the impossibility of that many years of uninterrupted layering.”

    Here is another quote “Please note they are not called varves if fossil fish are in them.”


    If there is disagreement amongst geologists in the field itself, that goes to show there is no proof that varves pose a proof of a million year old earth or older. If there really was proof, it would be undisputed. And if anyone disputed it, well that person would be either 1 a dummy or 2 thinks he is hallucinating as he looks at the proof. However most of us have a brain and can think strait here, and there is NO absolute proof for a million year old earth through varves.

    Now you said if we generously assume 1 storm a day, everyday that makes 50 thousand years still needed. Keep in mind during Noah’s flood for that one year their would be MULTIPLE storms happening every day, each day, for a whole year. Then during the ice age melt after the flood, more multiple layers would form. Then post flood and post ice age during history right up to the present, their would be more storms periodically, which would form more multiple layers. So we really don’t know how much layers were formed by these past storms, since we were not their. But we do know by a fact that multiple layers can form by storms, and if we assume a Noah’s flood, its quite reasonable that some of these varves were formed by the flood, and by the ice age glacier melts, and periodic historic storms right up to the present time. Yes, I will agree that some of these layers are annual, but not most of them, and the geologists I used to support me agree. Plus even if 50 thousand years were still needed as you say, still that makes the earth lower then millions or billions. . And evolution needs millions and billions in order to work.

    Now for your other point. You said that varve lakes have no oxygen in them and there cold and stagnant and have sulphide in them, hence by this the fish would preserve long enough for annual varves to cover them up. In support you gave the murder case of the lady in the lake, who’s body was preserved for 8 years, and the other case who’s body was preserved for 21 years.

    I did some reading and here is what I found
    “Pebbles, plants, insects, and dead animals have been found embedded in varves. How could a dead fish rest on the bottom of a lake for two hundred years without rotting while slowly accumulating sediments gradually covered and fossilized it? This DOES NOT occur in modern lakes, and it would not have happened anciently.” This is saying it would take 200 years for a dead fish to get covered up by annual layers in undisturbed waters. Your example of 8 years and 21 year cases are allot different from 200 years, by a long shot. What would those bodies look like after 200 years? Hmm? Then you have another problem, fish are SMALLER then human bodies, hence more fragile. Fish flesh and their smaller tiny bone and cartilage structures certainly decay faster then human bodies do. Yet your saying they preserved without being covered up for about 200 years at a time? WOW that’s a pretty big imagination you got their. Then it also says this does NOT happen TODAY in MODERN lakes. Well if it don’t happen now in observable science, why would it happen back then? Don’t you believe the present is the key to the past? I thought you believed that. Or do you believe like me that, that does not always apply in all cases? And if you believe that, that raises other problems for you.

    Here is something else I found “
    There are fossils penetrating many layers. This means that many varves must have formed before the organism had a chance to rot. Operational science shows that fish break down in days even when protected from oxygen and scavengers. And alkali would hardly preserve them; rather, they help break down organic polymers—why else are alkalis used in dishwasher powders?"

    Here is something else “the varve model is no longer generally accepted. In the words of a leading researcher, ‘A model based on seasonal deposition, as stated by the varve theory, does not appear to pertain to the Fossil Lake sediments’. All samples showed visible signs of decay in just slightly over one day. Within 3.5 days all samples had decomposed into small silt-sized particles. (There was only a 5% difference in the time taken for the faeces from the different dietary classes to display visible disintegration. Furthermore, there was only a 2% difference in the time it took for the specimens to totally decompose.) This was in water in a rectangular prism with an approximate capacity of 5,900 cm3 and no perturbation. If, as required in Ferber’s model, the faeces had been perturbed, even slightly, disintegration would have been even more rapid. If the fish and feaces decay that fast in unpeturbed water, how much more so in perturbed water! Thus, the faeces must have been preserved in sediment within 24 hours.”

    Here is something else, a experiment “Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected. “

    Here is yet another quote “The Presbyornis fossils are even more problematic. Birds have hollow bones that tend not to preserve well in the fossil record. How were these bird bones protected from scavenging and decay for thousands of years until a sufficient number of the fine annual layers had built up to bury them? ‘Enormous concentrations’ of bird bones are a clear indication that something is seriously wrong with the idea of slow accumulation. Instead, such fossils support the notion of rapid burial.”

    Here is another quote I found “From this formation, we have seen fish with erect fins that are in
    a coiled configuration with the head near the tip of the tail, having been buried in the swimming position. This is not a natural posture and position for a dead
    fish. A dead fish's fins relax along its body which is normally straight and assumes a posture 90 degrees from the swimming position. You can check
    this out along a lake shore by observing dead fish. Many of the Green River fish appear to have been buried very quickly even while still living.”

    Here is two articles with pictures of fish fossils and how some of them DID have slight decays before they got berried. And some fish look as if they got suffocated, which is evidence of being rapidly berried. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...030117_156.asp

    Here is another article showing a simple illustration of how rapidly being berried makes more sense. Fish normally FLOAT AFTER THEY DIE, while their floating, oxygen gets at them, plus scavengers. By the time they sink to the bottom, they are decayed and bones are busted apart. How then do we see all the fish fossils well intact? Simple, RAPIDLY berried. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...030117_156.asp . To get the full illustration, click on the next pictures.

    Here is one more quote I found. “To me, the "varves" are not really a problem for YEC's. Preserving fish, crocodiles, birds, etc. with biannually produced paper thin sediments is a
    problem for evolutionists, especially where the waters were supposedly shallow and not anoxic. Landslides are a possibility of preserving these creatures, but then are you admitting that landslides can produce the thin laminations that are so varve-like? “


    As for varves being compared with carbon dating. I wont disagree with you that the carbon dates can give a close knit with the varve layer itself. However that only applies to true annual varves, not multiple ones laid down quickly. Now that does not mean I trust carbon dating, because I don’t. And its not just because of carbon dating seals and they showed up to be false dates. I don’t trust it because there is more carbon today then in the past, that’s why I don’t depend on it as an absolute date. Plus if you want to compare carbon dating with the varves, you can only do that as far back as 50 thousand years, because after that, the carbon is all decayed. Not that the earth is 50 thousand years old now, again, there is more carbon today then in the past.
    As for tracing lead back to roman times, again that’s only to roman times. Rome was founded around 2753 years ago. That’s not millions of years ago, not even before 6 thousand years ago. You using this as proof that all the layers are annual is not proof. Because way before this time their was a global flood, and a post flood ice age, which would deposit MULTIPLE layers. You cant proof it otherwise. Also when you said “within the 2000 years of couplet layers being correlated with historical record is proof that the explanation of varves as summer/winter layers is correct, and that extra layers are not significant.” here you are wrong. 2000 years is not the full 6 thousand years we have for multiples to be laid down. Also by you saying it confirms with historical record, I have to ask, I thought you don’t depend on historic record? I thought you depend on modern interpretation? If you depend on some historic records, why not more ancient historic records? Like for instance the book of genesis, and ancient civilization records of floods and long aged mankind? All these records agree with each other except for some variations. Why not depend on these as well? Oh yes, that’s right, you pick and choose what you wish to believe.

    As for sun spot cycles you mentioned saying they go back as far as 22,500 years. That’s still a far cry from millions or billions. Plus that could surly be accelerated slightly in the past. You are assuming its slow. Plus all one has to do is make that number 15 thousand years less around, and it fits. You cant really proof it goes back 22500 years. Give me proof. I still have to do more reading on this one as well.

    Their you have it folks, varves don’t prove an old earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    You said most Christians believe God could have made it and left the earth running by itself and not be around. Oh boy, those are not Christians by true definition, those are deists(deist is one that believes God created things, then flew the coop). If one wants to call themselves by the name Christian they have to believe if God separated himself from creation completely, things would thus collapse. Why? Because the bible says so. It says “in him(God) we live and move and have our being” that’s just one verse among’s others. So if one says their Christian then they have to believe that verse. Because the authority of Christianity is the bible. Now the bible says God is life among’s other things too. Well just think for a moment, if you separate life from something, what happens? It dies. Yes God made the earth and its laws to function, true enough, and true enough the earth is not hollow. But without God, those laws are not even sustained. You misunderstand something, all PHYSICAL things created were not created out of something else that was physical outside of God. All physical created things were created from within God, and he is Spirit(apposite of the physical), and within him is all life. When man creates something, such as a house, he builds it from other materiel outside himself, he reshapes it and builds his house. When God creates or builds something, he don’t use something already created like man does, he creates it from within himself by speaking it into existence. So without him, nothing is sustained. Those others calling themselves Christians don’t know their God to well it appears. False Christianity makes me angry, because I am a Christian. And if someone is being a false one, its insulting to me.


    Now about the circular reasoning part. Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks. This is not a misrepresentation. You just don’t see it, that’s all. You said that different fossils are found in rocks of different ages, and radioisotope dating gave the dates to the rocks. You also said that rocks of a particular age only contain certain fossils and no others. So when one finds those certain index fossils they can know with a high degree of reliability that the rocks inclosing the fossils are of a particular age, and the age is found out by radioisotope dating. You cant see the circularity in that? Are you sure? Just think for a moment what you said, what you said is, the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. That’s basically what you just said there. The rock layers are assigned certain ages based on the geologic column. And the fossils are interpreted as evolving as one goes upward in the geologic column, hence the fossils are aged older as one goes down the geologic column. So, the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks. Now you might say well radioisotope dating takes out that circularity. No, it don’t. The labs footnote says “we date only rocks a million years old or more, but not under” hence one has to assume first the age of the rock before they date the age of the rock by the lab. The whole thing is completely circular. Why don’t you see it? Now if you want to make an assumption, that’s fine, but realize its an assumption, that’s exactly what this is. Your trying to prove it, but your doing so with circular reasoning. Yet you say im using circular reasoning by trying to support the bible with the bible, and NO im not, im using other historic ancient records that are outside the bible to support the bible. And im using the scientific data, of fossils and geology and the earth, ext with the lense of the bible, your seeing it through the lense of evolution.

    Ok I had made a point about the footnote of the lab, that one has to make an assumption of how old the rock is before getting it dated by the lab. You had said no assumption was needed. Lets look at this again, the footnote says “we do not date rocks younger then 2 million years old, either 2 million or over, but not under”. Ok in other words, to find out the age of the rock, you first have to know the age of the rock. To find out the age of the rock, you cant date it first by the radiometric dating method. Well, how then do you know roughly the age of the rock before you send it in to get it dated by the dating method? Well, assumption. You assume the rock is 2 million years old or more based on the geologic time scale were you found the rock.. depending on what layer the rock was in when it was found, you assume its age is millions, then send it in to get dated, then it gives millions of years old by the radiometric date. That is not logical. The so called geologic timescale is assigned ages, so if you find a rock down their, you figure out what geologic layer its in, if it was in a layer that’s assigned millions for example, then you know its millions of years old, then you send it to the lab to get dated, the date also confirms millions of years old as well, but gives a more specific date at the same time. Do you see the huge circular assumptions here? If you don’t, im amazed. KEEP IN MIND im not at this second saying your assumption is either good or bad, im just merely pointing out the OBVIOUS assumption. You said this particular method is unreliable for very young ages, less then two million years old. I understand. However your statement fails to realize the obvious assumption. Your premise is that the earth is billions of years old, based on this premise and the geologic timescale you realize that certain rocks lower then 2 millions years cannot be dated by the lab. However rocks older then 2 million can be dated by the lab. But your assuming that rocks 2 million years old or older even exist. My belief is that all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years old. Some younger through volcano’s. My point is, when Austin deliberately defied the labs footnote, he did that because he believes there is no rock on the planet that is at least 2 million years old, so it would not matter what rock he sent in, or anyone sent in for that matter. Any rock you send into the lab, is going to be younger then 2 million years old, hence is not reliable for the dating method from the lab. Not to mention the very assumption itself is unreliable because I believe it’s an incorrect assumption, plus it’s circular at the same time. Plus by Austin sending in a rock that he definately knew the exact age to, then getting the results that it was millions of years old, even clearifies ten times more the unreliability of the dating method. And when I say that, I understand the footnote. But you need to understand your assumptions attached to your arguments. I can admit that I have assumptions, why is it hard for you to admit you have assumptions too? Assumptions are not anything to be ashamed necessarily because an assumption can be right, but then again it can be wrong to.

    Next you said “So if you get such a young age for a rock then you know it is not reliable.”Again, what does the footnote say? It says 2 million years or older, but not under. What was the results for Austins rock? It was around 2 million to 2.8 million years old. Very close to the range of the footnote. If I believed the earth were billions of years old, I would agree with you that the mt st Helens rock could not be dated by the lab. However a rock exactly 2 million years, could be dated by the lab, and a rock over 2 million could. However, no rock can be dated by the lab since I believe all rocks are 6 thousand years old and less for some. So by you saying if you get such a young age for a rock then you know it is not reliable, again this statement is based on the assumption rocks exist that are millions and billions of years old.

    Then you said “if you already know the age of the rock because it came from mt st helens, theirs no point in sending it in to get dated, since it will be meaningless results”. Again, this statement assumes there are rocks that exist that are millions of years old and older. If I assume all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years old, then ANY rock being sent into the lab would thus give meaningless results.

    Then you said “where are the assumptions”. I’ve clearly pointed them out. If you deny there is assumptions because you feel that is a threat to your belief in evolution, keep in mind when I admit I have assumptions, I don’t feel by admitting that, it makes it a threat to what I believe. If my belief makes no sense, then THAT would threaten the belief but it having actual assumptions does not threaten it in and of itself.

    Now for the point about “one does not need eyewitness account in order to know what happened”. I still make the stand that recent cases are easier for forensic science, and older cases are harder, however it is not impossible for them to figure it out, I don’t deny that. However do you deny that many innocent people have gon to jail? The fact is, innocent people HAVE gon to jail, hence forensics can be wrong at times in regards to old cases. How much more so with cases of “billions of years old”. So if forensics are mistaken at times, why would they not be mistaken in the big case for evolution? You assume they are correct in this case. But no one has invented a time machine to go back and actually see what happened. However we do have written records that go way back in time. Those records are witnesses. Not only do we have one witness(the bible) we have MANY witnesses of ancient civilizations. One witness makes a good case, if you got TONS of witnesses, that makes for an even more persuasive case. So why not go with the MANY witnesses back in ancient history? It stands to reason that this would make allot more sense to go with, rather then MODERN secular scientific blurred interpretations of history, that actually CHANGE history. You cant change history that is written. Here is the verdict, you TRUST modern interpretations of history but you do not TRUST the witnesses back in history. So, we both are TRUSTING something, im trusting the witnesses, you trust the modern interpretations of history. If you tell me you do not trust the modern interpretations because their fact, I will tell you, you trust that they have given you the facts, just like I trust the witnesses gave me the facts. But there is only one fact, I believe the witnesses got it. You believe the modern science got it. But that’s just it, it’s a BELIEF. Next when you say “It actually helps for cases to be older with the K-Ar dating”. Again you assume rocks are millions and some billions through this statement.

    As for you saying multiple methods do give the same dates. This is false. They might give CLOSE to the same dates, but not the EXACT same date. Like Potasium argon might date a rock at 5 million were uranium to lead might date it at 5 million and 100. It’s close, but not the same exact date. And some dates are just plain WAY off, not close at all. And example is here http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...oactive-dating

    Ok when I said God could zap more argon into rocks, you said I had abandoned the scientific method of finding out how things work, that I was seeking supernatural means, not natural means which science goes by. Well what I have to say to this is, you or your science is assuming there is NO supernatural that exists. If the supernatural really does exist, then it would be a part of TRUE science and if it wasent a part of it, then that science would not be true science. I had already mentioned that there is a science that researches the supernatural. Also something I read recently is that your evolution faith believes that history that came on the scene abruptly, did so by aliens coming down and educating mankind, or happened by some other mystery. If you believe that nonsense that “aliens did it” why do you have a problem with me saying “God did it”? If evolution were true, how does history abruptly come on the scene? Some evolutionists theorize that aliens educated us in writing and skills and technology. If that’s so, why did they not get it right the first time? Why don’t we have the same technology as they do now, like flying saucers that can go outside of our galaxy? Theirs the problem. Now if you personally don’t believe in the ‘aliens did it” how then did the history abruptly come on the scene? That leaves a problem for evolution right there. Oh yes “some mystery DID IT”. And you have a problem with me saying “God did it”? Not to mention when God created the trees and Adam and Eve, he created them in one day, fully grown. The same with the earth, and did more supernatural or special sovereign, purposeful things through mans history, even right up to the present time. As I said before, I don’t make the claim that “God did it” for everything in a supernatural way, but he did do some things in supernatural ways, and he did everything else in natural ways. Note, that I say HE did it all, but some things naturally, some things supernaturally. For instance when he created Adam and Eve, it was supernaturally, but when Adam and Eve had a baby, God gave them a baby NATURALLY, just like one is born today. This is not a copout. If there is a God, then he is not subject to natural laws, natural laws are subject to him, since he is the maker of them. The theistic evolution god, is a weak god, he is portrayed as subject to his creation, he is portrayed as NOT all knowing, he is portrayed as a god of death, a god who does not reveal his will ext. Such a god by definition is NOT God at all. A true God implies ALL powerful, ALL knowing, ALL wise, ALL glorious, ALL good, ALL pure, ALL loving, ALL true ext. And you know what’s funny? All the old ancient civilization stories have a creation account, along with long aged men accounts, along with a flood account. How does that happen by accident?

    Im going to tell this story, it don’t matter if it makes me look silly or not. My pastor that I knew in Canada for 5 years closely went on a mission trip to a Indian reserve, their he had some revival meetings, and one of the things he witnessed was a mans arm that was not their GREW BACK right before his very eyes. I was not there personally, I wish I was, however I believe my pastor was telling me the truth. He told me it was his very first time ever witnessing something like that in his 20 years of ministry. Here is a correspondent story from a person I met in the united states where I live now, she told me her daughter was in church one day, and her daughter looked back from being near the front of the church pews, and she saw a woman in the church with no arms. She did not think much of it and turned around and presumed on taking in the service. Periodically she looked back, she noticed the women’s arms were growing. Finally it took the whole service for the arms to fully grow in their completeness. At the end of the service the woman’s arms were fully grown back. I also believe this woman was telling me the truth, I had gotten to know her for a few months at work, she was a strong church goer and bible believer, and she seamed quite sincere with her Christian faith. Plus im not stupid, I can tell when people are messing and when their not, when their mocking and when their not. True there is some pretty good cons out their, but if your sensitive enough you can tell who’s lying and who’s not, who’s messing and who’s not. Why is it that two independent stories the same miracle happens? You see if God grew the arm back supernaturally, why would it be so hard for him to create a earth in one day?

    Plus by God adding more argon or more tree rings ext this does not mean he is being deceitful. When a builder builds a house, he builds with either layers of bricks, or layers of wood, is the builder thinking the layers of brick or wood mean different ages? No, the builder just builds that way, he is not trying to trick anyone, he is just building. The same with God, he made the elements, the trees, the earth, and made it with certain rings, layers ext, this is not a deception. Because he did not create the layers for the purpose of counting no more then a builder uses the layers of brick for the purpose of counting.

    As for you using the story of God striking the firstborn of the Egyptian sons and calling God a monster because of it. Keep in mind who killed first? If you read the whole story it says that Egypt killed many of the sons of the Israelite when they were first born because they feared them growing and that might become a threat to their kingdom, so they wanted to control them and keep them as slaves. Not only that but Egypt worshiped other Gods. In the first commandment God says he is a jealous God. So God is basically taking vengeance and justice on the Egyptians for what they did to Israel. Basically God was saying ‘you want to mess with my servant Israel, then I will make you reap what you sow back on your own head.’ That does not make God a monster, that makes him a God of authority and justice. As an alternative God himself did not kill the firstborn of the Egyptian sons, the account actually says in exodus 12:23 “When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.”. Notice it says God wont PERMIT the destroyer to enter Israel’s houses. That means the destroyer is independent of God, he is NOT God himself, because God permits and restrains this destroyer. Job is a more well example of what I am trying to say here. Job suffered allot, but it was not God making him suffer, it was Satan, but God PERMITTED Satan to do him harm, while all along job THOUGHT it was God doing it. Finally God shows up in the end and says job was mistaken. Satan HATES everyone, he even hates those who serve him(such as the Egyptians), but God still has restraints on Satan, if God did not have any restraints on him, you can be assured we would all be dead by now. Its not God that is the monster, ITS SATAN who is. Bad things don’t happen by God, don’t blame him, they happen by Satan. You see its not God striking his hand that kills, its God WITHDRAWING his hand, that brings in death. As for God telling Israel to take over the land and kill the Canaanite’s. Keep in mind of what those Canaanite’s were doing. They were worshiping other gods, spreading a damning message to the world, and they were sacrificing their sons and daughters in the fire to their idol gods. God being a God of justice was sick of this and so did justice on THEM through using Israel as his sword of judgment, nor does God make a habit of commanding such things. And if you think God being a God of vengeance and justice is too harsh, why is it then when society administers justice to criminals, this is perfectly fine in your eyes? But when the God of ALL authority administers justice by his own sovereignty, this raises a bar of problems for you? Why does justice get administered in the first place? Because someone is angry at wrong doing. It’s the same with God.

    Now for Jesus trying to confuse people through telling parables, not so. Parables actually help you understand better. As for Matthew 13:11-15 this is talking about people who have pride, those people wont receive the “secrets of the knowledge of heaven”. Why? Because pride blocks it. He who has will be given more, he who does not have, even what he thinks he has, will be taken away. This is talking about people of pride. Those who are humble and wish to learn, will receive more and learn more, those who think they know it all, wont learn anything else and even what they do know, is hardly nothing since their pride blocks things and blinds them. This is the whole thing Jesus was getting at in the context of those verses. Jesus was not trying to reduce the numbers to enter salvation, that would contradict his purpose for coming to earth.


    You said science does not just go by what’s observed. I will agree there is different branches of science, yes. However my stand still remains with the “witnesses are better then modern interpretations”. And if you believe things that you cant see, such as an atom or a neutron or Neptune or any other galaxy even, if you believe those things that you cant see, why is it such a problem believing God whom we cant see? Is it really because one can’t fully prove it, or is it because that would make you accountable to him? And who wants to live for God, this world selfishly wants to live for itself.

    As for the science investigating the supernatural and gathering proof; Here is a quote I found from someone who saw a film “Many years ago I saw footage [film I think but it may have been video] from an investigation of a haunted house in Los Angeles. The investigative team was a respectable team of graduates and a professor from UCLA; I don't remember what department but it involved quite a few people. They set up cameras and equipment all around the house and left it running [in total] for several days and nights. The whole thing was allegedly run as any other science experiment; with all of the rigor to withstand peer review. At one point, just a clear as day, with no one in the house and the entire room in view, one could see a toy car running all around the room by itself. The footage wasn't fuzzy or dark. There were no indications of anything odd and the car was in focus. I thought, well, that's it! They got proof.”

    I never heard another thing. No claims of fraud. No claims of proof. Nothing. I have come to suspect that peer pressure stifles results like this. We can't prove that the film wasn't faked. That's at least part of the problem IMO. I have seen an awful lot of this stuff, from the least to the most credible, and I believe that I have seen things on film and tape that can't be explained. But, less the obvious or debunked hoaxes, there is no way to tell with any degree of certainty what, if anything, is genuine.” Also I’ve seen a few films myself that are claimed to be real. Also the history channel that appears to believe in evolution, also documents things about the supernatural. Also we have Obhiolite’s testimony of seeing ghosts and he still don’t believe in ghosts even after seeing them. The fact he was honest to say he saw them, then was still trying to debunk what he saw, this seams even more convincing that there is a spirit realm, since were hearing it from a source that is trying to debunk it, yet saw it. So instead of him persuading me to NOT believe in the spirit realm, he has helped me believe it all the more. Jesus put it this way “if they don’t believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even if someone rises from the dead”. The reason it is so hard to believe for so many is because we are so accustomed to the natural realm everyday. Eastern cultures are more prone to be open to the spirit realm then western, sad but true. Faith is a channel of connection between the natural world and the spirit world.



    Also about lots of water being under the earth and volcano's with 70% water. Why do scientists say that the planet mars use to be covered in water at one time, but now its completely dry. However they also say tons of water is UNDERNEATH mars. Now if earth is about 70% water all over the globe, why is it so easy for them to believe mars was covered in water, but now is dry, but has tons of water underneath it? And it is so hard to believe that the earth which IS 70% water never had a global flood at one time. And underneath the earth there is hardly ANY water, yet mars has tons. < Oh yes, those scientists make allot of sense now, NOT! You call that logic? How in the world can anybody believe that? Earth 70% water > mars 0% water>earth almost no water underneath>mars about 80% about underneath. < just read that, that makes absolutely no sense. Yet your scientists believe it. If mars USE to have water covering the planet, then earth easily could have a global flood. If mars has water underneath it, earth SURELY DOES TOO, and all the more so. Science does not have the deep depths underneath earth fully figured out yet either, one more reason there statements are unrealiable.

    To answer the petrified forests, here is a link i'll give to answer this, since my post is getting sorta long. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...ellowstone.asp

    Ok, im going to land it here for now. Before rebutting, read carefully, patiently, and get back to me when you wish. I look forword to your replies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Hello folks, i finished analyzing all your points, doing some digging and here is what i found, read it over carefully, consider it, and then reply if you are willing. You said most Christians believe God could have made everything and left the earth running by itself and not be around. Oh boy, those are not Christians by true definition, those are deists(deist is one that believes God created things, then flew the coop). If one wants to call themselves by the name Christian they have to believe if God separated himself from creation completely, things would thus collapse. Why? Because the bible says so. It says “in him(God) we live and move and have our being” that’s just one verse among’s others. So if one says their Christian then they have to believe that verse. Because the authority of Christianity is the bible. Now the bible says God is life among’s other things too. Well just think for a moment, if you separate life from something, what happens? It dies. Yes God made the earth and its laws to function, true enough, and true enough the earth is not hollow. But without God, those laws are not even sustained. You misunderstand something, all PHYSICAL things created were not created out of something else that was physical outside of God. All physical created things were created from within God, and he is Spirit(apposite of the physical), and within him is all life. When man creates something, such as a house, he builds it from other materiel outside himself; he reshapes it and builds his house. When God creates or builds something, he don’t use something already created like man does, he creates it from within himself by speaking it into existence. So without him, nothing is sustained. Those others calling themselves Christians don’t know their God to well it appears. False Christianity makes me very angry, because I am a Christian. And if someone is being a false one, its insulting to me.
    Consider yourself duly insulted. Your statement above is a sickening, self aggrandising, biased, presumptuous load of claptrap.
    You grossly misinterpret a passage from the Bible and then dare to presume that only your interpretation is the correct one, then arrogantly declare all who make a different - likely more accurate - interpretation are false Christians. How dare you!
    So called False Christianity may make you angry jollybear; self-indulgent, hypocritical righteousness infuriates me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    About the varve count, consider this:

    How many ways are there to date a single event? The wide spread ash layer of an old mega volcanic eruption, known as the Laacher See tephra. The Laacher see is located in the German Eifel area. The ash layer (tephra) was dated with the 40Ar method as 12,900 +/- 400 years ago. Several carbon dates have been obtained from sediments just under and above the ash layer ranging -after calibration- from 12,800 - 13,000 years.

