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 4,221)

Showing posts 84,401 - 84,420 of111,637
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 2

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89256
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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
.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89257
May 16, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.
You're a reality denying fundamentalist reality-denying young Earth creationist who thinks Goddidit with magic cuz the Bible is troo cuz teh Bible sez so.

Then you demonstrate massive hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty by asking for evidence which you cannot address and never had any interest in in the first place.

Fundie heal thyself.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89258
May 16, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, all that means is that at worst the dates for times beyond 3,500 years are not as accurate as those from times before 3,500 years ago.. There is no reason to propose a massive change in the amount of C14 produced in the upper atmosphere.
But you're not taking into account the "How do YOU know??? Where you THERE?!?" factor.

Because at any time in the past before you were born an invisible magic Jew wizard could have poofed anything to be totally different and leave a grand total of ZERO evidence in the process.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89259
May 16, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting one PhD is not "scientific evidence". Radiometric C-14 dating is inaccurate for 45,000 years for four main reasons...
1. no calibration curve can be calculated, because no artifact proven by historical data exists that is 45,000 years old.
2. Given the short half life of C-14, the amount of C-14 in a 45,000 year old sample would be very scant. Any slight miscalculation would result in a potentially big swing in the calculation.
3. It is impossible to know the level of C-14 in the atmosphere 45,000 years ago. What basis do you claim for assuming that the level has remained unchanged for 45,000 years?
4. It cannot be assumed that no leaching of C-14 took place over the entire period of time.
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89260
May 16, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting one PhD is not "scientific evidence".
No, quoting evidence is evidence. But that's utterly irrelevant to your position. Plus we can point out that PhD's who accept scientific reality are in abundance, so the amount of PhD's is irrelevant. Again you are being disingenuous.
HTS wrote:
Radiometric C-14 dating is inaccurate for 45,000 years for four main reasons...
1. no calibration curve can be calculated, because no artifact proven by historical data exists that is 45,000 years old.
Historical data is irrelevant. Other dating techniques can be used to compare, and *when used correctly* they tend to line up.
HTS wrote:
2. Given the short half life of C-14, the amount of C-14 in a 45,000 year old sample would be very scant. Any slight miscalculation would result in a potentially big swing in the calculation.
See above.
HTS wrote:
3. It is impossible to know the level of C-14 in the atmosphere 45,000 years ago. What basis do you claim for assuming that the level has remained unchanged for 45,000 years?
Geological record. What basis are you assuming that it HAS changed?

Goddidit with magic.
HTS wrote:
4. It cannot be assumed that no leaching of C-14 took place over the entire period of time.
It cannot be assumed that leaching of C-14 took place over the entire period of time with no evidence. This game is fun!!!

What's the "scientific theory" of Goddidit with magic?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89261
May 16, 2013
 
mybackfkinghurts wrote:
PROFESSOR X wrote
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)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89264
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89265
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89266
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89267
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89269
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89270
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 84,401 - 84,420 of111,637
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••