Evolution vs. Creation

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

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#81283 Mar 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, it is obvious even today that they were right.
There is no evidence for a World wide flood. No time in the past billion years has the whole surface of the Earth been covered with water.
Came pretty close with the "ice age"!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81284 Mar 16, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Came pretty close with the "ice age"!
Nope, even that was only northern part of North America, Asia and Europe. And of course Antarctica. For example most of the U.S. has never been glaciated.
Mark

United States

#81285 Mar 16, 2013
I have noticed that the comments are now avioding "Dark Matter" and going to new territory like the flood or even backwards to personal attacks. My foulup in the wrong accel lab folks, thanks for your correction, not sure how that make me a liar - doesnt change the real science facts that are testable and repeatable, nor the comments, quotes and paraphase's I made that are perfectly correct, the God Particle...NO dark matter found..perplexing, concerning..

Now its flood geology we seem to be treking to, my fav subject.

Its always been easy to determine continental flood current flow which occured as the flood waters ran off the earth, just take a look at the horseshoe mesa's from the air.. I call them "remnant topology". I had a very prominate geology PHd reasearcher on-board my 206 once and he quite agreed when i suggested this term as we flew over one near Medford, Oregon. He then bumbled and corrected himself because his indoctination finally overcame his observation. What was he thinking!! He later called me and we had a nice discussion but the sight caused him no small alarm. He offered no solution to the formation of the structure. Geologic structures often make alot of sense when interpreted from a catastrophic perspective. This includes ice age erosion, post-flood weather patterns and chain reaction natural dam breakouts. The Missoula flood hypothosis of a galloping seasonal glacier was mocked for 90 years by establishment geo's is a prime example of an eposide that reorganised the surface of Ore and Wa. and formed the eastern WA scablands and willamette valley sediments after 100 years + of cycles. All wrong in the text books of the day that had to be changed. Post Flood catastrophic events like this and the quick erosion of the Grand Canyon fit well in the dynamic environment of a post-flood world, and give uniformists terrible headaches to explain. I have a slide of the great conformity in the Grand Canyon that itself alone caused the conversion of a prominate mining geologist who later, useing the flood model, went out and made one of the largest gold discoveries in the last decade.

M

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81286 Mar 16, 2013
Mark you are a complete idiot.

The evidence against a worldwide flood is almost endless. There is no evidence for it.

Here are two words that send creatards running when it comes to the Grand Canyon:

Incised Meanders.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81287 Mar 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>sorry, i gave you the credit of being able to think.
if the half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years, it could not be used to date something 520 million years old.
i guess third grade math is beyond you. i will not make the same mistake again...
No dummy, I am a not a scientist and never claimed that I actually know. But you claim to have evidence and I asked for it but you come up with some bullshit. You still have NOT provided the mathematical formula. You have no clue how scientists really did it so stop pretending you know. If you give me the formula, I am willing to calculate it myself. So do you have it or not?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81288 Mar 17, 2013
Is this the math that you think you can understand, Woodtick? Since you think your math is better than mine...

So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:

t =[ ln (0.10)/(-0.693)] x 5,700 years

t =[(-2.303)/(-0.693)] x 5,700 years

t =[ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...

So is it Potassium-40? Why couldn't you simply give the answer?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81289 Mar 17, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Is this the math that you think you can understand, Woodtick? Since you think your math is better than mine...
So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:
t =[ ln (0.10)/(-0.693)] x 5,700 years
t =[(-2.303)/(-0.693)] x 5,700 years
t =[ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years
t = 18,940 years old
Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).
The use of various radioisotopes allows the dating of biological and geological samples with a high degree of accuracy. However, radioisotope dating may not work so well in the future. Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...
So is it Potassium-40? Why couldn't you simply give the answer?
Cybele, radiometric dating is usually not used for fossils. It is usually used in igneous rocks. The clock is "set" when the crystals of the rock form. There are plenty of volcanic events worldwide and those along with the assemblage of fossilized life allows ages to be bracketed. By looking at the fossils in a rock each fossil can give you an upper limit and lower limit to the age of the rock. If it has enough fossils you can get a very accurate date. Here is an article that might help to explain:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81290 Mar 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i did. the creation story is wrong..known fact. no flood ever. known fact.
your cult lied to you...often.
The truth of the matter is that science does indeed point to the earth once being covered with water... the only disagreement between the the bible and science is the time frame.

01 January 2009 Early Earth 'was covered in water'

http://www.earthdive.com/site/news/newsdetail...

The article could have just as well been titled...

01 January 2009 Early Earth 'was "flooded" in water'

I pointed this out already, but you still insist on presenting false claims?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81292 Mar 17, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth of the matter is that science does indeed point to the earth once being covered with water... the only disagreement between the the bible and science is the time frame.
01 January 2009 Early Earth 'was covered in water'
http://www.earthdive.com/site/news/newsdetail...
The article could have just as well been titled...
01 January 2009 Early Earth 'was "flooded" in water'
I pointed this out already, but you still insist on presenting false claims?
It is extremely foolish to try to claim the difference was only a time frame.

We can easily show it took hundreds of millions of years for the various sedimentary rocks to be deposited. We can show there was no man, heck there was nothing much more complicated than slime mold 2.5 billion years ago. So between those two Noah's flood is still purely mythological.

It is a bedtime story and nothing more.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#81293 Mar 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i hate to make you look even more foolish, but are you aware of the limitations of how far back carbon dating can go?
look it up.
what organic material is it that they are dating next to a 600,000year old fossil,and what would that tell them?
again, research then post...you will look less foolish.(not that you seem ot care about that at all...)
Carbon dating is good to only about 50,000 years.

I don't know why fundies keep trying to fault something that isn't even used for what they are talking about.

Well...actually I do know why they do that.

They need to lie to support their claims.

There's just no other way.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81294 Mar 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
But we don't close our eyes...we have real experts who look at creationists confabulations occasionally and tell the truth about it.
Do you think we just make stuff up like you guys do??
No, no, no my friend...we have people, people who actually know science and practice it every day.
There is NO conspiracy here. Scientists are just a bunch of geeks who are prone to tell the truth about their findings.
That is the claim by scientists, about scientists... But when you take into account such things as peer pressure to support present data...showing results that support present data for funding etc. etc...
You have in place an system, that is only propagating ideas that are politically motivated to further advance an ideological hierarchy...not truth, as you claim.

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#81295 Mar 17, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the claim by scientists, about scientists... But when you take into account such things as peer pressure to support present data...showing results that support present data for funding etc. etc...
You have in place an system, that is only propagating ideas that are politically motivated to further advance an ideological hierarchy...not truth, as you claim.
I think you are confusing science with the church....

Like when the church deemed anyone who thought the Earth was a Globe and not flat as heretics
or like when the church deemed anyone a heretic who thought the
earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa
or that the universe didn't revolve around the Earth

politically motivated to further advance an ideological hierarchy...not truth, as you claim

you see in order for the basic principle of christianity to work, that god specifically created man in his own image and created the Universe and Earth specifically for man, everything would have to be centered on the Earth, the universe would have to revolve around the Earth....

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81296 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is extremely foolish to try to claim the difference was only a time frame.
We can easily show it took hundreds of millions of years for the various sedimentary rocks to be deposited. We can show there was no man, heck there was nothing much more complicated than slime mold 2.5 billion years ago. So between those two Noah's flood is still purely mythological.
It is a bedtime story and nothing more.
"We can show there was no man, heck there was nothing much more complicated than slime mold 2.5 billion years ago.

really...then show me.You can imply it...but you can't show me.Yours is an assumption of scientific faith...a method that is only as good as current scientific understanding, which by your own admission is subject to change at anytime.lol

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81297 Mar 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are confusing science with the church....
Like when the church deemed anyone who thought the Earth was a Globe and not flat as heretics
or like when the church deemed anyone a heretic who thought the
earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa
or that the universe didn't revolve around the Earth
politically motivated to further advance an ideological hierarchy...not truth, as you claim
you see in order for the basic principle of christianity to work, that god specifically created man in his own image and created the Universe and Earth specifically for man, everything would have to be centered on the Earth, the universe would have to revolve around the Earth....
Actually the earth is the center of the Universe. Since the the Universe has no center and any where can be deemed as the center. The same as any beginning and ending on a circle is relative to the observer. You think that God does not know about relativity?...lol

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81298 Mar 17, 2013
Isaiah 40:22

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth..."

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#81299 Mar 17, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the earth is the center of the Universe. Since the the Universe has no center and any where can be deemed as the center. The same as any beginning and ending on a circle is relative to the observer. You think that God does not know about relativity?...lol
geesh, maybe you should study astronomy and physics rather than a book of mythology written in the Bronze age by a bunch of nomadic desert dwellers smoking who knows what.

The Universe is expanding, ergo, the Earth is not at its center

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81300 Mar 17, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"We can show there was no man, heck there was nothing much more complicated than slime mold 2.5 billion years ago.
really...then show me.You can imply it...but you can't show me.Yours is an assumption of scientific faith...a method that is only as good as current scientific understanding, which by your own admission is subject to change at anytime.lol
No, not faith. Faith is a synonym for gullibility. We can observe it.

We can see that there is no evidence of man in rocks older than even one million years. By the time we get back to rocks that are 2.5 billion years old we can observe that the atmosphere was different and that all life was extremely simple.

And not only can I observe it anyone who knows what to look for can observe it too. In fact independent of each other people come up with the same results. That is one way of checking to see if one's own observations were correct.

Now there are a bunch of idiots out there that never learned how to make observations and since they are too lazy or too stupid to bother to learn how to make these observations they pretend that the events never happened.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81301 Mar 17, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Isaiah 40:22
"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth..."
No, that verse is one of the many that merely shows that the ancient Hebrews thought that the world was a flat circle.

There are no descriptions of a spherical Earth, there are many descriptions of a flat circular Earth.

You keep assuming that the Bible is God's word and try to squeeze what modern science that you can into it.

In the past Christians attacked scientists for claiming that the Earth moved. You are doing the same thing today.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#81302 Mar 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
geesh, maybe you should study astronomy and physics rather than a book of mythology written in the Bronze age by a bunch of nomadic desert dwellers smoking who knows what.
The Universe is expanding, ergo, the Earth is not at its center
If the earth is not the center of the Universe,then where is the center of the Universe?

what constellation does it lie in?

please point it out for me.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#81303 Mar 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>WE know all about OOPARTS....whats the relevance?? No, wait, let me guess. It's proof that coal could can be made in your backyard instead of taking millions of years in the ground....therefore creationism is true.

Am I right??
It's the flood my boy, the Flood!

Science dated that coal at 500 million years old. 500 million old coal with man made items inside.

Good old science and it's dating.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 5 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5,210
ChANge "2" letter ChANgLE 12 min Hoosier Hillbilly 67
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 14 min pit 1,119
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 17 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,626
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 20 min Hoosier Hillbilly 293
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 33 min Wolftracks 152,824
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 40 min Sublime1 25,919
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 58 min andet1987 3,018
Woman Switches Seats on Plane, Spends 3 Days in... 4 hr Lawrence Wolf 13
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 6 hr TALLYHO 8541 37,764
More from around the web