Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#94736 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Our side embarked on a 7 year project to look at the isochron decay rate issue vs young earth.
They went back to a number of sites studied in the past by establishment scientists that formed the bulk of the modern lit on the subject, then submitted samples to multiple labs double blind.
What they found has ended up reopening the issue of reliability of long-age dating using isochon theory. Their primary paper called the "Rate Project" has passed peer review and been presented at a number of conferences being hailed as a "refreshing look" at the issue across a spectrum of geology professionals.
Apart from the lack of concordance between dating methods (sometimes over 900my) other testable chemical clocks contradicted the entire isochon system. The truth will win in the end.
http://www.icr.org/article/young-helium-diffu...
At worst, as Kong pointed out, the RATE project was a deliberate attempt to subvert the techniques through deception. Technicians know that older inclusions in lava can give false readings, for example. But generally, when SCIENTISTS in the field submit a sample, they will mention if such problems are likely. Why? Because the want the truth of course, they want an accurate date if possible.

We all know that different techniques have different ranges for accuracy, based on the decay rate of the particular elements being tested. So a 7 million year old inclusion is added to a sample that came form a recent eruption, and this "proves" the unreliability of radiometric dating? No, it would normally prove the sloppiness of the sample collector...and in this case merely proves the deliberate deception employed by the RATE project.

On the other hand, for samples known to be unadulterated and intact, multiple dating methods reliably give datings within 5-10% of each other, and often better. Its pretty hard to reconcile this fact with the claim that the techniques are unreliable.

And it is damned near impossible to reconcile them with any Young Earth scenario, unless you try some special pleading like claiming decay rates used to be much shorter...x700,000 acceleration is required to reconcile the dates with YEC!- And then you have the problem of dealing with enough energy release to fry the entire crust...not to mention spectroscopic analysis of distant stars showing decay has been pretty constant all this time.

We know you will attack radiometric dating with every means you can think of, because even more than evolution it proves that YEC is a pile of nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#94737 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Used to be that there was a wall of separation between operational science and origins science. Now you show up in class and they expect a student to look into a microscope and see the two at once. They start out in lectures and show some nice drawings and video animation pushing evo. To the un knowing mind, thinking he is getting objective fact from the trusted prof, but instead is being brainwashed. Now they just fire the prof that won't follow their line.
I can say that the uni president that was a PhD geo with long-age dating focus was shocked when he saw the raw data on grand canyon flows that were telling the wrong story for them. He wrote me about this. His zoology dept head was ordered to write me an apology after attacking me in the papers. I thought to myself, these guys are being straight out w me and I need to show them respect. I did and would never publish their names. PO214 is an interesting subject. Writer is Gentry, a fine gentlemen also. Operational science has done us well since Tesla, electricity and the AC motor pumping all that freshwater and chem to clean it! Med is cool also but steering us away from natural meds is a catastrophe.
From one of your own. Lets see if you are the only YEC ever on Topix with the gumption to read it...

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94738 Jul 1, 2013
To add on to Chimney1's post:

Radiometric dating is only one small part of the evidence for an old Earth. It is in many ways one of the most useful, but we know that the Earth is old through various other means.

First here is an easy one:

Does ice float in your world? It does in mine. From the icecap annual layers alone we know that the Earth is at least 200,000 years old and that there was no global flood.

There are mountains built from coral deposits. We can measure how fast coral deposits occur. it is on the order of millimeters per year. The strata of limestone gives and age of tens of millions of years for just those layers. The same can be said of chalk deposits, varves, and many other sedimentary deposits.

Here is an article that lists only some of the evidence for an old Earth:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94739 Jul 1, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Well, that was strange.
I am pretty sure that that idiocy was all replaytime.

I love the fact that he tried to use the "fact" that Aussiebob is "from Australia" as some sort of evidence that he is not one of his many sockpuppets. As you well know the computer automatically knows where you are from and have no choice in your shown location <rolleyes>.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94740 Jul 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
To add on to Chimney1's post:
Radiometric dating is only one small part of the evidence for an old Earth. It is in many ways one of the most useful, but we know that the Earth is old through various other means.
First here is an easy one:
Does ice float in your world? It does in mine. From the icecap annual layers alone we know that the Earth is at least 200,000 years old and that there was no global flood.
There are mountains built from coral deposits. We can measure how fast coral deposits occur. it is on the order of millimeters per year. The strata of limestone gives and age of tens of millions of years for just those layers. The same can be said of chalk deposits, varves, and many other sedimentary deposits.
Here is an article that lists only some of the evidence for an old Earth:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against...
All evolutionist lies!

Everybody with half a braincell knows that the world was created last Thursday. Every bit of evidence you get for evolution, was created just like that. Every memory you have of anything before last Thursday, you were born with.

Let us see you refute that one!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#94741 Jul 1, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah. You debated professors in geology with your talking snake story.
Uhuh.
I have noticed in Youtube debates that the YECs sometimes walk away with a triumphant air after being trounced and not even realising it.

Everyone's a winner!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#94742 Jul 1, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
All evolutionist lies!
Everybody with half a braincell knows that the world was created last Thursday. Every bit of evidence you get for evolution, was created just like that. Every memory you have of anything before last Thursday, you were born with.
Let us see you refute that one!
Ah but we have just received a cheque dated last Wednesday

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94743 Jul 1, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
All evolutionist lies!
Everybody with half a braincell knows that the world was created last Thursday. Every bit of evidence you get for evolution, was created just like that. Every memory you have of anything before last Thursday, you were born with.
Let us see you refute that one!
I can't, it looks like I am about to joint the Omphalos Oompah Band

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94744 Jul 1, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
No question I am correct. I have corresponded with atheist here that believe there is no such thing as paranormal.
I have no idea who may have said that but there is no evidence of a paranormal.
Robert Stevens wrote:
That statement means we know everything.
No, it means there is no evidence.
Robert Stevens wrote:
The plain simple truth is we will never know enough to prove that there is no creator, and I have heard higher educated atheist that you have in your top debates, admit this.
And that is entirely correct.
Robert Stevens wrote:
However one could prove to oneself there is a God, I am sorry for you if you can't, or refuse to accept it.
Don't feel sorry for me, bub. I'm doing just fine.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#94746 Jul 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has advanced us in the last 200 years there is no doubt. Look at the technology. But science does not do anything for morals, well except maybe try to take them away from people that do believe and live by the word of God. Many morals people have and live by are on beliefs.
I dispute that, on two levels.

The first is that science respects truth whether we like that truth or not. Any scientist who is discovered committing fraud in research soon finds his/her career in the dumpster. And there is a process for detecting and eliminating fraud or error, called peer review. Its not perfect, but its good. So if you regard respect for truth as a moral value in its own right, science is a moral endeavour.

The second goes to looking hard at what morality is from a scientific viewpoint. If the purpose of morality is to ensure individual happiness within harmonious group relations, a social contract we can live by, then its not going to make sense unless we understand what we as individuals actually need to be happy.

Surely there is a place for science in examining that very question and coming up with researched, rational answers. We have competing needs for security, freedom, status, not to mention the basics like food and water. As disastrous experiments have shown in the past, we do not do well being treated as mere ants in the mound, we need a degree of freedom and responsibility for our own lives, while minimising the harm we cause others.

I think science, by understanding the human being better, will assist us in formulating a moral system that provides an optimal happiness and so will be most moral.

Up until now, morality, or I could say competing moral codes, have slugged it out in a kind of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" and the current dogmas are what's left. Die hard pacifists...failed. Iron fisted systems of control...failed. Purely communal systems....failed.

We should respect the survivors, and learn from them. But perhaps we can do even better by applying our minds, and the scientific method, to the problem.

Idealists in the past tried to use "science" to mold humans into some crazy new pattern. Real scientists of today can learn the actual pattern, the fabric of who we are (not who we should be according to some philosopher), and build our moral structures around THAT. Homo Sapiens, as we are.

And how we came to be, tells us a lot about who we are.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Portland, OR

#94747 Jul 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
At worst, as Kong pointed out, the RATE project was a deliberate attempt to subvert the techniques through deception. Technicians know that older inclusions in lava can give false readings, for example. But generally, when SCIENTISTS in the field submit a sample, they will mention if such problems are likely. Why? Because the want the truth of course, they want an accurate date if possible.
We all know that different techniques have different ranges for accuracy, based on the decay rate of the particular elements being tested. So a 7 million year old inclusion is added to a sample that came form a recent eruption, and this "proves" the unreliability of radiometric dating? No, it would normally prove the sloppiness of the sample collector...and in this case merely proves the deliberate deception employed by the RATE project.
On the other hand, for samples known to be unadulterated and intact, multiple dating methods reliably give datings within 5-10% of each other, and often better. Its pretty hard to reconcile this fact with the claim that the techniques are unreliable.
And it is damned near impossible to reconcile them with any Young Earth scenario, unless you try some special pleading like claiming decay rates used to be much shorter...x700,000 acceleration is required to reconcile the dates with YEC!- And then you have the problem of dealing with enough energy release to fry the entire crust...not to mention spectroscopic analysis of distant stars showing decay has been pretty constant all this time.
We know you will attack radiometric dating with every means you can think of, because even more than evolution it proves that YEC is a pile of nonsense.
I was closely envolved in this one. There was no deliberate deception. You obviouly have not read the lit I linked nor looked at the tables or data. If you don't like what was found that's your issue, but please spare me the lecture on seeing what I want to see, I deal with hard science/technology and facts to make real things work every day here. Some of our gear is life and death serious biz and we can't deal with fiction, it must work - period. I have no room in my mind for delutions and lies, isotope based long-age dating has now been debunked.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94748 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I was closely envolved in this one. There was no deliberate deception. You obviouly have not read the lit I linked nor looked at the tables or data. If you don't like what was found that's your issue, but please spare me the lecture on seeing what I want to see, I deal with hard science/technology and facts to make real things work every day here. Some of our gear is life and death serious biz and we can't deal with fiction, it must work - period. I have no room in my mind for delutions and lies, isotope based long-age dating has now been debunked.
Please, once you are caught in lie it is best to drop the subject.

You claimed from the start that the rate project had undergone peer review. You were unable to show any peer review when you were challenged. Nor have you apologized for making that false claim.

Kong's article showed that the so called problems were known about and explained before this project started. That means that those people were either dishonest or ignorant, neither characteristic is a good one for a scientist to have.
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

#94749 Jul 1, 2013
An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total ... Stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94750 Jul 1, 2013
I hope this is not Kong's article. I don't think it is. This writer too shows the many flaws in the RATE Project. He also points out that none of it was peer reviewed:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/hel...

SBT, you can repeat your posting fallacious stories about RATE. We will continually debunk it.

And again, radiometric dating is only one bit of evidence that shows the world is old. Its usefulness is that it gives specific dates. The best we can do with many geologic dating methods is to prove that the age of the Earth has to be hundred of millions or billions of years old and the relative age between strata. Radiometric dating is not needed to show that the Earth is old. We already knew that.

Let's say you see an old man walking down the street. There will be several tips of his age. How he walks, how his skin looks, how his hair looks, teeth, even fingerprints. A picture ID with a birth date is not needed to know that he is old. It does tell you exactly how old. An astute person could get a date within 10% for most cases and 30% for almost all cases.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94751 Jul 1, 2013
CBOW wrote:
An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total ... Stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.
"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"
The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."
To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?"
And then she went back to reading her book.
A priest was walking through his parish and in front of a local grocery a boy has a box of kittens and a sign that says "Free to a good home, Christian Kittens". The child and the kittens made his day.

The next week the Bishop of the area showed up and the priest said, "I must show you this young boy I saw the other day". Hoping that the child was still in front of the store with his kittens he went back to the store and saw the child out front.

But as he approached to his dismay he saw that the sign had changed. Now it said "Free to a good home Atheist Kittens". He asked the boy why he changed his cute sign: "Last week you had a sign saying 'Christian kittens' and now you have one that says 'Atheist kittens'. Why did you change your sign?"

The boy replied, "Oh, that's easy. They have their eyes open now!"

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94752 Jul 1, 2013
CBOW wrote:
An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total ... Stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.
"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"
The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."
To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?"
And then she went back to reading her book.

This reminds me of a conversation two women were having about men's balls. They were curious why they sometimes retract but at other times they hang. They then turned to me and looking bewildered to get an answer, asked me why.
To which I replied while leaving the room.
I will leave you two here to puzzle that one out, then left the room.

Some question deserve the answer of....
Elvis has left the building!

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#94753 Jul 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't quote out of context.
We do have the facts. We are glad to show that we do.
The next very important point is that we have proved evolution. The vast majority of scientists have looked at all of the possibilities and they agree that the theory of evolution is the correct answer. Since evolution is essentially biology they would be the scientists that you would trust the most. Over 99% of all scientists believe the theory of evolution. That means the few that don't are way off into the fringe.
So, if you want to change anything the burden of proof is upon you.
Now if you are talking about the existence of god, which has nothing to do with evolution. Again the atheists are right. It has always been up to the person making the positive claim to make their case. You are claiming a god exists. This has never been proven in any way. Therefore the burden of proof is still upon you.
Do you understand this? This is very simple logic. Even a fundie should be able to see that this is fair.
If you did have the fats you wouldn't be debating me about the burden of proof because you would have the proof. You have faith and belief like everyone else. I do have my personal proof and as I said I except you are not of God, you are a drone, or acting like you are a drone.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94754 Jul 1, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
If you did have the fats you wouldn't be debating me about the burden of proof because you would have the proof. You have faith and belief like everyone else. I do have my personal proof and as I said I except you are not of God, you are a drone, or acting like you are a drone.
Nope. We have evidence for all of our claims. Our side has been "proven". Yours hasn't.

If you want to ask about specific evidence I will be more than happy to go over it with you. The reason we are so quick to ask for evidence is because we KNOW that you do not have any. Sometimes it is fun to watch you scramble around for some.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94755 Jul 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. We have evidence for all of our claims. Our side has been "proven". Yours hasn't.
If you want to ask about specific evidence I will be more than happy to go over it with you. The reason we are so quick to ask for evidence is because we KNOW that you do not have any. Sometimes it is fun to watch you scramble around for some.

Are you a fat drone? LMAO

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94756 Jul 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a fat drone? LMAO
Not the last time I checked.

The "fat" part was a typo that I will let go just this once.

Heavens nows i nver mike a tipo.

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
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 6 min Petal Power 6,703
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 7 min Petal Power 3,333
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 9 min Petal Power 6,989
Alphabetical ways to die (Jul '11) 9 min Angels Flight 10,461
Stolen Jaguar Found 46 Years Later 10 min Petal Power 5
I call this the COMPLAINT thread (Jul '13) 11 min Petal Power 119
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 12 min CrunchyBacon 20,156
I Like..... (Mar '14) 13 min Anonomuss 310
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min Sublime1 147,054
What's your tip for the day? 16 min Just_a_memory 1,041
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••