Notices
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 819
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: radio isotope dating question.

  1. #201  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Now twang, tell me what makes more sense, to believe in spegheti monster, or believe in God of the bible?

    Marnix, how does too much creationism turn the stomach and mind? You only say that because you dont believe it. For me, too much evolutionism turns the stomach and mind. However only one truely sickens the soul to destruction. I believe it's evolution. You might think evolution tast good to the stomach, however sweets tast good, but there bad for you. The vegetables of creationism are good for you. :P

    Im in the process of still reading some articles from anti creation sites. Im reading one now about radiometric methods, im finding out ways to poke lots of holes in it. I'll be back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    well, jollybear, i'm sure you'll disagree on this point, but to my mind creationism is all about the distortion and perversion of science for political ends, whereas evolution imo is a prime example of how science should be conducted

    i respect science and hate to see it misused
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Right, i respect science as well. However i dont think creationists are trying to distort science. However even if SOME of them did have that motivation, i dont think all of them would have it. What most creationists if not all are doing is, they start off with the premis that the bible is right, and from that, they think evolution science has barked up the wrong tree. They think they should have taken another turn and barked up a different tree through explaning geology, ext. Even evolutionary science admits they are progressing towords the answers. Progress means they dont have ALL the answers. Creationists claim they have ALL the answers. That would mean, i predict that as evolutionists do more progression and discovery, the answers they progressively find will suit creationism more and more, then you will have more "honest(or less ignorant)" evolutionists say there are problems with there belief. Which you got some evolutionists admiting that already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Right, i respect science as well. However i dont think creationists are trying to distort science. However even if SOME of them did have that motivation, i dont think all of them would have it. What most creationists if not all are doing is, they start off with the premis that the bible is right, and from that, they think evolution science has barked up the wrong tree. They think they should have taken another turn and barked up a different tree through explaning geology, ext. Even evolutionary science admits they are progressing towords the answers. Progress means they dont have ALL the answers. Creationists claim they have ALL the answers. That would mean, i predict that as evolutionists do more progression and discovery, the answers they progressively find will suit creationism more and more, then you will have more "honest(or less ignorant)" evolutionists say there are problems with there belief. Which you got some evolutionists admiting that already.
    Confused thinking - you've assumed that the Creationists are right, thereby making the same mistake you claim that only some of them make.

    As evolutionary theory progresses and fills in more and more of the gaps in our knowledge, we will find the Creationists pushed into tighter and tighter intellectual corners. Already their vacuity has been demonstrated in court cases in the US (no other country even feels the need for such debates, evolution is taken as read). The more they push the more intellectually feeble they will look.

    There are any number of groups of people these days who make a habit or practice of rejecting scientific knowledge and technology. Fair enough, but don't shove it down our children's throats by making it a school curriculum issue. If you must follow intellectually bankrupt ideas, keep them away from the rest of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    However i dont think creationists are trying to distort science.
    what do you call it then when someone quotes you out of context to prove a point that you never made and even vehemently disagree with ?

    that's what happened to the likes of Gould and Dawkins to such an extent that Dawkins now follows certain statements in his books with a "creationist warning" in an attempt to stall attempts to use his own words in a sense contradictory to their original meaning

    the same also happened when Darwin stated that "to admit that the eye could evolve by natural means would appear to be absurd in the extreme", but then proceeds with example after example that the absurdity is only apparent, his final conclusion being that eyes DID evolve through natural means

    the usual creationist ploy is to quote Darwin as admitting that the eye could not evolve through natural means, and conveniently "forgetting" to mention the rest of the paragraph, which shows that the first part was only a turn of phrase in order to rebut it in the second part

    misinterpreting what someone has said is only human, but there is a limit to the number of times these types of misquotation happen before you become convinced that it's a deliberate tactic
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Now twang, tell me what makes more sense, to believe in spegheti monster, or believe in God of the bible?
    Well, The Spaghetti (please obey the spelling, I do not write "Goat" when I mean "God", you are using the Monster's name in vain. May your pasta never be "al dente" for the rest of your life!!) Monster has ample evidence for it's existence, just take a look at This website. It will tell you everything you have to know about His Noodly Holyness.
    In discussing competing theories, if one is to present the abrahamitic god then it is only fair and logical to teach other theories with commensurate evidence.
    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  
     

  7. #207  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    commensurate ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also what did you mean vomiting indoors? You lost me there.
    The distortions practised routinely by creationists are either deliberate lies, or profound ignorance. I find the first distasteful and the second, when it is deliberately maintained, to be unforgivable.
    Reading the warped arguments presented by creationists, the twisting of the facts, the overlooking of contrary information, the application of jaded arguments long since refuted, these and similar tactics leave me feeling physically ill. The only reason I have not actually vomited is that I read the material in small doses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    commensurate ?
    Having the same measure?

    There is exactly as much evidence for the Spaghetti Monster God as there is for the jealous YHWH God.

    Or am I being too obvious and missing the joke?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    it was a rather silly joke along the lines of "what's a big word like you doing in a forum like this ?" - it just tickled my funnybone
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    btw jollybear, in case no-one has pointed you in the direction of an alternative view on creationist arguments, try Evowiki's List of Creationist Arguments
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    No Jollybear, I said that I would be astounded if you accept that you have been misled. As to your other question, I watched the entire Kent Hovind seminar and my jaw was agape all the way through. I actually feel sorry for those people hanging onto his lips and slurping up everything he has to offer. I have also read creationist books and visited their websites. You have to understand that science as a discipline (which extends further than just geology and evolution by the way) has no objective towards invalidating creationism. Its sole objective is the acquisition of knowledge. It is this accumulated knowledge that has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to invalidate creationism. I say again that as long as you keep posting and people keep refuting that this thread will never die.
    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  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello. If creationists misquote evolutionists A LOT I personally think that is terrible. However I have only been studying this topic for a year now, and I have to read more, which will take time. That way I can see how much misquoting there doing. Perhaps evolutionists misquote creationists too?

    If I dare find out creationists from well respected sites have spoken deliberate lies, or withheld vitally important information, im going to be very upset. However that in itself wont shake my faith in a young earth, it will take more to do that. However it will anger me towards there integrity. Defending ones faith is good, provided it’s don the right way, and not a dishonest way.

    Also as I have been reading more from evolution sites, I found this quote that I am vastly interested in, it says “All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude ”

    Now a Creation website says this “Conventional (uniformitarian) geologists usually claim that, if dates are consistent, this proves closed systems. But, to begin with, the majority of dates are not consistent for the same rock. Second, the claims about consistency, despite their intuitive appeal, are themselves assumptions, and some of these assumptions have already been proved incorrect.”

    A DIFFERENT creation website says this “the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. “

    Ok, my question is, I can understand two groups(creationists/evolutionsts) disagreeing with each others premises, but disagreeing on actual things that are don NOW? Like what is the truth here, do most dates agree or don’t they by the standard tests don? From this, SOMEONE IS LYING. I need to find more UNBIASED information about this. Anyone have any ideas about this?

    Sunshine, my point about the spaghetti monster is that even if there is no proof against his existence, he don’t make sense, where is Jehovah God, does make sense, at least a lot more sense then the spaghetti monster god. Some things you have to use your gut and sense in what God you choose to serve. Your intuition can tell you the spaghetti monster is not God. However, I do understand your point about using the spaghetti monster, if he cant be disproved then he is the same as Jehovah God since he cant be proven or disproved. However, is there claims of miracles from spaghetti monster? is this a vast great religion? Is this based on a long history, is this based on LOGIC? No. Some things you got to choose by true logic.

    Ok, so kalster, you would be astounded if I admitted I was misled. IF I find out that MOST methods DO agree on the same rock and for the geologic period, I will admit I was misled IN THAT regard, however that in itself does not completely disprove creationism, that would simply be corruption from a few cases of creationists. Either corruption, or BIG ignorance to a mass degree, yet it came from creation scientists, which would be worse, would make it indicate it was a lie. However, I don’t know this yet. If I find out it is true, that most dates don’t agree, then your evolution website’s have don the misleading then. Also if most methods do agree, still the assumptions are attached to them. One assumes the decay rate is the same, that initial conditions are are known, that nothing contaminated it all, and that God did not give it an appearance of age, like he did Adam and Eve. All these are assumptions from the evolution scientists. If they really want knowledge objectively, do they even question there assumptions?

    Also why does anyone have to lie for anyway? What’s there to fear, the truth? How pathetic it is to fear the truth. May God do justice to mis leaders!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    it was a rather silly joke along the lines of "what's a big word like you doing in a forum like this ?" - it just tickled my funnybone
    The it did what I intended

    Damn, we need an [irony][/irony] tag here .............mrmblgml.....
    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  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Also why does anyone have to lie for anyway? What’s there to fear, the truth? How pathetic it is to fear the truth. May The Flying Sphagetti Monster do justice to mis-leaders!
    Oh sooooo true. Allthough the creationists obviously have a different view of TRUTH. Truth as in backed by evidence and measurements and cold hard facts. You obviously have not read one of my post a little bit further upstream....you know the one when I threw in the bit with my age....you know...born in the sixties.....around the time of the first moon landings....so that makes me fortysomething........you remember?? Or didn't you get the point??
    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  
     

  16. #216  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    jollybear, maybe the word lying is rather strong, but there is definitely some form of deceit going on

    it's what psychologists call denial, which is a way for people to resolve a dissonance caused by information that challenges deeply held views or cherished patterns of behaviour.

    remember, in order to do a good job at deceiving others, you must first deceive yourself
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Also if most methods do agree, still the assumptions are attached to them. One assumes the decay rate is the same, that initial conditions are are known, that nothing contaminated it all, and that God did not give it an appearance of age, like he did Adam and Eve.
    If none of these factors were considered, then the chance of the dates lining up around the globe would be extremely remote. The decay rates of elements are determined in a laboratory with a calculated error margin, which is taken account of when dating is done. So the only things that could give incorrect dates are when the conditions in the past are different to the consensus (which is reached through evidence) and when some form of contamination has taken place. The chances that these possible factors distort the dates of independent methods in exactly the same direction, is extremely small.
    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  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    At the risk of sounding like I'm making an ad hominem attack, I think Jollybear should be gently told that Kent Hovind is a convicted felon currently serving a lengthy jail term for multiple counts of fraud.

    And yes, creationists are notorious for misquoting evolutionists. Years ago I was even asked to review a publication on this topic by an Australian anti-creationist group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    At the risk of sounding like I'm making an ad hominem attack, I think Jollybear should be gently told that Kent Hovind is a convicted felon currently serving a lengthy jail term for multiple counts of fraud.

    And yes, creationists are notorious for misquoting evolutionists. Years ago I was even asked to review a publication on this topic by an Australian anti-creationist group.
    Stephen, this isn't one of your stronger arguments. It actually is an ad hominem, and doesn't even shed much light on Hovind's sincerity in his creationist arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    At the risk of sounding like I'm making an ad hominem attack, I think Jollybear should be gently told that Kent Hovind is a convicted felon currently serving a lengthy jail term for multiple counts of fraud.

    And yes, creationists are notorious for misquoting evolutionists. Years ago I was even asked to review a publication on this topic by an Australian anti-creationist group.
    Stephen, this isn't one of your stronger arguments. It actually is an ad hominem, and doesn't even shed much light on Hovind's sincerity in his creationist arguments.
    Ad hominems aside, have you seen any of Hovinds lectures Harold? Let me tell you I almost puked on the computer monitor when he started talking about the "water-ice halo" that he came up with to explain where all the water came from for the flood and about the increased O2 levels creating giants and extreme longevity. He probably never heard of free radicals. These are mere examples of the mountain of steaming wombat shite that came out of his mouth.
    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. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    At the risk of sounding like I'm making an ad hominem attack, I think Jollybear should be gently told that Kent Hovind is a convicted felon currently serving a lengthy jail term for multiple counts of fraud.

    And yes, creationists are notorious for misquoting evolutionists. Years ago I was even asked to review a publication on this topic by an Australian anti-creationist group.
    Stephen, this isn't one of your stronger arguments. It actually is an ad hominem, and doesn't even shed much light on Hovind's sincerity in his creationist arguments.
    Ad hominems aside, have you seen any of Hovinds lectures Harold? Let me tell you I almost puked on the computer monitor when he started talking about the "water-ice halo" that he came up with to explain where all the water came from for the flood and about the increased O2 levels creating giants and extreme longevity. He probably never heard of free radicals. These are mere examples of the mountain of steaming wombat shite that came out of his mouth.
    I know nothing about Hovind or his teachings. I am only commenting on the rhetoric. There are lots of kooks around, including plenty right here on The Science Forum. Most, I think, actually believe what they are saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I got that and I agree. :wink: I wanted to give you some examples of Hovind's extreme kookiness.
    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  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I know nothing about Hovind or his teachings.
    Here are a few quotes from Hovind; there are plenty more:

    • Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world.

      [.....] a lizard laid an egg, and a chicken hatched out. That is the general idea behind punctuated equilibrium.
      Source: Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6 - a transcript of Kent Hovind's early sermons circa 1996

      There is definitely a conspiracy, but I don't think that it is a human conspiracy. I don't believe there is a smoke filled room where a group of men get together, and decide to teach evolution in all the schools. I believe that it is at a much higher level. I believe that it is a Satanic conspiracy. The reason these different people come to the same conclusion is not because they all met together; it is because they all work for the devil [sic]. He is their leader and they don't even know it.
      Source: Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6 - a transcript of Kent Hovind's early sermons circa 1996

      The entire theory of evolution is built upon the faulty assumption that the origin of the universe was "billions of years ago"
    Whilst any of these may serve as a starting point for productive discussion, they are never presented with that goal, but rather to demean and belittle the scientific process in lieu of 6 day creationism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    • Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world.

      [.....] a lizard laid an egg, and a chicken hatched out. That is the general idea behind punctuated equilibrium.
    oh for the very irony of it all : with every single word Hovind goes on to show how little he understands of the viewpoints he claims to oppose
    i wonder how badly Hovind would test in science, and that without evolution to pull his marks down ...
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Twang, what was the point you were making for me?

    Yes, I agree marnix, saying any one of these given website’s are lying is a little strong. However perhaps one of their sources they past to there articles is lying. I also looked at three independent from each other creation website’s and they all say that most dating methods don’t agree, but the evolution website’s say most do agree. I mean this is something that should be agreed upon, because it’s in the present and can be observed, so somewhere there has to be deliberate deception going on. Im trying to figure out how to get at the truth of this particular issue about “most dating methods agreeing or not agreeing”. Becoming a lab worker is not practical either, so I cant find out that way. Anyone know how I can find out the truth on this? How can I KNOW what the truth is with this issue?

    About Kent Hovind. To my knowledge he is in prison because of not paying taxes. And his reason for not paying taxes is because he hates and has even said it allot in his speeches that he resents that they teach evolution in schools at tax payers expanse. So he refuses to pay it, since he don’t believe in it. I admire the mere strength of his faith to such a degree he will make a stand even against the law that tells him to bow the knee and pay to get evolution taught in schools. THAT”S STRONG FAITH. If every creationist’s did that, which is slightly a little more then half the country according to surveys, perhaps we can change the flow of the river and get creationism taught in schools too. And I certainly believe Kent Hovind is sincere in his faith, I’ve seen him weep once in one of his speeches, this spells out sincerity, at least it’s an indicator that’s for sure. I have not heard all of his speeches or teachings though, only some.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I also looked at three independent from each other creation website’s and they all say that most dating methods don’t agree, but the evolution website’s say most do agree.
    probably depends on what you mean by "agreeing"
    presumably creationist sites insist on a very small margin of error, and feel that the number of readings that initially were wrong due to sampling / analysis errors should be given full weight as counter-evidence

    i'm sure geologists may want the best possible accuracy for specific cases (e.g. the search for suitable volcanic layers to date the end-Permian extinction is a case in point), but for deciding whether the flood account is feasible, broad agreement between the various methods is deemed sufficient evidence (e.g. even if one sample/method says 235 million years and another 230 million years, those dates are far more in agreement with one another than with a claim of 6000 years or less)

    the other bit that must not be forgotten is that if there's disagreement over dates, search for better quality samples + repeats of the original measurement (often by different laboratories using a variety of approaches) will ultimately boil the result down to a core number of samples where confidence in the accuracy of sample and method is high and agreement between them within the accuracy of the method

    if after this stage, insisting on still calling the earlier, less reliable samples evidence is disingenious to say the least - and yes, a form of lying
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Harold 14370

    Yes, strictly speaking my comment on Kent Hovind is ad hominem, something I acknowledged at the time I made it, nevertheless, it does cast doubt on his overall trustworthiness. More so when one considers that the only "qualification" he has is a fake PhD he bought from an unaccredited diploma mill. Further doubt comes from the fact that even other creationists distance themselves from him and have criticised him for using out of date arguments. When someone has a long history of dishonesty (and yes, Jollybear, he was jailed for tax fraud, I don't care what excuses Hovind uses to justify it, I do not believe them, it is fraud and Hovind is a criminal, period) it does give one reason to be extra cautious in dealing with anything he says. His arguments and fake PhD have been extensively rebutted on the usual anti-creationist websites anyway.


    With respect to lying, creationists have on various occasions been caught out telling deliberate fibs. Two at least perjured themselves in the recent Dover "intelligent design" trial, and were denounced by the judge for so doing. I would argue that those who cook up the bogus arguments (like Austin and his Mt St Helens dacite) are being deliberately deceitful - lying if you like - as they ought to know better. Those who naively and uncritically swallow these arguments (like Jollybear) are ignorant and gullible, and whilst their intellectual sin may not be as bad as that of the deliberately deceitful, they still deserve criticism for being so foolish and too lazy to check out the rebuttals.

