KJV

United States

#2210 Jan 12, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, floods happen. Did you read the stories? Most of them are local floods. There are other problems - Frazer is an oft quoted source, but he got his information from explorers, so it's all heresy. And Frazer knew he was writing for the European audience and was pretty loose with his writing. I honestly don't expect you to know this, though.

So...which flood is true? The stories don't match. They don't agree with the Biblical story. They aren't all the same story, but reveal that lots of peoples throughout history were dependent on water and recognized that water itself is a dangerous and unpredictable thing. They also show that water can be used to wipe the slate clean - when the child asks "what came before us?" the ignorant can say "oh, a big flood, then us. So we're first."

Many of them explain how the first people arose - that contradicts the Biblical flood. It's cute that you're trying to forcefit them all into your story, though.
The point my dear is the flood has its writing around the would. And no the story's are not all a match. One hell of a lot of cultures talk about a world wide flood flood and an ark filled with animals. 2+2=3 for you still?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2211 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Biblical flood was borrowed from the the Mesopotamian one"
So because the Mesopotamian wrote about a world wide flood it could not be that same flood that is talked about in the Bible?
Is that what you're saying?
The Sumerian flood was written quite a few hundred years before the Bible was conceived of. It was written specifically because the cities of Mesopotamia existed on flood plains and flooded every year. Their livelihood was utterly dependent on flooding, and their myths reflect this. In fact, their cities were engineered for floods, to be flooded.

The flood of the Bible is taken from the Sumerian mythos. Neither are real events; both are myths. The difference, of course, is that the Mesopotamians actually experienced yearly floods and the early Jews did not. So the Jewish interpretation is a bit different - more fantastical, makes impossible claims.

That's the part you fail to realize because of your poor education with regards to science. You simply assume that the world is as your religion tells you and you don't bother investigating what geological, astronomical, biological...and on and on...science demonstrates.

It's not really your fault. You were brought up that way and are fully indoctrinated into it. Mind you, other people have been and, having been introduced to the facts, changed. So there's something else going on with you. Something more emotional, perhaps, or more spiritual, that drives you to ignore the findings of science and favor the misleading, dishonest and intellectually lazy lies you have been taught.

I honestly see this as a failing of faith on your part. Yes, your faith drives you to ignore the vast evidence the various sciences have accumulated over the past 160 years (to the point where not a single one backs up the Bible's claims - or any religion's, for that matter).

I see it as a failing of faith precisely because you are unable to accept reality and know God. Rather, you require a small God. You need your God to fit into your tiny, intellectually lazy reality. Something you can grasp. Something easy - that removes all curiosity and exploration of reality from you.

Religion has poisoned your faith, sir. It is hurting you, refuses to allow you to explore what we, as a species, know.

Science has moved so far beyond the ancient Catholic doctrine that is the premise of your belief in a flood, it's unbelievable. It's like you're telling me that influenza is caused by sin and not a virus. It's like you're claiming that prayer alone can cure people of cancer. Shockingly naive!

So...no. We don't take your claims seriously. That you believe such nonsense is worrisome, yes, but that's it.

And you're fortunate that we don't take you seriously. We use evolution to guide our medical theories, our biological knowledge and you enjoy the fruits of those labors. We use evolution to produce our new medical technologies and you benefit, despite that you fail to understand how these work.

You don't have a voice in science. We really don't care what you believe. I'm going to continue working on my research using the best tools and methods available despite the absurd claims you make and I will see results that are, quite frankly, incomprehensible to someone of your extremely limited knowledge base. And my contribution will help you in the end even though all you are trying to do is destroy science.

So the next time you go to the doctor's office, remember not to tell them "Hey, I'm a creationist, so I want the medicine from 1945 because I 'know' that the pathogens cannot have evolved" because that will just end up hurting you.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2212 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The point my dear is the flood has its writing around the would. And no the story's are not all a match. One hell of a lot of cultures talk about a world wide flood flood and an ark filled with animals. 2+2=3 for you still?
Few talk about a world wide flood. Fewer still at time the Christian's claim. And...what...three mention an ark, and those are the Abrahamic religions?

Did you not read them? A number of them claimed that was how the world began - out of the flood, people emerged. Well...that puts to rest Noah's story! Most of them were local floods - the girl hid in the tree to be safe... Now she should trust turtles, etc. Now the gods know that humans are ok. Sorry about the flood killing everything and good luck now that it has receded!

And the majority of cultures on the planet lack a flood myth. The number you quoted is what...40? 50? That's less than 1% of the world's cultures, most of which do not have a flood myth, let alone a world wide flood myth, let alone one with a boat full of animals.

So you're cherry picking your data and making stuff up to boot. Well done! I expect no less from you, a creationist.

Let's add some science to this, shall we?

- if all animals were reduced to 2 breeding pairs, their genetic variety would be destroyed and that would be measurable in every single species.

It's not. So you fail here.

The cheetah is your sole exception - it died down to about 8 breeding individuals around 5 to 7000 years ago. That's measurable. We know it. No other mammalian species follows this example. Ergo...you're wrong. Your religion is wrong. You have been lied to and, because of your lack of scientific education, you believe the lie.
KJV

United States

#2213 Jan 12, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>So your god created the dinosaurs so that they could all drown in a flood?

I see.
You show again that you do not Know the word of the Bible.

"Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah,“The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.(Genesis 6:11-13)(NASB)"

all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

1) all flesh including the dinosaurs
2) on earth. Not in the sea

All land animals and man had become corrupt.

All did not die in the flood. Two of each kind were save upon the ark. That is not to say that they were not hunted to extinction by man,or failed to make a go of it after the earth had changed so much. Mans life span was shortened after the flood by God to 120 years.
The earth was no more the rich plush land it was before the water from above that acted as a shield against harmful rays from the Sun came raining down for 40 days and nights.

Yes the animals of the land were put to death by God the same as man.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2214 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
Dr. Alan Zindler, a professor of geology at Columbia University who is a member of the Lamont-Doherty research group, said age estimates using the carbon dating and uranium-thorium dating differed only slightly for the period from 9,000 years ago to the present.''But at earlier times, the carbon dates were substantially younger than the dates we estimated by uranium-thorium analysis,'' he said.''The largest deviation, 3,500 years, was obtained for samples that are about 20,000 years old.''
One reason the group believes the uranium-thorium estimates to be more accurate than carbon dating is that they produce better matches between known changes in the Earth's orbit and changes in global glaciation.
Why is it that creationists think that all dating is carbon dating? Yes, carbon dating needs to be calibrated. But Uranium dating does not. Neither does Rb-Sr dating. And *all* dates before about 100,000 years are something other than carbon dating.

So once again, the Bible is not even close.
KJV

United States

#2215 Jan 12, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>The Sumerian flood was written quite a few hundred years before the Bible was conceived of. It was written specifically because the cities of Mesopotamia existed on flood plains and flooded every year. Their livelihood was utterly dependent on flooding, and their myths reflect this. In fact, their cities were engineered for floods, to be flooded.

The flood of the Bible is taken from the Sumerian mythos. Neither are real events; both are myths. The difference, of course, is that the Mesopotamians actually experienced yearly floods and the early Jews did not. So the Jewish interpretation is a bit different - more fantastical, makes impossible claims.

That's the part you fail to realize because of your poor education with regards to science. You simply assume that the world is as your religion tells you and you don't bother investigating what geological, astronomical, biological...and on and on...science demonstrates.

It's not really your fault. You were brought up that way and are fully indoctrinated into it. Mind you, other people have been and, having been introduced to the facts, changed. So there's something else going on with you. Something more emotional, perhaps, or more spiritual, that drives you to ignore the findings of science and favor the misleading, dishonest and intellectually lazy lies you have been taught.

I honestly see this as a failing of faith on your part. Yes, your faith drives you to ignore the vast evidence the various sciences have accumulated over the past 160 years (to the point where not a single one backs up the Bible's claims - or any religion's, for that matter).

I see it as a failing of faith precisely because you are unable to accept reality and know God. Rather, you require a small God. You need your God to fit into your tiny, intellectually lazy reality. Something you can grasp. Something easy - that removes all curiosity and exploration of reality from you.

Religion has poisoned your faith, sir. It is hurting you, refuses to allow you to explore what we, as a species, know.

Science has moved so far beyond the ancient Catholic doctrine that is the premise of your belief in a flood, it's unbelievable. It's like you're telling me that influenza is caused by sin and not a virus. It's like you're claiming that prayer alone can cure people of cancer. Shockingly naive!

So...no. We don't take your claims seriously. That you believe such nonsense is worrisome, yes, but that's it.

