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

#89326 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I have never argued from religion. You are always bringing it up. You don't know what my views are on Adam and Eve, the worldwide flood, or the Bible.
You HAVE argued from a consistent anti-science YEC position. Goddidit with magic roughly 6-10,000 years ago. You were born in Western society. It is reasonable therefore to extrapolate that your views are HEAVILY influenced by fundamentalist religious dogma rooted in Abrahamic Judaism. And though it may be possible that you disagree with specific doctrines of the most well known popular churches that still does not negate your argument's roots.

Now, if you had been born a fundamentalist Hindu and never even HEARD of Christian creationism or their arguments THEN you would have been a lot more convincing.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89327 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How do you know my religion has been "proven to be a myth" when you don't know what it is?
I thought you DarwinBots acknowledged that God cannot be falsified. Why, then, are you claiming that a religion has been "proven" to be a myth?
I will not debate my religion with blaspheming religious bigots.
Your religion is YECism. It is a myth, period.

You are only correct in that "God" cannot be falsified. This of course makes the concept non-scientific.

Your problem therefore is that you are arguing from a non-scientific position, which is WHY you are unable to directly address people's posts.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

.

Also interesting that you have a problem with blasphemy... in science ALL things should be considered, yes?

Apparently not.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89328 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a consummate bigot, Woodtick.
YOu have assumed that I am a cultist, without even knowing what my religion is.
Just because I don't worship at the feet of Charles Darwin doesn't make me a "fundie".
No, the fact you worship at the big fat smelly feet of Total Ignorance is what makes you a fundie.(shrug)

Toejam for desert as usual, Harry?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89329 May 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Certain beliefs can be falsified. The concept of god as a whole cannot.
Of course it is possible to show that god cannot be omnipotent nor omniscient using basic logic. Of course even the Bible implies that. Why would Satan oppose God if he were omnipotent?
1 - He thinks he's got a shot.

2 - Satan isn't opposing God, but an integral part of God's plans.

After all the arrangement that all sinners go to Satan seems pretty amicable, doesn't it?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89330 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>My religion is (or at least should be)irrelevant to this discussion.
Don't worry your little head about it. It is.

Always has been.(shrug)
HTS

Williston, ND

#89331 May 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right in one regard, I WAS mistaken about Dr. Wiens having DOCUMENTATION on his site regarding the accuracy of C14 dating techniques. He goes into detail in DESCRIBING the technique, and the different methods of calibrating C14 dating (pages 13' & '14' of the article). http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
He DOES reference some graphs that further illustrate C14 dating accuracy -- and those graphs ARE documented ("Tree-ring data are from Stuiver et al.,
Radiocarbon 40, 1041-1083, 1998; stalactite data are from Beck et al., Science 292, 2453-2458, 2001."). There are other links at the bottom of the article where you could have gone to get additional information on C14 dating, but hey...
But I was mistaken in that I thought I remembered from earlier readings of the Wiens paper that he DID have ALL the required documentation for his explanation(s),-- he did not (but he DID have some). But let's say that this is moot, and there was NO further refererence from THAT ONE SITE to back up the accuracy of C14 dating data.
Many reputable science sites can clarify any questions you might have regarding the range, calibration and accuracy of C14 dating methods. It's not difficult to locate on your own and acutally LEARN something about that which you're attempting to argue against.(note: AIG and Discovery.org are the NOT "reputable science sites").
Oh, and btw, were I really "scraping the bottom of the barrel", you would still have me to look up to, "Doctor".
When C-14 dating was first introduced, Willard Libby correctly dated the wood from a royal Egptian barge, the age of which was known from historical documents. No such artifact with a proven age of 45,000 years is available. Any calibration curve extending to that distant of a past by definition must rely on unprovable assumptions, regardless of whatever dating method it is corroborated with. Scientific analysis is founded on more than a hypothesis. It must be PROVEN that a methodology is accurate. You have no such proof.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89332 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have not falsified God.
And you have not falsified the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Note that the falsification of "God" is not even necessary.

We HAVE falsified YECism though.

That is of course until "God" comes along to rescue it, placing it back into the non-falsifiable category. And so the tautology continues in its vicious cycle.

Obviously this logical quandary is what Mikey must mean when he keeps talking about Systems, Cycles, and Patterns.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89333 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Who cares?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89334 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Disagreement with popular dogma does not make someone "anti-science".
And if you were disagreeing with the ideal that Empire is the best Star Wars film of all time you would not be referred to as being anti-science. Just spectacularly lacking in good taste.

No, it's your disagreement with scientifically demonstrable reality which makes you anti-science.
HTS

Williston, ND

#89335 May 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I have.

<quoted text>
•Algal microfossil analysis (in paleolimnology)
•Amino acid racemization (L-to-D)(AAR)
•Argon40-argon39 chronometric
•Astronomical polarity time scale (APTS)
•Cation-ratio (CR)
•Chronostratigraphic (superposition, cross-cutting, intrusion)
•Coral reef annual layering
•Dendochronology (tree-ring)
•Deuterium-hydrogen stable isotope analysis
•Electron spin resonance (ESR)
•Fission track (U238-Pb206)
•Fluorine-uranium-nitrogen analysis (FUN)
•Fossil index (plant, animal, artifactual)
•Geomagnetic (archaeomagnetic/paleomagnetic ) reversal time scale (GTRS)
•Geomagnetic secular variation (around magnetic pole)
•Helium4-helium3
•Infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL)
•Isochron
•Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)
•Lichenometry (lichen/thalli colony radii)
•Lutetium176-hafnium176 geochronology
•Meteorite cosmic-ray exposure (Ne21, He3)
•Microfossil paleolimnochronology
•Milankovitch cycle astrochronology
•Mitochrondrial DNA
•Neon21-helium3 dating
•Obsidian hydration analysis (OHA)
•Ocean sediment core analysis
•Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)
•Oxidizable carbon ratio (OCR)(C-total/C-oxidizable)
•Oxygen16-oxygen18 stable isotope analysis
•Paleosol chronology (in fossil soil stratigraphy)
•Patination (rock/desert varnish)
•Pigment remnant dating (in paleolimnology)
•Polar ice-sheet core
•Pollen/spore analysis (in palynology)
•Potassium40-argon40 chronometric
•Radiocarbon (14N-14C-N14/12C) by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
•Radioluminescence (RL)
•Radon222-lead210-lead206 chronometric
•Rhenium187-osmium187 chronometric
•Rubidium87-strontium87 chronometric
•Samarium147-neodymium143 chronometric
•Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS)
•Seriation/typological archaeochronology
•Strontium87-strontium86 chronometric
•Tephrochronology (of volcanic ash, tuff)
•Terrestrial rock cosmic-ray exposure
•Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS)
•Thermoluminescence (TL)
•Thorium232-lead208 chronometric
•Uranium235-lead207 chronometric
•Uranium238-uranium234-thorium 230-radium226-lead206 (U-series)
•Varve analysis (of glacial-lake deposits)
•Writing (back 5000 years)
•Y-chromosome DNA
.jpg
Explain to me how Rubidium87-strontium87 chronometric corroborates C-14 dating...
You presented it as evidence.
Let's hear your justification.
Wake Up

Lexington, KY

#89336 May 17, 2013
God's existence can not be proven to the unbeliever. Gods existence is proven only by believing. You either have faith and believe in him or you don't. It is not that difficult. If you are seeking for proof..you will not find it unless, by faith, you believe. So for all you atheist who continue to search for valid evidence from believers...and go back and forth with endless battles of who's right and wrong and what science says about the matter...and all your little scientific rants & theories and anecdotes, there is not one person on this earth that can satisfy your request for proof of God's existence. Your search in in vain.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89337 May 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Oh, and btw, were I really "scraping the bottom of the barrel", you would still have me to look up to, "Doctor".
Indeedy. He chokes every time he tries.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89338 May 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>disagreement with proven scientific facts does...
Now if you have some actual facts to counter the verifiable facts of the science you claim to debunk, it would be nice ot hear them...
He has "Reality isn't real cuz how do YOU know? Where you THERE?!? Then what about this made up fundie claim? What about that one? And this one? And that one? No I won't admit to any mistakes or deal with a SINGLE thing you guys have posted! BOO HOO, YOU GUYS ARE MEAN TO ME!!!"

That's pretty much it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#89339 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
When C-14 dating was first introduced, Willard Libby correctly dated the wood from a royal Egptian barge, the age of which was known from historical documents. No such artifact with a proven age of 45,000 years is available. Any calibration curve extending to that distant of a past by definition must rely on unprovable assumptions, regardless of whatever dating method it is corroborated with. Scientific analysis is founded on more than a hypothesis. It must be PROVEN that a methodology is accurate. You have no such proof.
yes, we do have proven artifacts of that age. just because you do not accept the proven, reproduceable evidence of such does not mean we do not have it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#89340 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
When C-14 dating was first introduced, Willard Libby correctly dated the wood from a royal Egptian barge, the age of which was known from historical documents. No such artifact with a proven age of 45,000 years is available. Any calibration curve extending to that distant of a past by definition must rely on unprovable assumptions, regardless of whatever dating method it is corroborated with. Scientific analysis is founded on more than a hypothesis. It must be PROVEN that a methodology is accurate. You have no such proof.
Wrong, as has been pointed out the calibration curves have been taken back to 45,000 years ago by using various different means.

You are the one who is claiming that there are "unprovable assumptions" yet you refuse to tell us what any of these supposed assumptions are.

It looks like you are copying and pasting from an unknown YEC source who did not have an answer either.

You keep forgetting that all YEC sources lie at some point or another and they always get caught. It looks like your source is lying about "unprovable assumptions".
Wake Up

Lexington, KY

#89341 May 17, 2013
Can an octopus prove what kind of surface is on the moon? Some things are just not within the limits of one species understanding. That does not mean God does not exist. It could be that we are limited in our understanding and brain power, just like Mr. Octopus. You think people can see everything, but you can't. You cant see dark matter, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can see a cloud in the sky but if you touch it you cant feel it. Somethings are just beyond understanding to mankind. You are a little person in this big ole universe...you can have all the book knowledge available to man and still be stupid, after all this time 100 years ago...what did we know?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#89342 May 17, 2013
Wake Up wrote:
God's existence can not be proven to the unbeliever. Gods existence is proven only by believing. You either have faith and believe in him or you don't. It is not that difficult. If you are seeking for proof..you will not find it unless, by faith, you believe. So for all you atheist who continue to search for valid evidence from believers...and go back and forth with endless battles of who's right and wrong and what science says about the matter...and all your little scientific rants & theories and anecdotes, there is not one person on this earth that can satisfy your request for proof of God's existence. Your search in in vain.
soi basically, you are saying,"buy into this proven wrong cult or you won't know the truth..."

do you not realize how indoctrinated into the cult you are? there are cult de-programmers you can contact anytime online...utiltize them, you have been brainwashed.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#89343 May 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, we do have proven artifacts of that age. just because you do not accept the proven, reproduceable evidence of such does not mean we do not have it.
I'm talking about a historically proven artifact. If there is one, tell me what it is.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#89344 May 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>disagreement with proven scientific facts does...
Now if you have some actual facts to counter the verifiable facts of the science you claim to debunk, it would be nice ot hear them...
I have presented numerous challenges to evolution, such as the impossibility of the evolution of flying reptiles.
The only responses I get are that I have an insufficiently great imagination and that I should accept evolution on faith.
There is no fossil evidence of pterosaur evolution.
There is no scientific proposal as to how a pterosaur could have evolved.
There is massive scientific evidence that the gradual evolution of powered flight in reptiles is mathematically impossible.
What scientific reason is there to believe that they did evolve?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#89345 May 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, the religious cults falsified their own man made gods. no other god , gods or goddesses have yet to show any shred of evidence to even suggest the possibility that may possibly exist, so that discussion cannot even start yet.
You're a liar, Woodtick. You cannot say tehre is not a "shred of evidence", because you have not examined all of the evidence.

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
During Obama's Speech at Democratic Campaign Ra... 5 min Lindsey Graham 4
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 7 min Trouser Cough 54,824
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 9 min Trouser Cough 40,408
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 9 min -Lily- 2,522
What's your tip for the day? 15 min a_visitor 1,210
"The KISSING BOOTH: - Who Would You Most Like t... (Apr '13) 17 min t 1,575
What Turns You On? (Oct '10) 20 min t 2,184
Puppy-sized spider spotted in South America 25 min a_visitor 24
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 40 min sunshine 22,209
True or False Game 1 hr Sublime1 348
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sublime1 148,909
Ebola in America 4 hr Cracker Jacks 481

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE