Noah's flood real

[KJV]

-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!

[WesTheDuck]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Hidingfromyou]

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.

[Hidingfromyou]

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.

[Hidingfromyou]

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...

[KJV]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>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.

First, your opinion on the matter of dating is irrelevant, since you don't know the first thing about it works.

My opinion?

Those were quotes!
Seems there are quite a few out there that don't buy into to the whole dating thing of billion and billions of years.

[KJV]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>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.

Oh but I did read it.
And yes carbon dating is used for 50,000 years or less not that it works just that's its limited lie range.

"suggests scenario (c) is
the most likely"

Ya that's a solid dating method I'd put my money on. LOL

[KJV]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>False. Read the wikipedia article to get your basic knowledge up a bit:

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

Your wrong!

This coming straight from your science web pages.

"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"

" It has been found that the radii of pleochroic haloes due to the uranium and thorium radioactive decays do in fact vary in size in the same minerals. This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. This proves that the half-lives of the uranium and thorium radioactive decays vary. Now since the uranium-thorium-lead method of dating depends for its accuracy on the assumption that the half-lives for the radioactive decays are constant, any age determination using this method of dating will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption. "

[Khatru]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Yet the dinosaurs of our oceans were big and small.

And we're not just talking dinosaurs, we're also talking about millions (maybe billions) of species that are now extinct including a variety of fauna.

All because your god decided that they (but not other species) had to die in a flood.

[Khatru]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
"‘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

Here's a report on that....

http://resweb.llu.edu/lbrand/pdf/taphonomy_of...

It's an interesting read but I couldn't see anything about an angry god deciding to kill them because "sons of God" had visited our world and impregnated our women with evil DNA resulting in the birth of vile and depraved people.

[Hidingfromyou]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
First, your opinion on the matter of dating is irrelevant, since you don't know the first thing about it works.
My opinion?
Those were quotes!
Seems there are quite a few out there that don't buy into to the whole dating thing of billion and billions of years.

Quotes from some creationist website? Yeah, sure they also don't know the first thing about radioactive dating.

If that's where you get your science "knowledge" from, no wonder you don't understand!

KJV, you're not a stupid man. Why don't you just pick up any introductory text on geology, biology or physics?

[Hidingfromyou]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh but I did read it.
And yes carbon dating is used for 50,000 years or less not that it works just that's its limited lie range.
"suggests scenario (c) is
the most likely"
Ya that's a solid dating method I'd put my money on. LOL

First, you were the one who presented that paper as if it supported creationism. It quite obviously does not, since they're dealing with millions of years.

Second, that's the language of science. Nothing is proved by science, knowledge is only disproved. So the strongest language you can use is "most likely" and "strongly supports" etc.

Science is not dogmatic like religion is.

[Hidingfromyou]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Your wrong!
This coming straight from your science web pages.
"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"
" It has been found that the radii of pleochroic haloes due to the uranium and thorium radioactive decays do in fact vary in size in the same minerals. This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. This proves that the half-lives of the uranium and thorium radioactive decays vary. Now since the uranium-thorium-lead method of dating depends for its accuracy on the assumption that the half-lives for the radioactive decays are constant, any age determination using this method of dating will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption. "

hahaha, no, sorry, creationism that pretends to be science is not science, no matter how hard you'd like it to be.

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/radiodte.htm

The above link has a nice little explanation for you.

Again, go pick up any introductory text book in geology. It will solve some of your problems with knowledge.

[-Skeptic-]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Such a joy seeing you again Septic!

Creationist liar with no proof of god, continuing to lie to intelligent atheists, converting nobody...

[Aerobatty]

KJV wrote:

"The evidence for the flood is so overwhelming that I can’t possibly scratch the surface in this study. Instead of going through a long explanation of the flood, I am going to address 5 commonly asked skeptical questions and then conclude with what we observe scientifically and follow up with a possible scenario. We can never go back and see what actually happened, we can only piece together bits of this puzzle and conclude what we believe is the most plausible explanation. Both the biblical account and the evolutionary account take faith to believe. My hope is that when you look at the obvious evidence, you will conclude that it takes more faith to hold on to skeptical beliefs than it does to believe the Bible. With this in mind, let’s look at 5 common flood questions."

http://www.exchangedlife.com/2012/10/19/the-f...

You're out of your mind.

Seriously.

[-Skeptic-]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Your wrong!
This coming straight from your science web pages.
"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"
" It has been found that the radii of pleochroic haloes due to the uranium and thorium radioactive decays do in fact vary in size in the same minerals. This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. This proves that the half-lives of the uranium and thorium radioactive decays vary. Now since the uranium-thorium-lead method of dating depends for its accuracy on the assumption that the half-lives for the radioactive decays are constant, any age determination using this method of dating will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption. "

Prove your god before you open your stupid f*cking mouth again you lying piece of sh*t creationist troll with no morals.