tonyh29 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Hitler youth Godwins law in a thread about Noah FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 The evidence used getting 65 million years ago for dinosaurs would be inadmissible in a court...The readings are based on guesswork.. I'm no geologist but i understood some strain (?? or whatever you call it) of Uranium decays at a constant rate and is present in certain types of rock ... As it has a half life of hundreds of millions of years and the uranium decays at a constant rate by examining the ratios of the radioactive element beneath the fossil and the rock above the fossil you get your age of the dinosaur ? I've also heard mention of using the earth magnetic field ..something about different traces in a rock depending on age ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Hitler youth Godwins law in a thread about Noah FTW Indeed, I bring up Hitler youth as my first post in Religous threads, it's both a good analogy and Godwins law should try end the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Google radiometric flaws, or inaccuracies..Or even the accuracies of it and then research it...You can form your own opinion. Anyone can google anything. What I want to know is what you know about it. You've posted a lot on this thread that you've clearly lifted from other websites, and you seemed to have ignored my previous challenge to debate based on evidence and evidence alone. So I'm giving you an opportunity now, you have the chance to teach us what you know about a scientific topic, to give us real reasons to take you seriously. So, explain radiometric dating to me. How does it work? What are the principles? What are the flaws? What is the evidence against its accuracy? Alternatively, you could admit that you don't really know much about it and are simply making statements based on your religious beliefs. So, which is it? John, I would be copy and pasting from other web sites to explain it, how it works and whats its flaws are. So its far easier, like I have for you to do that research yourself.. If you truly understand something you have no need to copy and paste from anywhere, you should be able to explain it clearly and concisely from your own knowledge alone. You have made several claims about radiometric dating, huge claims that the scientific world is obviously ignorant to, and you've yet to prove to anyone that you have the first clue what you're talking about. The truth is that I understand radiometric dating quite well, and could easily explain what I know to you without referencing outside material, though I could provide references if you'd like. It's not me, however, that is making huge claims against the fundamental laws of physics, it's you that's doing that. So come on, stop stalling and enlighten us. I'm a very intelligent man, I'll be able to keep up with your clearly advanced understanding of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 6, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2011 Google radiometric flaws, or inaccuracies..Or even the accuracies of it and then research it...You can form your own opinion. No really please tell us the flaws, there's nothing funny on the TV right now anyway, I'm up for a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 6, 2011 Author Share Posted November 6, 2011 The evidence used getting 65 million years ago for dinosaurs would be inadmissible in a court...The readings are based on guesswork.. I'm no geologist but i understood some strain (?? or whatever you call it) of Uranium decays at a constant rate and is present in certain types of rock ... As it has a half life of hundreds of millions of years and the uranium decays at a constant rate by examining the ratios of the radioactive element beneath the fossil and the rock above the fossil you get your age of the dinosaur ? I've also heard mention of using the earth magnetic field ..something about different traces in a rock depending on age ?? Not even going into this too much...But if your dog buries a bone in the back garden..Is the bone older that the stones and earth he puts on top of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (...)But since sin is in the world and it has an effect on people we get sick, grow old, and die...Noah would have been so close to the original genetic line of Adam and Eve, that his health was exceedingly great and so could live this long. (...) It might be possible that God shortened the lifespan of man because of man's great wickedness But why has life expectancy for humans increased so drastically? This thread is hilarious, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 The evidence used getting 65 million years ago for dinosaurs would be inadmissible in a court...The readings are based on guesswork.. I'm no geologist but i understood some strain (?? or whatever you call it) of Uranium decays at a constant rate and is present in certain types of rock ... As it has a half life of hundreds of millions of years and the uranium decays at a constant rate by examining the ratios of the radioactive element beneath the fossil and the rock above the fossil you get your age of the dinosaur ? I've also heard mention of using the earth magnetic field ..something about different traces in a rock depending on age ?? Not even going into this too much...But if your dog buries a bone in the back garden..Is the bone older that the stones and earth he puts on top of it? So you don't understand it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 6, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2011 Heres my 1st link then...This guy has a Ph.D in geology..He has studied and investigated rock forms, life etc...Yet he finds more substance in the bible story of Noah's Ark than the evolution side. http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling Or one from Harvard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise Which one is the real Andrew Snelling? This Kurt Wise? The one that seemingly rejects science because it disagrees with his interpretation of christianity on the grounds that it is either one or the other and his religion wins over any and all scientific approaches Any actual credible scientists you'd care to name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Bit late Bickster! We've moved on, he's currently explaining to me his theoretical model of radiometric dating and radiative decay, so far I've learnt that dogs bury bones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 6, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2011 Bit late Bickster! We've moved on, he's currently explaining to me his theoretical model of radiometric dating and radiative decay, so far I've learnt that dogs bury bones. Sorry I'm playing catch up but no-one seemed to have challenged that post and it's incredible scientists But dog's burying bones is hilarious, especially in an oxygen free environment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 6, 2011 Author Share Posted November 6, 2011 The evidence used getting 65 million years ago for dinosaurs would be inadmissible in a court...The readings are based on guesswork.. I'm no geologist but i understood some strain (?? or whatever you call it) of Uranium decays at a constant rate and is present in certain types of rock ... As it has a half life of hundreds of millions of years and the uranium decays at a constant rate by examining the ratios of the radioactive element beneath the fossil and the rock above the fossil you get your age of the dinosaur ? I've also heard mention of using the earth magnetic field ..something about different traces in a rock depending on age ?? Not even going into this too much...But if your dog buries a bone in the back garden..Is the bone older that the stones and earth he puts on top of it? So you don't understand it then? Yes, its based on guesswork...Unless the initial ratio of parent to daughter isotope is known, the current ratio would be worthless as a means of determining elapsed time. A rock cannot be said to be millions or billions of years old if there is no way of knowing what the original composition of the rock was at the time that it was formed.. Who is to say when the "zero date" was when there was only parent isotope and no daughter? Because of this problem, it might be a significant error to simply assume that all original isotopes present in a given rock were parent isotopes. http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Not even going into this too much...But if your dog buries a bone in the back garden..Is the bone older that the stones and earth he puts on top of it? So your saying the dinosaur bones where buried by giant dogs some time in the past? Where is the evidence of these giant dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 6, 2011 Author Share Posted November 6, 2011 Heres my 1st link then...This guy has a Ph.D in geology..He has studied and investigated rock forms, life etc...Yet he finds more substance in the bible story of Noah's Ark than the evolution side. http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling Or one from Harvard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise Which one is the real Andrew Snelling? This Kurt Wise? The one that seemingly rejects science because it disagrees with his interpretation of christianity on the grounds that it is either one or the other and his religion wins over any and all scientific approaches Any actual credible scientists you'd care to name? Good Article on Kurt Wise..You could ask a lot of questions after reading that...Main one being, if he ever became so "sure" we came about through evolution why the carry on with creationism? And the brainwashing sh1t wouldnt work, he is too smart for that...If he had the evidence and believed it, he would say...But he dosnt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 6, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2011 That'll be an article by Sean DeVere Pitman who obtained his medical degree at Loma Linda University, a Seventh Day Adventist "University." In case you don't understand the relevance of that, it's not very scientific really is it, not only that but wtf is a "medical doctor" doing trying to write an article on radiometric dating for, it's not even remotely close to his field of "expertise." WOOF WOOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Seriously though, there was no such person as Noah and no Ark as the flood would have been the one in the Black Sea that happened thousands of years before the Jewish are reckoned to have become established as such. Just like every Judeo-Christian/Muslim religion is a load of bunkum as they only copied off the Babylonians before them who copied off the Sumerians throw in some Egyptian etc etc etc. Why won't people that claim to be christian acknowledge that if it wasn't for Constantine making Christianity the dominant religion in Roman Empire and all the history that has since past we wouldn't know about any of this. Oh wait, I know, I was a Catholic until 14. I remember the drill. My faith protects me from your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 6, 2011 Author Share Posted November 6, 2011 Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model. http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 steaknchips appears at 0:34 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAFVALRWDyk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 6, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2011 Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model. http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php How many **** times do you need to be told that science states that radiocarbon dating is not effective for ages after the range 58,000 - 62,000 years and as such is never used to date fossils or anything over that age. Radiocarbon dating is primarily used for dating things that are scientifically considered to be archeology, it's half life of around 5,000 years dictates this. Uranium 238 dating is the method used most often because it's half life is much longer at about 1,000,00 years so any criticism of Carbon dating is HUGELY irrelevant. Krypton - Argon dating is also rarely used unless we are dating rocks of a volcanic nature and fossils in volcanic rock are rarer than hens teeth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 6, 2011 Author Share Posted November 6, 2011 http://x-evolutionist.com/the-fossil-record-evidence-of-the-world-wide-flood-of-the-bible/ http://www.icr.org/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts