Thread: radio isotope dating question.

Jollybear hasn't been back for a long while, but yeah. It was apparent early on that no amount of explanation would change his mind, even if he understood what was being explained, which he didn't. Sad really. He is a nice, calm guy otherwise. I'd rather have 100 of him around than 1 intolerably acerbic, overly arrogant atheist though.

I also find some information in here,thanks so much

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

How can anyone believe the Earth is only 10 000 years old, that creationist claim has been debunked countless times!..

This is easy. Believe the Bible is the word of God, that it is literal and that it is inerrant. Therefore any contrary evidence is due to misinterpretation, falsification or lying.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

But if you still believe it, explain how these events could happen in a 10 000 year window:...

Prove that these events happened.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

Also, I saw you state that 'Evolution is a religion'... Haha, no, Evolution is a field of science not some false fairytale story that someone can choose to believe in....

The majority of believers in evolution are just that ....believers. Their belief is based upon what they have been told and they are just as dogmatic in their beliefs as any creationist.

I don't believe in evolution. I accept evolution as the most plausible explanation for a variety of observations. There is a world of difference.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

Evolution has pretty much been proven, micro and macro. Look up recent moth evolution if you don't 'believe' me...

My concern is that you have some of the appearances of a believer. If you are interested in convincing me that is not the case, then tell me why your moth example is a singularily poor one.

Truly an excellent read. I've gained unexpected insight into the extremes of human consciousness. I felt a need to register to proclaim my wonder.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

This is easy. Believe the Bible is the word of God, that it is literal and that it is inerrant. Therefore any contrary evidence is due to misinterpretation, falsification or lying.

Please, explain further. That statement didn't seem to flow very well to me and makes little sense.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Prove that these events happened.

Earth's Formation- Self-explanatory, the Earth is here and we exist.

Moon Formation- See above.

Origin of Life- Again, we are here- are we not?

Snowball Earth- A Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth

Ice Ages- Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicxulub Event- Chicxulub crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... Need I go on?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The majority of believers in evolution are just that ....believers. Their belief is based upon what they have been told and they are just as dogmatic in their beliefs as any creationist.

I don't believe in evolution. I accept evolution as the most plausible explanation for a variety of observations. There is a world of difference.

I never once said that I 'believe in evolution'- I accept it, as do you; besides the word belief in science has a very different context to the word belief in religion, that is what I was implying it to.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

My concern is that you have some of the appearances of a believer. If you are interested in convincing me that is not the case, then tell me why your moth example is a singularily poor one.

I am sorry that you think this is the case; I am very much not a believer and I generally only accept plausible science (backed up by plenty of experimental results and observational analysis; as well as with a healthy amount of mathematical basis to it). Unfortunately, I shall admit that I know little about the case of the "spotted moth evolution" as I do not study biology as I much prefer physics, mathematics and chemistry- however, I shall probably look up the case of the moth evolution soon just to know a little more about it! Anyway, I can tell you that the probable reason why it is a poor example is becuase it involves only one type of moth (as far as I'm aware) and doesn't actually show transition from species to species, but as I say- I'll read up on it when I get the time to.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

Please, explain further. That statement didn't seem to flow very well to me and makes little sense.

The point is that if you start with an assumption that the bible is perfect, then people will rationalize away anything which contradicts it. They will ignore other information because it doesn't fit with their idea that the bible is perfect. Therefore, it's the other stuff which is imperfect... because it contradicts their perfect bible.

Originally Posted by inow

The point is that if you start with an assumption that the bible is perfect, then people will rationalize away anything which contradicts it. They will ignore other information because it doesn't fit with their idea that the bible is perfect. Therefore, it's the other stuff which is imperfect... because it contradicts their perfect bible.

Ah, I see- I'd never thought people might be like that before, even though it seems quite obvious now. How does one go about showing these types of people the actual proof that may contradict parts of the bible then? Or is it absolutely pointless debating with these people?

as jollybear's attitude throughout this thread has shown, there's no way getting through to someone who has his or her beliefs so deeply rooted in confirmation bias

Originally Posted by marnixR

there's no way getting through to someone who has his or her beliefs so deeply rooted in confirmation bias

Could I ever convince you otherwise?

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

How does one go about showing these types of people the actual proof that may contradict parts of the bible then? Or is it absolutely pointless debating with these people?

It's often useless, as others have commented, but by being persistent and steadfast you will get through to some. You will also get through to many who may be reading as guests or passive observers.

Your question reminded me of a post I read a few weeks ago here: The Atheist Experience™: You can't reason a person out of a position...

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

This is easy. Believe the Bible is the word of God, that it is literal and that it is inerrant. Therefore any contrary evidence is due to misinterpretation, falsification or lying.

Please, explain further. That statement didn't seem to flow very well to me and makes little sense.

A fundamentalist creationist believes absolutely that Bible is God's word; that it is the absolute truth; that it contains no errors. If observations of the universe seem to contradict it then those observations are either mistakes, or deliberate lies.

I seem to have said much the same thing, so I am at a loss as to what is not clear.

[QUOTE=x(x-y);274947]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Prove that these events happened.

Earth's Formation- Self-explanatory, the Earth is here and we exist.

Moon Formation- See above.

Origin of Life- Again, we are here- are we not?
etc..

The creationist will reject these proofs. The proofs are obviously false because they contradict the Bible and the Bible is inerrant.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

[

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The majority of believers in evolution are just that ....believers. Their belief is based upon what they have been told and they are just as dogmatic in their beliefs as any creationist. I don't believe in evolution. I accept evolution as the most plausible explanation for a variety of observations. There is a world of difference.

I never once said that I 'believe in evolution'- I accept it, as do you; besides the word belief in science has a very different context to the word belief in religion, that is what I was implying it to.

You are in a minority.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I don't believe in evolution. I accept evolution as the most plausible explanation for a variety of observations. There is a world of difference.

I never once said that I 'believe in evolution'- I accept it, as do you; besides the word belief in science has a very different context to the word belief in religion, that is what I was implying it to.

Ophiolite:

I see what you are saying now, thank you- your first statement just didn't seem to explain it as well, sorry. And, well, there's really not a lot I can do about creationists who believe the bible is inerrant and that evem raw data or observations going against it are wrong- it's just a lost cause trying to debate with someone like that.

inow:

Hehe, I like that.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

there's really not a lot I can do about creationists who believe the bible is inerrant and that evem raw data or observations going against it are wrong

I enjoy making them disagree with themselves. They won't realise, or won't admit to realising, that they're doing it - but I find it hilarious

Wait! When did this get unstickied and why??

One thing that I would like to point out is that creationist believe that the earth, its atmoshere and everything else has changed so dramatically that radio-isotope dating is unreliable. I have heard them quote that the "water came from above and below", and the theory goes that the earth may have had an outer protective layer of liquid/ice, this is why people lived so long.

I am of the theory that both creationist and evolutionist ignore many of the facts. Neither theory as it is stated holds water. Evolution seems to ignore the fundemental laws of thermodynamics as well as mathematics, and creationists ignore the facts as set forth by Charles Darwin and expanded on since then.

Somebody needs to quit relying on the supositions and put together a real theory that does not ignore the realities that we all know to be true and quit rationalizing that which they do not want to believe.

*Links Removed - KALSTER*

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

Originally Posted by phonecover

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

Why, when they do settle out, would they do so in such a way as to duplicate the structure and content of sediments we see forming today in a wide variety of environments? Lake sediments, for example, have a characteristic form in terms of lithology, mineral compostion, shape and size of particle, sorting, cementation, etc. The same is true of many other environments. How could these possibly be duplicated by sediments settling out of 'flood waters'?

Answers in Genisis is not a credible source