And you're fortunate that we don't take you seriously. We use evolution to guide our medical theories, our biological knowledge and you enjoy the fruits of those labors. We use evolution to produce our new medical technologies and you benefit, despite that you fail to understand how these work.

You don't have a voice in science. We really don't care what you believe. I'm going to continue working on my research using the best tools and methods available despite the absurd claims you make and I will see results that are, quite frankly, incomprehensible to someone of your extremely limited knowledge base. And my contribution will help you in the end even though all you are trying to do is destroy science.

So the next time you go to the doctor's office, remember not to tell them "Hey, I'm a creationist, so I want the medicine from 1945 because I 'know' that the pathogens cannot have evolved" because that will just end up hurting you.
I can not trust science's dating methods.

Way too many errors!

Along with the circular reasoning in dating. The dirt is this old so the bones are this old, the bones are this old so the dirt must be this old.
KJV

United States

#2216 Jan 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Why is it that creationists think that all dating is carbon dating? Yes, carbon dating needs to be calibrated. But Uranium dating does not. Neither does Rb-Sr dating. And *all* dates before about 100,000 years are something other than carbon dating.

So once again, the Bible is not even close.
"However, since in the uranium-lead process there is no way of precisely determining the original amount of primordial lead (the best we can do is use an estimate based on the average concentration of lead-204 found today), some error is introduced in this part of the calculation (most radio-dates using the uranium-lead techniques vary by a few percent plus or minus). Therefore the uranium-lead dating technique tends to give a wider range of dates than other methods, and it is generally considered to be the least precise of the radio-dating methods. As a result, it has largely been abandoned"
KJV

United States

#2217 Jan 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Why is it that creationists think that all dating is carbon dating? Yes, carbon dating needs to be calibrated. But Uranium dating does not. Neither does Rb-Sr dating. And *all* dates before about 100,000 years are something other than carbon dating.

So once again, the Bible is not even close.


"The models suggests pseudotachylyte-host rock dating is unlikely to produce real ages of pseudotachylyte formation. Worse, because many pseudotachylytes apparently form during cooling and uplift, the technique will instead yield a seemingly reasonable but geologically meaningless date. Certain approaches to the problem, including a microstructural analysis coupled with a whole rock- biotite age on the same rock, may yield an actual age of pseudotachylyte formation, but the assumptions made heretofore about the behavior of the Rb-Sr system at the time of pseudotachylyte formation are questionable."

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/370...
KJV

United States

#2218 Jan 12, 2013
The World After the Flood

Upon leaving the ark, Noah offered a sacrifice to God. Noah gave to God one of every clean animal and bird. Remember that on entering the ark, Noah brought in seven of every clean animal and bird. Therefore, the odd animal was used in the sacrifice. God finds Noah's sacrifice acceptable and promises to never curse the earth again nor destroy life on the earth, no matter how evil mankind becomes. God had cursed the earth when Adam and Eve sinned, bringing forth weeds and thorns (Genesis 3:17). He also cursed the earth with the flood waters, destroying every living thing on the earth (Genesis 6:13).

While the earth remains, the seasons would continue to cycle. This is the first mention of seasons in the Bible. Some speculate that alterations to the earth in the flood brought on the seasons, but there is no way to prove such a point. Notice that the condition on God's promise is "while the earth remains." God is not promising that the earth will remain forever. He is saying that the seasons will not be interrupted as they were during the flood while the earth remains in existence. We know that one day, this world will be destroyed for God has promised its destruction (II Peter 3:10).

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2219 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
The World After the Flood
Upon leaving the ark, Noah offered a sacrifice to God. Noah gave to God one of every clean animal and bird. Remember that on entering the ark, Noah brought in seven of every clean animal and bird. Therefore, the odd animal was used in the sacrifice. God finds Noah's sacrifice acceptable and promises to never curse the earth again nor destroy life on the earth, no matter how evil mankind becomes. God had cursed the earth when Adam and Eve sinned, bringing forth weeds and thorns (Genesis 3:17). He also cursed the earth with the flood waters, destroying every living thing on the earth (Genesis 6:13).
While the earth remains, the seasons would continue to cycle. This is the first mention of seasons in the Bible. Some speculate that alterations to the earth in the flood brought on the seasons, but there is no way to prove such a point. Notice that the condition on God's promise is "while the earth remains." God is not promising that the earth will remain forever. He is saying that the seasons will not be interrupted as they were during the flood while the earth remains in existence. We know that one day, this world will be destroyed for God has promised its destruction (II Peter 3:10).
Prove any of this creationist horsesh*t you lying sack of sh*t troll.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#2220 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You show again that you do not Know the word of the Bible.
"Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah,“The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.(Genesis 6:11-13)(NASB)"
all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
1) all flesh including the dinosaurs
2) on earth. Not in the sea
All land animals and man had become corrupt.
All did not die in the flood. Two of each kind were save upon the ark. That is not to say that they were not hunted to extinction by man,or failed to make a go of it after the earth had changed so much. Mans life span was shortened after the flood by God to 120 years.
The earth was no more the rich plush land it was before the water from above that acted as a shield against harmful rays from the Sun came raining down for 40 days and nights.
Yes the animals of the land were put to death by God the same as man.
Dinosaurs also existed in the sea, you know.
KJV

United States

#2221 Jan 12, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Prove any of this creationist horsesh*t you lying sack of sh*t troll.
Such a joy seeing you again Septic!

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2222 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I can not trust science's dating methods.
Way too many errors!
Along with the circular reasoning in dating. The dirt is this old so the bones are this old, the bones are this old so the dirt must be this old.
So you would trust illiterate sheep-herders who thought up an absolutely absurd story before science even existed, which was passed along for many generations by 'word-of-mouth' before any of it was written down, and who knew only the tiniest fraction of what we know now; over scientists whose hard work is the reason you are even able to talk to me right now; and despite the fact that, unlike those same illiterate sheep-herders who came up with said story, the scientists actually have evidence (and an overwhelming amount of it) to back up and support their claims?

I think I see your problem.

All asinine claims you make aside, though, radiocarbon dating has been proven to be accurate time and time again. There are KNOWN cases when radiocarbon dating does not work correctly (take the reservoir effect, for example, which we know of now), and every single example of it being inaccurate falls under these documented and understood cases.

Want to know what the best part of this all is, though? Through peer-review; evolution, all of our currently used dating methods, et cetera - have all lasted strong. This is what separates your ridiculous assertions and claims from ours - yours does not and CANNOT last under scrutiny. And if you're right, there is a very easy way to prove that you are - DEMONSTRATE IT. That is why peer review exists, after all.

But I'm going to take a guess and say that you can't prove that you're right. Want to know why? Because every gap in our knowledge that imbeciles filled with superstition and myths and so on has been WRONG. Every - single - one. So the odds are quite heavily stacked against you, aren't they?
KJV

United States

#2224 Jan 12, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Dinosaurs also existed in the sea, you know.
Yes they did.
There are two things in the flood that could have killed them off.

1) fountains of the deep opening up
That's HOT water shooting up that
Could and did kill of Diatoms and
Whales as well as Dinosaurs.

2) the added water changed the salinity of the water. This could has been their demise as well.
KJV

United States

#2225 Jan 12, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Dinosaurs also existed in the sea, you know.
"A remarkable fossil find has been found in Peru: 346 whales buried in diatomaceous earth. The preservation of the whales is so pristine and complete, the authors of the paper in the Feb. 2004 issue of Geology1 conclude that the whales had to be buried rapidly, in days or weeks. If so, it represents a rate of accumulation of diatoms many times higher than what occurs in modern oceans.
The authors point out some amazing things about this fossil deposit:
Condition: The whale skeletons are “preserved in pristine condition (bones articulated [i.e., still assembled] or at least closely associated), in some cases including preserved baleen.”
Fine details:“The most complete whale (WCBa 20) was fully articulated; the microscopic detail of its baleen was preserved … and there is black, heavy-mineral replacement of the spinal cord and some intervertebral disks. There were no similar minerals in the surrounding sediment. These nonbony tissues were still present when the whale was completely buried.” Other instances of baleen, the delicate straining structure of the whale’s mouth, were also found.
Vertical extent:“The 346 whales within ~1.5 km2 of surveyed surface were not buried as an event, but were distributed uninterrupted through an 80-m-thick sedimentary section.” Since they were found uniformly distributed from bottom to top of the formation, the conditions in which they were buried must have also been uniform.
Unlaminated strata:“The diatomaceous sediment lacks repeating primary laminations, but instead is mostly massive, with irregular laminations and speckles.” In other words, it was not due to a cyclic process, like the annual climate change that produces tree rings.
Lack of bioturbation: Small organisms have not altered the deposit.“There is no evidence for bioturbation by invertebrates in the whale-bearing sediment.” Apparently they didn’t have the chance, it happened so fast.
Intact diatoms:“If most diatoms dissolve before preservation in the sediment, one would find frustules in all stages of dissolution. Diatoms in the Pisco diatomaceous sediment are often broken, but SEMstudy indicated fine preservation, with no significant evidence of dissolution.… In the shallow-water Pisco Formation, the diatoms were probably buried too quickly for much dissolution to occur.” The authors point out that in contemporary diatom deposits, only 2–3% of the frustules (glass shells) usually remain undissolved, up to 24% in special cases in Antarctica."
http://crev.info/2004/02/hundreds_of_whales_b...
KJV

United States

#2226 Jan 12, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Dinosaurs also existed in the sea, you know.
"‘We knew it was a great find,’ said paleontologist Leonard Brand about the fossil whales he saw in Peru in 1999, 350 km (200 miles) south of Lima, the capital. Eagerly he organized a team of creationist research scientists. They recently published their findings in the secular journal Geology.1,2,3
Overall, they found 346 whales within a 1.5-km2 (370-acre) area, buried in an 80-m (260-ft) thick layer of sedimentary rock called diatomite. This layer is part of the Pisco Formation, which varies in thickness from 200–1,000 m (650–3,300 ft).

Diatomite is sedimentary rock containing a high percentage of fossil diatoms—small single-celled algae, which commonly live near the ocean surface. The layer of diatomite in Peru has 5 to 10% clay and abundant volcanic ash.

Today, when diatoms die, their silica skeletons accumulate on the ocean floor. One gram (0.035 oz.) of diatomite may contain up to 400 million skeletons.4 Diatomite sediment normally accumulates slowly—only a few centimetres per thousand years.1Even where the rate is higher, such as in some shallow-water areas, accumulation is still slow. For example, in the fjords of British Columbia, diatoms and clay accumulate at 2.5–5.0 mm (0.1–0.2 inches) per year.2

Also today, when a whale carcass sinks to the bottom of the ocean, many kinds of scavengers quickly attack and colonize it. And in their quest for food, some scavengers churn up the adjacent sediments.5

However, in Peru, the fossilized whales and diatoms were well preserved and the whale skeletons were mostly intact. There was no evidence of normal decay, such as wormholes, barnacle encrustations or general degradation. Neither was there any sign that organisms had churned up the adjacent sediment."

http://creation.mo bi/dead-whales-telling-tales
KJV

United States

#2227 Jan 12, 2013
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>So you would trust illiterate sheep-herders who thought up an absolutely absurd story before science even existed, which was passed along for many generations by 'word-of-mouth' before any of it was written down, and who knew only the tiniest fraction of what we know now; over scientists whose hard work is the reason you are even able to talk to me right now; and despite the fact that, unlike those same illiterate sheep-herders who came up with said story, the scientists actually have evidence (and an overwhelming amount of it) to back up and support their claims?

I think I see your problem.

All asinine claims you make aside, though, radiocarbon dating has been proven to be accurate time and time again. There are KNOWN cases when radiocarbon dating does not work correctly (take the reservoir effect, for example, which we know of now), and every single example of it being inaccurate falls under these documented and understood cases.

Want to know what the best part of this all is, though? Through peer-review; evolution, all of our currently used dating methods, et cetera - have all lasted strong. This is what separates your ridiculous assertions and claims from ours - yours does not and CANNOT last under scrutiny. And if you're right, there is a very easy way to prove that you are - DEMONSTRATE IT. That is why peer review exists, after all.

But I'm going to take a guess and say that you can't prove that you're right. Want to know why? Because every gap in our knowledge that imbeciles filled with superstition and myths and so on has been WRONG. Every - single - one. So the odds are quite heavily stacked against you, aren't they?
I do see your problem.
You're a sheep.
You follow and don't lead
You accept BS and don't question it
Your myths have more hurdles to jump then my believes.

Your blind acceptance of the following
Unprovable items.

No such thing as a God
The Big Bang
Spontaneities Life
Evolution
Age of the Universe 13.7 billion years old
Age of the earth 4.6 billion years old
First life 3.6 billion years ago.
All plant and animal life evolved from a spontaneous single cell life form.
All matter in the universe was once small then a pin head.

Not to mention failed theory's
The theory of Relativity
The theory of Quantum Mechanics
String Theory.

To list a few.

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2228 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I can not trust science's dating methods.
Way too many errors!
Along with the circular reasoning in dating. The dirt is this old so the bones are this old, the bones are this old so the dirt must be this old.
First, your opinion on the matter of dating is irrelevant, since you don't know the first thing about it works.

Second, it never ceases to amaze me that someone so uninformed about everything science believes they can authoritatively know when science is incorrect.

Third, seriously, just learn more about this stuff. You don't seem to know anything about geology, astronomy, basic physics and the history of these sciences for the last 200 years. If you did, you'd realize how silly your point of view is.

In brief: Various Catholics speculated that the Earth was between 5000 and 7000 years old, based on their reading of the Bible. About 200 years ago, non-Bible ways of investigating the age of the Earth were undertaken.

By 160 years ago Catastrophism was the last scientific argument that relied upon a young earth. It was disproved by Uniformitarianism in geology, evolution in biology (then natural science), and physics.

Physics developed better and better ways to measure absolute dates and geological sciences produced maps of the ages of the rock layers. These are very well coordinated all over the world. Geological companies rely upon them - in America and Canada, for example, when you drill, you know roughly how old any rock layer is because of the extensive knowledge base that now exists. Most of the rock layers have names.

Fossils reinforce the data geology provides - index fossils are only found at certain dates and in certain layers. So when you find an index fossil in some sample you've pulled up, because of the massive amount of data and previous studies, you immediately have a time stamp for that rock.

It's not a circular argument. It's an immensely well studied, well known body of knowledge put together over the decades from a variety of scientific disciplines that fully and completely back each other up.

To sum: you, ignorantly, rely upon a false interpretation of a mythological book given by ignorant Catholic Bishops several hundred years before scientific investigation began. And you, hilariously, believe you know something about how nature works.

Nothing could be further from the truth and few things approach this level of irony. Thanks :)

This is not to say that you are stupid. You could learn how geology works. But you won't because you are scared to step out of your comfortable zone. If you live and die this way, it will be fair to call you stupid at that point - because you would have never made the effort. Until then, you are merely ignorant.

I wish you luck on your journey.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2229 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"The models suggests pseudotachylyte-host rock dating is unlikely to produce real ages of pseudotachylyte formation. Worse, because many pseudotachylytes apparently form during cooling and uplift, the technique will instead yield a seemingly reasonable but geologically meaningless date. Certain approaches to the problem, including a microstructural analysis coupled with a whole rock- biotite age on the same rock, may yield an actual age of pseudotachylyte formation, but the assumptions made heretofore about the behavior of the Rb-Sr system at the time of pseudotachylyte formation are questionable."
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/370...
You didn't really read that paper...did you?

He ends by claiming that the rock ages he is disputing are 55 million years old. That's substantially older than 6000 years old, if you aren't aware of that.

From your paper:

"Overall, the apparent age from sample 2
must represent the maximum possible time of
pseudotachylyte formation, and the most probable
true age for the pseudotachylyte (55 Ma,
Magloughlin et al., 2001) suggests scenario (c) is
the most likely"

Last, your odd attempt at diversion did not argue with Polymath one bit. He told you that Carbon dating cannot go further back that 100 000 years. He's a bit off, unless there's new techniques I'm unfamiliar with - the maximum useful time period for Carbon dating is 55 000 years, but some studies push it up to 74 000 years.

In either case, the study you quoted quite clearly isn't using carbon dating. At 55 million years ago, that's not possible.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#2230 Jan 12, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"However, since in the uranium-lead process there is no way of precisely determining the original amount of primordial lead (the best we can do is use an estimate based on the average concentration of lead-204 found today), some error is introduced in this part of the calculation (most radio-dates using the uranium-lead techniques vary by a few percent plus or minus). Therefore the uranium-lead dating technique tends to give a wider range of dates than other methods, and it is generally considered to be the least precise of the radio-dating methods. As a result, it has largely been abandoned"
False. Read the wikipedia article to get your basic knowledge up a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dat...

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min ChristineM 228,528
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 1 hr Patrick 148
Is Religion Childish? 1 hr Patrick 3
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 1 hr Patrick 3
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr _Bad Company 22,919
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr Richardfs 5,584
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr Richardfs 674

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE