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
84,421 - 84,440 of 114,621 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89331
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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first introduced, Willard Libby correctly dated the wood from a royal Egptian barge, the age of which was known from historical documents.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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89335
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89336
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89341
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89343
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89344
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89346
May 17, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Woodtick, you have been drinking too much evo-koolaid. Come back when you're sober.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89347
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have presented numerous challenges to evolution, such as the impossibility of the evolution of flying reptiles.
That is not impossible. You over estimate yourself greatly. It is only not well understood. There is a huge difference. Let's take your math abilities. Now you may be able to understand that 1 + 1 = 2. That is probably within your grasp. Odds are you don't understand that 23 + 49 = 71. Now since you don't understand the 23 + 49 = 71 does that mean you have proved it is impossible for that to happen? No.
The only responses I get are that I have an insufficiently great imagination and that I should accept evolution on faith.
No one said that to you. Perhaps you should accept evolution on faith since you cannot understand evidence. For the rest of us faith is not enough.
There is no fossil evidence of pterosaur evolution.
Wrong. But then you don't understand evidence.
There is no scientific proposal as to how a pterosaur could have evolved.
Wrong again. The problem is that there is more than one scientific proposal on how pterosaurs achieved flight.
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?
Wrong again. There is no evidence that shows gradual evolution of powered flight is impossible.

Seriously How's That for Stupid, you need to learn for your own good what is evidence and what is not.

We have massive evidence that all life evolved. Why do you think that the pterosaurs should be a special case?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89348
May 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain to me how Rubidium87-strontium87 chronometric corroborates C-14 dating...
You presented it as evidence.
Let's hear your justification.
Carbon dating confirms Earth is older than 6,000 years old. 87Sr, 86Sr confirms Earth is older than 6,000 years old.

PDF linky.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/gold/pdf/239...

But again, why are you asking for something which has NO relevance to your position?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89349
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.
Oh, I totally agree.

That means it's NOT our problem.(shrug)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••