Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#89262 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no science behind a methodology that cannot prove accuracy through calibration curves with known standards.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Irony meter go boom. You like to use big words but you don't even know what they mean. We know this because you use them incorrectly. Your BS is then rebutted and you then move to a different subject without addressing any of your previous mistakes. All the while the evidence for our side piles up as high as the evidence of your continuing dishonesty.

But at least Jesus would be proud.

Don't forget those Commandment things you're supposed to be worried about. Or do you just repent at the end?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89263 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you did not read Dr. Wiens' paper that I referenced.
He did not.

He could not if he tried.

He has long demonstrated his knowledge of science goes well into the negative numbers.
HTS

Williston, ND

#89264 May 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

Historical data is irrelevant. Other dating techniques can be used to compare, and *when used correctly* they ?
What "other dating techniques" have corroborated with C-14 dating?
HTS

Williston, ND

#89265 May 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Irony meter go boom. You like to use big words but you don't even know what they mean. We know this because you use them incorrectly. Your BS is then rebutted and you then move to a different subject without addressing any of your previous mistakes. All the while the evidence for our side piles up as high as the evidence of your continuing dishonesty.
But at least Jesus would be proud.
Don't forget those Commandment things you're supposed to be worried about. Or do you just repent at the end?
How about some actual scientific logic as opposed to your evo-babbling?
Why do you have to always bring up religion in the context of a "scientific" discussion?
HTS

Williston, ND

#89266 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you did not read Dr. Wiens' paper that I referenced. He addressed, and refuted ALL the points you got wrong above.
And Dr. Wiens is by no means the ONLY professional geologist that is confident of the results found by the various radiometric methods used.
So I guess I have to choose between the BOATLOADS of professional geologists and other scientists that discovered, and improved upon the different radiometric methods of dating (all methods that agree with each other, btw) or ONE patently biased, clearly uneducated individual on an anonymous debate blog (ummmm...that would be YOU).
Not a difficult decision.
Wiens did not document the accuracy of C-14 dating to 45,000 years, so why do you say that he did?
He did not prove what the level of C-14 was 45,000 years ago. He made assumptions.

I don't give a rip about what boatloads of intellectuals think.
If they can't prove the accuracy of a methodology through scientific testing, they have nothing.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89267 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What "other dating techniques" have corroborated with C-14 dating?
...there's this new, fresh and exciting product called "Google"!

Here's an example...

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research...
HTS

Williston, ND

#89269 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
...there's this new, fresh and exciting product called "Google"!
Here's an example...
http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research...
To summarize the article you posted, all of the C-14 calibration data was based on unprovable assumptions. Do you know what the standard is for measuring sedimentation rates over tens of thousands of years?
Most importantly, there is no justification for the assumption that the level of C-14 has been stable in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years, Given the fact that the earth's magnetic poles are decaying at known rates, it should be assumed that far less radiation would have been allowed into the earth's atmosphere anciently, which would have resulted in less production of C-14 thousands of years ago.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#89270 May 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
There can never be absolute freedom. Your freedom ends where my rights begin.
That's not true! Protecting everyone "ability to choose" is not an impossible but a possible and thatís what absolute freedom is. All humans have the "ability to choose" on planet earth if they are not born with a severe defect!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89271 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiens did not document the accuracy of C-14 dating to 45,000 years, so why do you say that he did?
He did not prove what the level of C-14 was 45,000 years ago. He made assumptions.
I don't give a rip about what boatloads of intellectuals think.
If they can't prove the accuracy of a methodology through scientific testing, they have nothing.
Hmmmm.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"I don't give a rip about what boatloads of intellectuals think."
I can't help but recall what you said Feb 28, 2013 on the "Should evolution be taught in high school?" thread:
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of BS. In four years of medical school, not one mention of "evolution" was made in any biological science... and after 30 years of practice, evolution remains irrelevant.
Page #5881 Post #120689

So, you suggest you're a Medical Doctor with MASSIVE amounts of college education, yet you are frightened of "intellectuals".

The level of education you have on topics of a scientific nature is clearly abysmal.

Am I wrong to think you're being less than truthful?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#89272 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
To summarize the article you posted, all of the C-14 calibration data was based on unprovable assumptions. Do you know what the standard is for measuring sedimentation rates over tens of thousands of years?
Most importantly, there is no justification for the assumption that the level of C-14 has been stable in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years, Given the fact that the earth's magnetic poles are decaying at known rates, it should be assumed that far less radiation would have been allowed into the earth's atmosphere anciently, which would have resulted in less production of C-14 thousands of years ago.
*helpless laughter*

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#89274 May 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
KK, I actually did check up on the dating method used on ÷tzi, and they DID use C14 dating techniques on his mummy.
Okay then, I retract what I posted on the topic originally then as I was simply pointing out that there are other methods. ;)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89275 May 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Okay then, I retract what I posted on the topic originally then as I was simply pointing out that there are other methods. ;)
Eh, no biggie. It was the appropriate method for them to use.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89276 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
What "other dating techniques" have corroborated with C-14 dating?
All of them.
HTS wrote:
How about some actual scientific logic as opposed to your evo-babbling?
Evolution wasn't even mentioned in that post. You are opposed to scientific logic so once again we find you dishonestly asking for something you have zero interest in.
HTS wrote:
Why do you have to always bring up religion in the context of a "scientific" discussion?
Because to claim that you have actual genuine scientific objections which are not at all rooted in theology would be dishonest. You know this since when you lose a debate you always whine about atheists, even if theology wasn't even referenced.
HTS wrote:
Wiens did not document the accuracy of C-14 dating to 45,000 years, so why do you say that he did?
He did not prove what the level of C-14 was 45,000 years ago. He made assumptions.
That's because not contradicting reality is a good assumption to make.
HTS wrote:
I don't give a rip about what boatloads of intellectuals think
That is exactly your problem.
HTS wrote:
If they can't prove the accuracy of a methodology through scientific testing, they have nothing.
Yet as we have seen, they have something. You are unable to refute it despite numerous science papers on the subject. You are merely a whining contrarian.
HTS wrote:
To summarize the article you posted, all of the C-14 calibration data was based on unprovable assumptions. Do you know what the standard is for measuring sedimentation rates over tens of thousands of years?
Most importantly, there is no justification for the assumption that the level of C-14 has been stable in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years, Given the fact that the earth's magnetic poles are decaying at known rates, it should be assumed that far less radiation would have been allowed into the earth's atmosphere anciently, which would have resulted in less production of C-14 thousands of years ago.
Considering the fact the poles have switched numerous times and is recorded in the rocks, AND that you are ignoring all other dating methods and testing which proves that you're destroying the Earth with your alternative, AND the fact that YOU YOURSELF are assuming physics itself changed in the past based on ZERO evidence it should naturally be assumed that you're full of shite.(shrug)

By the way, I notice you're still dodging.

Just as you always have.

This is why you fail.

You are violating Infinite Force's law of non-contradiction.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#89277 May 17, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true! Protecting everyone "ability to choose" is not an impossible but a possible and thatís what absolute freedom is. All humans have the "ability to choose" on planet earth if they are not born with a severe defect!
No.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89278 May 17, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true! Protecting everyone "ability to choose" is not an impossible but a possible and thatís what absolute freedom is. All humans have the "ability to choose" on planet earth if they are not born with a severe defect!
Freedom of choice is an impossibility in light of God. You are violating the law of non-contradiction.

You will ignore that you are violating the law of non-contradiction. You are violating the law of non-contradiction.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89279 May 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm.
<quoted text>
I can't help but recall what you said Feb 28, 2013 on the "Should evolution be taught in high school?" thread:
<quoted text>
Page #5881 Post #120689
So, you suggest you're a Medical Doctor with MASSIVE amounts of college education, yet you are frightened of "intellectuals".
The level of education you have on topics of a scientific nature is clearly abysmal.
Am I wrong to think you're being less than truthful?
You're not wrong. HTS having four years medical training violates the law of non-contradiction. HTS being nothing short of a complete and total utter reality-denying YEC fundie liar for Jesus violates the law of non-contradiction. HTS will ignore that he is violating the law of non-contradiction hence that is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#89281 May 17, 2013
mybackfkinghurts wrote:
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.
Pull you head out of your ass and stand up straight... Your back will feel better in time
HTS

Sidney, MT

#89282 May 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm.
<quoted text>
I can't help but recall what you said Feb 28, 2013 on the "Should evolution be taught in high school?" thread:
<quoted text>
Page #5881 Post #120689
So, you suggest you're a Medical Doctor with MASSIVE amounts of college education, yet you are frightened of "intellectuals".
The level of education you have on topics of a scientific nature is clearly abysmal.
Am I wrong to think you're being less than truthful?
I see that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, Kong.
I logically refute the article you posted, and you then go off on a tangent and attempt to insult my credentials. You apparently think that anyone who disagrees with you has an "abysmal" knowldged of science.
Why can't you defend the premises of what you claim to be science without getting so emotional? Are you that insecure? Your conduct tells me that you see evolution as more of a religion than science. Someone who is committed to scientific discovery WELCOMES debate, and when he is called out, he doesn't resort to childish insults.
Patriot

Antioch, TN

#89283 May 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies, lies and more lies for Jesus, because lying for Jesus is good and just ignore the 9th Commandment. By the way, you were refuted from page 1. Until your next drive by then.(shrug)
You claim there is no God, but you quote one of his commandments...a touch of irony?(SHRUG)haha
HTS

Sidney, MT

#89284 May 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them.
<quoted text>
Evolution wasn't even mentioned in that post. You are opposed to scientific logic so once again we find you dishonestly asking for something you have zero interest in.
<quoted text>
Because to claim that you have actual genuine scientific objections which are not at all rooted in theology would be dishonest. You know this since when you lose a debate you always whine about atheists, even if theology wasn't even referenced.
<quoted text>
That's because not contradicting reality is a good assumption to make.
<quoted text>
That is exactly your problem.
<quoted text>
Yet as we have seen, they have something. You are unable to refute it despite numerous science papers on the subject. You are merely a whining contrarian.
<quoted text>
Considering the fact the poles have switched numerous times and is recorded in the rocks, AND that you are ignoring all other dating methods and testing which proves that you're destroying the Earth with your alternative, AND the fact that YOU YOURSELF are assuming physics itself changed in the past based on ZERO evidence it should naturally be assumed that you're full of shite.(shrug)
By the way, I notice you're still dodging.
Just as you always have.
This is why you fail.
You are violating Infinite Force's law of non-contradiction.
Why can you never construct a coherent argument?
I ask you for corroborating methodologies to validate C-14 dating,
and your only reply is "all of them", follwed by aimless rambling about how me being a "contrarian" because I don't accept evolution on faith as you do.

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... 1 hr Charles Idemi 537
How would creationists explain... 2 hr DanFromSmithville 340
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... 9 hr nobody 7
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 20 hr Brian_G 13,618
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Fri Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web