    Then a sediment core from the nearby Meerfelder maar was extracted. This contained continuous varved sediments way beyond the Laacher See tephra. Now you can discuss at lenght about the problems with varve counting, annual or not, mistakes, discontinuities, etc etc. However the proof is in the pudding. How many varves are there to the Laacher See tephra then? 12,880 +/- 130 (1% error).

    So there is this ash layer, dated with three different methods, all agreeing well within the error margin.

    Then there is that other lake in Poland, Lake Gozciaz, about 800km away, also continuously varved after a certain period but stopping short of the Laacher See Tephra. This is called floating varves, it could be corrolated with the German oak dendrochronology series, but more importantly. it contains clearly identified continuous varving througout the complete Younger Dryas, just like the Meerfelder Maar varves. All other lake sediment show disontinuities during the Younger Dryas because of widespread aridity. So you can argue about when the varve counted start, but with both covering the same period you can count both independently. Result for the Meerfelder maar 1126 varves and for Lake Gosciaz 1124 varves for the Younger Dryas.

    Now you can never proof that the Younger Dryas lasted 1125 +/- 1 year in Europe but when different methods on different locations are always consistent, then it is called robust proof, another word for reality, about which is science is all about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Now for the varves.Your saying that counting the layers of varves gives you the year of the earth. Well, you said the tree rings go back as far as 12 thousand years, then a location called the lake Monticchio counted 102,000 layers of varves. And the fossil ones contain millions of layers of varves. All these layers are interpreted as years according to their number. Well my reasonable question is, what then is the age of the earth? Is it 12 thousand, 102 thousand, or millions? Which one folks, take your pick?
    surely jollybear, you are aware that you're making a most elementary mistake here : no-one claimed that all objects on earth with varves are of the same age

    so it's quite feasible to have a tree ring record with an age of 12,000 years, a lake with a record of 102,000 years and fossil records millions of years old
    these data don't contradict each other - what they all contradict, however, is the claim that the earth is no older than 6000 years

    oh btw, our friend Andre could tell you a thing or two about ice layers in glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica - guess what ? again far older than 6000 years
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Now about the circular reasoning part. Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks. This is not a misrepresentation. You just don’t see it, that’s all. You said that different fossils are found in rocks of different ages, and radioisotope dating gave the dates to the rocks.
    Nope. The radioactive dacay has been investigated for almost 60 years now and the halflifes for each element and even each isotope is very well known. The longer the decay time of an element the larger the error gets but even with the U/Pb method this error is in the range of 1-5%. Well, this throws off the estimations for really old rocks by some million years or so but who the hell cares?? It does not matter if a trilobite from the Devonian is 430 Million years old or 440 Million years.

    So let's see if I can remember my geology classes correctly:

    We have the 14C-dating, 3H-dating, 26Al-dating most of which are generated by cosmic radiation. Ha, there's also the 10Be-dating (Ophiolite will certainly know a couple more). Those are called cosmogenic


    The we have the primordial dating methods: let'ssee if I get them all together:
    -87Rb/87Sr dating
    -40Ar/40K-dating
    -39Ar/40Ar-dating
    -230U/234U-dating

    Those are the ones I know of and probably the most common. Then there are the indirect methods like luminescence dating and electron-spin resonance dating.
    You actually can measure how long it takes for one element to decay into another. Given, they all have some errors but usually in the range of 1% or less. All are independently veryfied by many radiochemistry labs all over the world. The scientsist working in those labs all know - according to you - piddledysquat and do not get it that the earth is only 6000 years old (Can you give me an exact date by the way?? I mean, the bible tells you, doesn't it? Something like Thuesday second of March, 3:45 pm in the year 4043 b.c ?? Enlighten me. )

    Yes and the GRIP (Greenland icecore project) also shows that there have passed around 600.000 winters, springs and summers since the inlandice in Greenland started cover the island. Let me guess.............."God did it"
    Damn, I should have known.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
    Yes and the GRIP (Greenland icecore project) also shows that there have passed around 600.000 winters, springs and summers since the inlandice in Greenland started cover the island. Let me guess.............."God did it"
    Damn, I should have known.
    Almost, the estimate on GRIP is 200,000 winter snow and summer snow but the stratification is only robust until 110,000 years, the area below that is too distorted due to ice flows.

    Antarctica goes a lot better. There was Vostok with 420,000 years (Petit et al 1999) but that is topped by the EPICA Dome C project to 740,000 years and counting.

    Apart from all the radio isotope dating, in the trick bag we also find volcanic ash tracers (tephra) as each eruption has it's own unique chemical finger print. So ash layers with the same contents are from the same volcano at the same age. Another trick is magnetic succeptablility, corrolating paleomagnetic excursions and magnetic field reversals, which have been independently dated by several methods. The last magnetic reversal for instance, the Brunhes - Matuyama border is dated at 780,000 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    I have not even considered reading the Great Wall of Text provided by Jollybear but instead am going to offer this very wise saying that even your God and Jesus himself would be impressed with...


    Jollybear, paragraphs are quite a lot like a woman's skirt, it should be long enough to cover the essentials, but short enough to keep it interesting.

    You have to condense your rambling into concise points. Maximum information/word density.



    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    @andre

    I stand corrected. Mixed up the Greenland and Antarctica data.

    As for you saying multiple methods do give the same dates. This is false. They might give CLOSE to the same dates, but not the EXACT same date. Like Potasium argon might date a rock at 5 million were uranium to lead might date it at 5 million and 100. It’s close, but not the same exact date. And some dates are just plain WAY off, not close at all.
    If I say I am in my forties, this is a correct statement. I might also say I was born around the time of the first moon landings. This is also correct. I might also state that I was born in the 60ies of the last century. Which of those statements is false??
    It would be however a lie or a false statement if I said I am 9 years old.
    You want correct answers. A statement from three or more independent sources gives you the age of a rock of 400 million years +/- 5 Million years. I do not care if this rock is 395 million years or 405 million years as it does not matter. This is as correct as it gets.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Im preparing my next reply to demolish everyones new arguments. I'll be back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    As usual Jollybear’s postings are long, rambling, often irrelevant/off topic, miss the point or ignore points. Maybe he thinks that if he makes his posts long enough people will get fed up and give up. It is tempting to give up, but then he’ll just conclude that he has somehow “Won” when it is only by default. Certainly there is a danger that by the time one has got to the end of one of his rambling postings one will have forgotten what he was talking about at the beginning. I think the term for this argument strategy is “obfuscation”, create a kind of verbal smokescreen so that one’s opponent loses track of the argument.

    As much of Jollybear’s ramblings are way off topic I’ll ignore them, and deal only with earth science and closely related material here. If Jollybear wants to make arguments about the Bible, God, or alleged miracles he should post them in the appropriate section.

    The following refers only to Jollybear’s 27 Feb. 4:56 pm post.

    “Now about the circular reasoning part. Rocks date the fossils and fossils date the rocks. This is not a misrepresentation.”
    Oh yes it is a misrepresentation, and a hideous one at that. My original explanation was perfectly clear and should not require repeating. When one consistently finds that a fossil “A” is always associated with strata of a particular radioisotopic date, X million years, every time one does the radioisotope dating, then it is not circular to say that the next time one finds fossil “A” the strata containing it is X million years old.

    “Ok I had made a point about the footnote of the lab, that one has to make an assumption of how old the rock is before getting it dated by the lab. You had said no assumption was needed. Lets look at this again, the footnote says “we do not date rocks younger then 2 million years old, either 2 million or over, but not under”. Ok in other words, to find out the age of the rock, you first have to know the age of the rock.”
    Absolute garbage. Someone gives you three rocks, but no clues as to how old they are. Without making any assumptions you can send them to the lab. Back come the results. Rock “A” is dated at 1 million years, plus or minus 2 million. Rock “B” is dated at 10 million years, plus or minus 2 million. Rock “C” is dated at 100 million years, plus or minus 2 million. So, without having made any assumptions you now know the ages of the rocks, within the error margin of the method (2 million years in my example here). As “A” could be anything from 3 million years old to a million years in the future it is obviously too young to give a meaningful result. You did not need to make an assumption to find that out. All the rest of Jollybear’s lengthy dissertation on this topic is irrelevant rambling.

    “If I assume all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years old, then ANY rock being sent into the lab would thus give meaningless results.”
    Wrong. If you got dates of many millions of years then it indicates your assumption is false.

    “I still make the stand that recent cases are easier for forensic science, and older cases are harder.”
    Maybe so, but geology is not forensic science. When you are trying to measure a time-dependent effect (like radioactive decay of long-lived isotopes) then it actually gets easier the longer you leave it. If you want to measure the effect of aging on Scotch whisky, would you test the whisky a week after it has been distilled, or after ten years? Go back to my example above. Rock “B” with a date of 10 million years, plus or minus 2 million, has a 20 % error in it (plus or minus 2 million). Rock “C” has only a 2 % error. If it was older still, let us say 1000 million years, plus or minus 2 million, then the error is just 0.2 %. In percentage terms it gets more accurate the older it is.

    “However we do have written records that go way back in time. Those records are witnesses”
    Not earth science this, but so easy to dismiss I’ll do so anyway. Poor naïve Jollybear, putting so much faith in written records. So all those ancient written records of the Olympian gods are true? Or the exploits of the huge pantheon of Hindu deities? Or the legends of Jason and the Golden Fleece, King Arthur and Robin Hood are true in every detail, and not highly embellished accounts? Unfortunately for Jollybear, Egyptian written records span the flood period and rule out any flood, but he disputes these (hopefully more of that in a later post). Seems he’ll accept written records when they suit him, but not when they don’t. People who write records can lie, Jollybear. Rocks don’t.

    “As for you saying multiple methods do give the same dates. This is false. They might give CLOSE to the same dates, but not the EXACT same date. Like Potasium argon might date a rock at 5 million were uranium to lead might date it at 5 million and 100.”
    Oh I do apologise. I am ever so sorry that one dating method might give 7:34 am on the 5th of October 397,356,224 BC, but another method says that it was actually 4:54 pm the following day. Radioisotope dating must therefore be all wrong.

    “And some dates are just plain WAY off, not close at all. And example is here http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...oactive-dating

    The link here is to an article by Snelling and discusses the Cardenas and Uinkaret lavas of the Grand Canyon, but the only sources Snelling cites for his extravagant claims is another young earther Austin. So just where did they get their dates from? Are they from the published geological literature, or are they further examples of Austin's abuse of the technique? Those who are not alert to the deceit and trickery employed by creationists would be led to believe that the dates cited are by reputable geologists. (In fact they are not as we shall see). In the absence of this information the dates cited cannot be taken seriously. All the more so when one considers that Austin's own attempts at dating the more recent Grand Canyon Uinkaret lavas have been discredited as he used wrong sampling methods and cherry picked the literature. (See www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html http://www.answersincreation.org/boo...onument/c6.htm and Donald Wise's excellent article “Creationism's Geologic Time Scale” in American Scientist, 1988, vol. 86, p160-173 for example). In fact published dates for the Uinkaret lavas show a pattern of progressively younger dates heading eastwards, which agrees with erosion patterns (yet another example of radioisotope dates giving patterns and correlations). But you won't find that in creationists' critiques. Boy are these creationists selective!
    The dates cited for the Cardenas basalts in Jollybear's link are a combination of Austin's own efforts (groan) and cherry picked ones from the literature. It is debunked here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html As with his Mt St Helens dacite, Austin was being less than honest. His sampling was inappropriate and his interpretation incorrect.
    Even if we allow the above example of Jollybear's (in spite of its having been comprehensively trashed), if radioisotope dating is so unreliable then, with all the thousands of dates being published annually, why is it that the creationists come up with so few that are “WAY off” to use Jollybear’s expression? (And even then they tend to be ones the creationists have done that are “WAY off”). They should ALL be “WAY off”! Creationists pick a few anomalies (or deliberately abuse the method as with Austin and his Mt. St. Helens dacite and Grand Canyon lavas) and hold them up as “proof” that ALL radioisotope dates are wrong. Now and again one gets a watch that runs fast, or malfunctions. So, following creationist logic, ALL watches are unreliable and must be consigned to the trash can.
    I note that Jollybear simply ignores the evidence I cited that radioisotope dates are reliable. If the earth is 6000 years old, then clearly radioisotope dates which consistently give ages of millions of years, are complete garbage. They are essentially random number generators. Why then do we see patterns? As I pointed out they correlate with magnetic polarity reversals, with lunar crater densities, with index fossils and with the relative order of rocks as determined by classical stratigraphy. They also show aging as one moves away from the mid-ocean ridges. And why do they show a younging eastwards with the Uinkaret lavas, which in turn agrees with the degree of erosion exhibited by these lavas? None of these patterns or correlations should exist if the method did not work and everything was 6000 years old, or less.

    “That way as the rock gets older the proportion of argon that was trapped at formation becomes less and less, so the date gets more and more accurate. This is flawed logic and reasoning”
    No, it is simple arithmetic.

    “As for rubidium-strontium dating here is a quote “
    rubidium All aside from leaching and other contamination, the experts have so far been unable to agree on the length of a rubidium half-life. This renders it useless for dating purposes. This is because the samples vary so widely. *Abrams compiled a list of rubidium half-lives suggested by various research specialists. Estimates, by the experts, of the half-life of rubidium varied between 48 and 120 billion years!”
    An exaggeration based on out of date data. The low decay energy of Rb-87 makes it tricky to measure accurately the decay constant. Using better techniques more consistent values of around 48 – 50 billion years have been obtained, and 48.8 billion is currently used. It is accepted that this may need to be refined further, but it is close enough for many dating purposes.

    “so what is another million years or so?”
    See my explanation of % errors above.

    “your assumption that millions of years old rocks even exist” etc.
    It is NOT an assumption. Scientists say that millions of years old rocks exist because that’s what the evidence says. One of these lines of evidence is radioisotope dating. It is because of the evidence that scientists have gone from thinking rocks were 1000s of years old (up to the 18th century) to thinking they were millions of years old (19th century) to knowing they are millions and even billions of years old (today). When a geologist says a rock is X million years old he is saying it on the basis of evidence, not assumption.

    “Next you say by Austin sending in a known young rock to get dated by the lab, that this is dishonest.”
    Yes he was being dishonest because he knew he was picking an inappropriate technique, and he then presented the resulting nonsense results as “proof” the technique did not work. That is dishonest and unprofessional, and no amount of rambling on about assumption making can change that. Austin set out to deceive, period.

    “So to test his assumption, he sends in a rock of which he knows the age too”
    No, he was NOT testing his “assumption”. He knew the method was inappropriate. To test his assumption he should have either:
    1.Chosen an appropriate method, or
    2.Chosen a rock sample said to be millions of years old and seen if the radioisotope date agreed.

    “It is known that certain factors can make something decay faster. Here is a quote I found”
    This is an old claim that has been thoroughly refuted. Check out talkorigins claim CF210 for example. Arguments alleging varying rates of decay, and the polonium halos argument have all been refuted in detail on anti-creationist sites. Has Jollybear not bothered to read them?

    “We already know, from Robert Gentry’s studies, that original (primordial) polonium 218 was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly and in solid form”
    No Jollybear. Gentry’s claims were discredited years ago when it was shown that his granite was not the Pre Cambrian age he thought it was, and was not “primordial”. (See Wakefield, J. R. 1988. Gentry's tiny mystery-unsupported by geology. Creation l Evolution 22:13-33 for details). Bye bye Gentry.

    “A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else.”
    Jollybear just has no idea. A parent radioactive element (eg. U) and its daughters (eg. Pb) have different chemistries. As a result, when minerals form the parent and daughter get separated, as they partition into different minerals according to their different chemistries. Geologists look for minerals favoured by the parent, but which exclude the daughter. That way they know that any daughter is likely to be the product of decay, rather than something that was present already. As a further check there is even a way of proving that the daughter is the result of decay only.
    The decay products of the radioactive elements are specific isotopes. There may be other isotopes that are not the result of radioactive decay. Thus one can analyse the sample for these non-radiogenic isotopes and if they are absent then one knows that any daughter element present has to have come from decay. No assumption needed, just some analysis.

    “But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age." By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation….. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day”
    In other words “God did it”. He made everything to look old. Undisprovable, untestable, unscientific. The ultimate cop out for a cornered creationist.

    “and God can give the rock an appearance of age”
    More “God did it”. It could just as easily have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster who did it with his noodly appendage. As so many different things have “the appearance of age”, and in interrelated correlating ways (like radioisotope dates correlating with paleomagnetism, etc.) it does beg the question, “Why?” Why create so many old-looking geological things? It just isn’t necessary, unless God is a grand deceiver.

    “There is cases were older rocks are on top of younger, and certain fossils are NOT in the order that there suppose to be in according to evolutionary models and textbooks. By this fact there is problems with your belief.”
    This is not a problem, it is basic undergraduate geology. Inverted sequences are a result of simple geological processes. Intense folding and over-thrust faulting are the usual culprits. I can remember as a geology student being shown the straightforward, even trivially easy, methods for determining which way up a rock is. Sedimentary features like flute and scour marks, ripple marks, current bedding and graded bedding can be used to tell which way up a rock is. In the case of over thrust faults careful mapping can usually locate the fault plane. Old rocks on top of young ones are easily identified by classical methods, and the inverted sequences these methods detect can then be independently confirmed by radioisotope dating. Only someone who has not a clue about geology could possibly imagine that such cases are somehow a “problem”. And once again radioisotope dates support the inverted sequences detected by classical means. Explain that Jollybear!

    “Next I had said no one was down below with a microscope in the past observing phenocrystals grow. Then you said “back to the old YEC only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories scam”. Not really, im not at this moment even resorting to the bible or any other ancient record as a eyewitness, im just saying ME NOR my sources NOR YOUR sources have swam in lava in the past with a microscope, hence you don’t know how they can grow, nor the rate at which they grow.”
    Wrong again Jollybear. One does not need to have taken a swim in ancient lava to know how fast crystals in it grew. The laws of thermal physics are quite specific. The rate at which an underground mass of magma cools is in proportion to its volume and depth. According to these well-established laws (look up any geophysics text) it should take millions of years for a big intrusion at depth to solidify. (And please don’t try the creationists’ “accelerated hydrothermal cooling” nonsense. As explained in earlier postings, with oceans of lava covering much of the planet there would be no water left to accelerate cooling, and even if there was, there would not be enough for all the continental granites, let alone the 7 km deep oceans of molten basalt.)
    This leads to yet another problem for Jollybear. We know from laboratory experiments (and confirmed by microscopical examination of thin sections) the order in which the various minerals crystallise. And you don’t have to have been there to witness this. One can then take crystals of these minerals from a granite and date them by radioisotope means. What does one find? Why, surprise, surprise. The minerals expected to crystallise first are the oldest, and the dates between the various minerals indicate cooling times of millions of years – exactly what the laws of heat transfer predict! Yet another case of radioisotope dates correlating with completely separate phenomena – the expected order of crystallisation, and the laws of heat transfer. Yet another thorn in the side for creationists. Yet another problem for Jollybear to explain.

    “To this I say, what is science? It is to attain knowledge by observation and experimentation and testings. That would include the field of naturalism(obviously) but it would also INCLUDE supernaturalism …”
    This really belongs in a more philosophical forum so I’ll be brief. Science seeks to explain things in naturalistic terms. It was only when scientists began to do this systematically from about the 17th century onwards that it began to make real progress. As soon as you start invoking the supernatural to get out of awkward problems you have abandoned science. If you say, “God did it”, you might as well say, “Goblins did it”, or “The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it”. It is untestable, undisprovable and unscientific.

    “So I am very open minded”
    No Jollybear, you are not. Your arguments have been comprehensively trashed and yet you still persevere. You just cannot tell when you have been beaten. You are stubbornly devoted to the notion that your Bible is infallibly correct and so you force everything to fit the Bible, and ignore or reject anything which cannot be forced to fit.

    “there is no evidence that exists that goes contrary to the bibles creation account. What does exist is INTERPRETED evidence that goes against the biblical account.”
    There is only one interpretation of the evidence that makes any sense – the earth is billions of years old. Jollybear just does not seem to grasp how absolutely overwhelming it is, and how it simply cannot be interpreted in any way other than millions and millions of years. Nor does he seem to understand the interlocking nature of it all. Look at all the examples I have listed (here and earlier) of correlations and patterns, for example, between radioisotope dates and totally separate phenomena: palaeomagnetism, distribution of ocean floor rocks, sequential continental lava flows, classical stratigraphy, inverted rocks (as determined by classical stratigraphy), index fossils, lunar crater densities, order of mineral crystallisation and cooling rates predicted by physics. Everything ties in with everything else, each supporting other observations from widely separated fields. What do the creationists offer? A hodge-podge of “facts” (which on examination normally turn out to be half-facts at best, often quarter-facts, tenth-facts …), occasional anomalous results (often misportrayed, or the result of misapplication of test methods, like Austin’s Mt. St. Helens dacite) and claims, which are unsupported by other fields, show no correlations or patterns and which fly in the face of mountains of other facts which are simply ignored.

    “So you ask what will I except as evidence that the bible is wrong?”
    As we will see, what Jollybear demands is unreasonable:

    “Here is what I will except, find me either a LIVING transitional form, perhaps of half man half horse, like legs of horse and torso of a man and head of a man. Or a fossil of this even(which would thus be more subjective, however at least it’s something). Or find me half a fish, half human being, sort of like a mermaid perhaps.”
    Jollybear, this is NOT evolution. No one says men evolved from horses, or vice versa. Likewise, there’s a huge intermediate sequence from fish to amphibia, reptiles, mammals etc. They did not leap from fish to men. Don’t insult us by setting up such stupid and absurd straw men arguments. If you really, genuinely think that your grotesque parody is what evolutionists actually believe then clearly you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the subject you are attacking. As you clearly do not have any such understanding at all, what makes you think you are in a position to attack it?

    “Or as an alternative, invent a time machine to take us back in time to see what actually happened?”
    I wish!

    “OR invent something that can keep my body alive for millions of years, so I can observe if macro evolution will take place?”
    I wish!

    “Or just account for abrupt history, account for missing links, account for problems with some radiometric dated cases, such as wood stump found in a layer classified to be millions of years old, this wood had carbon 14 in it, also a sabertooth tiger had carbon in it”
    Go to the usual anti-creationist sites and you’ll find them accounted for. Why should I have to do your homework for you Jollybear? Are you too lazy to do it yourself? Abrupt histories are gradually becoming less abrupt (the Cambrian “explosion” is the usual one creationists cite, we now know it to have been spread over millions of years, and to have been preceded by millions of years of development of soft-bodied forms, and it happened only in the oceans, and did not include plants). Missing links are steadily turning up (like those early whales from Pakistan, with vestigal hind legs, odd if they did not evolve from walking ancestors). What is surprising about them is that we have so many for a fossil record that is so incomplete (a quarter million fossil species, as opposed to millions alive today, do the sums). Traces of C-14 are sometimes present in geological material, generally when there is a little uranium or thorium present. It probably forms from neutron capture or some other such process. Big deal. All sabretooth tigers had carbon in them.

    “Account for a dinosaur case that had some blood or flesh.”
    Actually it was a trace of organic matter from 3 T. rex bones, and one hadrosaur. This is actually a problem for Jollybear, not me. If dinosaur bones were only a few 1000 years old they should nearly ALL have traces of organic matter in them, including identifiable proteins like collagen, and even DNA, all of which are commonly recovered from archaeological material, but hardly ever from fossil material. Instead organic remnants in dino bones are staggeringly rare. Just 4 examples after years of trying using only the best preserved specimens available, with most dino bones so mineralised they contain not a scrap of organic matter. Jollybear, if dino bones are so young, why has it taken so long, and so much effort, to finally isolate a trace of organic residue?

    “And the list goes on and on.”
    Indeed it does. Lists of nonsense from creationist websites that are answered in detail on counter sites. And the embarrassing (for Jollybear) thing is that very often the claims are so silly, and easy to answer, that one does not even have to go to those counter sites to see through them. I answered the ones above (from the wood with C-14 to the dinosaur bones with organic matter) without bothering to go online and look them up. They were that stupid and trivial to answer. The dinosaur bone one I even turned around and threw right back at Jollybear. I await his attempt to account for it with interest. Jollybear, to spare yourself future embarrassment, (and me time) please check out your claims on anti-creationist sites before presenting them here and getting egg on your face.

    “I will except proof from you, but what you have given is not proof, its subjective things attached with assumptions that you have given. If you had given REAL proof I would not have been that stupid and prideful as to refute it. …. Yet you say you are giving me proof and im not excepting it and im close minded. Not so, give real proof and I will except it.”
    Jollybear you have had ample proof. None is subjective, there is nothing subjective about the ocean floor basalts, the correlations of radioisotope dates with other phenomena etc. There have been no assumptions as I have patiently explained to you. You have not refuted ANY of it. You are just not accepting it. You are closed minded. You have repeatedly been given real proof and all you do is ramble on around it, without addressing it, and ignoring much of it. I seriously doubt if there is anything you will accept as proof you are wrong.

    ”As for the pastafarians, there very belief in itself is ridiculous, on top of the fact that if evidence was given that REALLY disproved there belief they would still reject it, then there close minded.”
    The Pastafarians are a light-hearted parody of the creationists, and their Flying Spaghetti Monster is no more ridiculous than your imaginary friend in the sky, Jollybear.

    “But your evidence has not disproved that my God has created all things in the beginning in a matured state.”
    Nothing can disprove that. It is undisprovable, as is the claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made it all “in a matured state”. That is part of the reason it is not science.

    “how do you account for the anomalous cases that you BELIEVE to be actual anomalies?”
    You’ve already had this explained to you Jollybear. You’ll find more on anti creationist sites, including details of specific examples cited by the creationists.

    “Also you mentioned that I don’t have credentials and am not a scientist.”
    It shows.

    “However when you say “zero knowledge” this part is incorrect. I do have SOME knowledge”
    Not when it comes to geology. Where that is concerned, “zero” is a pretty good approximation. Nor has it increased much since you began this thread. What you are picking up off answersingenesis.org is NOT knowledge. If someone fills their head with flat earth nonsense from a flat earth site, does this mean they now have knowledge of geography?

    “I can detect when I see assumptions”
    Your detector is oversensitive, giving lots of false readings.

    “am I being misled here?”
    You are certainly being mislead on answersingenesis.

    “It’s sorta like having a map from charlotte to florida, however you take one wrong turn and you missed the maps instructions entirely, and you keep going thinking your on the right road, but all along your barking up the wrong road until finally it dawns on you near the end, and now you realize your lost.”
    You took a wrong turn the moment you began believing answeringenesis, but it has yet to dawn on you Jollybear.

    “I hate talking about something I don’t understand”
    But Jollybear that is exactly what you have been doing right from the start of this thread. When are you going to realise that?

    “I have not even gotten into YET the point about the earths crust melting point you made. BUT I AM STILL GOING TO.”
    When you do PLEASE try and keep it concise. You must account for the entire ocean floors (7 km thick basalt, all of it once molten, a lot of it in the flood year). Continental lavas, including huge outpourings during the flood (Deccan traps etc.), Continental granites (form the interiors of many mountain chains, like the Andes). Heat of formation of limestone. Heat of condensation from the collapsing water vapour canopy. Frictional heat from fast moving continents. Heat from release of gravitational energy in sinking slabs of cold crust. Heat from massive meteorite bombardment (going to regale us with Henry Morris’ cosmic battles I wonder?) Your account must cover all these, and explain why the once molten ocean floors show magnetic polarity reversals in symmetric stripes that correlate with radioisotope dates etc., etc. Of course you could just give up, Jollybear, and admit defeat. You have already been told that when in a hole, STOP DIGGING! Good advice I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    This is a response to Jollybear’s post on 27 Feb. 4:57 pm.
    It really belongs in an archaeology section, rather than here. Nor do I want to get too embroiled in Egyptology as, unlike Jollybear, I am not in the habit of pontificating on subjects outside my areas of expertise (inorganic chemistry, mineralogy and earth science).

    “The true date for Egypt being founded would have to be 2188 BC.”
    Wrong as we shall see. Even if true it does not help Jollybear. The flood was ca. 2350 (creationists’ estimates vary slightly but centre on around that date). This gives 162 years give or take a few decades. Ancient Egypt was a great civilisation remember, cultivating huge tracts along the Nile and building great monuments. For that you need hundreds of thousands of people, millions even, in a well ordered society. Noah’s family would have to have bred like flies to produce the required number of people in such a short time. And do so whilst the world was recovering from the greatest environmental catastrophe ever. They also had to found the rest of the Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Asian and New World civilisations in similarly short times. Did they ever take time off from sex, giving birth and child rearing? Perhaps the more mathematically inclined could work out exactly what phenomenal birth rate would be required to achieve this spectacular population growth.
    Archaeology clearly shows that Egyptian civilisation was a slow build up from simpler societies. Not a sudden bursting on the scene of sophisticated high society in 2188 BC, but a gradual development over centuries. Ca. 3150 BC is the generally accepted date for the emergence of a recognizable nation state.

    “The Byzantine chronicler Constantinus Manasses wrote that the Egyptian state lasted 1663 years”
    Which Egyptian state? The Early Dynastic Period? The Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, or the New? Nor did Manasses have the benefit of being able to read hieroglyphs, or of the vast amount of written record and archaeological findings unearthed since his time.

    Peter James & David Rohl’s views are minority ones. Jollybear is following the standard creationist ploy of citing a few mavericks as if they represent the truth. In fact their claims have been extensively scrutinised and rejected by most Egyptologists.

    “When secularists make prolonged dates for Egypt by carbon dating artifacts, well carbon dating has its problems. It’s not at equilibrium, their was less carbon way back then there is today”
    I wasn’t aware that secularism has anything to do with Egyptology or C-14 dating. I did, however, suspect it was only a matter of time before Jollybear dredged up the creationist claptrap on C-14. Yes, past levels of C-14 have fluctuated slightly, but this only introduces a relatively modest error in the results (ie. plus or minus a few centuries for things thousands of years old). Besides, C-14 has been extensively calibrated against tree rings, and separately against varves (more of which in a later posting), as far back as 12,000 years (in fact 40,000 years in a recent Japanese case). This allows the variations in past C-14 levels to be taken into account and corrected for. C-14 dates that have been thus calibrated are accurate, self-consistent (those calibrated against tree rings match those calibrated against varves etc.) and reliable and confirm the antiquity of ancient Egyptian civilisation and others (like Indus, Mesopotamia and Jericho).
    Now I suppose Jollybear will rush back to answersingenesis and start scraping up all the rubbish there about C-14 (an Antarctic seal was too old, snail shells too young, levels of C-14 varied, the half-life has changed etc., etc. the usual cherry-picked half-truths, and nonsense with simple answers). Perhaps he will then regale us with creationists’ criticisms of tree rings (false rings, chance overlaps etc.). Then I’ll have to waste time refuting them point by point. This is so tiresome, and is one of the reasons I really do not like creationists. They are such consummate time wasters. Like the mythical hydra, one chops off one head and another pops up, with no end in sight. Jollybear, please, before you trot out the answersingenesis garbage about C-14, or tree rings (or any other subject for that matter), go check out the counter sites. The answers are all there in talkorigins, answersincreation etc. I should not have to do it for you and I really am beginning to resent the amount of time I am having to waste doing your homework for you. What is so difficult about simply going to another site and seeing what it says?

    The rest of Jollybear’s post is irrelevant off-topic rambling and I frankly can’t be bothered with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    This is a reply to Jollybear’s posting on 27 Feb. at 4:58 pm about varves.

    “Your saying that counting the layers of varves gives you the year of the earth”
    What do you mean “the year of the earth”? If the date of the earth then no, there is no lake that has lasted that long. But varves do indicate time spans well in excess of your 6000 years.

    “Well my reasonable question is, what then is the age of the earth? Is it 12 thousand, 102 thousand, or millions?”
    That is not a reasonable question, it is a stupid one that shows you have not understood the argument. Most varves (and tree rings) stop at 12,000 years ago because before that you are into the ice age and what are now lakes were then solid ice. A few were not and they show even older sequences.

    “storms can lay down multiple layers annually”
    I answered this last time. Why are you still peddling it Jollybear?

    “storm deposited layers and annual varve layers LOOK the SAME. At least according to what I have read.”
    Unfortunately, what Jollybear has read is on answersingenesis. So long as he restricts his reading to one side of the debate only he’ll continue to be misled. If he broadened his reading he would discover that layers deposited rapidly show features absent from those deposited slowly. Particle size and sorting differ, density sorting occurs (eg. black bands in beach sand), current bedding is often visible, there may be ripple marks, flute and scour marks etc. More subtle differences like pollen distribution provide further means of differentiation. It would be more accurate to say that storm layers and annual ones look SUPERFICIALLY the same, but a competent sedimentologist can often tell them apart. But, of course, when has answersingenesis ever been accurate?

    “Here is a quote I found “Oard a meteorologist …””
    Michael Oard is a meteorologist. Not a sedimentologist. His opinions on varves carry no more weight than those of a plumber, or footballer. I prefer to go by what those who actually study varves say, and if they say they can tell (in many cases, not all) if layers are annual or not then I believe them. Creationists like to cite those few instances where there really is ambiguity about whether the layers are annual or not as if such ambiguity is typical of all varves. Besides, as I pointed out before there are many good reasons for knowing the layers are annual. The presence of solar cycles, the correlations with human industrial activity, C-14 etc.
    As for Oard, his misrepresentations and distortions are exposed here: www.answersincreation.org/clarkia.htm Bye bye Oard.

    “Here is another thing I found “Dr. Elaine Kennedy, GEOLOGIST at GRI …””
    This is copied from a forum at baptistboard.com It is a creationist reporting what she claims she was told verbally by Kennedy over lunch! In short it is hearsay, and NOT Kennedy’s own words. In view of the history of young earth creationists distorting the words of others (see the Oard rebuttal above for example) I would be entirely justified in dismissing this hearsay outright. Let’s have Kennedy herself tell us what she actually believes.

    “As for the green river formations, the CURRENT thinking among many GEOLOGISTS is that those millions of layers are definitely NOT varves.”
    Well actually, if Jollybear had done his homework, rather than just repeating this hearsay (it’s part of the alleged conversation with Kennedy) he would know that “current thinking” is that PARTS of the GRF are not varves. But “parts” is not the same as “all”. But that does not suit the creationists, so you get told that geologists doubt varves in the GRF without being told it is parts of the GRF that are doubted as being varves. Other sections show sunspot cycles, and even Milankovich ones (which span thousands of years). That is strong evidence that those sections at least are indeed annual varves. Even if they were not (unlikely for these sections) they are still inconsistent with deposition in a wild and turbulent flood. The particle size is too small to settle, dewater and solidify to solid rock in the short creationists’ timescale. In fact, it would not even settle unless the water was static. The layering is too delicate, and devoid of the features expected of turbulent conditions (ripple marks, scour marks, current bedding etc.) and the presence of fossils of land organisms (leaves, insects) fits with the sediments being deposited in a lake surrounded by land. There was no land during Noah’s flood.

    “Keep in mind during Noah’s flood for that one year their would be MULTIPLE storms happening every day, each day, for a whole year”
    Irrelevant. When the whole planet is under kilometres of violently swirling water, including the GRF area, storms at the surface will not wash in more sediment and deposit it as varve couplet layers. There is no land surface to wash it in from, the waters are already so full of sediment they are essentially mud, and the violent turbulence would prevent the formation of delicate layers even if the sediment could, somehow, settle.

    “Then post flood and post ice age during history right up to the present, their would be more storms periodically, which would form more multiple layers.”
    Not enough to create the huge numbers of layers seen in the GRF, nor even in modern varves (GRF is a fossil system, remember).

    “Plus even if 50 thousand years were still needed as you say, still that makes the earth lower then millions or billions”
    How does it make the earth less than millions of years old? Varves are only a snapshot of a period in time. On a geological timescale, lakes are ephemeral. They fill up. Fossil examples (like parts of the GRF) represent only a period when that particular lake existed. Modern ones represent only the period when the basin containing them formed (eg. by glacial excavation during ice ages) to the present. They do not, and cannot, span the entire 4.6 billion year period of the earths’ existence. You are just being stupid Jollybear. Stop it.

    “I did some reading and here is what I found
    “Pebbles, plants, insects, and dead animals have been found embedded in varves. How could a dead fish rest on the bottom of a lake for two hundred years without rotting while slowly accumulating sediments gradually covered and fossilized it? This DOES NOT occur in modern lakes, and it would not have happened anciently.” This is saying it would take 200 years for a dead fish to get covered up by annual layers in undisturbed waters”
    Jollybear provides no proof that 200 years is needed, but even if it was, that’s not a major issue as lake bodies show. Nor does he provide any further information. If this a GRF example then, as was stated on the baptistboard thread, it appears that the fossils in the GRF are not actually from the varve sections anyway. As I stated in an earlier post, there is a man’s body that has been lying on the bed of Lake Superior since the early 1900s. Coincidentally, it is near the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald (sank 1975). The body’s facial features are said to be discernable. There are preserved bodies inside 19th century wrecks in the same lake. A spectacularly well preserved 2100 year old woman’s body (“Lady Dai”) was found in a water-logged Chinese burial. It was well-enough preserved for heart failure to be determined as the cause of death. A burial is not a lake bed, but it illustrates the point that if one excludes oxygen completely then decay grinds almost to a halt.

    “fish are SMALLER then human bodies, hence more fragile”
    And hence take less time to bury, so less of a problem. Fragility is not an issue in a completely static environment. The violent turbulence of a flood, on the other hand…

    “alkali would hardly preserve them”
    So what? Lake beds are more likely to be neutral or acidic.

    “‘A model based on seasonal deposition, as stated by the varve theory, does not appear to pertain to the Fossil Lake sediments’. All samples showed visible signs of decay in just slightly over one day. Within 3.5 days all samples had decomposed into small silt-sized particles. … This was in water in a rectangular prism with an approximate capacity of 5,900 cm3 and no perturbation. …Thus, the faeces must have been preserved in sediment within 24 hours.”
    What on earth is this out of context quote supposed to be about? Jollybear give us no information concerning what this is supposed to be describing, so how can one be expected to comment on it? Besides, the experiment it describes was in 5.9 litres of water. Hardly a model for a deep lake!

    “”“Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions””
    Oxygen poor, but NOT no oxygen at all! There only needs to be a little oxygen and decay will proceed. When there is NO oxygen, it is a different matter. Besides, a shallow marsh is not the same as a cold deep lake.

    “How were these bird bones protected from scavenging and decay for thousands of years until a sufficient number of the fine annual layers had built up to bury them?”
    “biannually produced paper thin sediments”
    They are NOT paper thin to start with, but are often up to around a centimetre thick. It therefore does NOT need to take thousands of years to bury things. This is just nonsense. Often a few years will do. Subsequent dewatering and compression reduces the thickness of the layers considerably.

    “As for varves being compared with carbon dating….”
    What follows is the usual Jollybear exercise in missing the point. The correlation between varves and known episodes of industrial activity (eg. lead smelting from Roman times to present) confirms that for that 2000 year period at least, the annual couplet layer interpretation is correct. If correct for the last 2000 years, why not the previous thousands? Jollybear should also note that it is not just written records that tell us about industrial activity in the past, but archaeology too.
    The correlation with C-14 is so good it is used to calibrate C-14. That different varves on different continents give the same calibration is inexplicable unless the annual couplet layers interpretation is correct. If the layers were the result of floods or some other non-annual effect, then there should be no correlation at all between different varves, or between varves and tree rings. Or, for that matter, between varves and Greenland ice cores (now expect Jollybear to trot out the creationist objections to Greenland ice cores. Wait for the aeroplanes under the ice argument).
    The varves in Lake Suigetsu in Japan have recently been used to calibrate C-14 as far back as 40,000 years. We can see these ones still forming today in summer/winter layers. As the summer layers contain pollen we have a further method of verifying the summer/winter couplet interpretation, and of distinguishing any spurious flood formed layers.

    “As for sun spot cycles you mentioned saying they go back as far as 22,500 years. That’s still a far cry from millions or billions.”
    So what if it is a far cry from millions or billions? As the lake probably is not more than a few tens of thousands of years old (maybe even just 22,500 years old), how can it be expected to contain varves covering millions or billions of years? Duh. 22,500 years of continuous annual couplet layer deposition, recording regular, known sunspot cycles is all that’s needed to refute a 6000 year old earth and a more recent global flood.

    “Plus that could surly be accelerated slightly in the past. You are assuming its slow. Plus all one has to do is make that number 15 thousand years less around, and it fits. You cant really proof it goes back 22500 years. Give me proof.”
    You’ve got your proof dimwit. If deposition was accelerated, the regular 11 year etc. sunspot cycles would be lost. It is the presence of these known cycles that provides further confirmation (along with C-14) that the varves really are that old.

    “Their you have it folks, varves don’t prove an old earth.”
    There you have it folks. Jollybear does not have a clue what he is rambling on about. He swallows uncritically the half-truths and distortions on answersingenesis, he cannot be bothered to check out the rebuttals on anti-creationist sites before posting his nonsense here, and he still does not appreciate the significance of varves. They do not need to prove a billions of years old earth (and because of the geologically ephemeral nature of lakes, they can’t) but they DO prove there was no global flood in the last 100,000 years, and they do provide confirmation of the reliability of C-14 dating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    This is a reply to Jollybear’s last post of 27 Feb. timed at 4.59 pm.

    Most of this post appears to be an accidental repeat of his first post of that day, timed at 4:56 pm and which I have already dealt with. Only the very end differs, so I’ll restrict myself to that.

    Jollybear’s ramblings about Mars really belong elsewhere (the trash can?), but here goes.

    “Also about lots of water being under the earth and volcano's with 70% water. Why do scientists say that the planet mars use to be covered in water at one time, but now its completely dry. However they also say tons of water is UNDERNEATH mars.”
    It’s all down to evidence Jollybear. Photos of the Martian surface show ancient shorelines, river channels etc, all over. So there’s proof Mars was once wet. We see no seas, lakes or rivers now. Just a little ice at the poles. So now Mars is dry. Is that really too difficult for you? Much water has been lost to space (the molecule gets broken up by ionising radiation and swept away by the solar wind – a consequence of no magnetic field and low gravity). But there is evidence that some remains as ice under the surface (but close to it, mostly in the soil, rather than the rocks). Impact craters, for example, often show channels flowing away from them where heat from the impact has melted the ice. Now scientists are keen to drill into the soil to look for this ice and so confirm its presence.

    “And it is so hard to believe that the earth which IS 70% water never had a global flood at one time. And underneath the earth there is hardly ANY water, yet mars has tons”
    Earth is not 70 % water, but has about 70 % surface coverage of water. Nor is most of the earth as bitterly cold as Mars. Whatever water remains on Mars has to be frozen (because it is so cold) and has to be subsurface (or it would sublime into the atmosphere). It is very hard to believe the earth had a global flood because of the numerous difficulties pointed out to you in earlier postings. And because of the sheer lack of evidence.

    “If mars USE to have water covering the planet, then earth easily could have a global flood”
    A non sequitur.

    “If mars has water underneath it, earth SURELY DOES TOO, and all the more so.”
    Another non sequitur. As explained above earth and Mars are very different places, with very different conditions. Besides, even the most optimistic estimates of the amount of Martian water are insufficient to cover the entire planet. Olympus Mons would take some covering!

    “To answer the petrified forests, here is a link i'll give to answer this, since my post is getting sorta long. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...ellowstone.asp
    These are covered in detail, and the creationists nonsense thoroughly debunked at www.answersincreation.org and www.talkorigins.org These and many other examples of fossil forests with upright tree trunks, one on top of the other, (eg. Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, dozens of forests one on top of the other) could not possibly form by successive landslides, one on top of the other, or giant floating mats of upright tree trunks, quietly settling one on top of the other, or by any other mechanism except the correct one – they grew there, got buried by a natural local flood (or volcanic ash as the case may be) then another grew on top and the process repeated. Further proof of the fact that these forests grew where they are found is the presence of roots in the soil below (now turned to rock), and the burrows of small animals (probably worms) in that soil.
    Forests do not grow during a global flood Jollybear.

    I am still waiting for Jollybear to explain thick beds of rock salt (expect the creationist rubbish about it being deposited by hydrothermal solutions, and expect Jollybear to ignore the evidence for deposition in land locked seas). I also await his explanation for thick chalk beds, like the white cliffs of Dover. Thousands of feet of nearly pure calcium carbonate from the shells of trillions of tiny organisms deposited in a year from the swirling muddy water of a flood? Get real! Expect to be regaled with grossly exaggerated rates of chalk formation, whilst ignoring settling rates, and how to avoid contamination with all that dirt swirling around. Expect also that Jollybear will not bother to look at the rebuttals on the anti creationist sites. He will just rush off to answersingenesis to find some rubbish to cut and paste without bothering to look at the counter arguments in answersincreation or talkorigins first.
    I am reluctant to add yet more problems for Jollybear to explain, as it just means yet more gigantic postings of ignorant ramblings in response, which I then have to tediously plough through in order to patiently explain to Jollybear why he is talking through the wrong end of his digestive tract. But here goes with one more fatal problem for young earth creationists. How do you get gigantic coral reefs forming in just a few 1000 years? The Great Barrier Reef and Bikini Atoll come to mind. Even at the fastest recorded rate of growth the latter would take over 100,000 years to grow. Fossil reefs have to have formed during the flood. How does something as sensitive as coral grow in the violent, muddy waters of a flood, and grow enough to create reefs? I suppose God did it.

    Please Jollybear, give up! You’re losing, but just can’t see it, and I have better things to do than to spend hours correcting your seemingly endless drivel. And for goodness sake, spare us all the time and trouble of reading your garbage and then answering it by simply going to the anti-creationist sites yourself first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello Ophiolite. You might think my statement is sickening, aggrandizing, biased, and presumptuous. But it’s definitely not claptrap. I am definitely sincere. You can call me deceived all you wish, but non sincere? Definitely not. My faith holds first place in my life, i am definitely sincere. I believe your wrong about all the things you said about my statement, but I KNOW your wrong when it comes to my sincerity. You can question my faith, but questioning my sincerity to my faith? Although you can, because you have that freedom, but I declare that I am sincere to my faith. Im not saying im perfect, but I am sincere.

    I understand as well that there are some Christians who DO believe in the bible, follow it and at the same time believe in evolution. You know, I don’t deny that SOME of them are sincere, but if the truth confronts them about creationism and evolution, and they still believe in evolution after words, then I don’t believe they are sincere. In other words, what I am saying is, a person does not have to be perfect in there belief system or even there lifestyle before they come to Jesus. They can come as they are, but Jesus does not leave them as they are. So change comes gradual. If change to the belief system and to the lifestyle does not progress after they learn more in there Christian life after they come to Jesus, I would thus then question there trueness as a Christian. If one starts off as a Christian and, makes the statement that the bible is fully Gods inspired word, and Jesus is thus now there Lord and savior in truth; well from that very day, there not going to be an expert in the knowledge of the bible, and there not going to even know Jesus extremely well either. However, they have made one true, sincere step towards the right path, but it’s only the beginning. After they study the bible and find out what it really says as a whole and the more they learn, the more their former belief systems and lifestyles are now changed. If when they learn more truth, they stop transforming to that truth, they are then at that moment in rebellion against God and his word. There is 2 explanations for this, 1 is they did not truly make that first step from the beginning to believe the bible as a whole and except Jesus as Lord, it was pretense. Or they did truly make that step, but now they have changed there minds to bar up to that pledge and walk all the way with him. It all depends on the person. I am not going to generalize anybody into a box. However there most definitely IS a false Christianity, and a TRUE Christianity. That’s beyond all question.

    Let me put it this way. Is there a true science and a false science? I assume you would think so, well, I think so to. Well that same logic applies to Christianity. If you being a scientist and someone came by one day and said to you “the sun circles the earth everyday” and you being a scientist know better that the earth is what rotates, you say to him “im sorry my friend, but you are misinformed, it’s the earth that rotates, and I should know because I am a scientist”. Well if he still denied it saying “well I am a scientist too and I think the sun rotates the earth ”. What would you think of that person afterwards? You would think he is a false scientist. My point is made.

    Let me put it this way. Your authority is the “up to date evolutionary text book”, my authority is “the bible”. If I read your evolutionary textbook and said to you “I think your text book is teaching me that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, I also think it’s teaching me that evolution is not so”. If I interpreted your plain reading textbook as saying such, you would surely think I am insane(and rightly so, I would be). Well it’s the same when people read the plain reading of the bible and say “well I interpret it as teaching the earth is millions and billions of years old”. My point made.
    Also self indulgent, hypocritical righteousness ALSO infuriates me too. Im glad it infuriates you, im with you whole heartedly. But when so called Christians deliberately twist the plain reading of the bible, THIS is self righteousness. They dismiss Gods ways, account, word, in place of there own ideas and ways. However if they do it out of deception because they were taught wrong, that can be shown mercy, ignorance can be shown mercy when there shown the truth and except it. However when one does it deliberately this is plain evil. Such as the originator of such a twisted doctrine. The one who actually came out with the heresy will undergo a more severe punishment then those he lead astray.

    Also when I say I am a true Christian and there are false Christians, don’t confuse that for arrogance. Because me saying im a true Christian is NOT me saying I am BETTER then those that are NOT true Christians. Im not even saying im better then a true Muslim. What I am saying is IM RIGHT and there WRONG, and I am TRUE to what’s right and there NOT being true to what’s right. It does not mean I think I have more value then they do. Try not to confuse that. As for my fellow true Christians I don’t feel intimidated by them either, even if they are stronger in there faith then I am, I realize were all on different levels and that’s normal, and I am happy for those who are above me, and I have compassion for those who are below me. Im on no arrogant trip.

    It’s interesting to note that way back in history(1800s and back if I remember correctly) that the popular view amongst Christianity was creationism, at a time evolutionism was not fully out on the table yet. It’s interesting that anyone reading the bible in plain view, will come and did come to believe in creationism, because context SHOUTS IT AT THE READER. However those that did not come to believe it, just honestly said they don’t believe what it says. But I gause they back in the day did not have good reading comprehension as we do today? Not so. They were just as smart as people are today.

    Now you said I grossly misinterpreted a scripture. How so? You say we evolved from a little organism in primordial soup from a rock. The bible says God made Adam, fully grown and talked with him, and Adam talked back; Adam was old enough for marriage. It said they were walking, and picked fruit from a tree. Sounds fully grown to me. Evolution says stars came first, bible says earth came first, evolution says sun came before plants, bible says plants came before sun. Evolution says billions of years, bible says 6 evening and morning days and from then till now 6 thousand years. Evolution says death was before sin and before man, bible says death came by sin through a man. Just what exactly am I misinterpreting here? Here is a link to the actual account of creation. It’s from the NIV version, however from the sight it’s on, you can get it in ANY version. However I put it on the NIV, since it’s my favorite version, also is a popular one too, but im not being biased when I do that, because ALL the versions are going to tell you the same thing. Anyhow, here is the links to the first 3 chapters of genesis. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;&version=31; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2;&version=31; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3;&version=31;

    First three chapters of genesis are the most critical parts that I stand on to form my belief that evolution is wrong. Now all my other arguments I have presented are ways that I back up this stand. From a plain reading of these chapters one should easily know that its proclaiming creationism, however that’s not believing or not believing what it says, it’s just knowing what it says. And when one studies it, it should come even more clear.

    Also one more thing I would like to mention. I think this is very important concerning who’s a Christian or not. A Christian is one who believes that the bible is the written inspired word of God, is one who believes in Jesus as Lord and follows his gospel that’s presented in the bible. THAT is what a Christian is in a nutshell. Now I could be very verbose in explaining that allot more, but this is sufficient for now. Now if one says they believe in Jesus, then they have to believe what Jesus said. Well, one of the things Jesus said is this “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female”. Here is the proof “http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=31; . So Jesus said that mankind, Adam and Eve and the earth, that is creation was all at the beginning, the same time. So if one says they don’t believe in what Jesus said, then one cannot be a true Christian. And if you DO say you believe what Jesus said, then you HAVE to believe in creationism. It’s quite simple. Remember what is a Christian? It’s someone that believes IN Jesus and follows him. I’ve proved my point. So if one wants to be a Christian, they have to believe in Jesus, and Jesus said the beginning of creation is when Adam was. Jesus believed in the literal reading of genesis. Also here is what Moses said in one of the famous ten commandments Remember the Sabbath DAY by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six DAYs the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Jesus also mentioned Moses saying he believed what Moses wrote, he also mentioned Noah that he believed that happened to mention another. Now if you interpret “day” in genesis as referring to millions of years then that means we would have to work for 6 million years and on the seventh millionth we rest just like God did. Hmm, that’s a logical interpretation now isn’t it? Not. If a belief system is not consistent, then there is a problem with the system. This is what I mean by one should not TWIST what the bible says in it’s plain reading or pick and choose what they believe. You know one does not have to be a rocket brain to know what something says. I mean you don’t have to believe what it says, but it don’t take a huge intellect to know what something is saying. Now math, yes the brain has to work a little harder, but something as clear as this? No, it’s easy to understand. You know, I know you’re a smart man, I know it has nothing to do with your intellect, it has something to do with you not doing your homework on the plain reading of what it says. It has something to do with ignorance, and not being taught right, perhaps of past traditions. I was not raised as a hardcore Christian, my family were not bible readers, or followers, or even church goers, they were normal people by today’s view of normal, but I have renounced there ways, that does not mean I don’t love them, I do, I just don’t agree with there faith or lifestyle, they put self first, money, family, ext, and God is last or on the back burner. You know, I think for myself, I make sure that I don’t let anything program me like a computer, not family, upbringing; not even the bible, not even God. I UNDERSTAND GOD however and I thus deliberately submit to him out of pure choice and trust. You know, even though I think your wrong, I still have lots of compassion inside me. What im trying to show is, there is NO question on what the bible actually is saying, that’s not were the conflict is, the conflict is what the bible says and what evolution says, THAT is where the conflict is.
    I want to mention one more thing here. People might say “what does it matter if the earth is billions or only 6 thousand, like who cares? Why does God hold us to that?” Well here is the thing, it’s not so much on how old the earth is, it’s the heresy that says death came before sin. That is a heresy, and that is wrong, death came after sin and because of sin. God holds us to that, AND to realize he is powerful enough to be ABOVE his creation in order to create it fast and supernaturally. That is the root of WHY God holds us to it. It has nothing to do with the surface.

    Also one more thing, what does it matter if a person believes in Evolution and they live there life as such a wonderful human being for God, Jesus and all? Well if they do that, then there lifestyle is inconsistent with evolution, which is survival of the fittest, that means one has no compassion on those who are weaker then they. So if there lifestyle which is good but inconsistent with the belief of evolution, that then makes a problem or inconsistency with the belief, which puts a hole IN evolution, so hence why still believe that system? OR if ones lifestyle IS consistent with evolution by having the survival of the fittest mentality and no compassion on ones fellow man, then that makes another problem, not with the system persa now, but with the lifestyle. It’s just plain wrong to not love ones fellow man, this is the reason there is so much problems and brokeness in this world.

    Now im preparing my reply for the varves rebuttal on what a few people have mentioned. And i read over what you said Stephan, and im going to try to take the advice that said "cover the essentials, but short enough to keep it interesting". Im going to try my best with that. Also Stephan, im going to read the counter arguments on inti creation sites as you proposed. This way i can know what exactly i am up against before i make further rebuttals to you. I have read some parts on inti creation website’s but not in regards to everything. And its not because of laziness, but because of balancing my time. It really is a time thing. However as I read more things on the inti creation sites, mind you the momentum in this debate is probably going to be lost, since preparing my next counter argument is going to take awhile, not because it’s going to be as long or longer then my former, but because of more reading will take place, which means more time. However I assume the momentum will start again once I make the next reply and revive the discussion. Plus I have to keep doing reading on the creation sites as well, because I am not a scientist or a geologist, so I have to glean my knowledge from them. As it is, the bible is not a science book or a geology book, so my predominant knowledge there wont help me for these arguments in science and geology. So I have to read both website’s, creationists and evolutionists and see which one makes more sense, which one is most ignorant, or plain lying and which one appears to lose in there argument at the most. This is going to take some time reading. I have not even read every single article on the creation website yet, there are THOUSANDS of articles on talk origins and THOUSANDS on answersingeneses. It really is not a “lazy” thing with me, its sheer time. There is only so much time in a day, between work, wife, reading, thinking, understanding, and preparing my reply. So much time is involved in all that. However, I have made my stand and I will follow through. I will be back. Even if I reply to Obhiolite continually before I do you, it’s only because I know the field WITHIN the bible more so then fields outside it. I don’t have to do any research(or if I do, very little) between each rebuttal when it comes to arguments within the bible as apposed to ones outside it. So that does not take too much time, so it wont take much time away from my other readings to both websites. However if I reply to him in days ahead, keep in mind, I am still reading, studying, from both website’s as you proposed, and gathering my counter argument article for your new arguments you presented.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    About that varve rebuttal, let's give another example.

    So there is this large volcano in the Eifel in Germany, the Laacher See. Sometimes in the past it erupted and the ash layer is found back widely dispersed. Where-ever you dig in a circle of a few hundred kilometers, you will find that ash back. It is known as the Laacher Sea Tephra (LST). There is only one layer that extensive and it has a unique chemical fingerprint as all eruption have and chemists can without a doubt identify the ash from this eruption.

    So you can date this ash and that has been done numerous times.

    With the radioactive K-Ar a dating of 12,900 +/- 560 years before present was obtained with a confidence of 95% (three sigma). (van den Bogaard and Schmincke 1985)

    A carbon date of the last tree ring of an ash burried tree gives calibrated: 12,985 +/- 75 years before present, also with 95% confidence, of course the tree could have been dead already for several years, but is was in the open (otherwise there would have no ash) and could not have lasted thousands of years. (Friedrich et al 1999)

    And counting individual annual sediment layers in a lake, the Meerfelder maar, corrolated with an adjacent lake (Holzmaar) finds 12,880 +/- 120 years counting error before present (Brauer et al 1999)

    Finally A so called multi proxy trick combining all kind of techniques in another lake (Soppensee) gives: 12,859 +/- 116 years (Blockley et al 2008)

    The first three methods are completely independent and completely different, the fourth is dependent on the renowned German pine dendrochronology, which is also used for calibration of the carbon dates of the second. So the fourth is dependent on the second. Here you can study this calibration table to see that it is all about counting and corrolating matching records versus carbon dates.

    But we still have three totally independent methods and all results give an match in the period 12,910-12,975 years ago.

    of course it's not certain that the eruption happened in 12,947 +/- 35 year but if it is not, then it's certainly not very far off and by all objective logic there is no way of distorting three independent realities to make the eruption younger than 6000 years.



    BTW Should any statistician read this, I would be very grateful to know how to calculate a trustworthy time frame from this very assymetric data


    References:

    Blockley S.P.E, C. Bronk Ramsey, C.S. Lane, A.F. Lotter, 2008 Improved age modelling approaches as exemplified by the revised chronology for the Central European varved lake Soppensee,Quaternary Science Reviews 27 (2008) 61–71

    van den Bogaard, P., Schmincke, H.U., 1985. Laacher see Tephra—a widespread isochronous Late Quaternary tephra layer in central and Northern Europe. Geological Society of America Bulletin 96, 1554–1571.

    Brauer, A., Endres, C., Negendank, J.F.W., 1999a. Lateglacial calendar year chronology based on annually laminated sediments from Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany. Quaternary International 61, 17–25.

    Friedrich, M., Kromer, B., Spurk, H., Hofmann, J., Kaiser, K.F., 1999; Paleo-environment and radiocarbon calibration as derived from Lateglacial/Early Holocene tree-ring chronologies. Quaternary International 61, 27–39.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    jollybear, just a request : can you from now on restrict your evidence to proper geological sources ? the bible is not a geology textbook, and neither is answersingenesis
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I understand as well that there are some Christians who DO believe in the bible, follow it and at the same time believe in evolution. You know, I don’t deny that SOME of them are sincere, but if the truth confronts them about creationism and evolution, and they still believe in evolution after words, then I don’t believe they are sincere.
    So this is about personal opinion. Well here is mine. When I was a teenager my interest in, knowledge of and commitment to, Christianity led my family to expect that I would enter the ministry. At that time I had absolutely no difficulty in believing in evolution, seeing it as part of God's way of implementing creation. I did not know of any minister within my church that had any difficulty in believing the same. Now I find, courtesy of your amazing insight, that they were all insincere!
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Let me put it this way. Is there a true science and a false science?
    No. There is science. Period.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    If you being a scientist and someone came by one day and said to you “the sun circles the earth everyday” and you being a scientist know better that the earth is what rotates, you say to him “im sorry my friend, but you are misinformed, it’s the earth that rotates, and I should know because I am a scientist”.
    I would most decidedly not say the above, nor would any scientist when following the methodology of science. I would say "I am sorry my friend, but you are misinformed. It is the Earth that rotates and here are the observations and hypotheses that lead us to this conclusion." To claim that "I should know because I am a scientist" is the worst kind of Appeal to Authority. It is so far removed from science as to make a nonsense of your argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Well if he still denied it saying “well I am a scientist too and I think the sun rotates the earth ”. What would you think of that person afterwards? You would think he is a false scientist. My point is made.
    Again - rubbish. I would say, show me the evidence. Let us examine it together.
    Your point is not made.
    Your ignorance of what science is, is however revealed in full.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi Andre, I will be keeping your varve posts in consideration and I am preparing my response to it. Bar with me.

    Marnix, I agree the bible is not a science book or a biology book, however I believe it agrees with all true science. And I realize I cannot use it to disprove evolution, and im doing my best to find other sources to back me up. Also answersingeneses IS good sources for geology and science. Incase you have not read anything on that site, that site has thousands of articles on there written BY scientists and geologists and many other fields of scientists, who are creationists of course. You might call that biased, but if you do that, then you would have to be consistent and call evolutionist websites biased as well, since those thousands of articles are written by evolutionists. Do you expect me to give you sources from evolutionary geologists and scientists? That would defeat my purpose. However I CAN find you sources from evolutionists that ADMIT the problems with there belief in evolution. There are some of those that do admit it, I can find you quotes from them. And I will, bare with me.


    Ophiolite. I am not saying that every bible and evolutionary believer even among’s ministers are not sincere. What I am saying is they are sincerely wrong. Because they were taught wrong, or have been confused by the conflicting teachings of evolution with the bible. However when you trace it back to the root, the very man who got this doctrine out on the table of compromising the biblical account of creationism with evolution, that very man who did that was a coward, and from his cowardness sprung forth false teachings that misled INNOCENT souls. The man who deliberately knew better but compromised out of fear, that man will be dammed to hell. However those he innocently led astray who are sincerely wrong, will God dam them? Again everyone’s case is different. But in general there are two cases. The first is those who are sincere about there faith in the bible, they follow it but they believe in evolution because they were taught wrong. Well these people if they have not taken the time to exhaustively study and find the real truth about evolution perhaps because they are taking the time to study other topics in the field of the bible, and they got those topics RIGHT on in there teachings, well God will show mercy to there ignorance about evolution. Gods mercy plays a role too. However those cases were the person does do a exhaustive study and find out the truth in evolution and it does conflict with the bible, but they still resist believing in creationism out of fear that they were wrong all that time, THESE people are now no longer ignorant, yet still believe in evolution, GOD THEN WILL NOT show mercy to such a person. And this reasoning applies to all topics for any person; not just to the topic of evolution. God will have to show mercy to everyone who is a true Christian, because no person can claim that he perfect, it is impossible, only Jesus would be perfect. However anyone who is NOT a true Christian will not be shown mercy at all, that means every Muslim, every Buddhist, every Jew, ext ext will be shown no mercy by God. Because everyone of these at most, know about Jesus and the bibles claim. So they are not ignorant, yet still reject him as Lord and savior. I also can back my view here by bible verses(marnix, im not saying those verses are to disprove evolution, they only prove that what I am saying here, is what the bible actually says, however no one has to believe it, but that would mean they don’t believe the bible).

    Also Ophiolite when I said “is there a false science and a true science, a false Christianity and a true one?” and you said “no, there is only science”. Well that’s what I meant. False science is NOT science, I agree. False Christianity is NOT Christianity at all, I agree.

    Also you said “I would most decidedly not say the above, nor would any scientist when following the methodology of science. I would say "I am sorry my friend, but you are misinformed. It is the Earth that rotates and here are the observations and hypotheses that lead us to this conclusion." To claim that "I should know because I am a scientist" is the worst kind of Appeal to Authority. It is so far removed from science as to make a nonsense of your argument.”

    I can agree here, well this same logic applies to those sincere or non sincere Christians who say evolution fits with the bible. I would say, back it up by showing were the bible supports it and how it then lead you to that conclusion. You however have not shown from the bible how the bible supports evolution, but I have shown you from the bible, how the bible does NOT support evolution. (And yes marnix, I understand referencing the bible is not disproving evolution, however this is for Ophiolite, my rebuttal for trying to disprove and give evidence against evolution is in my other arguments I have presented and im still preparing more.) The conflict I am having with Ophiolite is “what exactly is the bible saying about it?” This conflict is not “is the bible true or not, is evolution true or not” It’s about, what does it actually say? It’s different from our other arguments.

    I have shown you were Jesus believed in creationism, man was at the time of creation. And that’s when the beginning was. And I can show you the other verses were he believed in Noah’s flood. And I’ve shown you about the Sabbath day reasoning. You have ignored these. Again the authority of Christianity IS the bible, not your ministers or even my ministers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Jollybear,

    How come only the bible is correct?
    Why isn't the Qur'an correct and countless other scriptures?
    How come your god is the one who made Earth not the millions of other gods.

    Are you saying that ALL other religions are wrong? If so, how come your religion at this point in time is right compared to the ones that existed before it and will exist after it?

    Finally, what does it matter if God created the Earth or not for you 6000 years ago? You have nothing to do with the field at all. The field doesn't give a flying 747 fuck about the bible or your religion or what god told you , they will still use their tried and tested ways to fulfill goals such as exploration, geological engineering...etc

    Say that you win your debate?
    We are still going to use radiometric dating to date rocks to find mineral deposits and our understanding of geology is still going to be used to find orebodies...

    Basically what I'm trying to say is that Creationism does nothing. I mean, even if you prove it's true (which you won't), it won't make any difference at all because we will still HAVE to use our ''false'' methods for important science.

    I really wish that religion would stop meddling in things it has no understanding of or effect in because all it does is slow down the advancement of science. I mean creationism offers nothing to humanity. Science offers the world.

    If you only knew how blinded you were by your childhood indoctrinations.


    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    wisdom is being able to acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    wisdom is being able to acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong
    Wise words, and something I only learned quite recently.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Barry, all due respect to you as a person, but you have spoken tons of ignorance. However, I am use to it by now. You asked why is the bible the only scripture that is correct? Reason, because God who is ONE, has ONE message, not many contradictory ones. The bible, the Quran and other scriptures don’t speak the same message. Yes they do have some similarities, but they also have some BIG fundamental differences too. You probably already know this, but I am going to say it for the sake of clarity anyways. The bibles message is, God created all things, man messed up and sinned against God, God showed love by making a plan of redemption. This plan was him becoming man in the flesh, die for sin, rise from death which sin caused. And when man repents of sin, trusts in the sacrifice of Jesus and receives the free gift of the Holy Spirit, they are then reconciled back to God and are saved from the penalty of sin, which is hell. This is the salvation of the soul. Next is Jesus who is God in flesh, shall return to earth and rise every single dead person in the graves, some to eternal life, and some to damnation to hell. THIS is the bibles message in a nutshell. The Quran’s message is different, but there are some similarities. The Qurans message is God who is one, created all things, man sinned, God made a plan to redeem man, it was through sacrifice and through repentance of sin. Jesus is only a prophet, not God in flesh, however Jesus shall return to earth and play a part in the resurrection of the dead of all mankind. The just shall rise to eternal life, the wicked to damnation to hell. Jesus also did not die for sin, and did not die at all actually, but was translated to heaven. This is there message in a nutshell. Now the jews they only except the old Testament part of the bible as there authority, but reject the new testament. They believe God created all things, man sinned, God made a plan, but that plan is not fulfilled YET, because there messiah has not shown up yet(so they think, but they missed him, he is Jesus). They also believe that in the end, God shall rise every dead person from death and bring eternal life to the just, and damnation to the wicked. And I wont go into Buddhism right now, it will make my post too long. But there are many others I could touch on, but this will suffice for my point I am going to make. Each one of these religions have some good points to them, but the fundamental problem with each one is they reject Jesus as God in the flesh, who died FOR sin to pay for it, and rise from death. Basically the bible says if one does NOT trust in Jesus as the way, one cannot be saved from the penalty of sin. Also one cannot receive the Holy Spirit except through Jesus, and if one does NOT receive the Spirit, they cannot be born again, that means they are not reconciled back to God. If this does not happen, that soul is in danger.

    Now, how do I know that Christianity got it right? Well, because it has miracles backing it up. Example is I know of a testimony of a person who USE to be a Muslim. He use to be a die heart Muslim, and he was so zealous that one day he was threatening a Christian to convert or else. The Christian refused. So the Muslim took his bible and burnt it, funny thing is, the bible did not burn, fire was all over it, but the book was not burning up, then a angel appeared to him and said “you are going to preach the very bible you tried to burn!” then the Muslim bowed down and said he was sorry and was deceived. From that day, he was a Christian. This is a true testimony that you will most likely wont believe, but non the less it is a true claimed testimony. And there are LOTS more testimonies then that. Now I understand other religions such as the occult also have some miracles backing it up. I am well aware of it. Satan also has power to do miracles. Also some things are caused by manipulating energy through mind exercises, some things can happen through doing this.
    Also why is my God the only true God? Well first off, there is only one God, there is a highest authority and power, just one, if there is one before God, then God would not be God, but the one before him would be. I believe the God of the bible is the true one. Can I prove it? No, however when individuals have a personal encounter or experience with this God through the Holy Spirit, THIS is proof for the individual. And you can test this out by receiving the Holy Spirit through the steps of repentance and trusting Jesus and crying out to God for his Spirit. But you have to do it sincerely, not as a mockery for it to work.

    Plus logic can tell you all the MILLIONS of so called gods are not gods, but stupid pathetic made up gods, and idols of mens making. It’s no different then batman and superman characters today. Who in there right mind would believe in such things? VERY ignorant people that is.

    Also there was no religion before mine and there wont be one after mine, this religion will last forever. Adam and eve were from the beginning and God gave them his word and message(right religion if ya will). Jesus shall return again, and then his rule will last forever, just as he said. (I know what your all thinking, you think im insane and that my head is messed up and gon crazy and brain washed and everything. However, my brain is fully intact and I willfully believe this.) Im not brain washed, I have studied all the religions, no one even told me to read the bible, my family did not tell me too, and no religious person did either. I looked into it myself, I think for myself.

    And yes I am saying all other religions are wrong, except there similarities. However to get more technical here, TRUE Christianity is not just a religion, it’s a relationship with God. Religion is a BELIEF system, however when you EXPERIENCE Gods presents through Christ, then you KNOW it’s real, hence it has gon from belief(religion) to KNOWING now. This is relationship with God. However I cant prove this TO YOU, you have to personally experience God yourself, then you will have your proof. I assure you, it’s real, I KNOW, I’ve experienced him, and its beautiful, more so then anything else in this world. And many others have experienced him too. Im not serving no belief system(although I have one and its dear to me), I am serving a real being, God.

    What does it matter if the earth is 6 thousand years or billions? It matters a big deal, because if the earth is billions, the bible is wrong, if the earth is 6 thousand your evolution is wrong. And why does that matter? Because it throws every other belief that surrounds these two belief systems out of wack.

    Also I understand the field does not care about the bible, except certain number of creationists who work in the field.

    I fully understand as well that even if I were to win the debate, scientists would still do radiometric dating and still believe in evolution, and I understand if I won the debate, you personally would probably still believe in evolution, because of pride.(I could be wrong though about you personally). So why do I bother trying you wonder? Because I believe this so strong, I think it’s worth planting doubt, if not in your mind, at least in some readers minds. I cant disprove your evolution belief, but I CAN PROVE that it IS A BELIEF and that it’s NOT PROVEN FACT. I CAN prove that much.

    Yes religion does understand other things, even science. NOT every representative of the given religion does, but allot do understand it, they just don’t believe it. Answersingenesis for example understands evolution very well, they just don’t believe it, and so shoot holes in it.

    When you say creationism offers nothing to humanity but science offers the world. All I have to say to this is WOW, WOW. What a weighty statement. Creationism offers the other side of things, they offer the biblical God and his ways, which can make this world a better place. You say your science offers the world, but what good is the world if it is messed up?

    You said “if you only knew how blinded you were by your childhood indoctrinations”. If you only knew how objective my mind really is, you would see that your statement is what’s blind and not me. Plus in all technicality anyone who rejects God and his ways presented in the bible, is blinded. However, you wont come to believe that, that’s why I am making effort to counter argue evolution and earth science by finding out the problems with it. Perhaps it might make you think, if not you, someone out there. PLUS at the same time, I learn more things myself. Im always open to learn and up for challenges and to stretch my mind.

    Plus, did you ever think it could be you that has been indoctrinated at childhood with evolution?

    Marnix, you said “wisdom is able to acknowledge you could be wrong”. Yes, so do you have wisdom to acknowledge your evolution belief could be wrong? Also I acknowledge I can be deceived, oh ya, however I don’t believe I am, im not convinced I am, im convinced so fare, you all are. Anyone can be deceived, even if it’s something small.

    I am still working on counter arguing Stephan new arguments and Andre’s points. Be patient as I continue to work on that. In process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Marnix, you said “wisdom is able to acknowledge you could be wrong”. Yes, so do you have wisdom to acknowledge your evolution belief could be wrong? Also I acknowledge I can be deceived, oh ya, however I don’t believe I am, im not convinced I am, im convinced so fare, you all are. Anyone can be deceived, even if it’s something small.
    i don't have a problem with that challenge, since nothing in science is 100% proven - i must say i would be very surprised, but if evolutionary theory was replaced by something with more explanatory power, i'd be delighted

    i can only repeat the words of Beverly Halstead when asked what sort of evidence would make him doubt the correctness of evolution : "rabbits in the Precambrian"
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    So rabbits in the precambrien, would be another hole in evolution. I did not even think of that one. So how does evolution explain that one then?

    Also you said it would delight you if science replaced evolution with some other explanation. Why would it delight you? Im very curious to ask?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    So rabbits in the precambrien, would be another hole in evolution. I did not even think of that one. So how does evolution explain that one then?
    The point was that if we discovered that there were rabbits in the Precambrian then it would look as though evolution (at least as we understand it) is wrong.

    It hasn't happened, though...

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also you said it would delight you if science replaced evolution with some other explanation. Why would it delight you? Im very curious to ask?
    Because all new scientific explanations tend to explain even more than the ones they supplant. Evolution through natural selection has such huge explanatory power that for anything to replace it it would have to be knock-your-socks-off hot! Anyone enthusiastic about science would love it if one such came along, even though most of us believe that evolution (through natural selection) is about as comprehensive a theory as it's possible to get.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Jollybear, could you please stop posting religious content in the earth science sub forum? We do have a religion sub forum you know, and a lot of us are active there too. We will debate each other about religion there. That being said, it has become clear to me that you are a very strong believer in your faith. You also do not seem to be able to understand clearly explained scientific posts and probably at the same time think that your posts are valid arguments. They lack objectivity, no matter how much you profess to be objective. You have consistently not bothered to check out the anti-creationist sites suggested by posters and I don’t think you will bother in the future. Even if you do, I don’t think any amount of invalidation of your comments is going to make you reconsider. If you somehow defy the odds and start to see that you have been wrong and even mislead, I will be utterly astounded.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    So rabbits in the precambrien, would be another hole in evolution. I did not even think of that one. So how does evolution explain that one then?

    Also you said it would delight you if science replaced evolution with some other explanation. Why would it delight you? Im very curious to ask?
    re #1 : rabbits in the precambrian would indeed require some explaining - it would at the very least mean that something is awry with our chronology
    except, as shanks pointed out, rabbits haven't been found in the precambrian, so until then there's no explaining to do

    re #2 : a theory that explained the facts better than the current theory of evolution would indeed have to be an improvement over the current state of affairs, hence it could only mean that science and our understanding of the world around us has made progress - how could i not be delighted with that ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To kalster. The only reason I posted religious content on this section is because I was asked religious questions. And so to be courteous , I simply answered them. If im not asked anymore religious questions here, then I wont answer no more religious questions in this section.
    I am objective, yes, I am. Believe it or not, I am. It might appear that I am not, but looks are deceiving. It appears that the sun is what rises every morning, but looks are deceiving. Here is proof of my objectivity. I was not raised with the strong faith that I have. On the contrary, my family even fought it, yet I still followed it. THAT is objective, why? Because I did not go by what I was taught in my background traditions. Also I studied not just Christianity, but also all the other religions and believes as well. Also you said I have not checked out anti creationists website’s, but oh yes I have. I have to admit though that I have read more on the creation website’s because since I have a stand for the bible and a experience with the “Holy Spirit” which tells me the bible is real by knowledge through that experience, I have checked out the creation scientists website’s first, to see how geology and all that fit with the bible, SINCE I am not a scientist, I could not know how those things fit with the bible, even though I know the bible, I don’t know geology by myself and the bible does not teach geology. Also I have checked out anti creation website’s and I plan on checking MORE of them out. To prove to you I have checked them out, one of them was the website that Harold gave me about Kevin rebutting Austin’s rock sample, and I poked tons of holes in Kevin’s arguments. That is only proof for you that I have checked out anti creation sites and I am going to check more. I have recently checked out talkorigins on what it had to say about varves, I DID take Stephan advice on doing that, yes I have, I did read what they had to say AND I plan on reading more from anti creation website’s.

    Also I have to ask you the same question now, have you read from creation website’s? And if you have, which website’s have you read most from, evolution ones, or creation ones?

    And if I don’t eventually agree with evolution after I do more reading, you will be astounded hey? Why would you be astounded when evolutionists cannot fully prove it’s stand? To me any evidence evolution has, is subjective. Someone said im up against overwhelming evidence. Yes, overwhelming subjective evidence that has assumptions and interpretations attached to it. Yet we hear so much of “we got proof, we got evidence, we got testings, we got this we got that” You got FAITH. I will be astounded if you don’t realize it’s a belief you have in evolution, and not knowing. I cant disprove your belief, but I can prove it’s a belief and I can show problems with the belief, but I cant disprove it. The very fact that some of you admit also that science COULD come up with another theory to replace evolution if it was convincing enough, but it’s highly unlikely it would happen you say. Well just by you realizing that, shows you don’t fully know evolution is true, you believe it is. Also the only thing you have left if you replace evolution, is non other then, creationism, and God forbid, they don’t want that to replace it.

    Im going to tell you another slant to my objectivity here. I don’t believe the bible because the bible had a pretty message to it, I don’t believe the bible because my minister says it’s true, I don’t believe the bible because I WANT too, I don’t believe the bible because Christianity is the predominate religion in the western world. I believe the bible because I TRULY believe it, im convinced it is true, it makes perfect sense to logic itself, from what I see anyway. And because of my spiritual experiences I had. So at least at this time, I am convinced. As I continue to work on my points for Stephan, and read from anti creation sites, we will see where this debate goes.

    Ok, so no rabbits in the Cambrian period. Ok, I misunderstood what was said then. Sorry.

    I would like to mention something about “brain washing” which is the opposite to objectivity. Hers how it works. You read a evolutionary textbook that automatically assumes evolution is true, the book is not about weather or not it’s true or not, it’s about how does evolution happen, how does it work, not is it true or not. The very assumption is what causes the loss of objectivity and brainwashing. It goes the same with any book. EVEN THE BIBLE. Does that mean im insulting the bible I stand on? Absolutely not, I fully believe what the bible says. The bible assumes a God, and he deals with mankind in certain ways and says how he works. Well, I understand the God of the bible enough to realize that God does not want people believing in him out of a brain washed state, he wants us to believe in him because WE DELIBERATELY CHOOSE TOO out of PURE trust and PURE LOVE NOT PURE INDOCTRINATION.

    Now that brings me to my next point. What if a person believes in evolution objectivity out of PURE choice and trust, understanding the assumption and understanding things apposing it. Well if they choose it after this, yes that is objective, however in my assumption, they did not choose wise enough. They clipped the wrong wire sorta speak, and now there soul is going to blow.

    Still reading and preparing. NOT just from the creation sites too. In process, bare with me stephan and andre.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also I have to ask you the same question now, have you read from creation website’s? And if you have, which website’s have you read most from, evolution ones, or creation ones?
    I have read (and do read) many creationist web sites. Recently I have had to limit the time I spend on these since my wife objects to me vomiting indoors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Ophiolite. I figured you did read from creationist website's. However, kalster, have you? And do you still? And if so, which website's do you read from the most, evolution or creation?

    Also what did you mean vomiting indoors? You lost me there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    This is getting pointless...
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolybear
    Plus logic can tell you all the MILLIONS of so called gods are not gods, but stupid pathetic made up gods, and idols of mens making. It’s no different then batman and superman characters today. Who in there right mind would believe in such things? VERY ignorant people that is.
    I am sorry but this takes the cake. I discussed (and wasted my time) evolution/science/universe with a lot of religious people but this statement is hands-down the most ignorant, narrow-mided, condescending and disgusting I have heard so far. And believe me, I almost heard them all.

    Anyway....as a Pastafarian I am deeply insulted by this and other statements you made Jolly. This means JIHAD!! RAMEN!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I have read (and do read) many creationist web sites. Recently I have had to limit the time I spend on these since my wife objects to me vomiting indoors.
    GASP......MUHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAAAAAA .............

    And pleeeeeeease....don't take the Jiahd part of above post too serious, pretty please with cherry on top............. :wink:
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also what did you mean vomiting indoors? You lost me there.
    Gooogle "irony" and you'll be back on track.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    let's say an overdose of creationism can turn a man's stomach as well as his mind
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •