Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 3,896)

Showing posts 77,901 - 77,920 of111,697
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82501
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? LOL
I know of 3 big myths but I don't believe or chase any of them.
1) The Big Bang
2) spontaneous self generating life
3) evolution
not myths at all.. tons of evidence pointing to them as truth or at least part of the truth.

as yet, not one shred of evidence for your myth and tons of evidence shoeing it is a lie...

go scrat, go!

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82502
Mar 24, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why does everyone else in the world use these techniques properly?
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 you don't swallow their crap hook line and sinker.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82503
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just play dumb now.
"11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"
Today most people would agree the earth is round yet the term "the four corners of the earth" and "ends of the earth" are still in use today. But of course you know this. You've simply lowered yourself down to a child's argument.
regardless of whether the bible said the Earth was flat or not, we know that the people who claimed divine inspiration from the bible and god thought the sun moved around the Earth...what happened with that? what else did that 'divine inspiration' get wrong..(besides all the other instances you have already been shown to be wrong...)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82504
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just play dumb now.
"11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"
Today most people would agree the earth is round yet the term "the four corners of the earth" and "ends of the earth" are still in use today. But of course you know this. You've simply lowered yourself down to a child's argument.
Hardly. Yes, we know now that the Earth is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid if you want to nitpick.

There was a time in the past when that was not the case. Please note that I did not have to use the "four corners of the Earth".

One more time, how much of the Earth could you see from a tree that was very very very high if the Earth was flat? You could see all of it theoretically. How much of the Earth could you see if tree was very very very tall and we had our spherical Earth? You could see at the very most half, and you are well out of the atmosphere and halfway to the Moon before you start to approach the one half limit.

According to Bible scholars if an idea is important it is in the Bible several times. There are more verses than the three groups I listed that describe the Earth as flat. I am just playing by your own rules here.

I am still waiting for verses that apply to a spherical Earth.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82505
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 you don't swallow their crap hook line and sinker.
you mean the lab that said on their own that at that time they couldn't accurately date rocks younger than 2 million years with their equipment and techniques?

why do yu have to openly lie for your cult? you have been shown these things before about this lie of yours...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82506
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? LOL
I know of 3 big myths but I don't believe or chase any of them.
1) The Big Bang
2) spontaneous self generating life
3) evolution
If things don't evolve, then how do you look different than your parents?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82507
Mar 24, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, that is a lie.

They do not have links to proper sources. At least not for the first claim that I checked out. The claim about the Mt. St. Helens dome quoted an article for Answers in Genesis. That is not a valid scientific source.
first place.
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....

Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:

Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]

Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]

Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]

How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]

One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to theCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences,“It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]

But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks ofunknown age?

http://www.oocities.org/stuball127/dating.htm...

"Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is.
Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate."[2]

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82508
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
That source does have the documentation that backs up the dating errors.
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
Oboy.

You think solidified magma is somehow "new"?

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

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82509
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]
One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to theCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences,“It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]
But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks ofunknown age?
http://www.oocities.org/stuball127/dating.htm...
"Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is.
Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate."[2]
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?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82510
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langy, using a bogus article twice does not make it any less bogus the second time around.

And if we know why dates are off at times we can still use the dating method as long as we avoid using it in situations that give incorrect answers.

When looking at cases when radiometric dating gives the wrong date you have to look at why it is wrong. You do not throw out a dating method because it is wrong one time out of a thousand. You figure out what was wrong that thousandth time and fix your errors.

Look at you, your Bible has many errors in it. Do you throw it out?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82511
Mar 24, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not myths at all.. tons of evidence pointing to them as truth or at least part of the truth.

as yet, not one shred of evidence for your myth and tons of evidence shoeing it is a lie...

go scrat, go!
Bible, Tons and Tons of evidence.

Pop goes the tick.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82512
Mar 24, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Langy, using a bogus article twice does not make it any less bogus the second time around.
And if we know why dates are off at times we can still use the dating method as long as we avoid using it in situations that give incorrect answers.
When looking at cases when radiometric dating gives the wrong date you have to look at why it is wrong. You do not throw out a dating method because it is wrong one time out of a thousand. You figure out what was wrong that thousandth time and fix your errors.
Look at you, your Bible has many errors in it. Do you throw it out?
I chased that quote of his all over the place.

It popped up often - but significantly only on creationist sites.

'Nuff said.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82513
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Bible, Tons and Tons of evidence.
Pop goes the tick.
Again ... where is this evidence?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82514
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Bible, Tons and Tons of evidence.
Pop goes the tick.
No.

In order to accept the bible as "evidence" of anything other than its own existence, you must prove it reliable.

It's not.

It's woefully self-contradictory, horribly internally inconsistent, miserably translated, and subject to (apparently) infinite and mutually exclusive interpretations.

Got anything a bit more, well, useful?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82515
Mar 24, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Hardly. Yes, we know now that the Earth is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid if you want to nitpick.

There was a time in the past when that was not the case. Please note that I did not have to use the "four corners of the Earth".

One more time, how much of the Earth could you see from a tree that was very very very high if the Earth was flat? You could see all of it theoretically. How much of the Earth could you see if tree was very very very tall and we had our spherical Earth? You could see at the very most half, and you are well out of the atmosphere and halfway to the Moon before you start to approach the one half limit.

According to Bible scholars if an idea is important it is in the Bible several times. There are more verses than the three groups I listed that describe the Earth as flat. I am just playing by your own rules here.

I am still waiting for verses that apply to a spherical Earth.
"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...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82516
Mar 24, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>If things don't evolve, then how do you look different than your parents?
Because I'm not a clone.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82517
Mar 24, 2013
 
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?
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.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82519
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 77,901 - 77,920 of111,697
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

135 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 3 min Trouser Cough 53,708
Chain Link Game! (Apr '12) 4 min cjt12 6,166
A six word game (Dec '08) 4 min Trouser Cough 17,130
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 5 min cjt12 76,598
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min CJ Rocker 140,338
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 7 min cjt12 8,805
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 9 min cjt12 17,192
What is the meaning of life? 52 min razz58 28
Woman Watching TV Learns of Her Home's Violent ... 1 hr Phyllis Schlafly s Stain 2
How to become Unbannable 1 hr SLACK 71
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr last_call 14,113
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••