Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82518 Mar 24, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You're underthinking again.

If those results were accurate and repeatable, they'd be accepted as the norm.

They're not, so...

That's how it works, see? See?
Who's in charge of throwing out incorrect dating data?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82519 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I'm not a clone.
But if you didn't have mutations in your DNA you would be a clone.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82521 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>But if you didn't have mutations in your DNA you would be a clone.
So everything is a mutation of it's mother source of DNA? LOL

Ok. Next.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82522 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Bible, Tons and Tons of evidence.
Pop goes the tick.
Nope, all you have is the Bible, and you don't even follow that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82523 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle”(חוגchuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”
“The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it:‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing’(Job 26:7).”(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)]
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.[JSM]
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.[JSM]"
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c0...
Nope, not good enough. If a word can have two meanings then you need to show that by context it means what you want it to.

By context all of the verses in the Bible are of a flat Earth.

Plus the Hebrews were not known as seafarers. They were local fisherman at best. Their is no evidence of the discovering that the world is round.

I asked for a verse that clearly describes a spherical Earth, not apologetics. Apologetics are used when the facts of the world don't match up with the Bible. In other words they are attempts to weasel out of a space Christians don't want to be in.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82524 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So everything is a mutation of it's mother source of DNA? LOL
Ok. Next.
Reading fail. Try again.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82525 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So everything is a mutation of it's mother source of DNA? LOL
Ok. Next.
How else do you explain the differences?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82526 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So then all lava flows cannot be dated.
Dust thrown up by eruption cannot be dated because it was lava from a volcano lave dome. In fact all rock on earth was molten as the earth formed so it can't be dated either. Dust from space can't be dated because it came from a molten star.
No rocks can then be dated.
Wrong. Some rocks cannot be dated. They are the exception rather than the norm. Finding out why the dating failed allows us to not make the same mistake again.

Are you saying that if I find one error in the Bible the whole Bible is worthless? Hmm, you might have a point in that case.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82527 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Some rocks cannot be dated. They are the exception rather than the norm. Finding out why the dating failed allows us to not make the same mistake again.
Are you saying that if I find one error in the Bible the whole Bible is worthless? Hmm, you might have a point in that case.
Well, dating rocks has never claimed to be infallible. the bible on the other hand...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82528 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So then all lava flows cannot be dated.
Dust thrown up by eruption cannot be dated because it was lava from a volcano lave dome. In fact all rock on earth was molten as the earth formed so it can't be dated either. Dust from space can't be dated because it came from a molten star.
No rocks can then be dated.
this is what happens when you try to talk about subjects you do not understand...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82529 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So then all lava flows cannot be dated.
Dust thrown up by eruption cannot be dated because it was lava from a volcano lave dome. In fact all rock on earth was molten as the earth formed so it can't be dated either. Dust from space can't be dated because it came from a molten star.
No rocks can then be dated.
*sigh*

No, ya halfwit.

Of course it can be dated.

And, of course, creationist nutters like your Steve Austin (is that REALLY his name?) can mismeasure and misinterpret and force-to-fit all they want.

The point remains - if they were doing it right, it'd be the accepted norm, and they'd be in the forefront of geological research.
Instead of out on the loonie fringe.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82530 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, not good enough. If a word can have two meanings then you need to show that by context it means what you want it to.

By context all of the verses in the Bible are of a flat Earth.

Plus the Hebrews were not known as seafarers. They were local fisherman at best. Their is no evidence of the discovering that the world is round.

I asked for a verse that clearly describes a spherical Earth, not apologetics. Apologetics are used when the facts of the world don't match up with the Bible. In other words they are attempts to weasel out of a space Christians don't want to be in.
"I asked for a verse that clearly describes a spherical Earth"

Why? Would it really matter to you?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82531 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Reading fail. Try again.
Nope, sorry I won't go down your loony tune road.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82532 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>How else do you explain the differences?
You need to learn about genes and DNA.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82533 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. Some rocks cannot be dated. They are the exception rather than the norm. Finding out why the dating failed allows us to not make the same mistake again.

Are you saying that if I find one error in the Bible the whole Bible is worthless? Hmm, you might have a point in that case.
Just going off an atheist rules for rock dating.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82534 Mar 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>this is what happens when you try to talk about subjects you do not understand...
who="macumazahn" quoted text>Oboy.

You think solidified magma is somehow "new"?

Here, just for exercise: ever wonder how old the friggin' magma was before it surfaced?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82535 Mar 24, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*

No, ya halfwit.

Of course it can be dated.

And, of course, creationist nutters like your Steve Austin (is that REALLY his name?) can mismeasure and misinterpret and force-to-fit all they want.

The point remains - if they were doing it right, it'd be the accepted norm, and they'd be in the forefront of geological research.
Instead of out on the loonie fringe.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oboy.

You think solidified magma is somehow "new"?

Here, just for exercise: ever wonder how old the friggin' magma was before it surfaced?
Why this then?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82536 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Just going off an atheist rules for rock dating.
Again, the science of dating racks never claimed to be infallible while your bible clearly did...in fact , the entire [premise is that the god that inpired and divinely guided the bible was infallible...

seems to be myth...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82537 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"I asked for a verse that clearly describes a spherical Earth"
Why? Would it really matter to you?
You were the one that jumped into a conversation. If you run away I don't really care.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82538 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think a bunch of Christians ran in and took over these
Labs and did the testing themselves?
These test were done by Scientist the same people that test dating and use these machines everyday. It's just that it take some groups to stand up and hold science to a level of reliability so fools like
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1...

Creationist Claim CD013.1:

The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.

Response:

1. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.

2. Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.

Links:

Henke, Kevin R. n.d. Young-earth creationist 'dating' of a Mt. St. Helens dacite: The failure of Austin and Swenson to recognize obviously ancient minerals. http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 56 min TurkanaBoy 494
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 1 hr Brian_G 13,616
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 2 hr Zach 4
How would creationists explain... 3 hr TurkanaBoy 314
Science News (Sep '13) 8 hr positronium 2,943
Genetic entropy 23 hr Discord 159
What you should know about Tuesday's vote on ev... (Feb '08) Wed IAMIOOWAN 516
More from around the web