    Jollybear - I look forward to your attempts to "refute" my rebuttals of your arguments. Please remember to take into account the trends, patterns and correlations that have been pointed out. Your answers must explain why radioisotope dating does not give random numbers, but correlates with things as diverse as palaeomagnetism in sea floor basalts and continental lava flows, lunar crater densities, the degrees of erosion of the recent Grand Canyon basalts (irrespective of what Snelling & Austin would have you believe), relative ages from classical stratigraphy etc. Likewise why do varves correlate with C-14, tree rings, Greenland ice cores etc.? These multiple independent correlations and patterns provide firm evidence that the dating methods are reliable and explaining them otherwise will be quite a challenge for you. Perhaps just as challenging would be explaining why the oceans did not boil and the earth's crust did not melt with all the heat being generated during the flood, or by massive meteor bombardment. You could just save yourself the bother and admit defeat!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Stephen, I have not listened to Kent Hovind allot, so I have not bothered to check up on him to a full measure. However I am surprised by your statement that he bought a fake PHD. Is there proof for this? If this really is true, why the heck would he do this? A professing bible believer now. Well im not nieve to the fact that there can be people who do corrupt things. However that also goes for the evolutionists side too. There’s honest people on both ends, from the creationists, and evolutionists and there’s corrupt people from both ends too, to deny this, is to deny reality. Now that does not mean they all have knowledge, one group is blind. And it’s the evolution group

    I’ve also read something on answersingeneses that they spoke some points saying not to use some of the arguments Kent hovind was using.

    As for deliberate lying from creationists, I don’t deny this can happen. However in Austins case, I DON’T believe he was dishonest in HIS CASE with the rocks from mt st helens. This guy wanted the labs to unbiasedly date that rock, and he ignored the footnote because he assumes all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years, so it would not matter what rock you sent into the lab based on his assumption. How is that dishonest? Is not bias dishonest? You know what, I wish I was a lab worker right now, because I certainly know I would be unbiased to myself. Plus if he told the lab it was a rock only a few years old, the lab perhaps would refuse to date it, hence he could not get it dated, then find out what he expected. So my point is, THERE IS BIAS from the labs and evolutionists. And bias is dishonest, Austin was not dishonest. Plus Austin did not deliberately lie by saying the rock was over 2 million years old, and he did not say it was a few years old. To my knowledge, he just sent it in, paid the money, and asked them to date it. Plus if he did tell the labs the rock was only a few years old, and the labs said “ok, if you still want to pay money, we will date it for you” my intuition tells me he did not want to take that chance either because then they might manipulate the dating. And he wanted an unbiased date, and he GOT IT. He did it the best way he knew how, based on what he sincerely believed and expected. Now if the labs ASKED how old the rock was, would he have been tempted to lie? I don’t know, I don’t know him personally(my intuition tells me he would not have lied though based on his faith in the bible), however I would hope he would not have lied, because I don’t believe in defending ones faith through lies. However, one has to use discretion sometimes, which Austin did.

    Stephan, you are incorrect when you say I am lazy by not checking out the rebuttals to what Austin did. I have checked them out, I think your pomp has blinded you to the previous arguments I have stated on this forum. You KNOW that I have read Kevins rebuttal to Austin doing this, and that was a big article. And I poked holes in Kevins critisism on what Austin did. Kevins rebuttals were not convincing to me. And I say that with all honesty, at the moment I still do not doubt in creationism. Im not believing in creationism dishonestly, but honestly. Now I have also read a huge article on radiometric dating from a evolutionary viewpoint. It was this article here “ http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html “ And I am looking for some counter arguments against what this article is saying. This article is saying allot of stuff you are saying, about the correlations of radiometric dating and all. However three independent creation website’s say that most radiometric dating do not agree, while this article says that most do agree. Well, im still doing some more reading to make heads and tails out of that.
    Now a few things about me

    1 im not lazy when it comes to finding out truth

    2 my faith is based on understanding and honest sincerity.

    3 im not perfect(but no one is), I try to be though.

    4 Things take time, so we all need patience, give things a chance.

    5 if im wrong, and I find that out and it dawns on me, I will admit I am wrong, and reshape my believe system. Not a problem, for me it’s not a pride thing, it’s a truth thing.

    6 I don’t go down without a battle first. And after that, I might not be the one to go down, we have to see, that means this discussion is going to be LOOOOONG. I wont admit defeat until I find out if im deceived(And that’s IF I am, which I don’t believe I am, I believe you are). Now these rules I have for myself, I would hope everyone has them for themselves too, I think they are pretty realistic for anything in life.

    7 If in the end of this LOOOONG discussion you admit defeat, I don’t gloat over ones defeat, ESPECIALLY if it makes them uncomfortable, however I do believe in a sense of humor through heavy discussions like this at times, keeps things interesting. However I believe in showing care if one transitions to believing evolution to creationism. It’s like a tree, one has to show it care when taking it out of the ground to plant it somewhere else. Cant just yank the roots out.

    8 I believe in defending my faith with a honest motive. If however im deceived, that means the one who deceived me has the wrong dishonest motive. However, I believe the evolutionary authorities have deceived you.

    And that’s it for my little 8 list thingy that just popped in my head.

    Question, to my knowledge most science colleges don’t teach the other side, which is creationism, do they? And if they don’t that would explain your great pomp in defending evolution because that is the predominant doctrine that was instilled into you. Now don’t get me wrong, im not saying there’s something wrong with pomp, NOT one bit, I like pomp, pomp is awesome, by all means, build the pomp even, but pomp is only BEST when one is SURE what the truth REALLY IS.

    Now as for all your arguments about the correlations, im still reading and preparing for this challenge you gave me, and I do admit it is a great challenge and I understand the weight of the challenge, and im preparing to counter it in a honest way. I admit it’s a challenge, but note I am not admitting defeat. I need more time for this. Im preparing in such a way so that I am prepared to not fall into any corner. On the contrary, im preparing to corner you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Question, to my knowledge most science colleges don’t teach the other side, which is creationism, do they?
    for the same reason that chemistry classes don't mention alchemy and astronomy classes don't mention astrology - they represent outdated science that has been refuted for quite a while

    the most you can expect is a mention in a historical review, but not once you come to the syllabus proper
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    The point I was trying to make was about different methods not giving the EXACT same age of the material in question.

    I was born at 11th of October 1966 3:27 a.m This is the fact.
    Now I can say I was born a little after the first moon landing[statement I] This is true. I could also say that I was born in thé sixites of the 20th century[statement II] This is also true, but not as correct as the first statement. I could also say right now I am in my forties[statement III] No contradiction to the first two statements. If I only give you the third information I could be either 40 or 49, your guess in this case is as good as anybody elses. If I give you additional information (around the time of first moon landings) you could conclude that I was born in 1966. If I give you the additional statement that my sign is Libra you could deduce that I was born between end of September and end of October. Different ways to approach the issue at hand nonetheless all statements per se are true. If I told you however I was 6 days old, this is an apparent and blatant lie.

    So if different methods do not give the exact same answer down to the picosecond ("This rock is 125,496,485.054689232225 years old"), you assume that the results are invalid. Different methods will yield slightly differing results but do not contradict each other. And if someone tells me a result (no matter what unit or size) down to the umpteenth digit after the comma with no error at all, I tell him right in his face that this is indeed fake data. Every method has it's inherent uncertainty and if this is ommited when presenting results most of the time the intention is deception or sheer dumbassness.
    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  
     

  31. #231  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    reminds me of this joke i once heard about a man who bought an antique chinese vase, and told a visitor that it was 2003 years old

    how do you know, the visitor asked, to which the man replied :

    " well, i bought it 3 years ago and i was told by the seller that it was 2000 years old at the time"
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To twang. Ok, I understand your analogy of the different dating methods of your age. However from many creation websites(who also are scientists) they are saying your analogy is invalid and too simple for this issue. They say this because they are saying most methods don’t agree to a HUGE amount. What they are saying is put two different dates on the same rock and they come out MOST times like millions of years in the difference. This is what all the creation website’s are saying. Are they lying? Are ALL those independent creation sites misunderstanding? Are they ALL twisting things? I’ve checked out three different creation sites and they all say the same thing. My intuition tells me that if I check out more, they also will say the same thing.

    Here is a quote I found from a creation site, and I think it might answer in more detail this question I have, but im using it to as a rebuttal for evolution claiming many dates agree. Here it is.

    “Let us consider the question of how much different dating methods agree on the geologic column, and how many measurements are anomalous, since these points are often mentioned as evidences of the reliability of radiometric dating. It takes a long time to penetrate the confusion and find out what is the hard evidence in this area.
    1. In the first place, I am not primarily concerned with dating meteorites, or precambrian rocks. What I am more interested in is the fossil-bearing geologic column of Cambrian and later age.
    Now, several factors need to be considered when evaluating how often methods give expected ages on the geologic column. Some of these are taken from John Woodmoreappe's article on the subject, but only when I have reason to believe the statements are also generally believed. First, many igneous formations span many periods, and so have little constraint on what period they could belong to. The same applies to intrusions. In addition, some kinds of rocks are not considered as suitable for radiometric dating, so these are typically not considered. Furthermore, it is at least possible that anomalies are under-reported in the literature. Finally, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method. (And let me recall that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon is mobile in rock.) Thus the agreement found between many dates does not necessarily reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather the agreement of the K-Ar method with itself. For example, if 80 percent of the measurements were done using K-Ar dating, and the other 20 percent gave random results, we still might be able to say that most of the measurements on a given strata agree with one another reasonably well. So to me it seems quite conceivable that there is no correlation at all between the results of different methods on the geologic column, and that they have a purely random relationship to each other.
    Let us consider again the claim that radiometric dates for a given geologic period agree with each other. I would like to know what is the exact (or approximate) information content of this assertion, and whether it could be (or has been) tested statistically. It's not as easy as it might sound.
    Let's suppose that we have geologic periods G1 ... Gn. Let's only include rocks whose membership in the geologic period can be discerned independent of radiometric dating methods. Let's also only include rocks which are considered datable by at least one method, since some rocks (I believe limestone) are considered not to hold argon, for example.
    Now, we can take a random rock from Gi. We will have to restrict ourselves to places where Gi is exposed, to avoid having to dig deep within the earth. Let's apply all known dating methods to Gi that are thought to apply to this kind of rock, and obtain ages from each one. Then we can average them to get an average age for this rock. We can also compute how much they differ from one another.
    Now we have to be careful about lava flows -- which geologic period do they belong to? What about rocks that are thought not to have their clock reset, or to have undergone later heating episodes? Just to make the test unbiased, we will assign altitude limits to each geologic period at each point on the earth's surface (at least in principle) and include all rocks within these altitude limits within Gi, subject to the condition that they are datable.
    The measurements should be done in a double-blind manner to insure lack of unconscious bias.
    For each geologic period and each dating method, we will get a distribution of values. We will also get a distribution of averaged values for samples in each period. Now, some claim is being made about these distributions. It is undoubtedly being claimed that the mean values ascend as one goes up the geologic column. It is also being claimed that the standard deviations are not too large. It is also being claimed that the different methods have distributions that are similar to one another on a given geologic period.
    The only correlation I know about that has been studied is between K-Ar and Rb-Sr dating on precambrian rock. And even for this one, the results were not very good. This was a reference by Hurley and Rand, cited in Woodmorappe's paper. As far as I know, no study has been done to determine how different methods correlate on the geologic column (excluding precambrian rock).
    The reason for my request is that a correlation is not implied by the fact that there are only 10 percent anomalies, or whatever. I showed that the fact that the great majority of dates come from one method (K-Ar) and the fact that many igneous bodies have very wide biostratigraphic limits, where many dates are acceptable, makes the percentage of anomalies irrelevant to the question I am asking. And since this agreement is the strongest argument for the reliability of radiometric dating, such an assumption of agreement appears to be without support so far.
    The question of whether different methods correlate on the geologic column is not an easy one to answer for additional reasons. Since the bulk of K-Ar dates are generally accepted as correct, one may say that certain minerals are reliable if they tend to give similar dates, and unreliable otherwise. We can also say that certain formations tend to give reliable dates and others do not, depending on whether the dates agree with K-Ar dates. Thus we can get an apparent correlation of different methods without much of a real correlation in nature. It's also possible for other matter to be incorporated into lava as it rises, without being thoroughly melted, and this matter may inherit all of its old correlated radiometric dates. Coffin mentions that fission tracks can survive transport through lava, for example. It may also be that lava is produced by melting the bottom of continents and successively different layers are melted with time, or there could be a tendency for lighter isotopes to come to the top of magma chambers, making the lava there appear older. But anyway, I think it is important really to know what patterns appear in the data to try to understand if there is a correlation and what could be causing it. Not knowing if anomalies are always published makes this harder.
    It is often mentioned that different methods agree on the K-T boundary, dated at about 65 million years ago. This is when the dinosaurs are assumed to have become extinct. This agreement of different methods is taken as evidence for a correlation between methods on the geologic column. One study found some correlated dates from bentonite that are used to estimate the date of the K-T boundary. I looked up some information on bentonite. It is composed of little glass beads that come from volcanic ash. This is formed when lava is sticky and bubbles of gas in it explode. So these small particles of lava cool very fast. The rapid cooling might mean that any enclosed argon is retained, but if not, the fact that this cooling occurs near the volcano, with a lot of argon coming out, should guarantee that these beads would have excess argon. As the gas bubble explodes, its enclosed argon will be rushing outward along with these tiny bubbles as they cool. This will cause them to retain argon and appear too old. In addition, the rapid cooling and the process of formation means that these beads would have Rb, Sr, U, and Pb concentrations the same as the lava they came from, since there is no chance for crystals to form with such rapid cooling. So to assume that the K-Ar dates, Rb-Sr dates, and U-Pb dates all reflect the age of the lava, one would have to assume that this lava had no Sr, no Pb, and that all the argon escaped when the beads formed. Since the magma generally has old radiometric ages, I don't see how we could have magma without Pb or Sr. In fact, I doubt that there is fresh uncrystallized lava anywhere on earth today that has zero U/Pb and Rb/Sr ages, as would be required if bentonite gave an accurate date for the K-T boundary. So to me it seems to be certain that these ages must be in error.
    Furthermore, the question arises whether bentonite always gives correlated ages, and whether these ages always agree with the accepted ages for their geologic period. I believe that bentonite occurs in a number of formations of different geologic periods, so this could be checked. If bentonite does not always give correlate and correct ages, this calls into question its use for dating the K-T boundary.”






    2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    jollybear, when people say there's a huge difference between e.g. 230 million and 235 million years ago, that's looking at absolute differences
    what's really important is the relative difference, i.e. 5 million as a percentage of 230 million, because the error in measuring increases with time

    so relatively speaking the difference between 230 million and 235 million is less than say between 4000 and 6000 years ago
    also, in order to come to a valid conclusion, the dates that you compare have to be valid - rogue values usually stand out like a sore thumb, and more often than not turn out to be a mistake on re-examination

    to keep on using rogue dates after they've been proven false on re-examination is, as i've said before, dishonest
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I know it is silly getting angry in a forum, but I am really starting to lose my cool here. Jollybear is incapable of distinguishing proper science from dishonest, convoluted and dishonest crap and I see no indication of it changing. He keeps on rehashing old and thoroughly refuted arguments and disregards the responses he gets and/or fails in understanding them. There is no hope for him. In his mind, he would have to discard his total belief in the bible and that is not an option for him. This thread will never die.

    On another note, Kent bloody Hovind got his bogus “Phd” from an unaccredited Christian University. In fact, see for yourself. He is a despicable human being. The thing I hate most in this world is dishonesty!!

    Just to be clear Jollybear, I am inclined to think that you are really trying to be sincere, but I am sorry to say that you are incapable of reaching or understanding the truth.
    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  
     

  35. #235  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i don't always agree with Richard Dawkins, but I'm of the same sentiment when he describes the following case of Kurt Wise (remember, he was on the list of geologists that uphold the creationist version of the story) :

    Kurt Wise could have fulfilled his boyhood ambition to become a professor of geology at a real university whose motto might have been 'Think critically' rather than the oxymoronic one displayed on the Bryan website : 'Think critically and biblically'. Indeed he obtained a real degree in geology at the University of Chicago, followed by two higher degrees in geology and paleontology at Harvard (no less) where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould (no less). He was a highly qualified and genuinely promising young scientist, well on his way to achieving his dream of teaching science and doing research at a proper university.
    Then tragedy struck. It came, not from outside but from within his own mind, a mind fatally subverted and weakened by a fundamentalist religious upbringing that required him to believe that the Earth - the subject of his Chicago and Harvard geological education - was less than ten thousand years old. He was too intelligent not to recognize the head-on collision between his religion and his science, and the conflict in his mind made him increasingly uneasy. One day, he could bear the strain no more, and he clinched the matter with a pair of scissors. He took a bible and went right through it, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world-view were true. At the end of this ruthlessly honest and labour-intensive exercise, there was so little left of his bible that,

    "try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible ... It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."

    I find that terribly sad; ... the Kurt Wise story is just plain pathetic - pathetic and contemptible. The wound, to his career and his life's happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible. Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out science, evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.


    it would appear to me, jollybear, that you stand at the same crossroads
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Marnix. I’ve read that there are about 300 anomalies that are actually reported. There could be more under reported. Here is a quote from the same article I pasted a part of above “Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe's paper, "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised," Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered, and that anomalies are often not reported:
    1. "Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... " (Waterhouse).
    "In general, dates in the `correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." (Mauger)
    " ... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous." (Curtis et al)
    " ... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age." (Armstrong and Besancon).
    "In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods." (Brown and Miller)
    Woodmorappe also mentions that very self-contradictory age spreads in the Precambrian era are common.
    In addition, Woodmorappe gives over 300 sets of dates "that are in gross conflict with one another and with expected values for their indicated paleontological positions." This table is limited to dates that approach 20% discrepancy, too old or too young. This does not include dates from minerals that are thought to yield bad dates, or from igneous bodies with wide biostrategraphic ranges, where many dates are acceptable. He states that the number of dates within range are less than the number of anomalies, except for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous. When one adds in the fact that many anomalies are unreported, which he gives evidence for, the true distribution is anyone's guess. He also combines evidence from the literature to conclude that "somewhat less than half of all dates agree with 10% of accepted values for their respective biostratigaphic positions." I believe this estimate even includes igneous bodies with very wide biostrategraphic limits, and does not include unpublished anomalies”

    So marnix, if MOST dates and methods truly do agree MOST of the time, you would hear me admit I was wrong about that part, however I will still hold on to the fact of assumptions on the methods then. However, look at what I quoted, it’s saying most dates, most times don’t agree. And if you tell me “well just because it says it, doesn’t make it true” well I would say the same thing about the evolution site that says most dates do agree most times. Just because they say it, doesn’t make it true. Where is the real meat and potato proof that there IS very little anomalies? All I see going on is website’s just denying one another’s statements.


    Kalster I have a question for you, are you interested in me changing my view from creationism to evolution? If so, getting angry certainly wont work. What POSSIBLY MIGHT work, or at least will definitely have a better chance then the former is actually rebutting the points im giving, instead of just saying there wrong. Your saying these things are thoroughly refuted already and old. Well im sure these types of topics and discussions have been debated and talked about tons of times by many people. So what? Im not those many people, im me and you are you and we are HERE now debating. Those many people did there learning, now im doing mine and you are doing yours. And im not disregarding the responses either, im reading to prepare to answer them all, I’ve said that many times, and I have been answering many of them in big posts. Also I do understand the responses, I just don’t believe in evolution and im counter arguing it, and going to still do so. Now if your interested in the thread dying, why? Are you afraid of something? You feel your evolution is threatened? What are you interested in, me changing my view, or the thread dying? Or are you open minded to learn more, or do you think you know everything already? If you are not open to discussion, why post? If your open to discussion, hit hard at all my points. Im not angry with you because you believe in evolution, although I fully disagree with it and I think your blind to the glory of God. However I am not angry with you, give me the same grace in return. The moment I see someone getting angry within a debate is the moment I see them losing the debate. If you truly are confident enough in your evolution, you wont anger at all, because you wont doubt, or feel threatened. Im fully at ease on this side of the computer, because im fully at rest in what I believe, I fully truly believe in creationism. The only thing is, when I read your posts and counter arguments, I just have to strain my brain to think and understand and gather my thoughts, and read, and that can be exhausting sometimes. However im not stressed out at all over this, because im not at all convinced of evolution. And if you’re the same way that your not one bit convinced of creationism, I still don’t consider this a waste of time, or you a waste of time, I consider it a learning experience and then I believe you will be held accountable on the day of judgment when God reminds you of the big discussion we had on earth through the forum.



    Marnix, I think that story was beautiful about Kurt wise. He loved and trusted in God more then evolution. And gave up his promising dream, beautiful display of trust and love for God. Im sure there was another dream for him. Usually when God tells us to give up a dream, he has a bigger dream for us. Why have a dream based on lies? He felt he would be living a lie if he became a evolution scientist. How could he live with himself if he did this? If I was living a hypocritical lifestyle, my conscience would burn me everyday, I would be a miserable man. Your saying he left happiness, I say no, he would have been more miserable going for this dream, then throwing it out, because of his nagging conscience pricking at him. This is a good story based on faith prevailing through the test. One does not have true faith in the bible until it’s tested and passes the test. I just loved that story.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Stephan, you can rebutt these two quotes if you wish. That way we can perhaps make progress with the debate, while keeping it more tight instead of longer posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Also kurt wise could have become a creation scientist, then his dream would not have become completely shot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also kurt wise could have become a creation scientist, then his dream would not have become completely shot.
    maybe he had a tad too much integrity in him ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    You are not getting me Jollybear. I think you are INCAPABLE of recognizing that you have been mislead. So I do not want to waist an effort on trying to get you to understand. The other posters have done a stellar job on their own, it is because of your persistantly denied bias, along with your poor understanding of basic scientific concepts, that you will never recognize that which stares you in the face. You keep on telling us about the amount of research you have done, but your understanding and basic knowledge is just as limited as before. Perhaps it is not even entirely your fault, but the fault of people like Kent Hovind and company.
    Also I do understand the responses, I just don’t believe in evolution and im counter arguing it, and going to still do so.
    Sorry, but I don't think you do. Distinct from a discussion on faith, this is one of basic science. You freely admit that you are solely motivated towards providing counter arguments. That is bias! You DO NOT approach the issue with an open mind.
    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  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Jollybear wrote:

    "However in Austins case, I DON’T believe he was dishonest in HIS CASE with the rocks from mt st helens. This guy wanted the labs to unbiasedly date that rock, and he ignored the footnote because he assumes all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years, so it would not matter what rock you sent into the lab based on his assumption. How is that dishonest?"

    This only provides confirmation of sentiments expresed by others here that Jollybear is incapable of seeing when he is wrong. It has been explained to him several times how Austin abused the method, and knew he was doing so. He knew that rocks less than 2 million years old could not be dated, yet went ahead and tried to get such a rock dated regardless. What he assumed about the ages of rocks is irrelevant. Whether his assumption was true or false modern rocks cannot be dated by the method he chose. He was dishonest, and Jollybear is too deluded to see it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To marnix. Kurt wise maybe had some integrity in him? Are you saying that ALL creation scientists don’t have integrity?


    To Kalster. You said I am incapable of recognizing that I have been mislead. Let me ask you this, is anyone capable of recognizing that they have been mislead? I say no, because if they could, they would no longer be mislead. I said near the beginning of this discussion, some people have ventured out to disprove something and in the process came to believe it. Perhaps that will be me, perhaps not. The fact that I am open to discuss these things proves that I am open minded. However I have a filter on my open mind. As does everybody that exists. Sometimes the filter is too tight and blocks out everything good, and sometimes it’s too open and takes in junk. The filter has to be just right, I believe mine is just right. That’s why I believe it. People only do and follow what they believe. If someone says “I believe this” but does not show it in there actions, they lie to themselves. Plus I am capable to understand stuff I research, the only thing is when it comes to physics it’s more of a challenge, but some people are left sided and some are right sided in there brain, I am right sided mostly. But I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. However that’s just a minor issue when reading things at face value apart from physics. Physics one has to think more. But I understand what I read generally speaking.

    Also you say that the truth stares me in the face. Did you know some people once believed in evolution and converted over. I read such an example from answersingenesis. It was a man who devoted his whole life to the study of fossils, I forget his name at the moment though. But im sure you will say, well he did not truly understand evolution which he said he believed. Oh im pretty sure he understood it, but then he saw something he never saw before and then stopped believing it, and started to believe creationism. And im sure there has been tons of other people who converted from evolution to creationism.

    Also it’s not kent hovinds fault, I said already I only listened to some of his audio’s but not very many. The reason I believe in creationism is because of the bible and because of my many experiences with the “Holy Spirit”. Even if you were to disprove the bible to me and 100% disprove creationism, you could NOT disprove in any sense my experiences, they were very real to me beyond all question because I experienced them. Something out of the norm. Those experiences are a stronghold on my faith. Im not saying that experiences in themselves are the bases for what truth is, not at all, because even the occult have experiences. This is where very sensitive discernment comes into play.

    Also you said this is distinct from a discussion on faith, this is one of basic science. Your calling evolution basic science, I call it faith, not science.

    Also when you said im being biased by offering counter arguments, that means everyone else here is thus being biased too, because they are offering me counter arguments. However let me clarify something, I am not biased, I believe in creationism, and I have made a stand, and I believe in defending it in a honest manner. I have looked at the other side, and I don’t believe it. However I am not going to deliberately lie about something to defend my faith. Even if I were biased, by dogmatically believing creationism(which I do) still from that belief, I would not deliberately lie to defend it. Is this a debate on whether I am honest or not? Or is it a debate on what we believe? Im honest, there is no question in my mind about that. And I am not lazy either, I don’t care what you believe about what I know, I know me. I don’t BELIEVE im honest, I know im honest, and I BELIEVE creationism.

    Also when you say I do not approach the issue with an open mind. Are you saying I must either not make a stand at all about either view, or I should take your stand? In that case this would be called inquiring, or me converting to evolution, but it would no longer be called a debate or discussion. THIS IS a debate, that means each side does NOT take the stand of the other side until the debate ENDS and even then each one has there choice.

    You think this is a waste of time. For me I don’t think so. Even if you and everyone else don’t come to believe in creationism, I still don’t think it’s a waste of time. Even though you are angry with me, I LOVE discussing this stuff with you. You can get angry all you wish, I will still love showing you the error of your reasoning. However if you get nasty, then I will stop discussing with you, unless you stopped the nastiness. However you have not gotten nasty, and I appreciate it. The moment someone starts getting nasty is the moment they get the focus of the discussion and get the focus on the person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Stephan. I have a question for you. Lets assume for just one moment that the earth and all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years. I know you don’t believe it, and I know your not assuming it in your heart, but just hear me for a moment. Let’s assume all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years. Would that not mean that no rock could be dated by that spectrometer according to the footnote? Yes, or no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To marnix. Kurt wise maybe had some integrity in him? Are you saying that ALL creation scientists don’t have integrity?
    i'm saying that "creation science" is an oxymoron and anyone who claims to do creation science or be a creation scientist lives a lie - belief in the literal truth of the bible falls outside the realms of science

    science is defined, amongst other things, by its adherence to the scientific method, i.e. matching evidence to proposed theories and adapting or dropping your theories accordingly - you don't start off with axiomatically setting one document as "truth" and trying to fit the evidence around it , which is what belief in the literal truth of the bible forces you to do

    btw, jollybear, i'm saddened by the fact that you take heart from a story that was supposed to be a cautionary tale - it means we'll never be able to agree on anything of substance
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Jollybear,
    let's try a different approach.

    We can study sedimentation processes in many environments today. Some of these studies have continued for decades. We know how the sediments are deposited and the rates at which they are deposited.
    By examining rocks and recognising the same features we see today we can estimate how long they took to form.
    We can do this for the entire geological column. When this is done we arrive at an age for the Earth that is considerably greater than 6,000 years, or even 6,000,000 years.
    Moreover we find a close match between such estimates and the ages determined by radioactive dating.
    How do you explain these facts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    We can do this for the entire geological column. When this is done we arrive at an age for the Earth that is considerably greater than 6,000 years, or even 6,000,000 years.
    Moreover we find a close match between such estimates and the ages determined by radioactive dating.
    How do you explain these facts?
    I know the answer allready: GOD miracled the layers there so we poor sods would be scratching our heads over it

    Anyway......the question about the flood the remains to be answerde is this: HE who is allmighty (i.e. HE can make the sinners on Earth vanish just because HE finds this is becomming to the sinners) needs a flood to drown all those bad people?? And an idiot who builds a giant ship when Noah could have asked HIM to give him the ship. After all, HE miracled all those animals to come to the arc, he might as well have the arc put right in front of Noas nose and tell him to bark the ship.

    OH and Jollybear, let's turn this the other way round.....you say you want scientist build a time machine in order to be convinced that the scientific approach is true and not the nonsensical bogus from some ancient scripture. I will be convinced that the Creationists are right when HE comes down from heavens and talks to me and re-produces this flood you seem to be so convinced of. He can later return to normal. After all.....HE is allmighty, so why doesn't HE come here and show me that HE really miracled the flood. I mean, why not help out such a devout follower like Jollybear and convert us to believe in YOUR word

    Before this happens this thread is an exercise in futility.
    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  
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To marnix. So creation science is a lie because it goes outside the realm of science. So what I hear you saying is the realm of science is in the natural realm. So I hear you assuming there is no spiritual, or supernatural realm, or a realm of God? If science is all natural realm, it’s assuming no supernatural or spiritual realm. And that IS an assumption, a big one at that. By ruling out a spiritual world, you rule out a TON of stuff. Now what is science? To my knowledge, science is to experiment, to find out stuff, to seek for knowledge, to know what truth is, what facts are, and what is out there. Well that would be true science, well if they assume no spirit world, that in essence is not seeking knowledge or truth.

    But then as an alternative, as I mentioned before there is some science that does deal with the supernatural. Now whether they won awards or not, it’s still a science that deals with this issue.

    So based on this, Kurt wise could have become a creation scientist without living a lie. Because just think for a moment, IF the supernatural or spirit world really does exist, then TRUE science would apply to it, false science would thus reject it, THAT’S IF it really exists, which I believe it does. So by this, Kurt would have integrity and the false science that rejected the spirit realm, would be the ones living the lie. ANYTHING that is a wrong belief, is a lie, obviously. And just because something is widely orthodox or excepted, does not make it true. Orthodoxy, experience, popular opinion, background, ancient records, ext has NO barring on what is TRULY the TRUTH. Truth is truth because it IS. Now to find the truth, that’s another issue.

    For your other point. Science starts of with some theories, finds evidence either against or for the theories, and drops them or keeps them accordingly. Ok, this sounds logical and appears to be a good idea on how to do things. However there discoveries or evidence either against a theory or for it, is allot of times subjective with who knows how many anomalies.

    Next you say it’s not good to try to fit the evidence with ones assumption, but reshape the assumption with the evidence. Sounds like a good idea on the surface, however many times the evidence is subjective and again who knows how many anomalies. And a eyewitness account has to have some weight to it. I can see rejecting some eyewitness records, but tons of them speaking similar things?

    Also I did not know that the Kurt Wise story was cautioned to be a tale or not. But if it’s a tale, I don’t take heart then. If it wasn’t, I do. You did say it was cautionary. So it could be true.

    So whatever is of substance im for, whatever is not, Im not for. I agree with you here.

    To Ophiolite AND spephan(and anyone). About the sedimentation. Here is a quote from this source “ http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/d...e-blind%20test
    And it says this “
    The issue about igneous bodies may need additional clarification. If a lava flow lies above geologic period A and below B, then allowable ages are anything at least as large as A and no larger than B. This is called the biostratigraphic limit of the flow. Now, according to Woodmorappe's citations, many lava flows have no such limits at all, and most of them have large limits. For example, a flow lying on precambrian rock with nothing on top would have no limits on its dates. And such flows often have a large internal scatter of dates, but these dates are not considered as anomalies because of the unrestricted biostratigraphic limit. Other flows with wide biostratigraphic limits have weak restrictions on allowable dates. This is one reason why just reporting the percentage of anomalies has little meaning.
    1. John W. states that very many igneous bodies have little or no biostrategraphic limits, so just about any age is acceptable. Thus these ages, though they generally have a considerable scatter, are not considered as anomalies. He cites another reference that most igneous bodies have wide biostrategraphic limits. Thus just by chance, many dates will be considered within the acceptable ranges. If the igneous body is constrained to have a date between that of geologic period X1 and X2, with times T1 and T2, and if we regard any date within 20 percent as non-anomalous, then any date between T1/1.2 and T2*1.2 will be considered as non-anomalous, and this will include a considerable portion of geologic history. Again, the percentage of anomalies means nothing for the reliability of radiometric dating.
    Now, igneous bodies can be of two types, extrusive and intrusive. Extrusive bodies are lava that is deposited on the surface. These cool quickly and have small crystals and form basalt. Intrusive bodies are deposited in the spaces between other rocks. These cool more slowly and have larger crystals, often forming granite. Both of these tend on the average to have wide biostrategraphic limits, meaning that a large spread of ages will be regarded as non-anomalous. And if we recall that most radiometric dating is done of igneous bodies, one sees that the percentage of anomalies is meaningless. Thus we really need some evidence that the different methods agree with each other.
    To make the case even stronger, "Many discrepant results from intrusives are rationalized away immediately by accepting the dates but reinterpreting the biostrategraphic bracket," according to John Woodmorappe. This of course means that the result is no longer anomalous, because the geologic period has been modified to fit the date. Finally, the fact that the great majority of dates are from one method means that the general (but not universal) agreement of K-Ar dating with itself is sufficient to explain the small percentange of anomalies (if it is small).”

    So, there goes uniformatarianism. Plus the geologic column shows much catastrophism. Plus fossils cannot form without being berried by rapid sedimentation deposits.

    As for the comparisons of radiometric dating. The most used radiometric dating is by the K Ar dating method. So the other methods are not used as much. How does that bring confirmation? Plus there is anomalies. Plus there is probably more anomalies then there is being published. Plus many certain rocks are not considered for dating. Plus sometimes they change the layers assigned age if a rock gets a consistent date by a method, then this is not considered anomalous. Plus there is some rocks dated to be ten billion years by different methods, yet this date is thrown out, even though it’s correlated by other methods. And the same goes for younger dates. But anything that fits with there fixed date of 4 billion years they keep and don’t throw out. So where is the REAL consistently?

    To twang. Yes God could have built the ship for Noah and put it right in front of his nose, but God wants to be in relation with us. So he gives us some responsibility. That’s why he first gave Adam a free will.

    As for God coming down and showing you how the flood happened. I don’t think he will do this because I think he wants you to believe and trust him. Again, that’s why he gave Adam a free will, he wanted Adam to freely trust him. So likewise, he wants you to trust him. If you have a wife and she tells you she is faithful to you, well she cant prove it to you 100%. So you have to make a choice to trust her or distrust her based on what your sense is telling you, not what your insecurity is telling you though, don’t confuse the two. A good relationship is based on trust and trustworthiness. An alternative is that God does things with greater purpose. He sent the flood for a purpose(purpose being as a judgment on sin). I have never read one instance in the whole bible where God ever did something to prove himself. His purpose for doing anything was either for judgment, love, mercy and his glory. Sometimes I wish he would prove himself so that way it would make my debate easier, however, as another alternative perhaps God wants me to use my brain and exercise my intellect and learn things, and also to challenge your intellects as well. After all, he did create our brain to be used. The bible does say to love the Lord God with all your MIND and UNDERSTANDING. Which includes intellect and using our brains. Now by me saying this, it’s not used as a copout so I don’t have to try to pull Gods arm so he will come down and show you miraculously himself and how he did the flood. I cant pull Gods arm, he decides what he does based on his own mind, not on my mind. Believe me, I wish he would do it for you more then you want him to do it for you. But I understand based on the biblical message, why he does not do so. Like if I say I am an honest man and you ask for proof, I will say right of the bat, I cannot prove it to you, I have no way of proving it. Well the Lord has a way of proving it, but he doesn’t, but it’s not because he has something to hide, it’s because he wants us to trust and he does things for greater purposes. Plus even if he did have a dark secret to hide, he wouldn’t care in revealing it since he himself is sovereign and he would not care what anyone thinks, since he is the boss anyways, he can do as he pleases. However he don’t have a dark secret, he is not afraid of us. And why would he? He is God. Even if I were the most holy man of God on the earth right now, I still don’t believe I could pull Gods arm to prove something to you, although the closer one is to God the more you can move Gods mind SOMETIMES, but that’s only if God deems it necessary. However one cannot bribe God. However the occult is known to manipulate NOT God, but energy to try to prove some things. I’ve seen a video once where a person did telekinesis, again, it is a claim of course. But in short, I cant show you the flood, I can show you holes in evolution which thus points to the flood.

    Stephan, are you going to answer my simple yes or no question?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    So creation science is a lie because it goes outside the realm of science. So what I hear you saying is the realm of science is in the natural realm. So I hear you assuming there is no spiritual, or supernatural realm, or a realm of God?
    i think you misunderstood me - i'm not expressing an opinion on whether there's a supernatural realm or not, i'm just saying just that supernaturalism falls outside the limits of what science can express an opinion on

    the term "creation science" is self-contradictory because it calls itself science whilst at the same defining itself in terms that fall outside the limitation of science
    the lie in this is that creationism has decided to go for respectability by adding the word "science" to a concept that is in principle anti-scientific

    re Kurt Wise : when i use the term "cautionary tale" i don't mean it's a made-up story - it's a (true) story intended to highlight the self-destructiveness a fundamentalist belief can lead to
    the fact that you seem to applaud Kurt Wise's decision to commit professional suicide means that our mindsets appear to have very little in common + that makes me sad
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Stephan. I have a question for you. Lets assume for just one moment that the earth and all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years. I know you don’t believe it, and I know your not assuming it in your heart, but just hear me for a moment. Let’s assume all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years. Would that not mean that no rock could be dated by that spectrometer according to the footnote? Yes, or no?
    Of course no such young rock could be dated using that particular method. That was made clear by the labs in their statement that the rock had to be at least 2,000,000 years old. Modern rocks would ALL give dates within the error bounds of the method (ie. plus or minus a few million years, which is what Austin, predictably, got). They would NOT give dates of 100s of millions of years. If Austin had got a date that big for a modern rock then he may have had a case. He did not. For rocks of unknown ages (ie. not known to be modern), if they did keep giving ages of 100s of millions of years, then it would be strong evidence against the 6,000 years age for the earth. It is a major problem for you, Jollybear, that K-Ar dates do consistently give such great ages. If ALL rocks were 6,000 years old, or less, then ALL K-Ar dates would be a random scatter within a range of plus or minus just a few million years. There would be none outside that range.

    Rocks less than 6,000 years can be dated by other methods. Ar-Ar dating, for example, has been used to date correctly material from the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius that buried Pompei.

    If Austin was trying to test the reliability of radioisotope dating he went about it the wrong way. He only succeeded in proving what everyone here (except you) already knows. That a modern rock dated by K-Ar will give a date anywhere within the error margins of a few million years. To then peddle this predicable "result" as "proof" that radioisotope dating is all wrong, is misleading and unprofessional. I.e. dishonest.

    I will be returning to work in a fortnight, after which I may not have time to waste debating someone with a mind so filled with delusion and misconception that I can't help thinking he is beyond hope.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix. Why is it that the spirit world falls outside the limits of what science can express an opinion on?

    So creation science falls outside the limitation of science. Why is science limited to the physical realm? (Im going to change my approach to question upon question).

    You said creationism has decided to go for respectability by adding the word “science” to a concept that is in principle anti-scientific. In other words the spirit world is anti physical? I’ll agree it’s not physical, but it’s connected to the physical through channels.

    Plus what about that branch of science that DOES deal with the spirit realm?

    About Kurt Wise. Im not happy because his dream per se was shattered, im happy because I think he made the best decision based on what he believed. He loved his God more then his dream, which is a wonderful demonstration of faith in action(one does not truly have faith without action backing it up). It’s like this, suppose you have a wife, and she is middle class, and a lady comes along and she is rich, billionaire lets say, and she wants you to be hers. Ok, your then stuck in a spot here, you can love your wife, or you can love this other person more. If you say no to the rich lady, then so much stuff is then shattered. Well this is how it is with him and the Lord. He loved the Lord more. Because of this, I am happy, he stayed true to his conviction. Im not all for professional suicide, that’s not what im saying, however if ones dream goes outside the realms of ones faith, one should THEN commit professional suicide. But ONLY if it goes outside the realms of there faith. And that’s if it’s the TRUE faith, not blind faith. The reason I say this is because I can’t stand it when people say all faith’s are the same, it’s a very ignorant statement.


    To Stephan. Ok so you admit that no such rock/s could be dated by the method if my assumption that all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years. Very good.

    Next you said that if Austin’s rock sample got a date of 100s of millions of years old, he would have a good case then. Remember that his sample was only around 30 years old and the resultant date was around 2 million years old. If he had taken a sample that was actually 6 thousand years old, would it have resulted in being about 2 million years old? You ASSUME so. Mind you, 30 years and 6 thousand years is a big difference. You assume that nothing has happened in the past 6 thousand years to change the rocks, to contaminate the rocks, and you assume initial amounts of parents to daughter within the rocks are known, and you assume the decay rate was the same in the past. So if a 30 year old rock results in being 2 million years old, perhaps a 6 thousand year rock would result in the 100 million year or billion year range. Again, keep in mind 30 years and 6 thousand years is a big difference, and allot can happen within that time frame. And if one assumes a God created matter, that could explain some things, and if one assumes a global flood, with a lot of volcanoes, that could also explain a lot of daughter product being prevented from degassing.
    And by you saying that if all rocks were 6 thousand years, then most dates would be a random scatter within a range of plus or minus just a few million years. There would be none outside that range. Again you assume that is what would actually happen. You were not alive 6 thousand years ago. If you took a rock that was 6 thousand years old and dated it, you assume it would not result in the 100 million range. However to do that test is not practical, since to my knowledge, there is no way of 100% knowing if a rock is 6 thousand years old, since we were not alive back that far. And to my knowledge, no ancient man saved a volcanic rock and gave a recorded known age saying this is 10 years old after solidification from within my life span and I live in the Egyptian period(or whatever period); and we test it on the spectrometer and see a confirmation of that. This to my knowledge has not happened.

    As for the argon argon method you said is more reliable for dating rocks within the range of 6 thousand years and that case you gave of 79 AD, well that’s not 6 thousand years old. Plus there can be argon contamination from within the mantle migrating upward from older rocks then the 79 AD ones. Again with the global flood, lots of argon kept from degassing.

    Next you continue to say Austin was dishonest. Is not calling an assumption a knowable observed fact, dishonest? Im not saying the actual assumption is wrong, just saying it is an assumption. Can you admit that there is an assumption? I know your trying to say it’s a high probability that the earth is billions of years old based on these methods, but at least realize that even the word “probability” is still an assumption. How can you use the method as proof, when you first have to prove the assumption before using the method?

    Next when you say that I am beyond hope. Only when someone is dead, is hope beyond, and that’s only in the realms of hell. As long as there is breath in our lungs, there is hope for anyone, even you. And I say that even though I disagree with you. I do admire the sheer strength of your faith, however I believe your faith is in the wrong source(evolution).

    Now, im going to take a crack at your point about the earths crust melting by a accelerated continental break. I did not read this, it’s just a thought, but I could not find anything, so here is what I think. When the continents broke apart rapidly fast by the global flood through earthquakes, volcano’s ext, as the land broke apart from the mid Atlantic ridge, tons of sand and sediment and dirt would erode down INTO where the lava would flow Upward, and the sand and dirt would BLOCK the lava from boiling the water and melting the crust. It would block it because it would fall on top of it, TONS of sand and dirt would fall on top of it. Now the earth would not be cracked open everywhere causing a gash of lava over riding the whole planet, it would just be in spots. Sort of like a big gash or cut on your body, but the cut is not all over your body. This would thus only make the oceans WARM. If the whole planet was opened up drastically I can understand things boiling up and burning up then, but this is not what would happen. You assume it would. But where you there at the time of the flood?

    Plus one more point about “God did it”. How would God be deceiving us by creating all things with an appearance of age when in fact he told us that’s how he did it in the bible. So if he told us in an account, then he is not deceiving us, because he told us, hence that is not deception.

    Just to branch of here, I’ve recently read some cases where scientists lost there jobs for publishing stuff that went against evolution. Perhaps that’s another reason why most scientists are evolutionists.

    Also here is a list of EVOLUTION scientists and them admitting the problems with evolution. http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm This should speak volumes. I mean if you hear problems about evolution coming from creationists, I can understand you raising a red flage, but coming from actual scientific evolutionists? Hmmm, should raise a bar of doubt in evolution now. Oh but those evolution scientist’s don’t know what there talking about, they don’t understand what they believe, right, I forgot, sorry about my short comings :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Marnix. Why is it that the spirit world falls outside the limits of what science can express an opinion on?

    So creation science falls outside the limitation of science. Why is science limited to the physical realm? (Im going to change my approach to question upon question).

    You said creationism has decided to go for respectability by adding the word “science” to a concept that is in principle anti-scientific. In other words the spirit world is anti physical? I’ll agree it’s not physical, but it’s connected to the physical through channels.

    Plus what about that branch of science that DOES deal with the spirit realm?
    sigh ...
    in the beginning days of science, religion formed a part of science, since at the time science was seen to be a means of confirming god's great works in ways parallel to that of the bible

    however, over time it became clear that, rather than shoring up the evidence from the bible, the findings of science were at odds with it, and scientists have come to realise that the best way to study the world around us is to restrict itself to naturalistic means

    if there was a physical way to study spirits, then the study of spirits would be open to the scientific method, and this would open up the spiritual world as part of the scientific realm - however, since for the moment no such way has been found, spiritualism remains outside what science can investigate
    as far as i'm aware, no branch of science deals with the spiritual realm

    for clarity, let me repeat that science as an endeavour is defined by the scientific method, which attempts to come closer to the truth through an interaction between facts (evidence) and explanation (theory) - at the same time it is also acknowledged that the ultimate Truth is beyond its reach, since its statements are always subject to further scrutiny and improvement

    any type of study (creationists being a prime example of this type of approach) which starts with an absolute truth as a given and cherry-picks its way through the evidence in order to confirm its preconceived ideas is the complete anti-thesis of what science stands for
    hence it is logically impossible to be a creationist and at the same do science, since you don't search for truth based on the evidence, given that you already claim to know it
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Jollybear,

    Do you agree that the universe is roughly 13 billion years old? If you disagree with this you disagree with fundamental constants and basic physics.

    Ok so lets assume you do agree that the Universe is 13 billion years old, why is it such a jump for your pathetic intellect to see that the earth is a conservative 4.5 billion years old?

    Why can't you bridge the gap? You have not clue how blinded you are! Go out and buy some basic textbooks which are by definition peer reviewed. You will find the information in them based on facts not biased like on your Answers in Genesis site or whatever it is.

    If you claim that the textbooks are going to also be biased then this thread should be ended because all you're doing is saying that we're biased and your sources are right because;

    1. You believe them to be right (Bullshit, science doesn't give a shit what you believe).

    2. God did it (yes God for the sake of a measely book went to unimaginably extravagent measures to make the Earth appear 6000 years old and then changed the laws thereafter...!)

    I mean Jollybear, I cannot restrain anymore how fucking stupid you must be. The delusion is so strong in you that you are a blissfully ignorant fool.

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

  53. #253  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    So, there goes uniformatarianism. Plus the geologic column shows much catastrophism. Plus fossils cannot form without being berried by rapid sedimentation deposits.
    There is so much ignorance conveyed in these three short sentences I am left breathless.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, in your lengthy quotation on dating of lava flows in any way whatsoever undermines uniformitarianism. I repeat "We can study sedimentation processes in many environments today. Some of these studies have continued for decades. We know how the sediments are deposited and the rates at which they are deposited.
    By examining rocks and recognising the same features we see today we can estimate how long they took to form.
    "

    Will you please address this point directly.

    You claim "Plus the geologic column shows much catastrophism."
    Please provide a single example of this. Now if you mean that the geologic column shows evidence of floods, sandstorms, massive submarine slumps, turbidity currents and the like I shall agree. That, however, is not catastrophism.
    These same phenomena are also observed today. The resultant sediments can be examined. Their characteristics can be quantitatively and qualitatively defined. We can examine rocks and find many that show the same characteristics. From this we take the small step of presuming that if rock A shares all the characteristics of sediment B, then it was likely formed in a similar manner.

    Plus fossils cannot form without being berried by rapid sedimentation deposits.
    Rubbish.
    Rapid sedimentation favours fossilisation, but is not necessary for it.
    Rapid sedimentation can occur within a uniformitarian framework in several circumstances, including flood plain deposition and turbidity current deposition. Both of these are commonplace processes.

    Moreover fossilisation is also possible in quiescent conditions where sedimentation rates are low, or in higher energy environments where there is a rich fauna of shelled creatures, or in an anoxic environment with low, medium, or high sedimentation rates.

    Once again jollybear you have displayed a profound ignorance of the topic of which you speak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix. So scientists thought that the evidence was at odds with the bible, and so they thought it best to restrict themselves to naturalistic means of study. Who exactly decided this? What authorities decided this? Like where they atheist’s, agnostics? I bet they were not dogmatic Christians.

    I know a show on TV I can’t remember the name of it, nor do I watch it very often, but it’s something to do with ghost hunters. And when they investigate a hunted house or place, they FIRST check to see if it is caused by any natural means, if it is, they rule out the supernatural, if there is no natural explanation, they call it supernatural. Plus on top of it, they got those energy detectors(whatever you call them), and vidio’s of objects moving. This is a form of testing, a form of science if ya will. Now science cannot put the spirit world under a microscope, I will give you that, but then again, just because there technology is limited, does not mean that the spirit world does not exist. What I am saying is analogous to there space ship technology, it’s limited to our solar system. But there is more solar systems and worlds beyond out there which science has not reached(yet it’s within the physical realm). What I am saying is, science is powerful, but not that powerful. Even religion is powerful, but even that is not that powerful. There is so much more out there then the biggest genius can realize. You say science has no way of testing to verify the spirit realm. I make the claim there is a way to verify. Experiment the principles of the bible, and the Holy Spirit will manifest within you, when it happens, boom your test is don, and you know it’s real. Also the occult has it’s test, and that’s another way to verify(although it’s within the wrong source, but non the less it’s real). I have talked to so many people who told me experiences with witchcraft for instance, things that cannot be explained naturally. A lady who is about 51 years old, who I knew for awhile going to my church, and she told me she debarred into the quigi board once, and the cupboards started flying open and closing by themselves. And I don’t believe she was lying to me. Also two other people told me there experience. Where a table began floating. Again there al claims, but there claims coming from people I KNOW personally. And my own claims are within the Holy Spirit area. And I do have a past experience with manipulating energy through my mind, and it resulted in something small. The reason im mentioning all this is because THERE IS WAYS to verify the spiritual realm. The experiment’s though are not with a machine, but through your own mind.

    When Ophiolite mentioned his experience with the ghosts he saw, and the out of body experience claims I mentioned, and then science explained it away by mentioning processes of the brain. Yes those processes of the brain are the CHANNELS between the physical realm and the spirit realm. After you go past the channels, science is limited THEN, but just because they have limitation does not mean the spirit world after you pass the channels does not exist; no more then other solar systems and galaxies don’t exist because science has not reached them yet.

    Im not a ghost hunter by no means, but I will mention this story for the heck of it. Me and my wife were at charleston city south carolina about a year ago. Well it’s known for it’s “ghosts and hunting’s” and stuff. Well while we were there on vacation, we decided to go on one of the ghost tours. I wanted to do the prison tour, but it was closed that day. So I did the graveyard tour. Anyways the guy doing the tour did his little speech and showed us two pictures that he said was sent to be examined to see if it was an authentic picture, and not tampered with, it was sent back with a full examination, and was proved to be an authentic picture untempered with. I held the picture in my hand and looked at it, it appeared to be a transparent lady holding a baby by a gravestone. The other one was a man on top of a church building. Both transparent beings. He showed us the grave stone where the picture was taken, when I looked in the graveyard at the gravestone, the spirit was not there, yet was in the picture. After the tour was don, I privately asked the man a question if he experienced anything with the spirit realm and if so, what was his most dramatic experience. He told me he use to do tours in the prison but no longer does so because he got afraid of something. One day the lights turned on by themselves in the prison and he saw the doors open by themselves and he saw a object move across the air by itself. It freaked him out and he stopped doing tours in the prison. He did prison tours for awhile he said, but that was the first time he ever experienced that.

    Again im no ghost hunter, but I see this as some form of verification, that picture. And I would think that if there is a tour guide hired to do this, and we pay to have this tour, there has to be some professional degree of honesty going on here. And there was no indication to me that the man was lying.

    Next you said science attempts to come closer to the truth through an interaction between facts(evidence) and explanation(theory)-at the same time it is also acknowledged that the ultimate truth is beyond its reach, since its statements are always subject to further scrutiny and improvement.
    In other words the facts or evidence is subjective, and they put there interpretation on it based on there preconceived belief(a belief they think is best explanation so far). However there explanation can always change. And they admit that the ultimata truth they don’t have. That don’t sound to reliable.

    However the creationists put there interpretation on the subjective evidence, and there interpretation does not change and they claim they have the ultimata truth. Truth never changes, funny sciences theories change a lot, which proves they did not have the truth in the first place. If there is a God, he is powerful enough to give us the truth and nothing but the ful truth.


    Next you say the creationists cherry pick there way through the evidence. How so when the evidence is subjective with much anomalies and possibly more under published. And there is other problems that are not considered anomalous. Even if creationism cherry picks it’s way through the evidence, it appears to me evolution does a very similar thing. That would make both creationism and evolutionism BAD. However not necessarily since the evidence is subjective.

    Also how can you search for truth based on the SUBJECTIVE evidence? Hence you would have to know the truth before finding this subjective evidence. Because subjective evidence does not give you truth, it can give you anything.


    To Barry. I don’t agree the earth is 13 or 4 billion years old, no. Yes I disagree with basic fundamental constants and basic physics. Constants are ASSUMED to be constants, and physics can change and in past history have shown to change. And as for constants, these have shown to change in the past with some things as well. Carbon 14 for example was not constant.

    Also here is a fact. A undeniable, proved undisputed, non subjective, 100% truth. Evolution is not that.

    You said im calling textbooks biased and you biased because I believe im right. Um, you also believe your right. Do you believe answersingeneses is biased? If so, evolution sites also have to be biased. Anything that stands on a premise is biased, that means were ALL biased, even me. However that does not mean were all dishonest. Again one should defend there belief honestly.

    I know that science does not care what I believe.

    You said God for the sake of a measly book went to unimaginably extravagant measures to make the earth appear 6 thousand years old and then changed the laws thereafter. Let me correct something here, the measly book was his way of getting across the truth to the world. And he did not go through unimaginable extravagant measurers. With him, creating is an easy task. Also he did not make it appear 6 thousand years, but made it appear 4 billion you mean. You got it backwards, but that’s ok. It IS 6 thousand, with an appearance of 4 billion, not 4 billion with an appearance of 6 thousand. And then again based on anomalous results this makes it not appear 4 billion at times.

    In the beginning God created everything special, after he got it set in motion in a supernatural way, then the natural way took it’s course after that. He did not deceive us with this appearance of age, since he revealed it to us in the bible, hence no deception since it’s revealed. Also there is times there is NO appearance of age through anomalies. If it was not revealed to us in the book, THEN he would be deceiving us.

    Im not stupid, and im not in a delusion, and im not wilfully ignorant. However were all ignorant in some area or another, however ignorance should not lead to ugliness. And Im honest about things im ignorant of. And im honest about things I believe. However I believe you are the one that is blind and in the delusion, otherwise if I did not, I would be a believer in evolution, which im not.

    However, lets not get ugly, lets discuss nicely.
    I wont be on for about 4 days from now, im going out of town, but I will be back after 4 days and will respond to any replies then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Marnix. So scientists thought that the evidence was at odds with the bible, and so they thought it best to restrict themselves to naturalistic means of study. Who exactly decided this? What authorities decided this? Like where they atheist’s, agnostics? I bet they were not dogmatic Christians.
    Of that we can be absolutely positive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Marnix. So scientists thought that the evidence was at odds with the bible, and so they thought it best to restrict themselves to naturalistic means of study. Who exactly decided this? What authorities decided this? Like where they atheist’s, agnostics? I bet they were not dogmatic Christians.
    in those days there were very few agnostics or atheists - in fact most of the science was done by mainstream christians, and it may interest you to know that quite a few of the early geologists were men of the cloth

    the decision to separate science from religion (+ these were people who remained devout in other aspects of their life) was not made by a single person and definitely not on someone's authority - it was a pragmatic decision taken by different individuals at different moments in time, because the secular way of practicing science yielded the best results

    i will reply to the other points you raised when i've had some more time to think about them, but please don't start caricaturing the great men of science into a black&white debate of atheist/religious and good/bad because the reality is not as 1-dimensional as that
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    To Barry. I don’t agree the earth is 13 or 4 billion years old, no. Yes I disagree with basic fundamental constants and basic physics. Constants are ASSUMED to be constants, and physics can change and in past history have shown to change. And as for constants, these have shown to change in the past with some things as well. Carbon 14 for example was not constant.
    Jollybear, the mouse blissfully unaware of the trap trods into it, blinded by the cheese.

    Where to start....

    I don’t agree the earth is 13 or 4 billion years old,

    Atleast you could properly interpret the post (another clarification of your apparent mental retardation (an insult to those who are clinically diagnosed with it)).

    I said that the UNIVERSE is 13 billion years old. So you disagree with this?

    Constants are ASSUMED to be constants, and physics can change and in past history have shown to change.

    I will use considerable passion and expression here to release the combined anger you are creating in all the other posters.

    The simple shows that you are completely idiotic, stupid and unaware.

    So you are telling me that the speed of light is not constant?

    Constants NEVER change they merely become redefined.

    Now please answer my question about the Universe being 13 billion years old.
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258 Reply to Jollybear 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Jollybear wrote:
    “To Stephan. Ok so you admit that no such rock/s could be dated by the method if my assumption that all rocks are no older then 6 thousand years. Very good.”
    You seem to present this as an “admission”. It is a statement that has been said repeatedly. No rocks younger than 2 million years could be dated by the lab concerned. Obviously that includes those less than 6000 years old.

    “Mind you, 30 years and 6 thousand years is a big difference.”
    Not as big a difference as between 6000 and 2,000,000. On the timescales K-Ar is meant for, it is no difference at all.

    “You assume that nothing has happened in the past 6 thousand years to change the rocks, to contaminate the rocks, and you assume initial amounts of parents to daughter within the rocks are known, and you assume the decay rate was the same in the past.”
    These are the standard creationist objections which are all dealt with in detail on anti-creationist sites. I thought you said you were going to look at these sites? Please do so and don’t insult us again with false claims that decay rates have changed etc.
    Also, if you are trying to claim that dates of many millions of years are all a result of things that have happened to the rocks in the last 6,000 years you have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. Why virtually all rocks? Why all the patterns and correlations I described earlier? Why also moon rocks and meteorites? Get real.

    “As for the argon argon method you said is more reliable for dating rocks within the range of 6 thousand years and that case you gave of 79 AD, well that’s not 6 thousand years old.”
    So?? You miss the point (as usual). Ar-Ar is the method to use for rocks known to be modern, not K-Ar. Also, it avoids some of the “problems” above. Read about it. I havn’t time to do your homework for you.

    I maintain Austin was dishonest. Nothing you have said changes the fact that he knew that his rock could not be accurately dated by the method he chose, and that the “result” would be a nonsense. It was like trying to use a yardstick to measure millimetres. It does not matter what you think may have happened in the last 6000 years to affect the results for other rocks. For the particular rock Austin used, he knew he was going to get nonsense results that only proved that the labs were right to say that they could not date anything under 2 million years old. To do as he did, and then present the predictable nonsense “result” as proof that the method is wrong, was dishonest. Nothing you have said changes that.

    “Next when you say that I am beyond hope. Only when someone is dead…”
    Jollybear, your critical thinking faculties died the day you starting believing every word of the Bible. So, yes, you are beyond hope.

    “I do admire the sheer strength of your faith”
    Faith is a belief in something without evidence. My acceptance of the great age of the earth is a result of simply seeing the evidence, often with my own eyes. I have stood on two excellent Scottish unconformities, and mapped the strata of the Scottish island of Arran right up to where the granite intrudes. I have been in a Northern Irish salt mine, and sampled the huge beds of salt formed by evaporation of an ancient sea, and seen the sedimentary strata above and below, and a cross-cutting basalt dyke that actually melted the salt where it contacted it. I have walked over the Leinster granite – the largest batholith in the British Isles. There’s even a piece of it in my back garden. This giant intrusion (in fact series of intrusions) would have had to be emplaced, cooled, solidified, mineralised (I’ve just had published a paper on the base metal veins along its flank), uplifted, unroofed, eroded (and the mineral vein contents deeply oxidised) all within 4400 years (since the flood). The laws of thermal physics alone demand it would take millions of years to cool. I’ve prospected the pegmatites and skarns associated with the Donegal granites, again large batholiths that must have taken millions of years to cool. They are emplaced into Dalradian metasediments, large rafts of which can sometimes be seen embedded in the granite as giant xenoliths. Rocks laid down by the flood (according to you) then regionally metamorphosed before being intruded by the granites (a succession of them, one after the other), then cooled, then uplifted and eroded. I have been down Tara mine, the 5th largest zinc mine in the world. The 70 + million tonnes of high grade ore there, in the middle of “flood rocks” has all to have been deposited during or since the flood – requiring fantastic mineral deposition rates (and before you insult me with Snelling’s garbage about the Red Sea in relation to Mt Isa, check out the rebuttal in noanswersingenesis). Get real.
    Back to Arran, in the northern half of the island, the near vertical sedimentary beds (Dalradian age), now altered to schists, are tilted almost upright. Lying almost at right angles across the planed off ancient surface are the Old Red Sandstones. The surface of the underlying schists shows evidence of weathering (caliche formation) as expected of an ancient land surface. This is a classic unconformity, being recognised as early as 1787 by James Hutton as evidence for a great time span and is one of several unconformities on the island. A little south these beds have been faulted and then mineralised with barite (which has been mined). Elsewhere there is a Carboniferous section (I mapped it right up to the granite margin) with coal seams overlying seat earths (the original soil with the roots still visible). Elsewhere one finds Permian beds formed in a desert (the sandstones show the classic signs of desert formation - shape of sand grains, ferric iron, and some impressive dune bedding further down the coast, here and there one may also find desiccation cracks and even pseudomorphs after rock salt crystals – all absolutely impossible in a flood). Intruded into all of this is the granite. At the granite margin I saw the actual contact where the once molten granite cut straight across the sedimentary beds, which were baked and metamorphosed to form an aureole around the granite. The granite itself is several miles across, has cooled underground (like all granites, if they are erupted and so cool quickly you get rhyolite) then been forced up and eroded to produce mountains almost 3000 feet high. Near the tops of the mountains the granite contains miarolytic cavities formed by steam and gas which rose up to the top of the intrusion. Cutting through all of this (the Dalradian, the Old Reds, the Carboniferous, the Permian, the granite, the whole lot) are Tertiary basalt dykes. These obviously came last.
    So, from classical stratigraphy, it is trivial to work out the following sequence of events: Deposition of the Dalradian sediments. Metamorphism of these, through heat and pressure (ie. deep burial), to form schists, with tilting to a near upright position. Uplift and erosion to plane them off and form the caliche deposit. Deposition on top of this of the Old Red Sandstones, later the Carboniferous succession in which forests grew and died, their remains forming coal seams (and please don’t try the floating rafts of vegetation scenario – I have seen the underlying seat earths with the remains of roots). Later came the Permian with great thicknesses of desert-formed sandstones. The whole lot was turned to solid rock, subjected to faulting and mineralisation, and later intruded into by the granite, which then had to cool completely, further faulting and intrusion by basalt dykes followed, then uplift and erosion to expose the granite as mountains. And you think all that happened during Noah’s flood? Little wonder people regard creationism with contempt. Little wonder also that there are so few creationist geologists.
    So no Jollybear. My position is NOT based on faith. It is based on hard evidence. Mountains of it (literally mountains in some cases) that one can go out and walk over, hammer, and examine for yourself. Your position is based on faith – the creationists have NO evidence whatsoever that the earth is 6000 years old. (I expect now to be regaled with the usual crap about polonium halos, oil and gas well leakage, helium in the atmosphere, nickel in the oceans, … yawn).

    “Now, im going to take a crack at your point about the earths crust melting by a accelerated continental break. I did not read this, it’s just a thought, but I could not find anything, so here is what I think”
    The reason you did not find anything is that the problem is fatal to flood geology, so it is ignored by answersingenesis.

    “tons of sand and sediment and dirt would erode down INTO where the lava would flow Upward, and the sand and dirt would BLOCK the lava from boiling the water and melting the crust.”
    So the sediment dumped on the lava forms an insulating layer separating it from the water above? Wrong. For a start the sediment on the deep ocean floor is not the type one would expect of a violent, cataclysmic flood. It is entirely very fine ooze, that take 1000s of years to settle out, not the coarse material swirling around in a thick porridge as would be required if all the earth’s post-Cambrian rocks owe their origin to the flood (there's another problem for you to explain!) The violence of the flood processes (even the creationists talk of “gyres” – ocean currents swirling around at great speeds, like giant water hurricanes), plus the great fountains of steam they talk about would keep the sediments in motion, preventing them settling out.
    Even if they did, the movement of the molten rock below, and the sheer amount of heat involved would easily melt the sediments and so simply add to the volume of lava. Don’t forget the heat sources are multiple: the release of gravitational energy from the sinking of slabs of crust alone (the creationists’ mechanism for runaway continental drift) would be more than enough to melt much of the planet (for comparison, segregation of denser material into the core would raise the entire planet’s temperature by 2500 deg C - Birch, F. 1965. Energetics of core formation, Journal of Geophysical Research 70:6217-6221.) Then there’s the frictional heat of the fast moving continents. Again more than ample to melt the crust – and that includes those sediments you think would insulate the molten rocks. Add on the heat from vast continental lava flows (the Deccan and Siberian traps for instance), the huge volumes of granite forming the cores of great mountain chains (like the Andes), the heat of formation of limestone, the heat of condensation of the water vapour canopy, the heat from massive meteorite bombardment etc., etc. No Jollybear, your feeble attempt does not even come close to solving the problem. Besides, even if it did, you still have to explain where all the heat went afterwards. If your insulating layer of sediment was that good, why are the 7 km thick basalt ocean floors not still molten?! And your ocean sediments would NOT protect from heat coming from within the oceans – the heat of formation of limestone, and from the settling of sediment, or above – the heat of condensation of the water vapour canopy, or from meteorite impacts.

    “Now the earth would not be cracked open everywhere causing a gash of lava over riding the whole planet, it would just be in spots.”
    Take a look at maps of the ocean floors showing plate boundaries. They encircle the globe. The mid Atlantic one alone is a huge gash, not a mere spot. To get continents moving apart you need huge gashes all over the planet. That’s not a problem if things go slowly, so there’s only modest amounts of lava at any one time, and plenty of time for things to cool off. It’s impossible if you’re trying to get continents racing around the planet in a matter of months, or a few years. Then the entire Atlantic floor, with its 7 km deep basalt, has to have all been molten in that time period. You can’t escape that. This huge expanse was not there before the continental break up. It was there after.

    “But where you there at the time of the flood?”
    Back to the “only eyewitnesses can give reliable accounts” scam. No, Jollybear, I do NOT have to have been there to know it is garbage, just as I do NOT have to have been around when the Bantu god Bumba supposedly vomited up the sun, moon and stars to know the story is balony.

    Now please Jollybear, do us all a favour and give up. You are losing, and losing badly. You have no conception of what you are up against, and you are incapable of answering the insurmountable problems that confront you. And, sadly, so deeply entrenched is your delusion, you can’t even see it.

    PS. My name is Stephen, not Stephan. OK Jellybean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I know a show on TV I can’t remember the name of it, nor do I watch it very often, but it’s something to do with ghost hunters. And when they investigate a hunted house or place, they FIRST check to see if it is caused by any natural means, if it is, they rule out the supernatural, if there is no natural explanation, they call it supernatural. Plus on top of it, they got those energy detectors(whatever you call them), and vidio’s of objects moving. This is a form of testing, a form of science if ya will. Now science cannot put the spirit world under a microscope, I will give you that, but then again, just because there technology is limited, does not mean that the spirit world does not exist.

    .....

    Well while we were there on vacation, we decided to go on one of the ghost tours. I wanted to do the prison tour, but it was closed that day. So I did the graveyard tour. Anyways the guy doing the tour did his little speech and showed us two pictures that he said was sent to be examined to see if it was an authentic picture, and not tampered with, it was sent back with a full examination, and was proved to be an authentic picture untempered with. I held the picture in my hand and looked at it, it appeared to be a transparent lady holding a baby by a gravestone. The other one was a man on top of a church building. Both transparent beings. He showed us the grave stone where the picture was taken, when I looked in the graveyard at the gravestone, the spirit was not there, yet was in the picture.
    what utterly amazes me is that you bring up hearsay and photographs (which in this day and age are amazingly easy to fake) as evidence and dare pretend that this is in any way equivalent to scientific evidence that has been measured and confirmed many times over in a variety of ways

    + you commit a serious logical error by concluding that because somebody investigated something and couldn't find a natural explanation for it, hence it must have a supernatural explanation

    to put this in some sort of perspective, let me quote Isaac Asimov, when challenged about UFOs and what else they could be if not spaceships :

    "I don't know. I don't have to know. The Universe is full of mysteries to which I don't have the answer. Challenging me and having me fail proves nothing.

    Look, you may, perhaps, not know the name of the fifteenth president of the United States. If I say his name was Jerome Jameson, the fact that you don't know anything to the contrary doesn't prove my case."


    likewise, failing to find a natural explanation for anything is still a million miles away from positive proof that anything supernatural is involved
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The one thing you have to say about this thread is that it has generated a great deal of action.
    Now, it has continually deviated from the appropriate topic - radioactive dating - but the deviations have been interesting.

    Jollybear typifies, I believe, the stance of many who will be reading these exchanges, though not participating. I think this thread provides a good opportunity for indirectly educating those.

    I continue to applaud jollybear for his persistence in staying the course, while lamenting his singleminded ....????... words fail me, but you know what I mean.

    I am going to try, over the next week, to break this thread down into more than one section, so that here we stay on radioactive dating and other topics are consigned where appropriate. This will be time consuming, but I think it will be worthwhile.

    Comments?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite

    Comments?
    1. Agreed with regard to praise for Jollybear's patience and persistence.

    2. Agreed with regard to the interesting facts and ideas being presented.

    3. Agreed with regard to hiving off bits in separate sections - but I don't envy you your task.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Anyways the guy doing the tour did his little speech and showed us two pictures that he said was sent to be examined to see if it was an authentic picture, and not tampered with, it was sent back with a full examination, and was proved to be an authentic picture untempered with. I held the picture in my hand and looked at it, it appeared to be a transparent lady holding a baby by a gravestone. The other one was a man on top of a church building. Both transparent beings. He showed us the grave stone where the picture was taken, when I looked in the graveyard at the gravestone, the spirit was not there, yet was in the picture.

    Again im no ghost hunter, but I see this as some form of verification, that picture. And I would think that if there is a tour guide hired to do this, and we pay to have this tour, there has to be some professional degree of honesty going on here. And there was no indication to me that the man was lying.
    You are way too gullible, really. It's a simple technique. You get a tripod and mount your camera. Then you take two exposures on the same bit of film, one with your figures in, and one without. No 'tampering' is necessary. This can be done equally well with a digital picture. The result is a photo like this:
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3092/...5bdc891182.jpg

    There is nothing supernatural going on here- I was out with the man in the picture the night this was taken and I can assure you no one present spotted a ghostly twin brother of his.

    I find it odd how you are instantly trusting of anyone who might want to tell you silly ghost stories (particularly a stranger whose livelihood depends upon telling them) and yet so dismissive of any physical evidence presented to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery
    I said that the UNIVERSE is 13 billion years old.
    Barry, although I wholeheartly agree with your post in general, this statement is worth some reflections. Not going to read the whole thread, so it may a double, but the 13 By is the outcome of a logical sound hypothesis, which, unfortunately, cannot be tested.

    The reasoning that leads to a minimum of 13 billion years seems sound but may be superseded whenever we find an even older white dwarf, but the question remains unanswered forever, about the universe before 13 billion years ago, or a googol years ago or whatever.

    problem with this kind of statements is that they get frozen solid in our minds, like ice-core-isotopes-is-temperature, obstructing flexible thinking, which is required for revisiting true/false nodes for explaining otherwise unexplainable phenomenons (a.k.a. thinking out of the box).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The one thing you have to say about this thread is that it has generated a great deal of action.
    Now, it has continually deviated from the appropriate topic - radioactive dating - but the deviations have been interesting.

    Jollybear typifies, I believe, the stance of many who will be reading these exchanges, though not participating. I think this thread provides a good opportunity for indirectly educating those.

    I continue to applaud jollybear for his persistence in staying the course, while lamenting his singleminded ....????... words fail me, but you know what I mean.

    I am going to try, over the next week, to break this thread down into more than one section, so that here we stay on radioactive dating and other topics are consigned where appropriate. This will be time consuming, but I think it will be worthwhile.

    Comments?
    i wonder whether the effort will be worth it - the various portions are often mixed up inside the same posts, and if you split everything up you're in danger of losing the general flow of thought

    if you decide to go ahead, can you try and make a back-up in case it all goes wrong and you want to revert to the original ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    if you decide to go ahead, can you try and make a back-up in case it all goes wrong and you want to revert to the original ?
    That is a good suggestion. I may leave the original in place and simply generate two or more subsets of it. If it does prove to difficult I shall just abandon the attempt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Good luck Ophiolite. I tried to cleave off the biological stuff into the biology section some time ago, but then it seemed to go quiet on that front.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    let's face it : this thread only survives as long as jollybear keeps posting -
    any offshoots are likely to die off unless he agrees to compartmentalise his thought and split the various strands over the different sub-threads
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    im back folks, im going to take some time to examin all the points, and gather them together and respond. Might not get completed today, but it will.

    I was out of town for few days, way up in the mountains, i seen all the geologic layers and rocks, what a massive noah flood catastrophie that did that, hehe :P

    Anyhow, i'll be back with my responce after i examine every reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    don't know if you've read the putative plans to split this thread in various subject related components - what are your thoughts about it, jollybear ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Well i dont mind having multiple conversations, but not at the same time in different sections. Although i dont mind if anyone splits them up, however i will probably only finish one at a time. After i finish this one, i will then go to the next section and start there. If i do them all at the same time, my intuition is telling me that i will have ALOT of discussing on my hands and allot of replies to adress, something that would have to be a full time thing for me. And that's not practical for me, since i have a job and a wife. Allthough i do study for about 3 to 5 hours a day, on days off i do around 10. However everyone has there own study pase as it is. I dont think i could even adress each reply even at those rates, since my study time consists of reading, thinking, digging, and then typing out my replies for your replies. In short, to finish one topic at a time seams more practical in my mind. I dont want anyone to confuse that for me rejecting the challenges on other topics, i do plan on going on those other topics and doing those chalanges too, but i can only do one at a time. If it was debates WITHIN the bible, i could more easily debate many topics at the same time, but topics outside it im not at that advantage to do this.

    But if you do split it up, i can finish this section, then go over to the other section and tackle at that one. To illustrate, can a gun shoot in many directions at the same time? Or just one? After it shoots in one direction, and gets it's tirget, then it can shoot in the next direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To illustrate, can a gun shoot in many directions at the same time? Or just one? After it shoots in one direction, and gets it's tirget, then it can shoot in the next direction.
    one piece of advice : if your gun is a howitzer and you're shooting white phosporus, make sure you hit your target - missing the target and setting civilian territory on fire will land you in deep doodoo
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    one piece of advice : if your gun is a howitzer and you're shooting white phosporus, make sure you hit your target - missing the target and setting civilian territory on fire will land you in deep doodoo
    Remember that the doodoos are now extinct. :wink: Further evidence of evolution perhaps. 8)

    Edited for incomprehensible typographic errors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    "But if you do split it up, i can finish this section, ...." says Jollybear.

    Judging by his performance so far Jollybear will never finish. He just cannot see when he is well and truly beaten. He just goes on and on inventing far fetched fantasies and assinine arguments. One can carry on pouring out garbage indefinitely, and I think Jollybear will do exactly that. Meanwhile those of us with the time to waste, and the stamina, will keep on trashing his stupid beliefs. And so it will go on and on. Until now I have had the time, as I have been off work with a broken leg (an accident whilst out doing some geology - looking at yet more mineralisation and field relations inexplicable in terms of Noah's flood), but I return in a few days so I may not have the time to keep on replying in detail to his nonsense. We'll see. I wonder how he thinks he can get around the heat problem, or the intense meteorite bombardment, or the patterns and correlations with radioisotope dating, ....?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    Until now I have had the time, as I have been off work with a broken leg
    the rock gods have obviously seen reason to chastise you for your disbelief in the Noachian flood
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    Until now I have had the time, as I have been off work with a broken leg
    the rock gods have obviously seen reason to chastise you for your disbelief in the Noachian flood
    The slab of rock that fell on me broke too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Ophiolite. Ok about the uniformatarian model. Let me narrow it down to a case, the grand canyon. You believe the river over millions or billions of years sliced down into the ground and that caused those mountainous canyons. You base this on the fact that the river at present is slowly but surely at a certain rate eroding and slicing downward. So you calculate backwards and it equals millions of years ago. The part I agree with is, YES there is a very slow slicing going on right now at present. However the part I disagree with is you ASSUME the present is the key to the past. I don’t believe this is ALWAYS the case, sometimes it can be, but sometimes it’s not, in THIS case, it’s not. You assume the river was once on top of the mountains, hence at one time it was not mountains. I believe Noah’s flood deposited sediment in that location, and then the waters receded and left a small river there. By a flood you can have layers of sediment as well. So in short, you assume a slicing in the past millions of years, I assume a flood 6 thousand years ago which caused layers to be deposited, which caused the mountainous canyons.

    Does this address your point directly?

    Next you say floods, sandstorms, turbidity currents ext are NOT catastrophes. Well, just what is a catastrophe then?

    Now last time I checked, a flood in a city, a tornado in a city, ext can caus much catastrophes. Hence, it is a catastrophe.

    Now if we assume a Noah flood, this would give the same evidence a local catastrophic flood would give, because there both floods.

    As for rock A having similar characteristics as rock B, hence it must have formed by the same process. You assume so.


    Next you agree that rapid sedimentation favors fossilization. Very good.
    Next you say but it’s not necessary for it. Rapid sedimentation can occur within a uniformitarian framework in several circumstances, INCLUDING flood plain deposition and turbidity current deposition. In other words what your saying is, floods can caus fossils. Hence Noah’s flood can caus fossils. Next you say both these local floods and turbidity currents are common place processes. In other words you assume the present is the key to the past again. You use the present as prove for the past, when in essence you are ASSUMING the present is always the key to the past. What im saying is, you first have to prove the assumption before using the present as prove for the past. Hence there’s no proof.

    As for quite conditions fossils can form you say. Yes, IF the ground swallows them fast, but does that happen? No, not unless the ground formed a mouth.

    As for anoxic conditions, do land animals have that? Are you saying that theirs no oxygen in the air? And no scavengers as well?


    To Marnix. The ones who changed the way of doing science were either atheists, agnostics, or biblical compromisers or of another theistic religion outside the bible. But it’s one of the four, or all four. It would not have been a dogmatic bible literalist. In other words, the bible is right or wrong, but it cannot be twisted. Every category above but the compromiser category has no justification for condoning a change in how to go about doing science. Technically non of the categories have any justification since science is all about finding truth, but the compromiser category has ten times less justification.

    To Barry. I don’t believe the universe is 13 billion years old. I believe the universe ALSO is only 6 thousand years old, the same as the earth. Just as the bible says, this is my premise, my stand. I do plan on getting into the cosmic evolution after the earth science first.

    Also, im assuming the speed of light has not been constant. You assume it was. If the speed of light were faster in the past, this could also accelerate radioactive decay. And since the second law of thermodynamics says that all things grow weak and decay, I would assume so for light as well. Here is a small article from a non creationist website about the speed of light not being a constant. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1005114024.htm

    To Stephan. 30 years and 6 thousand years may not be a big difference for the K Ar methods timescale of millions, but it would make a difference if something made the rocks look old by special creation and Noah’s catastrophic flood. Plus if a known 30 year old rock yields a date of over 2 million years old, what would a 6 thousand year old rock yield? We don’t know since we have to assume a 6 thousand year old rock. Plus again on top of that, if special creation and Noah’s flood is true, if those assumptions are true, that would ADD to the fact that it would make a difference for the K Ar method. You might ask me to prove my assumptions, how can I? You can’t prove your assumptions either, I back my assumptions up with the same data you back yours up with, just with different reasoning’s and persuasions.



    Next you said all those points I made about radioisotope dating are all dealt with on anti creation website’s, then wondered if I went on them to check. Yes, I already said in this forum that I did that. However I understand if you skimmed over it, I admit my posts have been long, which I will try to change that in days ahead. But yes, I have read about the radioisotope dating methods on anti creation website’s, I even gave the link to the one I read, it was quite long as well. This website was rebutting a creationists in his points he was making. However the other website I read favoring creation points, gave also very good points and rebuttals. So, I would like YOU to rebuttal these points I have made about radioisotopes. How do YOU personally(not what other website’s think) know the initial conditions of the parent to daughter elements in a given rock? And how do YOU know if the decay rate was constant in the past? And how do YOU know it’s a closed system under high pressure under the earth? I think the first one I asked is the best one, how do you know the initial conditions of the parent to daughter elements in the rock?

    Now I will answer your questions. Why virtually all rocks appearing old within a 6 thousand year range? Well three reasons, the first two being the predominant. First is special creation(matured earth and cosmos in 6 days) second is Noah’s flood. With this flood would be earthquakes, volcano’s this would caus many new rock looking very old, because the water would keep in the daughter gas elements. Also before the flood men lived 900 years old, things were stronger, earth, magnetic field, and probably even things as sun and light, so if the speed of light was faster in the past, this would caus faster decay rates of elements in the rocks before the flood, on top of a flood keeping in the gas from new lava flows in the water. Also periodic local catastrophes through earth history right up to the present time could also play a part(a small part, but a part non the less).

    Also why all the patterns and correlations described earlier? Well, mind you many dating methods on the SAME rock yield different dates most times, according to what I read anyhow. Also the predominant dating method they use is the K Ar method, so for correlations, there is not much of these going on, since they MOSTLY use the K Ar method, so the K Ar correlates with itself MOST times, but not all times. Also the dating methods can ONLY be used in dating lava rock. It cannot be used in dating sandstone or other kinds of rock. This means in comparison to all the rocks there is, not many rocks are being truly correlated. Plus there are anomalies, and perhaps the % is under published. But there is about 300 anomalies that are known in a article I read. So, based on all this, where is the true consistency? Also I’ve read as well that sometimes they have dates that are two young that correlate well, yet those are thrown out, and sometimes they have dates that are too OLD and they correlate well, and yet they even throw those out. Also by them using the K Ar method to correlate with the geologic column, that would be circular reasoning. You say index fossils since they are mostly found within a certain layer of strata that is assigned a period of age, they are used to date the rocks, but normal fossils are not used to date the rocks, only the index ones are. And so the K Ar method correlates with the age of the rock strata that the index fossil gives it. There are two assumptions here, how many anomalies are thrown out before they find a date that fits with the index fossil layer? Who knows. Next how does a index fossil date the rock? How do you know how old the index fossil is? This is STILL circular reasoning. I seriously don’t know why you can’t see the assumption involved with this, and again im not at this moment even attacking the assumption, just pointing out the clear and obvious assumption and circularity. When you told me I was using circularity by using the bible to defend the bible, I agreed, however then I said I was also using stuff outside the bible to defend the bible, and my main purpose of resorting to the bible was not to use it to defend it, but use it to show what exactly it was really saying. If I can agree when im being circular, this proves I can think critically. My question is, why are you not thinking critically by realizing the circularity here? Before using these methods as proof, first prove the assumptions, and if you do that, there will then not be assumptions because, well there proven, and if there truly is no assumptions, I PROMISE I will convert to evolution. Because no one can resist proof, and anyone that does, such a one is warped, or literally has no brain or literally blind. And I assure you, I have non of those problems. Someone said that proof was staring me right in the face. Amazing statement. And he told me he read evolution and creation books with an objective mind. One should trod carefully how they use there objective mind with hearing both sides of something, because it’s very easy to be deceive through missing something, no one is exempt, not that person and not even me. No proof stars me in the face.


    Now the oldest earth rock is dated at 3.8 billion years old by the methods. Meteorites are dated at 4.6 billion years old. So because the meteorites are older then the earth, they make the earth as old as the meteorites. Makes a lot of sense now doesn’t it?

    Even if the Argon Argon method avoided some of the problems that arise from K Ar methods, still that would only do away with the problems of MODERN rocks within EARLY earth history, hence that does not help your stand for evolution at all. It doesn’t even help you do away with the time period during and after the flood. So this don’t help you. Also the Ar Ar method you say that does away with the problems because it supposedly distinguishes between decayed argon and contaminated argon. What if in the past contaminated argon got more imbedded into the rock, making it appear the same as decayed argon? Hence a problem for the Ar Ar method. But even if I were generous to you, still this method don’t help you, because you even admit it works only for modern early rocks. Plus on top of this, do you know all modern rocks if they are modern? No. How do you know which ones are modern and which ones are not? Perhaps you know some modern rocks based on recorded times in history of volcano’s, but not all of them are recorded.

    As for still saying Austin was dishonest, I say his MOTIVE was not dishonest. If you insist his motive WAS dishonest, you are in the realms of assumptions. But then again, so am I, lol. There is only TWO that truly know what his motive was, HIMSELF, and God. Himself says he was honest. My intuition tells me his motive was honest, however my intuition cannot give me prove of what his motive really was. Sometimes intuition is wrong and sometimes it’s right, when it’s right, it should be called intuition, when it’s wrong, it should not be called intuition, but rather suspicion. True intuition or the inner gut or inner knower, not outer knower(which is proof) is always right. Im saying my intuition is telling me his motive was honest, im assuming my intuition is talking to me, and not my suspicion or not my “wanna believe it” talking to me. However when it comes to my own motives, I don’t assume anything, I have outer knowers and proofs to myself. Now your assuming his motive was dishonest, again, this is an assumption that you know his motive. I also have an assumption. So neither of us can prove it. I would love to say I can, but I can’t.

    By me believing the bible, that does not make me have a lack of thinking ability. For instance when I study the bible, I do think critically. That does not mean I criticize the bible though. It means I ask tough questions. Like why did God make everything in 6 days and on the seventh rested? Why not 3, why not 4, or 1, or one second? Then it brings me to other passages, such as in the book of revelation it talks about the seven spirits of God. In other passages it talks about the seven deadly sins God hates. Next it talks about many other stuff through the threads of scripture with sevens so many times. This is just an example. I do that with every chapter through the whole book, but not just with numbers like 7 or 6 or whatever. Like why did God choose Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt? I ask questions like this. So, having a premise does not take away thinking ability, YOU yourself have a premise. I don’t know why you don’t realize it. EVERYONE on the planet has a belief about something. Correct me if I am wrong, but I hear you saying that assuming and believing something, there is something wrong with that? I think there is something wrong if one did not have a belief system, not to mention EVERYONE DOES have a belief system, weather they realize it or not. So me believing something does not make me hopeless, otherwise we all would be hopeless, because we all believe something. Yes I will admit we ALL have a partial knowing concerning some stuff, granted. I have a partial knowing of the reality of the bible, which is through my experience with the Spirit of God. I believe the bible is completely true, I partially know this through the experience of his presents. Now you might say this is emotional hallucination, or might call it something else, but regardless, it was real, which gives me this partial knowing as I call it. However I see it as the Spirit of God, since this came through my obedience to the bible, hence confirming it. However let me give another spin on explaining something here. ANYTIME I commit a sin, at that given moment I am NOT believing the bible in some regard, depends on what sin it is at the time. So based on your statement, at that moment I am thinking critically and hence there is hope for me when I commit a sin. This is wrong. Anyhow the way is to continually be transformed and GROW in THE faith. The more ones faith grows, the less one sins, the less one sins, the deeper they are in Gods presents, the deeper one is in his presents, the MORE proof they have for themselves. And if this grows to a insurmountable abundance, spectacular things can happen to them and through them TO others, usually after persecution. And then the persecutors and others will thus have there proof. But this comes at a great cost. I am still growing, I am not at the peak, If I said I was, I would fall to the bottom. There is so much growing to do. Now if I said at that given time I was committing a sin, that I was believing the bible at the same time, that would thus be hypocritical contradiction. I HATE THAT. To me, it’s people that do that, that don’t think critically. ANYTIME someone does something contrary to what they profess, yet continues to profess the thing they go contrary to, they are not thinking critically. Like let me ask you a question, do you have compassion in you? If you say yes, then you go contrary to your evolution belief, if you say no, I will ask why? Critical thinking is when someone DOES what they profess, and if they don’t do what they profess, they stop professing it, and start professing what they are doing. Or they ask why they are doing this? They say to themselves “i want to see something here, but im not doing it, hence im not seeing it, why can’t I see it, I want to see it, but I don’t. Show me Lord what I don’t see, you call thus and thus a sin, I call it good because I do it, so help me see what you see otherwise I will keep rebelling against you Lord” This is venting to God, being real with him, argueing with him even, not blaspheming though, being respectful, but being honest. That’s thinking critically, when you are consistent and honest. And you can do that HAVING a premise.

    Like here is a narrowed down example. When I was up at the mountains with my wife, we went into the ice cream store, at that time I had a normal face on, I was not smiling, I was looking at the ice cream. For some odd reason I gause the cashier thought I should be smiling and said to me “why aren’t you smiling, you are Jesus follower, then smile”. Thing was I did not know her, and she did not know me, yet she said this. Anyways I said “well im not smiling because so many people in the world are fake, and it saddens me. How do you expect me to smile?” And she just looked and did not address what I just said, but just said “God wants honesty”. And I nodded and said “Of course, yes, he does.” Then my wife said “lets go” so we left with our ice cream. Next my wife said to me “yes why wont you smile, you are Jesus follower” so I told here why “it’s because of so much hypocrisy in the world, I see it all around me in people all the time. Then she said yes, but Jesus can give you joy in the face of it. And I said, well he IS NOT doing it, and if he don’t do it, it’s not in my human nature to do it and I CERTAINLY am not going to fake it, I would rather DIE then fake anything. Either the smile is going to be real, or theres not going to be a smile at all, because faking a smile is NOT an option with me. Now was I committing a sin by not feeling joy at that time? Perhaps so, because my eyes were blinded to what God wanted me to see, the fear within peoples hearts, this was the reason for there hypocrisy, all I saw was the hypocrisy and not the fear and confusion, if I kept my eyes on the fear they had, I would have less anger and compassion would rise more. So I said to God “God im not seeing what your seeing, I see a bunch of evil hypocrites, you see a bunch of fearful confused, needful people.” By not seeing what God saw, im calling him wrong and me right, I professed this honestly to him, by saying that I felt I was fighting with God, but honesty is the best antidote. Then I ask myself, why do I see people as only hypocritical(which it is true, but only half true) the rest of the truth is they are hypocritical because they are afraid and confused(which they should not be, they should be courageous, but there not because fearful is so much easier to yield to and confusion takes time to sift through) So if I see this, which I do, but I need to KEEP my sights ON IT, so I don’t sink into anger and a dark cloud. So in short, honesty and consistency is thinking critically even if you have a premise. ALWAYS when I get it right and repent of a sin, JOY does get restored, but never beforehand. Don’t confuse sin with DEEDS all the time either, sin is a spiritual blindness to complete truth. So this is the way to thinking critically about anything. Honesty and consistency. As you can see my premise(one part was more then a premise) with my example was I KNEW God existed and I assumed he was there listening to me and I assumed he would SHOW me what he sees and help me focus on the right thing. So I was consistent and honest. In short critical thinking only exists in people who are NON FENCE SITTERS. If you’re a fence sitter YOU DO NOT THINK CRITICALLY.


    Next, how would it take rock millions of years to cool?

    Next, you saw the trees with roots? Did they all have roots? And if so, were the full length of the roots intact? Or were the thin longer parts broken off?

    Next, everything you said about this case, is there a article you know of that has pictures and more explanation so I can learn it more from? Because that was a bombardment of information squeezed together. Before I offer a rebuttal, I need to know and understand this case better.

    Next going back to the continental break. You said that tons of sediment dumping onto the lava springing up is wrong because the sediment on the deep ocean floor is not the type one would expect of a violent, cataclysmic flood. It is entirely very fine ooze, that take 1000s of years to settle out, not the coarse material swirling around in a thick porridge as would be required if all the earth’s post-Cambrian rocks owe their origin to the flood
    Well to this I say, after Noah’s flood happened and the waters receded the materiel at the bottom of the ocean floor would start to settle out, and it had thousands of years to settle out right up to the present time. And you even said it takes in the thousand/s to settle. technically after the flood it would have about 4300 years to settle out. As for the currents swirling around in the ocean depths and fountains of steam, all this would only be happening DURING the flood. After the flood, the sediments have thousands of years time to settle out.

    As for the lava below melting the sediment bombarding it. How so? As soon as lava is exposed to the surface above or especially within water it starts to cool immediately. So if the sediment falls on top of it, and the lava below starts to melt it, it wont fully melt it since it will start to immediately cool. As for the erosion and sinking slabs causing so much heat, I don’t see how? That’s the ocean floor sinking into the earth, again that’s just going to cover up the hot lava, and any lava that does get exposed starts to cool. Also when the continents are drifting apart from each other through the span of one whole year, again it’s not doing it in one second. If it happened in one second then yes it would be like having more then a sword gash, it would be like having your body cut into with a chainsaw; the blood of lava would rush out super quick and boil and burn everything(but even that is an assumption). But this is not what happened, the continents split apart within a year, making the gash slice only like a sword wound(it’s rate now would be only like a small knife wound with little force), this is not going to boil the waters, this will make that location of water very hot, and that hot water will mix with the cold water elsewhere, hence making the water warm all over within a year. Also the rate that it splits now does not even come close to boiling the ocean waters, the ocean waters are still freezing cold. If the rate of the continents split faster during the flood, still the ratio of water to lava is still A LOT more water, hence the water is only going to get warm, and warm is but a max. ALSO within this one year while the continents are moving apart the lava would cool, then split open again, cool, split open, sediment fall on top, split open, cool, sediment fall on top, split open, cool and the cycle repeats for a year. This in itself will even stop that location of water from getting overheated in itself, although it will be hot enough just to make the oceans warm, which causes the ice age. And this warm water with the cold continents and air, is the mechanism for the post flood ice age. And the air would be cool because of volcanic action blocking out the sun, then the warm water vapor rising and hitting the cool air, hence making lots of snow and ice=ice age. You are making a exaggerated assumption that the earth would burn up.

    To Marnix. Yes im bringing up hearsay of photographs that I SEEN from a tour man himself, which I paid to share in this tour. Your saying that the photographs are so easy to fake, even without tampering with them. Well, I’ll give you that, but mind you this was a picture taken if I remember correctly in the middle 1900s about, so cams back then were not as great as today. Today you can do more crazy things with them. Now did they do something OUTSIDE of the cam before using the cam to take the picture, in order to manipulate what would be seen? I cannot prove it either way, and I don’t think the tour man could either. However what if they did NOT manipulate anything outside in the graveyard before taking the picture? That would make it real. Can you prove the lab workers don’t manipulate the dating methods? When it comes to this, we also got hearsay, so this same principle applies to your evolution lab workers. But the fact of anomalies and statements where they throw out dates, shows great evidence FOR manipulation within labs. But this might not be due to dishonesty per se, but perhaps this is the standard. Quite ridiculous standard if you ask me.

    Now if we don’t have any natural explanation for why something is going on in a location, house ext, resorting to the supernatural as automatic explanation as proof for the supernatural; is not proof, your right. However it’s a pretty strong indicator of the supernatural, since it has many of the claims to go with it. Plus video’s of amazing things happening. We got a good claim from Ophiolite, he saw two ghosts. But he don’t believe in ghosts. I think this is a GREAT example from an unbiased source as well, because it’s coming from someone who don’t believe in ghosts, but was honest enough to tell us he saw two. Now he can’t prove it to us that he saw them, it’s a claim, but since it’s coming from an unbiased source, I think it’s a strong indicator the spirit world is real. I watched a thing on the history channel once(they believe in evolution too ) and they talked about this man who admitted he DID not believe in ghosts at all, but after opening up a bar at a certain place, things started to happen, weird things, and he saw things, dramatic things, to make long story short, he left that place, and he admits he is a believer now. Again that tour man I was talking about, he told me he saw objects move, not just move, but levitate across the room. Was he paid to tell me that? I don’t think so, because I asked him that privately and he said to me “I understand if you are skeptical, I was too until I seen that, and it scared me, so I no longer do tours in that prison, but only for the graveyard now.”And I told him that I am not skeptical, I gause he assumed I would be since the story sounds so wild. And he was once skeptical so he assumed I would be too not seeing something like that, but little does he realize not everyone has the same mind set of thinking. He did not tell this story to the whole crowd that was there. So was he paid to tell me that? I doubt it. If he was lying, he could have just said his most dramatic experience was seeing a ghost with his naked eye. And then left it at that. But he said he saw a physical object levitate and move. My specific question to him was “what was your most dramatic experience with the spirit world?” And this was his answer. Again it’s not proof, but it’s a strong indicator. Here is another thing, I don’t know what it is with my mom seeing stuff and me not seeing stuff, but here is another example with here, she saw a shadow of a snake glide across the wall in the living room and then the shadow went outside the window. NO snakes were in the house, NOT EVEN OUTSIDE, this was in nova Scotia Canada. I assure you 100% there was NO snake in that house. Few days later someone close to her died, she interpreted the apparition to mean the “the valley of the SHADOW of death” concept mingled with a prophetic sense to it. Now we do get snakes in cape Breton nova Scotia , but they are usually under rocks, and they are only grass snakes, they don’t go into the house, especially her house. Again it’s a claim, not proof, but it is a strong indicator.

    Also Matt. This strangers livelihood is not to tell TONS of stories, and it’s not to MAKE UP stories especially. But it’s to tell the same story, it’s a routine he does for new crowds, tourists basically. I think there is a strong indicator here.

    As for the picture that was taken of the man you were out with that night, was your cam a very up to date new type of technology cam? Can old cams do this?(I don’t know much about photography) But im assuming older cams cannot do this, am I wrong?

    To Marnix and Stephen. I never thought about that, about the rock gods broke Stephens leg because he don’t believe in Noah’s flood. But now that you say it, this makes perfect sense to me, seriously. Although I go further and say, the rock gods did not do it, the biblical God did it, he chastised him for not believing in Noah’s flood. Now Stephen, when the rock broke as well, that does not mean your belief in evolution beat God who is symbolizing the rock at this moment, it means Gods heart is broken for you because you don’t believe in his flood. “Jesus is the Rock of ages” he is above the ages of rocks. Parents discipline there children, so likewise God disciplined you by sending a rock to break your leg. Now sounds sort of like harsh discipline don’t it? But please don’t confuse it, consider the fact that he is such a big God, that when he intends to spank, it turns into a breaking. OR as an alternative explanation, perhaps the rock was offended by you saying it was too old, you know old ladies do that type of thing too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Next you say floods, sandstorms, turbidity currents ext are NOT catastrophes. Well, just what is a catastrophe then?

    Now last time I checked, a flood in a city, a tornado in a city, ext can caus much catastrophes. Hence, it is a catastrophe.
    jollybear, you're confusing the vernacular meaning of catastrophe (i.e. a local mishap) with the technical meaning of the word (i.e. a world-wide event) : a tornado is a catastrophe, an asteroid crashing into earth is a Catastrophe

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Marnix. The ones who changed the way of doing science were either atheists, agnostics, or biblical compromisers or of another theistic religion outside the bible. But it’s one of the four, or all four. It would not have been a dogmatic bible literalist. In other words, the bible is right or wrong, but it cannot be twisted. Every category above but the compromiser category has no justification for condoning a change in how to go about doing science. Technically non of the categories have any justification since science is all about finding truth, but the compromiser category has ten times less justification.
    how about the following description of the recantation by the reverend Sedgwick on his belief in the worldwide flood as a valid geological agent :

    Flood geology was considered and tested by early-nineteenth-century geologists. They never believed that a single flood had produced all fossil-bearing strata, but they did accept and then disprove a claim that the uppermost strata contained evidence for a single, catastrophic, worldwide inundation. The science of geology arose in nations that were glaciated during the great ice ages, and glacial deposits are similar to the products of floods. During the 1820s, British geologists carried out an extensive empirical program to test whether these deposits represented the action of a single flood. The work was led by two ministers, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (who taught Darwin his geology) and the Reverend William Buckland. Buckland initially decided that all the "superficial gravels" (as these deposits were called) represented a single event, and he published his Reliquiae diluvianae (Relics of the Flood) in 1824. However, Buckland's subsequent field work proved that the superficial gravels were not contemporaneous but represented several different events (multiple ice ages, as we now know). Geology proclaimed no worldwide flood but rather a long sequence of local events. In one of the great statements in the history of science, Sedgwick, who was Buckland's close colleague in both science and theology, publicly abandoned flood geology -- and upheld empirical science -- in his presidential address to the Geological Society of London in 1831.

    'Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.... 'There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period....

    'We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood.... In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in giving them a simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we had discovered, but by those we expected hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths.'


    2 notes on the above item :
    1. both Sedgwick and Buckland were upright, conservative representatives of the Anglican Church who held no truck with evolutionary theory; Sedgwick's geological views were generally catastrophic - he believed that the history of the Earth had been marked by a series of cataclysmic events which had destroyed much of the Earth's life; but being an honest individual, he was able to recant when the geological facts contradicted his most cherished beliefs
    2. look at the year : 1831 - this means that in scientific circles the invocation of a Noachian flood to explain geological features has been outdated for the past 177 years

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Marnix. Yes im bringing up hearsay of photographs that I SEEN from a tour man himself, which I paid to share in this tour. Your saying that the photographs are so easy to fake, even without tampering with them. Well, I’ll give you that, but mind you this was a picture taken if I remember correctly in the middle 1900s about, so cams back then were not as great as today.
    as an aside, i've seen picture of the early 1900s and before that proclaimed to show ghosts - trickery is always possible, even with unsophisticated cameras

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Marnix and Stephen. I never thought about that, about the rock gods broke Stephens leg because he don’t believe in Noah’s flood.
    jollybear, you DO realise i was joking ?!?!?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Jollybear,
    you are most assuredly certifiable. You either lack the intellect to understand what is being explained to you, or the emotional maturity to accept it. Your counter arguments are weak to point of embarassment. Your recognition of the wealth of evidence for evolution is mowhere to be seen. Your simplistic take on natural processes is laughable.

    I have abandoned my intention to split this thread into manageable hunks. There is nothing manageable about your willfull choice of ignorance over knowledge; dogma over evidence; divine intervention over emergent properties. I may comment occassionaly on your more absurd statements, but your inability to understand that your responses are not valid refutations of points made is a frustration too far.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    one piece of advice : if your gun is a howitzer and you're shooting white phosporus, make sure you hit your target - missing the target and setting civilian territory on fire will land you in deep doodoo
    Remember that the doodoos are now extinct. :wink: Further evidence of evolution perhaps. 8)

    Edited for incomprehensible typographic errors.
    Don't you mean Dodo? I thought Doodoos were something children did on potties?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Jollybear

    You need to get yourself a hobby or something

    Or how about doing a creative writing course?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix. As for Sedgwick and Buckland who were upright and use to believe in Noah’s global flood but recanted belief in it, I don’t doubt they were upright and honest men. However I do believe they were deceived. You know deception happens a lot, evolutionists convert to creationism, creationists convert to evolutinism, Christians convert to Muslim, Muslim converts to Christianity, occultists convert to Christianity, Christian converts to the occult. This type of thing happens all the time, and that’s only a short list, Buddhists become Christians or occultists or whatever, Muslims become Buddhists, jews become Christians, and the list goes on. Muslims become Muslim evolutionists, Muslims become creation evolutionists, I mean this list could go on forever in it’s complexity. This is not an abnormal thing, deception runs rampant in this world. PURE TRUTH is like finding PURE GOLD, to find it, one has to dig and dig hard and diligently. And while in the process of digging, one has to have there head in all situations. I believe these two guys were deceived. They put there trust not in proof against a global flood, rather they put there trust in evolutionary interpretations on observations and so compromised what the biblical account says. There was no real proof against Noah’s flood. And you saying the flood idea is outdated, in all reality it is not outdated, it is way ahead of all scientific interpretations of today. Not to mention little over half of America believes in creationism. This should say it’s not outdated. Also they only say it’s outdated because they don’t believe it based on THERE dogma of evolution they are taught. You teach a child ONE view point and don’t let them hear another view point, what are they going to believe? Obviously the ONE view point taught to them. But if universities and schools TRULY taught both sides fairly, how many geologists and scientists would actually believe in evolution then? I doubt very much so that the number which now believes in evolution would stay the same, I think it would drop to either half and half, or slightly more then half for creation scientists. But at least half would become creation scientists. A computer is only as smart as the information put into it. The only difference we have then a computer is we have a will to think for ourselves, unfortunately most don’t think for themselves, I see it all the time at my work in regards to managers, they are filled with programed minds, and based on that programing mind they perceive everyone the same way and lack complete intuition and right judgement. Blinded by “the book”. Ether people are too lazy to use there will to think OR they are not hearing both sides fairly. It’s that simple. Who is truly wise today? TOO many people DON’T THINK and DIG, because, well thinking is painful on the brain after all. And God forbid, they don’t want a little pain. There poor brain might burst a vain. And the reason they don’t think and dig is because they don’t think it’s worth it, basically what there doing is GAMBLING for the truth, THAT’S DANGEROUS to gamble with the truth and with your soul.

    As for old cams, yes trickery is still possible. But is trickery don in ALL the cases there is? That cant be proven one way or the other. But I think the indicator is more leaning toward the spirit realm being true rather then false.

    As for the joke you referred to, yes I did realize you were joking, and I found it humorous too. However I do seriously believe any trouble we go through is a form of discipline from God. But not all the time, sometimes it’s our own choices that put us into trouble, and sometimes it’s the devil. But in Stephens case it makes sense that it would be discipline from God. And usually God disciplines those he loves, that’s the purpose of discipline, is love. Now this is not said to show a lack of sympathy to the pain of a broken leg now, please don’t misunderstand. I think God sent that rock to break his leg to get his attention perhaps. To show him hey maybe Noah’s flood is true, maybe God is trying to tell him that I know he probably thinks this is insane, but non the less it makes sense to me.


    To Ophiolite. I am certifiable? Come on, im not insane. Lack of intellect is not the problem and lack of emotional maturity is not the problem, so that means there must be another problem? I wonder what that could be, maybe the problem is evolution and it’s assumptions. You say my counter arguments are weak, you say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, im ready to hear all that evidence, however don’t tell it to me all at once, otherwise the posts will get to large, tell me one at a time, narrow it to a case, so we can pick that apart, then once we do that, we can pick at another case. I believe I have shown that the case with Austin Is very subjective case, which I believe every case Is subjective. But at the same time, I believe that those cases lean more to my side. However hit me with a uniformatarian argument case and we shall go from there.

    You said I have chosen ignorance over knowledge. Your assuming evolution is knowledge, I don’t call it knowledge, I call it information. However I have chosen to take in it’s information and not be ignorant, but all this information tells me is circular assumptions. That’s not saying the assumptions are wrong, it’s just saying they are assumptions. Next you say I choose dogma over evidence. Evolution is a dogma, and young earth creationism is a dogma, but where is the evidence? What evidence? If you mean data with interpretation, yes that happens. But that’s not proof. That’s subjectivity. Please tell me this evidence that you refer to? I am very much open to hear this.

    Also if you think my counter arguments are not refutations so far, well refute my counter arguments and we can go from there. The deeper one goes the better one can judge what argument sounds better. To judge it prematurely is not giving it a fair trial.

    Please don’t be frustrated, I do appreciate your efforts in engaging this discussion. And everything you do say, I do read it and consider it.

    To Selene. Why a creative writing course? Nah, I like this hobby more, studying solid issues. This is of more importance. There is not enough time in life to study trivial things. I don’t gamble with what I believe. So I consider this of utmost importance. Now by saying that, im not saying creative writing courses are bad, or trivial things are bad, not at all, but one should take what they believe more seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Why do you believe the theory of evolution is false?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    They put there trust not in proof against a global flood, rather they put there trust in evolutionary interpretations on observations and so compromised what the biblical account says.
    2 responses :

    1. these gents based their decisions on geological evidence, after a lot of digging and soul searching, and not evolutonary evidence, which in those days was not yet known to the scientific community

    2. as i've said before, if you accept the truth of one source such as the bible before evaluating the evidence, you cannot claim to do science - in order to do science you have to give the facts a chance to tell their own story, independent of preconceptions
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To obviously. The reason I believe evolution is false, is because of many reasons. Some of them are these problems: radioisotope dating methods seldom agree on the same rock, and most of the dates are don using K Ar therefore it correlates with itself. And dating rocks by index fossils is circular reasoning. And there are no transition forms, and any that are claimed to be are discrepant. The only FACTS that exist are in the present, but when you use the present to be proof for the start of the universe, that goes outside the realm of facts to assumptions. You first have to prove the assumptions, and you cant do that with using the present observations. And there are other problems as well, but this is a start. Also I believe evolution is false, because I believe the bible is correct. God created all things, and I believe in Noah’s flood, which would thus transform allot of the geologic column. Also the geologic column does not even fully exist in it’s full form(another problem that we haven’t even touched on yet). There are cosmic evolution problems which we have not touched on yet, but I do plan on getting into that too. Also they have carbon dated some fossils and wood that are expected to be in the millions of years old range and they dated to be in the thousands. More problems. Also micro and macro evolution does not occur in the observation right now. Genes either lose information, or keep the remaining information, but they don’t gain information. Also beneficial mutations don’t cause evolution, or caus information to be added, this don’t happen. I could give a bigger list, which I do have, but I just want to be brief. Also why do I believe the bible is telling the truth? Well I believe there is a God, and I believe he deals with man, and he does now and did in the past, and if there be a God, he is all powerful, powerful enough to create all things in a special way, also sends a flood to judge sin. Also I have experienced the Spirit of this God, which confirms to me his reality. Hence I don’t believe he exists, I know he does. Also I believe if he is all powerful, he can reveal his will to us and the account of how all things came to be, which is the bible. It makes sense to me.

    So now, why do you believe evolution is true? And please don’t say because of the overwhelming evidence, there is no overwhelming evidence, rather there is overwhelming indoctrination and interpretation of data. That’s all there is. Now by me saying all this, this in itself does not disprove evolution and prove young creation, but it does give a stronger indicator for young creation and evolution being in the false. And if you think there be evidence, please state ONE evidence, not all of them, just one so we can build on that.


    To Marnix. These two gents who based there decisions on geological evidence, I don’t believe it was evidence, there minds were manipulated to think it was evidence.

    Next you said one has to give the facts a chance to tell there own story without seeing it through a preconceived lens of the bible. Ok, when you get a rock, it does not come with a label on it saying it’s thus and thus old. The facts are, you have a rock, it has minerals in it, the minerals have isotopes in them, that is the facts, those isotopes decay into stable isotopes. Those things are facts based on PURE observation. This is what’s PURELY KNOWN, NOT believed. Now there are two lenses, one is the bible, the other is evolution. These things are the assumptions or interpretations PUT ONTO the facts. Evolution is NOT the observed fact, nor is young earth creationism the observed fact, those things are the interpretations on the fact. However one of these lenses are a historic fact, but until one of them becomes 100% proven, it remains labeled as a assumption on the facts. Once something becomes proven, it is no longer labeled an assumption, but now a historic fact. However one of these lenses has a more stronger indicator going for it, I believe it’s creationism, based on evidence it has and problems evolution has.

    Also one more point about the gents. These guys believed the bible, creation, Noah’s flood. However the geology evolutionary interpretation changed there minds, so now they believe a SYMBOLIC interpretation of the bibles creation story and Noah’s flood story. Now THIS is dishonest interpretation of the bible. Now if interpreting the evolutionary geologic column by the lens of evolution is more “honest” then Reinterpreting the bible to fit evolution would be DISHONEST. So where would the true honesty be with the gents? Would they not have to throw out the bible altogether for this thing to be COMPLETE in it’s honest decision? Yes they would have to, but they don’t. There belief system becomes to impure now. IF your right that interpreting the geologic column through a evolution lense is more honest, then one has to throw the bible out all together for it to be consistently complete in honesty. OR if one were to believe the bible literally, one would have to either reject the interpretation of evolution on the geologic column, or reject the geologic column, and according to you this would be dishonest. But I say no, it’s not dishonest, because the facts are very subjective, and believing in evolution is just that, a believe, not the subjective facts. The reason you all believe in evolution is because you know and understand it’s model so well, consistently, and if someone knows something consistently, it will be thus very easy for them to believe it, and to think everyone else who does not believe it, is blind. Now that’s ok to believe I am blind, but one has to give the other side a fair trial and see the full consistent model of creationism. Once you see this, and see the problems with evolution, then you can better objectively make a better decision. How do you know it’s not you that is blind? How do I know I am the one that sees? We both have to base it on what has the stronger indicators for there side. Lets find out shall we.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    jollybear, read my lips : in those days there was no evolutionary perspective

    i assume that to you the evolutionary perspective is the devil, and therefore everything that deviates from a literal reading of the bible is called "evolutionary", almost like a swear word

    from a historical perspective though, the first half-century or more of geology's development was entirely free of evolutionary thoughts, for the simple reason that a fully developed evolutionary theory that could serve as a base for geological theory did not yet exist

    also, the radio-active decay that is the base of present-day geological dating was not discovered until the 20th century - until then geology devised relative age assessments by comparing what layers lie on top of which, with the younger sediments or rocks lying on top older ones

    the essential correctness of this method was proven by the fact that when radio-active dating was developed as a technique for dating the geological column, it corroborated rather than contradicted the earlier evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also they have carbon dated some fossils and wood that are expected to be in the millions of years old range and they dated to be in the thousands.
    i know this is part of your reply to Obviously, but i want to go over them mostly because of the fact that we've covered this sort of ground before

    as with the K-Ar method each radio-isotope has a range outside which you'll get duff results
    the carbon dating method cannot be applied to materials older than 60,000 years, just like the K-Ar method cannot be applied to rocks younger than 1 million years, so if you're going to try it anyway, don't go complaining that the method is at fault, you should have known from the start that you would get nonsensical results
    this has by now been pointed out so many times that i must deduce that you either don't understand the basic science underlying it, or you continue to ignore it because it clashes with your beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    More problems. Also micro and macro evolution does not occur in the observation right now. Genes either lose information, or keep the remaining information, but they don’t gain information. Also beneficial mutations don’t cause evolution, or caus information to be added, this don’t happen.
    the only problem that i see is your assessment and denial of basic biological facts, without any reason being given apart from your inability to open your eyes and see the obvious :
    - micro evolution has been observed in real-time and macro-evolution deduced in geological time
    - genes are capable of both gaining and losing information
    - beneficial mutations DO result in evolution

    don't take my word for it, like you seem to want us to take your word of the opposite, but have a look at any proper, non-creationist biology textbook and see for yourself what real scientists say about these issues - after all, if it's in a textbook, it should be bulk-standard, uncontroversial stuff, shouldn't it ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Hey! I was going to refute him
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    sorry
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    More problems. Also micro and macro evolution does not occur in the observation right now. Genes either lose information, or keep the remaining information, but they don’t gain information. Also beneficial mutations don’t cause evolution, or caus information to be added, this don’t happen.
    This actually doesn’t mean anything. A fern has more chromosomes than a human. 42 for humans vs 1440 for ferns! So it is not a question of how MUCH information is present, but simply nature of the information.
    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  
     

  89. #289  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Selene. Why a creative writing course? Nah, I like this hobby more, studying solid issues. This is of more importance. There is not enough time in life to study trivial things. I don’t gamble with what I believe. So I consider this of utmost importance. Now by saying that, im not saying creative writing courses are bad, or trivial things are bad, not at all, but one should take what they believe more seriously.
    Creativity is exercise for the brain. Imagine life without the human imagination. Would there be any?(life i mean) Is the creative imagination trivial? Is pure reason the only important element of the brain? Can it exist without imagination and creativity? How many scientific discoveries have relied upon the imagination?
    Look around you. Everything you see which is man-made was first imagined as a thought, an idea. Scientists rely upon the imagination in order to explain their theories. Much of science is theories, unproven as yet with fact or solid evidence. Yes, they endeavor to get as close to the truth as possible, but there is no solidity or proven truth in many of them, yet, In order to construct these theories scientists have had to gather the facts they do know and take that step into the unknown where possibility resides. Without imagination this would be impossible.

    Creative imagination is rather like casting a net into the unfathomable darkness and seeing what one has caught and then comparing and relating the catch against some of the facts available and the multitude of other possibilities.

    To discredit creativity and regarding the imagination as futile is rather like cutting ones legs off because walking is a waste of time now we have cars computers, T.V screens and armchairs.

    Read some of these papers and articles if you think i am bullshitting you about the importance of creativity and imagination in 'fact' finding and scientific discoveries. I think you will find that 99.9% of serious scientists will agree that creativity and imagination is a fundamental skill in scientific exploration, and is just as relevant and important as experiment and evidence.

    http://www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10....95?cookieSet=1
    http://www.riverdeep.net/current/200...leonardo.jhtml

    There is overwhelming evidence advocating science and creativity...go and explore!

    In fact science comes up with a theory yet unproven that the mind has imagined based on prior evidence and knowledge, almost like the next step in the journey, still yet to be explored and then seeks to prove it by disproving it, but prior to this it is just a theory or idea, created and imagined in the mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    deception runs rampant in this world. PURE TRUTH is like finding PURE GOLD, to find it, one has to dig and dig hard and diligently.
    Quote me some 'pure truths' please. I would like to know what you consider to be these so called truths.
    I think, no, i know, that you will find there are very little 'pure truths' but many theories which scientists are still working hard to disprove and prove.
    And where would we be without our imaginations and creativity to lead the way? Fumbling in the dark with no sense of direction?
    The imagination and creativity is not something to be feared. It's a powerful too in the art of discovery.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Ether people are too lazy to use there will to think OR they are not hearing both sides fairly. It’s that simple. Who is truly wise today? TOO many people DON’T THINK and DIG, because, well thinking is painful on the brain after all. And God forbid, they don’t want a little pain. There poor brain might burst a vain. And the reason they don’t think and dig is because they don’t think it’s worth it, basically what there doing is GAMBLING for the truth, THAT’S DANGEROUS to gamble with the truth and with your soul.
    Yes thinking takes active participation and applications of control and organisation especially when analysing data, but it is also a passive receptive tool, which when used this way called be described as imagination, and it is during this mode that people often receive ideas or 'relevation' and a thought or idea will 'pop into the mind' often seemingly 'out of nowhere' and this is often when creative genius is at work and creativity is experienced and great ideas occur.
    Ideas that scientists such as Newton, Hawkings, Einstein have had which now form the basis of much of todays scientific knowledge and theories.
    The will is often a tool which is applied after the imagination has spawned a seed called an idea. The will is the force which fertilizes and activates the body to further explore this idea and, for scientists, create experiments to produce evidence which then lead onto more ideas and theories, or architects to create buildings or engineers to create bridges or space shuttles.

    Yes all these things depend on prior knowledge to a degree, but imagination and creativity is just as vital in being able to take the next step. All past knowledge does is point in the right direction, but where the path might lead next, is anybody's guess or imagined theory.

    You also mention children and teaching them theories and ideas, what to believe and what not to believe.
    Teaching children imagination and creativity is just as vital as teaching them 'facts'.

    http://nicholasacademy.com/creativityunchecked.html
    http://www.ncaction.org.uk/creativity/whatis.htm

    Through imagination children learn to think for themselves and become creative imaginative beings. Without these vital skills there would be a lack of the next generation of scientists and explorers.

    We are not just data machines destined to obesity on facts. We are also outputters, and for the output to be of any real worth and value, the information put in needs to be digested first.
    This then becomes transformed into new ideas and theories leading onto more discoveries.
    Science positively encourages this in children because if there's anything science can be really sure about, it is the potential for us humans to imagine and create.

    Imagination and creativity leads to another important C word - curiosity.


    And if that's not 'creativity' and 'solid' or worthwhile, then i don't know what is!

    I would finally like to point out on a biological level that could be considered as 'pure truth' and is evidenced by any scientist studying neurology is the fact that the more we use the brain, the more neurons are fired, the more flexible, powerful it is and the better it functions. In fact human potential increases and the world gets bigger and better the more we use our brains. Approx 50% of our brains literally light up when we use our imagination. So if you think imagination and creativity is as good as useless well you may as well be asleep most of the time, or stay in that comfortable armchair reading you encyclopedia of facts. What a dull and drab existence with little potential or use that is!

    Oh and by the way, thinking is not painful it is fun! And that's another important aspect creativity encourages, the playful curios exploring aspect of the mind.
    Painful thinking is the wrong type of thinking. A brain overwhelmed with data and obsessed with just the facts without having the freedom to play and explore must be very sore indeed.



    Thanks for taking the time to read

    I'm going off now to play in my sandpit to create castles and art and stories and mythology and plays and ideas and space rockets...and.....never ending awe and wonder.........

    Love Selene x
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Don't you mean Dodo? I thought Doodoos were something children did on potties?
    It is a figure of speech called, technically, paronomasia and colloquially a pun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    imagine that : taking a paronomasia for a malapropism - what's the world coming to :wink:
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    imagine that : taking a paronomasia for a malapropism - what's the world coming to :wink:
    And of course a doodoo (or a dodo) would be an example of a silent spoonerism. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    If a Dodo is extinct, then is a Doodoo a euphemism for a coprolite?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Don't go there again.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Don't go there again.
    Where?

    Citation needed!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    It was part of Megabrain's little campaign right before he left for good. Coprolite = fossilized doodoo, as you know. :wink:
    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  
     

  97. #297  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Citation needed!
    remember the "Coprolite can be found in Scotland" in Megabrain's signature ?
    after a fashion it was rather amusing ...

    this, on the other hand, is a welsh coprolite
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    It was part of Megabrain's little campaign right before he left for good. Coprolite = fossilized doodoo, as you know. :wink:
    Aaah now i am enlightened!

    I still chat with MB

    He's busy designing and constructing parts for space stations and satellites now, he sends his love of course :-D


    Occasionally he pops in to the forum under a different pseudonym
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    I still chat with MB
    I'm not surprised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    I still chat with MB
    I'm not surprised.
    Do i detect a hint of sarcasm

    He's a very good natured, fun, interesting and kind hearted person and a very good friend who i have lots of respect and fondness for.

    I guess none of us can be liked by everyone Ophiolite and nor can we like everyone
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •