Home
EDIT: nvmmae2937 wrote:and how does that disprove God?
Last edited by AudienceOfOne on Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
+22
BagoXC25
May As Well Run
Adonai
NotChangingUntilSub5
hxc
funrunner
*sg*
Just Because
thelagwagon
Push Towards State
Running With Scissors
TnF_T
Trackaholic
mae2937
Pinthin
alex-likes-running
T B K
runner_dude
BA_Sadie.
FinishingKick
AudienceOfOne
Phuckduck
26 posters
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
AudienceOfOne- Admin
- Number of posts : 5377
Age : 32
Location : Nati fo eva
Class : 2011
3200m Time : 10:17
Registration date : 2008-05-24
Last edited by AudienceOfOne on Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
AudienceOfOne- Admin
- Number of posts : 5377
Age : 32
Location : Nati fo eva
Class : 2011
3200m Time : 10:17
Registration date : 2008-05-24
SourWorms wrote:BagoXC25 wrote:Here's one that is directly related to creation.
On a primitive island, there are people who have never seen any kind of technology. But one day they find a clock and wonder about it, such as how it works, how it got there, etc.
Now next to the clock they found two notes. The first note explains all about who made the clock, how the clock was made, how all of the inner workings fit together, all that nice stuff.
The second note from another writer says that because the clock is impossible to recreate exactly the way it is, it had to have just popped out of nowhere. Just created itself out of nothing with no initial cause.
Now if you were one of these primitive people, which note would you believe?
that disproves god. they would believe the first one. believing in god assumes that he was able to create everything out of nothing.
no, we don't believe the universe popped out of nothing, we believe God created it.
Phuckduck- All-Pro
- Number of posts : 681
Registration date : 2008-07-06
AudienceOfOne wrote:SourWorms wrote:BagoXC25 wrote:Here's one that is directly related to creation.
On a primitive island, there are people who have never seen any kind of technology. But one day they find a clock and wonder about it, such as how it works, how it got there, etc.
Now next to the clock they found two notes. The first note explains all about who made the clock, how the clock was made, how all of the inner workings fit together, all that nice stuff.
The second note from another writer says that because the clock is impossible to recreate exactly the way it is, it had to have just popped out of nowhere. Just created itself out of nothing with no initial cause.
Now if you were one of these primitive people, which note would you believe?
that disproves god. they would believe the first one. believing in god assumes that he was able to create everything out of nothing.
no, we don't believe the universe popped out of nothing, we believe God created it.
But you believe God created it out of nothing
FinishingKick- Admin
- Number of posts : 4773
Age : 31
Location : New York
Mile Time : 4:52
Class : Sophomore
800m Time : 2:10
5000m XC Time : 17:29
1000m Time : 2:50
Registration date : 2008-05-22
No, the first one is God, the note represents the Bible. The second one is similar to science and the Big Bang Theory, the only thing left out is science on the island.SourWorms wrote:AudienceOfOne wrote:SourWorms wrote:BagoXC25 wrote:Here's one that is directly related to creation.
On a primitive island, there are people who have never seen any kind of technology. But one day they find a clock and wonder about it, such as how it works, how it got there, etc.
Now next to the clock they found two notes. The first note explains all about who made the clock, how the clock was made, how all of the inner workings fit together, all that nice stuff.
The second note from another writer says that because the clock is impossible to recreate exactly the way it is, it had to have just popped out of nowhere. Just created itself out of nothing with no initial cause.
Now if you were one of these primitive people, which note would you believe?
that disproves god. they would believe the first one. believing in god assumes that he was able to create everything out of nothing.
no, we don't believe the universe popped out of nothing, we believe God created it.
But you believe God created it out of nothing
Pinthin- Elite
- Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23
BagoXC25 wrote:Here's one that is directly related to creation.
On a primitive island, there are people who have never seen any kind of technology. But one day they find a clock and wonder about it, such as how it works, how it got there, etc.
Now next to the clock they found two notes. The first note explains all about who made the clock, how the clock was made, how all of the inner workings fit together, all that nice stuff.
The second note from another writer says that because the clock is impossible to recreate exactly the way it is, it had to have just popped out of nowhere. Just created itself out of nothing with no initial cause.
Now if you were one of these primitive people, which note would you believe?
But see, those people aren't civilized (if they don’t know anything about, well anything. I'm guessing you mean almost like cavemen??) Of course they would believe the second one because you’re lying to them saying its impossible to recreate, and that only someone with special powers can make it.
IF you think about it, way back in Jesus times do you think people were really all that smart?? Mmm not really. Today we are able to open our minds, use technology to prove things. And I'm not calling you uncivilized so don't feel like I am.lol
Pinthin- Elite
- Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23
^^ oh wow, I just read that.. not sure if I really got my point across or made an ounce of sense.. sorry lol
mae2937- Elite
- Number of posts : 1125
Location : alabama
Registration date : 2008-06-04
it made sense to me about what your saying....we do have more knowledge than we did 2000 years ago but i still believe that the people who were following Jesus and the people who still are today really have a reason to...
Pinthin- Elite
- Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23
mae2937 wrote:it made sense to me about what your saying....we do have more knowledge than we did 2000 years ago but i still believe that the people who were following Jesus and the people who still are today really have a reason to...
I know, but I dont think the primitive people example was all that great.
Phuckduck- All-Pro
- Number of posts : 681
Registration date : 2008-07-06
Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.
thelagwagon- Pro
- Number of posts : 346
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-06-19
Pinthin wrote:But see, those people aren't civilized (if they don’t know anything about, well anything. I'm guessing you mean almost like cavemen??) Of course they would believe the second one because you’re lying to them saying its impossible to recreate, and that only someone with special powers can make it.
IF you think about it, way back in Jesus times do you think people were really all that smart?? Mmm not really. Today we are able to open our minds, use technology to prove things. And I'm not calling you uncivilized so don't feel like I am.lol
I thought the same! I thought that 'riddle' thing was trying to explain how religion came about. The primitives would think that something that impossibly complex can't be made by man, because it would seem like magic. So, they would think that it is the product of magic, like real primitive humans would think that the world was so magical that it had to be created by supernatural beings.
Strange how everyone shows thier bias (yes me included) when interpreting that
BagoXC25- Pro
- Number of posts : 364
Age : 34
Location : Winnebago
Registration date : 2008-06-03
SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.
I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.
I think some of you are a tad bit confused also. Whoever said that the first one disproves God didn't get the point. Science says the universe amounted from nothing. God says He made it. Therefore the maker of the clock = God.
thelagwagon- Pro
- Number of posts : 346
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-06-19
BagoXC25 wrote:I think some of you are a tad bit confused also. Whoever said that the first one disproves God didn't get the point. Science says the universe amounted from nothing. God says He made it. Therefore the maker of the clock = God.
I think what the 'confused' people mean, is that, if you were to picture god making the clock, would he smelt the raw materials, shape them, and assemble them in order, or would he just say 'go gadget' and bust out a clock from nowhere?
BagoXC25- Pro
- Number of posts : 364
Age : 34
Location : Winnebago
Registration date : 2008-06-03
He would make it (smelt,assemble, whatever), and say "it is good" lol. Thanks for clarifying the confusion lagwagon.
Adonai- Pro
- Number of posts : 263
Registration date : 2008-07-10
How is the prospect that the universe has always existed any more improbable than god's infinite existence?
Pinthin- Elite
- Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23
BagoXC25 wrote:SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.
I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.
hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[
Pinthin- Elite
- Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23
^ sorry that was a little offtopic
AudienceOfOne- Admin
- Number of posts : 5377
Age : 32
Location : Nati fo eva
Class : 2011
3200m Time : 10:17
Registration date : 2008-05-24
i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.Pinthin wrote:BagoXC25 wrote:SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.
I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.
hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[
Pinthin- Elite
- Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23
AudienceOfOne wrote:i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.Pinthin wrote:BagoXC25 wrote:SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.
I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.
hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[
or so you say
If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.
Trackaholic- Pro
- Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23
Tracko, give me a dating method grounded in science that points to a young earth and then I will entertain your thoughts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are some facts that refute the possibility of an old earth:
1) Carbon 14 has not come to balance in the atmosphere indicating a young not old atmosphere. The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years.
2) The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
3) Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
4) Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.
Recall that the best and most likely way for a fossil to be produced is by the rapid burial of a creature at the time of its death. A worldwide flood, then, would be a good explanation of how most of the fossils around the globe could have been produced. Millions of living creatures all over the earth would have naturally been quickly killed, buried, and fossilized in such a great cataclysm.
Thus, if the biblical account of a global flood and its aftermath is true, one would not only expect to find sedimentary layers (rocks laid down by water) all over the earth, but one would also expect these rocks to contain the fossil remains of many kinds of creatures. Where there are similar types of creatures alive today, these fossils would be basically the same as their living representatives — for example, bats would still look like bats, and turtles like turtles.
Indeed, these predictions are observed to be fulfilled. Today most of the earth’s surface (80 to 90 percent) is in fact composed of sedimentary rock, consistent with the expected results of a biblical global flood. And many fossils highly resemble today’s creatures — that is, fossil bats look like today’s bats, and fossil turtles like today’s turtles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And actually science can explain everything that was once attributed to God. There are well accepted theories that are backed up by pure fact that explain what God supposedly did. The only thing that I will give you that could possibly be attributed to a deity is human conciousness. No scientist at this point can determine how and why some animals are concious of being and some just rely on pure instinct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not deny that there were simple scientific phenomena that was attributed to God. However, once the science behind these phenomena was discovered, it did contradict God anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, how can you believe that radiometric dating is not credible, do you think you are the first person to address those points? What you have brought up has been corrected and addressed by scientists and I doubt anybody on this forum is as smart as one of them. The daughter isotope is nonexistant of nearly nonexistant at the time the rock formed. the isotopes that are studied are expelled in the molten stage of rock before they are cooled. Therefore extremely little to none of the daughter isotope is present in the rock at the time of cooling. Therefore one can study the half life with relatively amazing accuracy, being off by only a million years or so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve already brought up solid reasons why radiometric dating is not credible. The only rebuttal’s to them so far have consisted of two actual legit arguments, but with a majority of whiny complaining of my audacity to challenge radiometric dating. Howevere, I will try once again for the hundredth time:
Why Radiometric Dating is faulty:
The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?
Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:
1.When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2.After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwater’s; and
3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates’ are false.
Real Life Example of faulty Radio Metric Dating Results:
Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996—two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow7 (Figure 6). The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-colored older portions of the cone (Figures 4 and 7). All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged surfaces (Figure
.
The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating—first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow.7 To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.
Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.
The ‘ages’ range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. (Basically, None of the results showed that the rocks were younger than 50 years, which was their true age range)
Example Results:
(Date of Test=1996)
Sample: A
Lab Code: R-11714
Flow Date/Age: 11th February 1949
K-Ar “Age” (radiometric dating) results= 0.27 million years
Actual age= 47 Years
Two words. Epic Fail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol and this is where tracko got his argument word for word: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
not biased at all right? Written by a creationist scientist who only looks to disprove all accepted science. If science and the bible go hand-in-hand, how come you refuse to believe the most basic scientific concepts. i.e. evolution and the big bang
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Lol”…Of course that is where I got my argument. And yes, it is written by a creationist scientist. Enlighten me, why would an evolutionist write an article like that? Are we to discredit all sources that originate from people of the same belief? Am I only allowed to find sources that support my belief from evolutionists? How does that make sense? I can claim your evolutionists are as biased as you claim my creationist is!
If you want to play silly games like that, then all your future sources, references, arguments, and articles must come from a creationist source. That way it is not “Biased” towards Darwinism. Doesn’t exactly work out that way does it?
Also, your “basic scientific concepts” are mere theories with no substantial proof whatsoever. All your evidence (E;g Lucy) is faked.
I also would like to mention I have not ruled out the big bang as a plausible theory for explaining the creation of the world. In fact, I believe god may have created the big bang. Unlike evolution, there IS substantial evidence and proof the big bang happened. However, this evidence could be interpreted a number of ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[size=9]
(END FIRST REPLY)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are some facts that refute the possibility of an old earth:
1) Carbon 14 has not come to balance in the atmosphere indicating a young not old atmosphere. The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years.
2) The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
3) Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
4) Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.
Recall that the best and most likely way for a fossil to be produced is by the rapid burial of a creature at the time of its death. A worldwide flood, then, would be a good explanation of how most of the fossils around the globe could have been produced. Millions of living creatures all over the earth would have naturally been quickly killed, buried, and fossilized in such a great cataclysm.
Thus, if the biblical account of a global flood and its aftermath is true, one would not only expect to find sedimentary layers (rocks laid down by water) all over the earth, but one would also expect these rocks to contain the fossil remains of many kinds of creatures. Where there are similar types of creatures alive today, these fossils would be basically the same as their living representatives — for example, bats would still look like bats, and turtles like turtles.
Indeed, these predictions are observed to be fulfilled. Today most of the earth’s surface (80 to 90 percent) is in fact composed of sedimentary rock, consistent with the expected results of a biblical global flood. And many fossils highly resemble today’s creatures — that is, fossil bats look like today’s bats, and fossil turtles like today’s turtles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And actually science can explain everything that was once attributed to God. There are well accepted theories that are backed up by pure fact that explain what God supposedly did. The only thing that I will give you that could possibly be attributed to a deity is human conciousness. No scientist at this point can determine how and why some animals are concious of being and some just rely on pure instinct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not deny that there were simple scientific phenomena that was attributed to God. However, once the science behind these phenomena was discovered, it did contradict God anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, how can you believe that radiometric dating is not credible, do you think you are the first person to address those points? What you have brought up has been corrected and addressed by scientists and I doubt anybody on this forum is as smart as one of them. The daughter isotope is nonexistant of nearly nonexistant at the time the rock formed. the isotopes that are studied are expelled in the molten stage of rock before they are cooled. Therefore extremely little to none of the daughter isotope is present in the rock at the time of cooling. Therefore one can study the half life with relatively amazing accuracy, being off by only a million years or so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve already brought up solid reasons why radiometric dating is not credible. The only rebuttal’s to them so far have consisted of two actual legit arguments, but with a majority of whiny complaining of my audacity to challenge radiometric dating. Howevere, I will try once again for the hundredth time:
Why Radiometric Dating is faulty:
The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?
Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:
1.When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2.After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwater’s; and
3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates’ are false.
Real Life Example of faulty Radio Metric Dating Results:
Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996—two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow7 (Figure 6). The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-colored older portions of the cone (Figures 4 and 7). All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged surfaces (Figure
.The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating—first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow.7 To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.
Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.
The ‘ages’ range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. (Basically, None of the results showed that the rocks were younger than 50 years, which was their true age range)
Example Results:
(Date of Test=1996)
Sample: A
Lab Code: R-11714
Flow Date/Age: 11th February 1949
K-Ar “Age” (radiometric dating) results= 0.27 million years
Actual age= 47 Years
Two words. Epic Fail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol and this is where tracko got his argument word for word: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
not biased at all right? Written by a creationist scientist who only looks to disprove all accepted science. If science and the bible go hand-in-hand, how come you refuse to believe the most basic scientific concepts. i.e. evolution and the big bang
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Lol”…Of course that is where I got my argument. And yes, it is written by a creationist scientist. Enlighten me, why would an evolutionist write an article like that? Are we to discredit all sources that originate from people of the same belief? Am I only allowed to find sources that support my belief from evolutionists? How does that make sense? I can claim your evolutionists are as biased as you claim my creationist is!
If you want to play silly games like that, then all your future sources, references, arguments, and articles must come from a creationist source. That way it is not “Biased” towards Darwinism. Doesn’t exactly work out that way does it?
Also, your “basic scientific concepts” are mere theories with no substantial proof whatsoever. All your evidence (E;g Lucy) is faked.
I also would like to mention I have not ruled out the big bang as a plausible theory for explaining the creation of the world. In fact, I believe god may have created the big bang. Unlike evolution, there IS substantial evidence and proof the big bang happened. However, this evidence could be interpreted a number of ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[size=9]
(END FIRST REPLY)
Last edited by Trackaholic on Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Trackaholic- Pro
- Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23
May As Well Run wrote:Trackaholic wrote:Before I begin I need to say THANKS for verifying my account.
Not yet we can not. But Christians use to say we couldn't disporve spontaniouse generation and look where we are now.
True. Though I doubt 100% of Christians believed spontaneous generation was true. So your stand is that scientists proved spontaneous generation has been disproved and is therefore not possible? Wonderful, we agree that the First Law of Thermodynamics ( being the Irrefutable, undisputable, and infallible fact that it is…) is true!
Not yet. Again, my faith in science is backed by countless examples do disproving your own disbeleif. Some day we will probably awnser all the question we still have.
I have faith in science to! How lovely that we have so much in common. However, saying “someday we will have an answer” is not an argument. Try again.
Actually, this is common knowledge, go look it up. The human mind is designed to aid us under stress. There are many mechanisms for this and religion is just one other.
Used to be common knowledge that spontaneous generation was how flies came into existence! However, I am not versed in Psychology, and will not pretend to be. So I will not debate you whether or not ‘religion’ is a product of the human mind. I will forfeit that debate to you. However, I don’t think I would be far from the truth if I said that there is no solid irrefutable evidence to support this, now is there?
Again, my backed faith in science concludes me to state that we will eventually awnser these questions. There very well may be a natural process out there creating matter and energy. We are not even .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of the universe. We have no clue what is going on billions of light years away at the edge of the expanding universe. If we are calling denial I call you're denial in your false god with the weight of the mechanisms of the human mind on your shoulder.
I thought you did not believe in spontaneous generation? Now you are saying it is a possibility?
No, the first Law of Thermodynamics is irrefutable, here, and five billion light years away. Science does not change the further one gets from earth.
The mechanisms of the human mind do not disprove god anyway. Suppose God implanted the urge to explain scientific phenomena and the unknown to god? Why would he not? For it is true. God created science, and so when people of biblical times saw fire and attributed it to god, they were right! Fire is gods handiwork, he created the science behind it. Also, God WANTS us to pursue him! He wants us to follow him and believe in him, it would make sense that he would implant something in our heads that made us do that very same thing!
Yes they have. You just recreate arguements by adding bullshit or another new curse word every time.
I do curse, and I apologize. I have faults like everyone else. Whenever someone botches up my argument, it frustrates me sometimes. Forgive me.
Anyway, NO. I do not “recreate arguments”. I restate arguments that have yet to be answered by you guys. You have a tendency to try and ward everyone off topic whenever you cannot come to an answer that does not rely on pure theory.
I'm taking AP bio. You're clueless to think that genes do not effect how we act. Infact, about 90% of an organism behavoir is based on their genes., the other 10% based on environment.
I like how you ignored my rant about the whole "Athiests being associated with evil" stereotype.
Good for you, but from what I can recall from my morning Bio class, the realm of genetics is still widely speculated. We don’t know everything about genetics yet (In fact we know very little), and whether emotions and behavior is determined by genetics is mostly speculation with a “sprinkling” of confirmed facts. We have made leaps and bounds in the field of genetics though, and eventually one day we will know everything there is too know about the subject.
Council of Rome, the Nicean Council. They were all occurences of men getting together and decided what the religion was going to be. Just like when JK Rowling sat down and wrote out Harry Potter, she decided what the story was going to be. Your god is a fairy tale.
Ha! I knew the Da Vinci Code could not stay out of this debate for long, I am glad it finally has been subtlety brought up, it’s always good for a few laughs.
In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless." (lol)
In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed this truth. To take one example, the canon of prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took its cue from 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."
Emperor Constantine's Nicene council is usually pointed to as the source for the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the Trinity was present in the church long before Constantine.
The Christians took over this usage of kyrios and applied it to Jesus, from the earliest days of the church. They did so not only in Scripture itself, but in the earliest extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book, the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Lord.
The Council of Nicea was meant to end the controversy over Arius's teachings, NOT to “write a fairy tale”.
btw typing like this and using words like bullshit wont make me take you seriouse. if you want me to be seriouse with you atleast TRY to use proper grammar. it nots cool to look illiterate.
I hope you are joking, I really do. To this point you have used spelling that would make an English teacher have a heart attack, and you have the audacity to correct my grammar mistakes? Get real.
SourWorms wrote:AudienceOfOne wrote:SourWorms wrote:BagoXC25 wrote:Here's one that is directly related to creation.
On a primitive island, there are people who have never seen any kind of technology. But one day they find a clock and wonder about it, such as how it works, how it got there, etc.
Now next to the clock they found two notes. The first note explains all about who made the clock, how the clock was made, how all of the inner workings fit together, all that nice stuff.
The second note from another writer says that because the clock is impossible to recreate exactly the way it is, it had to have just popped out of nowhere. Just created itself out of nothing with no initial cause.
Now if you were one of these primitive people, which note would you believe?
that disproves god. they would believe the first one. believing in god assumes that he was able to create everything out of nothing.
no, we don't believe the universe popped out of nothing, we believe God created it.
But you believe God created it out of nothing
Correct, God did create the universe out of nothing. Seeing as it is only possible for God to go above the First Law of Thermodynamics.
(END SECOND REPLY)
References:
Williams, K., Volcanoes of the South Wind: A Field Guide to the Volcanoes and Landscape of the Tongariro National Park, Tongariro Natural History Society, Turangi, New Zealand, 1994. Return to text. Nairn, I.A. and Wood, C.P., Active Volcanoes and Geothermal Systems, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand Geological Survey Record 22:5–84, 1987. Return to text. Gregg, D.R., The Geology of the Tongariro Subdivision, New Zealand Geological Survey Bulletin n.s.40, 1960. Return to text. Nairn, IA and Self, S., Explosive eruptions and pyroclastic avalanches from Ngauruhoe in February 1975, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 3:39–60, 1978. Return to text. This is true for K–Ar dating, one of the most common methods, and the one discussed here. The so-called ‘isochron’ technique for dealing with the chemical analyses of the rocks being ‘dated’ attempts to bypass this assumption. A discussion of isochron ‘dating’, along with the associated problems of false (pseudo) isochrons, is outside the scope of this paper, but see Austin, S.A. (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, pp. 111–131, 1994. Return to text. Dalrymple, G.B., The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, p. 91, 1991. Return to text. Snelling, A.A., The cause of anomalous potassium-argon ‘ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the implications for potassium-argon ‘dating’, In: Walsh, R.E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 503–525, 1998. Return to text. Snelling, AA, Excess argon’: the ‘Archilles’ heel’ of potassium-argon and argon-argon ‘dating’ of volcanic rocks, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, Impact #307, 1999. Return to text. Snelling, AA, Potassium-argon and argon-argon dating of crustal rocks and the problem of excess argon, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, Impact #309, 1999.Return to text.
Last edited by Trackaholic on Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Trackaholic- Pro
- Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23
Adonai wrote:How is the prospect that the universe has always existed any more improbable than god's infinite existence?
The Universe did not always exist.
Because the "smoke" from the "Big Bang" is still drifting throughout the universe. And this smoke shows that there was a beginning.
This "smoke" is in the form of microwave radiation, and scientists have measured its lingering presence from a Big Bang, it seems the universe mysteriously exploded into existence. This smoke is known as the background radiation of the universe, and it was measured in 1965 by two scientists who, ten years later, received the Nobel Prize for their work. Thus, the older idea of an eternally existing world is now known to have a problem. These measurements of what scientists call the background radiation that fills the universe tell us that the world is not eternal, but that it actually had a beginning.
The measured values of the radiation also agree with the predictions of certain theoretical models. These models can be thought of as mathematical pictures that describe how the world unfolded after it came into being. For example, the universe is 25 percent helium –4, the exact number predicted by the Big Bang Theory. The mathematical models can be cross-checked because they also make precise predictions about the behavior of atomic particles. Measurements from the field of science called particle physics have confirmed many of these predictions. For example, experiments have been designed in particle physics that measure the neutron-decay half life; and astrophysical models of the universe have used this number to predict abundances of helium –3, deuterium, and lithium –7. The measured numbers are found to agree with the predicted values.
Today, virtually every scientist working in the fields of cosmology or particle physics is convinced that the world had a beginning.
Trackaholic- Pro
- Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23
And just in case you did not know, I believe god created the big bang.
Trackaholic- Pro
- Number of posts : 422
Age : 33
Registration date : 2008-05-23
Pinthin wrote:AudienceOfOne wrote:i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.Pinthin wrote:BagoXC25 wrote:SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.
I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.
hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[
or so you say
If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.
Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.
BagoXC25- Pro
- Number of posts : 364
Age : 34
Location : Winnebago
Registration date : 2008-06-03
Agreed^^^
I'm sorry, but I couldn't bring myself to read any of that due to the longevity of it : (. But I'm sure it was interresting lol.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't bring myself to read any of that due to the longevity of it : (. But I'm sure it was interresting lol.
Pinthin- Elite
- Number of posts : 2888
Age : 32
Location : down by the bay, washington
Mile Time : none
Class : 2010
Registration date : 2008-05-23
Trackaholic wrote:Pinthin wrote:AudienceOfOne wrote:i follow Jesus because that's my choice, not my parents.Pinthin wrote:BagoXC25 wrote:SourWorms wrote:Yeah it was a terrible example. It just proves primitive people are stupid and attribute anything that confuses them to an imaginary friend in the sky.
I'm sorry you misunderstood it, but I only use primitive people because modern people know how clocks are made... Modern people in this scenario would represent angels who have witnessed Gods grace themselves.
hmm that’s kinda what I Mean how we are more civilized and smarter now, opposed to back in Jesus times. Then the fan base just grew and it became like a family tradition, and you were taught from birth that the man in the sky is all and mighty. My parents did that too, how did I become (OMG NOT ATHIEST) but agnostic?? I guess I'm not very spongy =[
or so you say
If your parents taught you to be a muslim from birth, you were raised in a muslim household, you dont think you would be muslim? You say no, but its most likely you would be muslim.
Pre-suppositions are no grounds for denying the legitimacy of a person's belief.
I wasn't denying the legitimacy of his beliefs.
How could you not agree with that though?? I'll admit it, if my parents were more strict Christians, made me go to church. Blah blah blah I would be just like you tracko. But they didn't really push it on me, like they told me about it and I even read the bible out of curiosity once, but I thought it was a little far-fetched so I stopped.
I'll wager about 99% of kids raised in a household that religiously practices religion (ha) would more then likely practice that religion.