Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Times

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Comments (Page 203)

Showing posts 4,041 - 4,060 of6,103
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4098
Nov 6, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
YIKES! I was a staff sergeant in Germany.:-(
You have been around, looks like?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4099
Nov 6, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.
So, let's talk.
If the methodology of radiometric dating is wrong, then the rate of decay of particles is variable.
If the rate of decay of particles is variable, then at any given moment in time any given nuclear power plant should spontaneously explode or completely lose power inexplicably. People living in New Mexico or Colorado, near where Uranium deposits can be found, should have massive rates of cancer and radiation poisoning. People trying to get X-rays should, on a regular basis, find that the machine no longer emits radiation and/or burns a hole in people when used as the amount of x-rays being produced should fluxate wildly.
None of those things happen. Ever.
So, let's talk about cross checking with established dates.
First, radiometric dating is internally consistent. You don't test one end of a piece of wood and get a different date than you would testing the other end of the piece of wood. Same object, same test, same results.
Further, we can use radiometric dating on historical objects who's origin and date have been well established. The wreck of a famous ship, for example. Or the bones of a king. Or the beams in the wall of a castle. When we do this, the dates come out consistent with the historical record.
AND, when we compare radiometric dates to dates which are determined using other methods, like dendrochronology - we find the same thing. A piece of wood from the SW can be dated to the year using dend. It can be dating using radiometric and you get the same result.
AND, when we compare that with ice core dating, which is determined by the seasonal layers of ice being laid down in the polar regions, we find those dates are LIKEWISE consistent.
AND, when we compare ALL of those with sedimentary layers from the ocean floor, or lake bottoms, where the cycle of grown lays down specific layers of sediment over the course of a year, THOSE dates are likewise consistent.
So, INTERNALLY consistent, consistent with multiple different independent dating systems which rely on utterly different mechanisms, consistent with the historical record.
AND, if the mechanism were false, then entire field of nuclear physics would be falsified.
Compare that to: "My mom told me about a talking snake".
Seriously, get off the internet you boob.
I am astonished.

A brilliant post.

To expand on your points, and as a matter of interest - when using the rate of continental drift, we calculate that South America and Africa broke apart 97 million years ago. This is reflected by radiometric dating performed on strata on both continents, as well as diversity in the fossil record. What a coincidence
Andre

Durban, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4100
Nov 6, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.
So, let's talk.

AND, when we compare radiometric dates to dates which are determined using other methods, like dendrochronology - we find the same thing. A piece of wood from the SW can be dated to the year using dend. It can be dating using radiometric and you get the same result.
AND, when we compare that with ice core dating, which is determined by the seasonal layers of ice being laid down in the polar regions, we find those dates are LIKEWISE consistent.
AND, when we compare ALL of those with sedimentary layers from the ocean floor, or lake bottoms, where the cycle of grown lays down specific layers of sediment over the course of a year, THOSE dates are likewise consistent.
So, INTERNALLY consistent, consistent with multiple different independent dating systems which rely on utterly different mechanisms, consistent with the historical record.
AND, if the mechanism were false, then entire field of nuclear physics would be falsified.
Compare that to: "My mom told me about a talking snake".
Seriously, get off the internet you boob.
Ooh, but you are touchy! I wonder why?
Your arguments are fatally flawed as even a cursory and superficial study of available material will show that your claims are either intentionally false or just based on ignorance.
To mention a couple of examples for your information – just in case you missed the many that are available to almost all:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-canyon-...
“In 2004, RATE published (an article) under Snelling's by-line, based on their analysis of 27 Brahma Schist samples,... The obtained results were not only discordant between and among methods, but were inconsistent within the same method. In one extreme example, two samples, taken from locations 84 cm apart, yielded dates that were more than 1350 million years different, far beyond the published tolerances.“
Wow …. Such astonishing accuracy and proves your point beyond any reasonable doubt!!!
And this from a “anti-creationist site”
“In another example, Snelling (1998) dated some Australian Tertiary basalts and got five dates ranging from 37 to 58 million years. Depending on how carefully Snelling avoided xenoliths and xenocrysts, these dates are not terribly outrageous”
(Difference is only 21million years) The accuracy is incredible and leaves no doubt to any reasonable person as to the absolute accuracy of radiometric dating, you would agree…..hehehe!!
Furthermore:
“For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. vMost samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata gave dates of about 23 Ma .”....
“The “dates” obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The “ages” range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago”
Now that you (should) realise the rather ridiculous nature of the claims you make, I would suggest you take a more balanced and reasoned approach
A further aspect that always makes me wonder even at reported “scientific findings” is the history of fraud related to the hoax of evolution.(Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce Man, The Yale Hybridization scandal, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor hoax, Cardiff Man, Peppered Moth, and I am sure lots more). I have always considered that if a person has to rely on lies, he either has something to hide, or is not confident of what he/she claim to be the truth.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4101
Nov 6, 2012
 
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Ooh, but you are touchy! I wonder why?
Your arguments are fatally flawed as even a cursory and superficial study of available material will show that your claims are either intentionally false or just based on ignorance.
To mention a couple of examples for your information – just in case you missed the many that are available to almost all:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-canyon-...
“In 2004, RATE published (an article) under Snelling's by-line, based on their analysis of 27 Brahma Schist samples,... The obtained results were not only discordant between and among methods, but were inconsistent within the same method. In one extreme example, two samples, taken from locations 84 cm apart, yielded dates that were more than 1350 million years different, far beyond the published tolerances.“
Wow …. Such astonishing accuracy and proves your point beyond any reasonable doubt!!!
And this from a “anti-creationist site”
“In another example, Snelling (1998) dated some Australian Tertiary basalts and got five dates ranging from 37 to 58 million years. Depending on how carefully Snelling avoided xenoliths and xenocrysts, these dates are not terribly outrageous”
(Difference is only 21million years) The accuracy is incredible and leaves no doubt to any reasonable person as to the absolute accuracy of radiometric dating, you would agree…..hehehe!!
Furthermore:
“For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. vMost samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata gave dates of about 23 Ma .”....
“The “dates” obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The “ages” range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago”
Now that you (should) realise the rather ridiculous nature of the claims you make, I would suggest you take a more balanced and reasoned approach
A further aspect that always makes me wonder even at reported “scientific findings” is the history of fraud related to the hoax of evolution.(Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce Man, The Yale Hybridization scandal, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor hoax, Cardiff Man, Peppered Moth, and I am sure lots more). I have always considered that if a person has to rely on lies, he either has something to hide, or is not confident of what he/she claim to be the truth.
OMG! Not the friggin RATE study again!

To quote "I have always considered that if a person has to rely on lies, he either has something to hide, or is not confident of what he/she claim to be the truth."

Look in a mirror lately?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4102
Nov 6, 2012
 
Andre wrote:
And this from a “anti-creationist site”
No, it from Earth Ministries (formerly Answers In Creation). and anti-YOUNG EARTH creationist site. It's still a creationist site.

http://www.oldearth.org/about_aic.htm

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4103
Nov 6, 2012
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
To my utter shame, never heard of the song.
Listening to it now...Brilliant song
I plead ignorance... In 1972, my father was just in high school
Wishbone Ash were known for their twin lead guitars, although I have to say that at times they were a little suspect in the vocal department.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4104
Nov 6, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
ignorant rambling troll who doesn't know jack sh*t about the burden of proof,
Nuggin's post was articulate, measured and thoughtful.

Why don't you share with us what's wrong with Nuggin's post instead of getting mouthy?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4105
Nov 6, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
YIKES! I was a staff sergeant in Germany.:-(
Lol

I know the feeling - we're getting old!
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4106
Nov 6, 2012
 
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
And this from a “anti-creationist site”
“In another example, Snelling (1998) dated some Australian Tertiary basalts and got five dates ranging from 37 to 58 million years. Depending on how carefully Snelling avoided xenoliths and xenocrysts, these dates are not terribly outrageous”
Interesting that you never actually give a LINK to this "anti-creationist" site. LOL

Andrew Snelling is a discredited Jesus Freak young earth creationist from Australia.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
(Difference is only 21million years) The accuracy is incredible and leaves no doubt to any reasonable person as to the absolute accuracy of radiometric dating, you would agree…..hehehe!!
...from a group of scientists who are Christians:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers.

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent.

Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another.

In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.

This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

End quote
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4107
Nov 6, 2012
 
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
That “scientists” are at a loss in respect of many issues, is abundantly clear when you have Richard Dawkins admitting to intelligent design (although he has to resort to the fairly ridiculous argument that “aliens” seeded life – without any evidence to support his hypothesis.)
LIAR spouting a long-refuted Christian LIE

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394

From Dawkins' own website:

Lying for Jesus?

Excerpts:

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be.

I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane'(to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity.

My science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible.

I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either).

I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

end quote
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4108
Nov 6, 2012
 
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>History shows that the natural sciences grew out of Christian culture- based on the conviction that there is a Creator- who was constant, and everything was run to his laws and not the fickleness of fortune. Thus something we can depend on and investigate the “laws”.
There were also great Muslims scientists and Hindu scientists. The Greeks had figured out the shape and circumference of the earth almost exactly LONG before Jesus ever showed his head on earth.

And the rationalist perspective that European Christians had came from Aristotle's philosophy, which THomas Aquinas had integrated into Christian theology.

And these Europeans scientists were not acting as Christians, but as scientists, using the scientific method, to follow the evidence wherever it would lead them, which lead them, at first, to realize that the earth had to be much much older that a few thousand years as the Bible's myth proclaims.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4109
Nov 6, 2012
 
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Please indicate where the flat earth is presented as fact in the Bible.
There is no actual quote that says "Yeah, verily, I sayeth unto thee, the earth is FLAT!"

The Bible’s flat earth/solid sky dome universe
http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earth...

Excerpts:

>>>>>The Bible’s flat earth

In the Bible the earth is a round flat object with ends and which is immovable and set on pillars.

Here God is imagined to draw a circle on the face of the waters to make the earth.

(Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world’s first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,

A circle is of course a flat round object. Some would say that the ancient Hebrews had no word for sphere so they used circle ("chug"), but that is not true. There is a Hebrew word for ball used in the bible ("dur"). A flat round earth was intuitive to these primitive people. If you picture yourself in their place, it would not be too hard to imagine the earth as being round and flat as you turn around to trace the outline of the horizon where the sky seems to meet the earth.

Here God is imagined to sit above the circle of the earth looking down on it’s inhabitants who are small like grasshoppers.

(Isa 40:22 NRSV) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;

Again a circle is a flat two dimensional object and there was a Hebrew word for ball which would have been more appropriate if the author would have been aware of the earth’s spherical nature.

Here the author of Daniel writes of a dream of Nebuchadnezzar where a tree grows at the "center" of the earth. Assuming that the tree grew on the surface, this is most certainly the center of a flat earth as a spherical earth would have no center on it’s surface. Also notice that the tree grew so tall it’s top reached heaven and was visible to the "ends of the earth". So these verses indicate that Nebuchadnezzar and the author of Daniel pictured a flat earth as everyone else did in their time.

(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

Here it is possible that this gospel author still imagined a flat earth as Jesus is able to see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. This would not be possible on a spherical earth.

(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

Here the author of Job imagines that God could take the edges of the earth and shake the wicked out of it.

(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Here the author of Job is saying something is longer than the earth. A flat earth with ends could be compared for length, but longer has no meaning for a spherical earth.

(Job 11:9 NRSV) Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

One end of a flat earth to the other end of a flat earth is mentioned here (a spherical earth had no ends).

(Deu 13:7 NRSV) any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other,

Again, some would say that the ends of the earth is not be taken literally and that would be true today, but the phrase is leftover from when people used to really believe the earth had ends, which was the case for the ancient Hebrews and most everyone else at that time.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4110
Nov 6, 2012
 
Here is a few more verses that mention the ends of the earth

Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8

>>>>The Bible’s immovable earth set on pillars

Here the earth is imagined to be set on pillars and immovable.

(Psa 93:1 NRSV)… He has established the world; it shall never be moved;

(1 Sam 2:8 NRSV) For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.

(Isa 24:18 NRSV) or the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

>>>>>The Bible’s solid sky dome

Here God is imagined to create a solid sky dome that separates the waters into two parts.
One would become the oceans and the other would remain above the solid sky dome to provide an explanation of where water came from to cause clouds and rain in the absence of the knowledge of evaporation.

(Gen 1:6-7 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.

Here is another verse which mentions the water above the sky dome.

(Psa 148:4 NRSV) Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!

Here celestial bodies are attached to this sky dome.

(Gen 1:14-17 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,

Notice that the lights, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars are set inside the sky dome.

Here it is mentioned that the sky dome is hard.

(Job 37:18 NRSV) Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

(Prov 8:28 NRSV) when he made firm the skies above,…

God is imagined to walk on top of the sky dome.

(Job 22:14 NRSV) Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4111
Nov 6, 2012
 
The sky is imagined as something that has to open to let things pass through it

Here notice that heaven has to be "opened" for things to pass through, things in and above heaven to be seen, and for rainwater to come through. One would think that would not be necessary unless the sky was imagined to be solid. Some would say that this was not be taken literally, but the sky was imagined to be solid in most cultures for over 1500 years after the last books of the bible were written.

(John 1:51 NRSV) And he said to him, "Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

(Acts 10:11 NRSV) He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners.

(Acts 7:56 NRSV) "Look," he said, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

(Mat 3:16-17 NRSV) And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

(2 Chr 6:26 NRSV) "When heaven (same Hebrew word as sky) is shut up and there is no rain because…

(Psa 78:23 NRSV) Yet he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven (same Hebrew word as sky);

(Mal 3:10 NRSV) Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing.(talking about rain for crops)

(Rev 11:6 NRSV) They have authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying,

(Gen 7:11-12 NRSV) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

>>>>Joshua commands the Sun to stand still in the sky

Here Joshua was imagined to have commanded the Sun and the Moon to stand still over particular geographic locations like a helicopter could be imagined to hover over a particular mountain or valley as if the Sun and the Moon were only a few miles high instead of 93 million (Sun) and 1/4 million (Moon) miles away. To the author the Sun and the Moon were attached to a rotating solid sky dome, just a few miles above his head.

(Josh 10:12-13 NRSV) On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

>>>>>Jesus probably saw the universe the same way everyone else did in his day

Here it is indicated that Jesus himself pictured the stars as objects that could fall to the earth which would seem reasonable if he pictured the stars as little lights attached to a solid sky dome just a few miles up like everyone else in his day.

Instead, apparently unknown to Jesus, stars are objects typically millions of times larger than the earth and unimaginably distant.

(Mark 13:24-25 NRSV) "But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4112
Nov 6, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
ignorant rambling troll who doesn't know jack sh*t about the burden of proof,
So now Skeptic is coming out against Carbon-14 dating.

How much more evidence do we need that you're a creationist? None.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4113
Nov 6, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuggin's post was articulate, measured and thoughtful.
Why don't you share with us what's wrong with Nuggin's post instead of getting mouthy?
Skeptic is a YEC, you can't take anything he says seriously

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4114
Nov 7, 2012
 
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Ooh, but you are touchy! I wonder why?
Your arguments are fatally flawed as even a cursory and superficial study of available material will show that your claims are either intentionally false or just based on ignorance.
To mention a couple of examples for your information – just in case you missed the many that are available to almost all:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-canyon-...
“In 2004, RATE published (an article) under Snelling's by-line, based on their analysis of 27 Brahma Schist samples,... The obtained results were not only discordant between and among methods, but were inconsistent within the same method. In one extreme example, two samples, taken from locations 84 cm apart, yielded dates that were more than 1350 million years different, far beyond the published tolerances.“
Wow …. Such astonishing accuracy and proves your point beyond any reasonable doubt!!!
And this from a “anti-creationist site”
“In another example, Snelling (1998) dated some Australian Tertiary basalts and got five dates ranging from 37 to 58 million years. Depending on how carefully Snelling avoided xenoliths and xenocrysts, these dates are not terribly outrageous”
(Difference is only 21million years) The accuracy is incredible and leaves no doubt to any reasonable person as to the absolute accuracy of radiometric dating, you would agree…..hehehe!!
Furthermore:
“For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. vMost samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata gave dates of about 23 Ma .”....
“The “dates” obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The “ages” range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago”
Now that you (should) realise the rather ridiculous nature of the claims you make, I would suggest you take a more balanced and reasoned approach
A further aspect that always makes me wonder even at reported “scientific findings” is the history of fraud related to the hoax of evolution.(Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce Man, The Yale Hybridization scandal, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor hoax, Cardiff Man, Peppered Moth, and I am sure lots more). I have always considered that if a person has to rely on lies, he either has something to hide, or is not confident of what he/she claim to be the truth.
*Facepalm*

1) Andrew Snelling is a known Creationist. Just google his name

2) The RATE studies are thoroughly rubbished by accredited scientists. Their results were not published for any peer review procedure, and the 'scientists' performing the tests were inexperienced hacks.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircon...
http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

Now, some people will get pissed at you. The creationists tell you that is because they have 'the truth' and the evolutionists are 'defending a lie', but this is absolute rubbish. The Creationist makes less sense than the decision to play Morne Steyn an fly half.

They use deceitful tactics and they fool the uneducated masses. Yes, it is easy to fool someone who has never been on a fossil digsite, or a mine in his life.

Want a real accurate test?? Go to a mine, and ask how do they locate material... By means of traditional methods, or creationist methods?

I'll save you the time. In South Africa, a country known for its mining, THERE IS NOT ONE MINE USING CREATIONIST METHODOLOGY OR ASSUMPTIONS.

Not one.

Zero.

Nada.

Niks.

Fokol.

Are they all liars for evolution...Or have you simply be sucked in by lies?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4115
Nov 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
I know the feeling - we're getting old!
Double Fine decided to stop aging at 30
Andre

Uvongo, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4116
Nov 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.
So, let's talk.
If the methodology of radiometric dating is wrong, then the rate of decay of particles is variable.
Your claim is inaccurate and not relevant to the issue at stake which is the recorded variance, inconsistency in results obtained and underlying assumptions.
But let us consider a few issues with radiometric dating:
It was discovered that coal specimens obtained from U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank and dated by carbon dating as between millions to hundreds of millions years old, based on standard evolutionary time estimates, would at the extreme be 100000 years – as the half-life of Carbon 14 is approximately 5730 years and thus no measurable amount of C14 should have been present in samples older than 100000 years.
Then there is the problem of equilibrium in C12,14 – which should have been reached after an estimated 30000 years. It is still not in equilibrium, suggesting that the earth is much much younger than evolutionists would want us to believe.
In fact, carbon 14 is strongly in favour of a young earth.
(You may read on for instance the effects of the earth’s magnetic field on production of C14.) It is claimed that Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is claimed about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845 ( J. Roach, National Geographic News, September 9, 2004)
First, radiometric dating is internally consistent. You don't test one end of a piece of wood and get a different date than you would testing the other end of the piece of wood. Same object, same test, same results.
This does not agree with verifiable facts. The example of the wood buried in a basalt lava flow in Australia proves that. Carbon dating calculated the age at 45thousand years, The basalt was dated using K-Ar techniques at 45 million. Only a 1000 times more. Negligible, I agree …..hehehehe
Then there is the well known case of Mt. St. Helens – the age of rocks calculated using the K-Ag technique, at +-.35 million years, although formed in 1986. Of course they offer “explanations”/rationalization s but for one thing it shows the fact that there are huge differences in calculated and actual age.
Yet another:
“Plagioclase separated from the Devils Postpile basalt gave a K-Ar 'age' of 0.94 ± 0.16 million years. The basalt has been reassigned recently an age of less than 100,000 years based on new geologic mapping and detailed stratigraphic study”
Of course there is also the possibility of “selection” evidenced by the following extract
” Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata gave dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated, and discarded them”
So from an objective analysis it would seem that your confidence in radiometric dating methods is either naïve or brainwashed (or both) or not totally honest. But at least you are wrong in your claims – proved by factual and verifiable cases.

The last aspect I wish to mention is my concern over the truthfulness of even reported “scientific findings”, evidenced by the history of fraud related to the hoax of evolution.(Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce Man, The Yale Hybridization scandal, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor hoax, Cardiff Man, Peppered Moth, and I am sure lots more)

Makes you think, doesn't it?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4117
Nov 7, 2012
 
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Your claim is inaccurate and not relevant to the issue at stake which is the recorded variance, inconsistency in results obtained and underlying assumptions.
But let us consider a few issues with radiometric dating:
It was discovered that coal specimens obtained from U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank and dated by carbon dating as between millions to hundreds of millions years old, based on standard evolutionary time estimates, would at the extreme be 100000 years – as the half-life of Carbon 14 is approximately 5730 years and thus no measurable amount of C14 should have been present in samples older than 100000 years.
Then there is the problem of equilibrium in C12,14 – which should have been reached after an estimated 30000 years. It is still not in equilibrium, suggesting that the earth is much much younger than evolutionists would want us to believe.
In fact, carbon 14 is strongly in favour of a young earth.
(You may read on for instance the effects of the earth’s magnetic field on production of C14.) It is claimed that Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is claimed about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845 ( J. Roach, National Geographic News, September 9, 2004)
<quoted text>This does not agree with verifiable facts. The example of the wood buried in a basalt lava flow in Australia proves that. Carbon dating calculated the age at 45thousand years, The basalt was dated using K-Ar techniques at 45 million. Only a 1000 times more. Negligible, I agree …..hehehehe
Then there is the well known case of Mt. St. Helens – the age of rocks calculated using the K-Ag technique, at +-.35 million years, although formed in 1986. Of course they offer “explanations”/rationalization s but for one thing it shows the fact that there are huge differences in calculated and actual age.
Yet another:
“Plagioclase separated from the Devils Postpile basalt gave a K-Ar 'age' of 0.94 ± 0.16 million years. The basalt has been reassigned recently an age of less than 100,000 years based on new geologic mapping and detailed stratigraphic study”
Of course there is also the possibility of “selection” evidenced by the following extract
” Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata gave dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated, and discarded them”
So from an objective analysis it would seem that your confidence in radiometric dating methods is either naïve or brainwashed (or both) or not totally honest. But at least you are wrong in your claims – proved by factual and verifiable cases.
The last aspect I wish to mention is my concern over the truthfulness of even reported “scientific findings”, evidenced by the history of fraud related to the hoax of evolution.(Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce Man, The Yale Hybridization scandal, Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor hoax, Cardiff Man, Peppered Moth, and I am sure lots more)
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Yo.

You have not cited ONE peer-reviewed publication.

Do you know what peer review is?

Do you want to know what we think of sources that are NOT peer reviewed?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,041 - 4,060 of6,103
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••