The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> *Whoops ass*
>
> Whoops.
Sensless violence, eh?
> *Whoops ass*
>
> Whoops.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
You know the problem? "The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC"
SOMETIME AROUND. you are basing figures on a variable. You can therefore twist numbers to mean anything. Total b'lls'''t yet again...........
> Pandaemonium wrote:
You know the problem? "The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC"
SOMETIME AROUND. you are basing figures on a variable. You can therefore twist numbers to mean anything. Total b'lls'''t yet again...........
Goatboy wrote:
> I dont understand why anyone is bothering trying to point out the
> Forest that's he a fundamentalist.
>
> He'll never change his views, neither will anybody else.
> It's a pointless debate because nobody here is suddenly going to be
> all "Wow, you totally changed my perception of life".
> It just leads to people butting heads and saying "You are
> wrong" "No, you are" "No, you are"
I am trying to help you find Jesus, Goatboy, it's up to you whether you want it or not.
>
> Forest - Believe what you want, it's of no concern to me. But you
> should realise that your strenous attempts at indoctrinating others
> are as far removed from your christian ethos of compassion,
> forgiveness and understanding as you could realise.
Except Jesus teaches to share the Good News of Christ Jesus.
> It's ironic that a religious person is refusing to accept, understand
> and act in the manner in which your lord does.
The Lord cannot stand sin, that is why He sent His son Jesus down to die for sin and why there is Hell today.
> I dont understand why anyone is bothering trying to point out the
> Forest that's he a fundamentalist.
>
> He'll never change his views, neither will anybody else.
> It's a pointless debate because nobody here is suddenly going to be
> all "Wow, you totally changed my perception of life".
> It just leads to people butting heads and saying "You are
> wrong" "No, you are" "No, you are"
I am trying to help you find Jesus, Goatboy, it's up to you whether you want it or not.
>
> Forest - Believe what you want, it's of no concern to me. But you
> should realise that your strenous attempts at indoctrinating others
> are as far removed from your christian ethos of compassion,
> forgiveness and understanding as you could realise.
Except Jesus teaches to share the Good News of Christ Jesus.
> It's ironic that a religious person is refusing to accept, understand
> and act in the manner in which your lord does.
The Lord cannot stand sin, that is why He sent His son Jesus down to die for sin and why there is Hell today.
English_Bloke wrote:
> Already been said. But as your post says, no one listens.
People have come to the Lord through the setting up of these messageboards.
> Already been said. But as your post says, no one listens.
People have come to the Lord through the setting up of these messageboards.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> How do you explain, the prediction in the Bible of Israel being
> reformed in 1948?
>
> That Israel would fall an be re-united?
>
> Yes and the exact year of 1948, which was prophesised.
>
> Cnom, how was the EXACT year prophesised?
I have already done a post about that and many other prophecies in the Bible, but here goes...
"Then get yourself an iron plate and set it up as an iron wall between you and the city, and set your face toward it so that it is under siege, and besiege it. This is a sign to the house of Israel. As for you, lie down on your left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity for the number of days that you lie on it. For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days; thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year." Ezekiel 4:3-6
In Ezekiel 4:3-6, the prophet said the Jews, who had lost control of their homeland, would be punished for 430 years. This prophecy, according to Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey, pinpointed the 1948 rebirth of Israel. Here's a summary of Jeffrey's theory:
1. Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years because they had turned away from God. As part of the punishment, the Jews lost control of their homeland to Babylon. Many Jews were taken as captives to Babylon.
2. Babylon was later conquered by Cyrus in 539 BC. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and to return to their homeland. But, only a small number returned. The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon.
3. Because most of the exiles chose to stay in pagan Babylon rather than return to the Holy Land, the remaining 360 years of their punishment was multiplied by 7. The reason is explained in Bible's book of Leviticus. (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, it says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. And, by staying in pagan Babylon, most exiles were refusing to repent.
4. So, if you take the remaining 360 years of punishment and multiply by 7, you get 2,520 years. But, Jeffrey says those years are based on an ancient 360-day lunar calendar. If those years are adjusted to the modern solar calendar, the result is 2,484 years.
5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.
Thanks to http://100prophecies.org/page3.htm
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> How do you explain, the prediction in the Bible of Israel being
> reformed in 1948?
>
> That Israel would fall an be re-united?
>
> Yes and the exact year of 1948, which was prophesised.
>
> Cnom, how was the EXACT year prophesised?
I have already done a post about that and many other prophecies in the Bible, but here goes...
"Then get yourself an iron plate and set it up as an iron wall between you and the city, and set your face toward it so that it is under siege, and besiege it. This is a sign to the house of Israel. As for you, lie down on your left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity for the number of days that you lie on it. For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days; thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year." Ezekiel 4:3-6
In Ezekiel 4:3-6, the prophet said the Jews, who had lost control of their homeland, would be punished for 430 years. This prophecy, according to Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey, pinpointed the 1948 rebirth of Israel. Here's a summary of Jeffrey's theory:
1. Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years because they had turned away from God. As part of the punishment, the Jews lost control of their homeland to Babylon. Many Jews were taken as captives to Babylon.
2. Babylon was later conquered by Cyrus in 539 BC. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and to return to their homeland. But, only a small number returned. The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon.
3. Because most of the exiles chose to stay in pagan Babylon rather than return to the Holy Land, the remaining 360 years of their punishment was multiplied by 7. The reason is explained in Bible's book of Leviticus. (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, it says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. And, by staying in pagan Babylon, most exiles were refusing to repent.
4. So, if you take the remaining 360 years of punishment and multiply by 7, you get 2,520 years. But, Jeffrey says those years are based on an ancient 360-day lunar calendar. If those years are adjusted to the modern solar calendar, the result is 2,484 years.
5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.
Thanks to http://100prophecies.org/page3.htm
Forest Fan wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> How do you explain, the prediction in the Bible of Israel being
> reformed in 1948?
>
> That Israel would fall an be re-united?
>
> Yes and the exact year of 1948, which was prophesised.
Cnom, how was the EXACT year prophesised?
> Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> How do you explain, the prediction in the Bible of Israel being
> reformed in 1948?
>
> That Israel would fall an be re-united?
>
> Yes and the exact year of 1948, which was prophesised.
Cnom, how was the EXACT year prophesised?
Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> How do you explain, the prediction in the Bible of Israel being
> reformed in 1948?
>
> That Israel would fall an be re-united?
Yes and the exact year of 1948, which was prophesised.
> It was bound to happen sooner or later and so vague that it could be
> applied to anything. Remember Nostradamas?
> People read what he wrote and thought he'd seen Hitler, the end of
> the world and that we'd all be dead by now.
Except the Bible actually predicts the very year 1948, thousands of years ago. Beat that.
>
> Funilly enough...
> Anything over about 50,000 years
> old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why
> radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a
> sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of
> years old.
But you use carbon dating, to prove the world is "millions of years old".
>
> This is where you went wrong.
> Every 5000 years the amount of carbon 14 halves, but it's still
> measurable beyond the tiniest fractions within a sample.
So now you see, you can use Carbon 14.
>
> However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate
> against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less
> than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.
> Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently.
> This
> also has to be corrected for.2
>
> What are you on about?
> Carbon 14 is just comething that naturally builds up on something
> living.
> The plant doesn't go to the carbon 14, "come here I want you to
> be part of me". It naturally produces it as part of it's living
> structure.
> When it dies, this carbon 14 starts decaying so scientists work out
> it's life by the percentage decayed.
>
> Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been
> constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when
> the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide
> that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that
> time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise
> in
> 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the
> 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear
> younger than their true age.
>
> You nonse! Background radiation won't make a difference to the
> experiment.
> They'll check for background radiation first and then delete this
> background noise from the results.
But some scientists like to twist the experiments and are not so thorough in not including the background radiation.
>
> If you're thinking that this extra carbon 14 is going to embed itself
> into the fossils then you don't know what you're on about.
I know what I am on about.
>
> Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the
> graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the
> atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration
> of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully
> applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even
> with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C
> dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on
> dating methods that link into historical records.
>
> The atmosphere at the time is irrelevant. Do you have ANY idea what
> you're on about? Living things have carbon 14 which is frequently
> decaying.
> When a living thing stops living, they stop producing carbon 14, so
> this leaves a set amount which decays exponentially.
>
>
> The rest of your argument was about how there have been Carbon 14
> changes in the atmosphere over the years, which was irrelevant.
Which you can not answer to.
>
>
>
>
> Other radiometric dating methods
> There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to
> give
> ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques,
> unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of
> parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For
> example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to
> lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to
> lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques
> are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the
> time since solidification.
>
> The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but
> isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such
> measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
>
> The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no
> daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was
> there).
>
> They base it on how much radio-active material there is in freshly
> formed indegnious rocks, which were formed in EXACTLY the same way.
>
> Decay rates have always been constant.
>
> That's almost scientific fact and is based around the internal
> structure of the atom's, NOT the surrounding environment.
>
> Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter
> isotopes were lost or added.
>
> Well yeah. That's common sense for such rocks.
>
> There are patterns in the isotope data
> There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are
> not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not
> measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be
> explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older
> ‘ages.’
> Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but
> not
> by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating
> critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other
> large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with
> radioactive decay.
>
> Really...
Yes.
>
> ‘Bad’ dates
> When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent
> excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such
> posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious
> problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to
> explain ‘bad’ dates.9
>
> Maybe. No technique is infallible, and this one probably has it's
> flaws, but it's more or less accurate to what we know so far.
Not really, you have just seen the flaws of it, so you can't accept a flawed technique, can you?
>
> For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating
> of
> Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest
> to
> the fossil-bearing strata give 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. That is how radiometric dating
> works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view
> that pervades academia today.
>
> I think you'll find they first went in with an unbiased open mind and
> got a whole range of sameples before deciding what that maximum range
> could be before they started pointing to anomalies that don't fit
> with the rest of them.
>
> Anyway, it's rich talk coming from a group which decided that
> radiactive dating was wrong before they even looked at the evidence,
> bar their religous book.
They looked at evidence, REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
>
> A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as
> KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which,
> according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans
> ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the
> volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was
> settled upon because of the agreement between several different
> published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’
> from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
>
> However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope
> with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in
> Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull
> was
> much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the
> rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several
> studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.
>
> Some results are accurate. Some are anomalous.
> Because Radioactive decay is essentially random, some results are
> going to give misleading answers. That's why a whole host of results
> are taken and the really wierd and anomalous ones are dismissed.
No-one can take bones and predict how old they are. Bones that are only a few years old, but have been kept in poor condition, could look just like some animal bones, for example.
>
> Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the
> data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all
> observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or
> belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is
> so
> strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every
> observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers,
> who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public,
> select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
>
> Even with the odd dodgy result, the overall picture still supports
> evolution more than any theory. And there's almost conclusive proof
> that the earth has been around for about 5 billion years or so.
"Almost conclusive proof", sorry Strafio, I thought we work with CONCLUSIVE PROOF!
>
> We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes
> of
> experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the
> present.
> A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the
> past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure
> isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely
> accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about
> the past that cannot be proven.
>
> Not proven. But based on modern rocks that formed the exact same
> way.
>
> We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I
> laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:4).
>
> Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the
> present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof
> demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in
> the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular
> biology, physiology, etc.
>
> It uses these sciences to find answers.
> You lot, however, find answers in a book and then try to fit YOUR
> understanding of these sciences to suit it. That's why you and your
> creationism isn't taken seriously.
Creation is taken seriously, many scientists recognise Creation as the logical answer to the race of humans, as science has proved we all come from a man and woman. Argue with that.
>
> From there there were a lot examples where radioactive dating
> produced questionable results until:
>
> Conclusion
> There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not
> the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that
> the
> world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the
> answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the
> true history of the world.
>
>
> No. Some radioactive dating results were questionable because they
> disagreed wth the other 99% of results given.
> That's the nature of experimentation.
Radioactive datings always contradict each others results.
>
>
>
>
>
> That is because of more nutrients available, we know more health
> dangers as the centuries pass, like alcohol, cigarettes and now
> mobile phones and their masts. The first ever human; Otzi the Ice
> Man
> was a man and stood 5'2", which is only about 7 inches shorter
> than the average size of a man today.
>
> Size is genetic. That's why tall people have tall kids, and short
> people have short kids. Besides, ciggerettes weren't around until
> AFTER 500 years ago.
> Alcohol was but people haven't stopped drinking it.
People now know fruit and vegetables are good for them and we now (in some parts of Britain at least!) have good healthcare. You have told me how the human race is "evolving" cleverer and advances in healthcare would agree with your theory, but now you are denying that. Strafio, it is make your mind up time. What's it going to be?
> Forest Fan wrote:
> How do you explain, the prediction in the Bible of Israel being
> reformed in 1948?
>
> That Israel would fall an be re-united?
Yes and the exact year of 1948, which was prophesised.
> It was bound to happen sooner or later and so vague that it could be
> applied to anything. Remember Nostradamas?
> People read what he wrote and thought he'd seen Hitler, the end of
> the world and that we'd all be dead by now.
Except the Bible actually predicts the very year 1948, thousands of years ago. Beat that.
>
> Funilly enough...
> Anything over about 50,000 years
> old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why
> radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a
> sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of
> years old.
But you use carbon dating, to prove the world is "millions of years old".
>
> This is where you went wrong.
> Every 5000 years the amount of carbon 14 halves, but it's still
> measurable beyond the tiniest fractions within a sample.
So now you see, you can use Carbon 14.
>
> However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate
> against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less
> than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.
> Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently.
> This
> also has to be corrected for.2
>
> What are you on about?
> Carbon 14 is just comething that naturally builds up on something
> living.
> The plant doesn't go to the carbon 14, "come here I want you to
> be part of me". It naturally produces it as part of it's living
> structure.
> When it dies, this carbon 14 starts decaying so scientists work out
> it's life by the percentage decayed.
>
> Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been
> constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when
> the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide
> that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that
> time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise
> in
> 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the
> 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear
> younger than their true age.
>
> You nonse! Background radiation won't make a difference to the
> experiment.
> They'll check for background radiation first and then delete this
> background noise from the results.
But some scientists like to twist the experiments and are not so thorough in not including the background radiation.
>
> If you're thinking that this extra carbon 14 is going to embed itself
> into the fossils then you don't know what you're on about.
I know what I am on about.
>
> Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the
> graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the
> atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration
> of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully
> applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even
> with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C
> dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on
> dating methods that link into historical records.
>
> The atmosphere at the time is irrelevant. Do you have ANY idea what
> you're on about? Living things have carbon 14 which is frequently
> decaying.
> When a living thing stops living, they stop producing carbon 14, so
> this leaves a set amount which decays exponentially.
>
>
> The rest of your argument was about how there have been Carbon 14
> changes in the atmosphere over the years, which was irrelevant.
Which you can not answer to.
>
>
>
>
> Other radiometric dating methods
> There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to
> give
> ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques,
> unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of
> parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For
> example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to
> lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to
> lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques
> are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the
> time since solidification.
>
> The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but
> isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such
> measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
>
> The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no
> daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was
> there).
>
> They base it on how much radio-active material there is in freshly
> formed indegnious rocks, which were formed in EXACTLY the same way.
>
> Decay rates have always been constant.
>
> That's almost scientific fact and is based around the internal
> structure of the atom's, NOT the surrounding environment.
>
> Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter
> isotopes were lost or added.
>
> Well yeah. That's common sense for such rocks.
>
> There are patterns in the isotope data
> There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are
> not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not
> measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be
> explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older
> ‘ages.’
> Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but
> not
> by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating
> critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other
> large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with
> radioactive decay.
>
> Really...
Yes.
>
> ‘Bad’ dates
> When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent
> excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such
> posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious
> problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to
> explain ‘bad’ dates.9
>
> Maybe. No technique is infallible, and this one probably has it's
> flaws, but it's more or less accurate to what we know so far.
Not really, you have just seen the flaws of it, so you can't accept a flawed technique, can you?
>
> For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating
> of
> Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest
> to
> the fossil-bearing strata give 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. That is how radiometric dating
> works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view
> that pervades academia today.
>
> I think you'll find they first went in with an unbiased open mind and
> got a whole range of sameples before deciding what that maximum range
> could be before they started pointing to anomalies that don't fit
> with the rest of them.
>
> Anyway, it's rich talk coming from a group which decided that
> radiactive dating was wrong before they even looked at the evidence,
> bar their religous book.
They looked at evidence, REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
>
> A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as
> KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which,
> according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans
> ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the
> volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was
> settled upon because of the agreement between several different
> published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’
> from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
>
> However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope
> with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in
> Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull
> was
> much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the
> rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several
> studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.
>
> Some results are accurate. Some are anomalous.
> Because Radioactive decay is essentially random, some results are
> going to give misleading answers. That's why a whole host of results
> are taken and the really wierd and anomalous ones are dismissed.
No-one can take bones and predict how old they are. Bones that are only a few years old, but have been kept in poor condition, could look just like some animal bones, for example.
>
> Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the
> data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all
> observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or
> belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is
> so
> strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every
> observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers,
> who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public,
> select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
>
> Even with the odd dodgy result, the overall picture still supports
> evolution more than any theory. And there's almost conclusive proof
> that the earth has been around for about 5 billion years or so.
"Almost conclusive proof", sorry Strafio, I thought we work with CONCLUSIVE PROOF!
>
> We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes
> of
> experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the
> present.
> A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the
> past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure
> isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely
> accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about
> the past that cannot be proven.
>
> Not proven. But based on modern rocks that formed the exact same
> way.
>
> We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I
> laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:4).
>
> Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the
> present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof
> demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in
> the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular
> biology, physiology, etc.
>
> It uses these sciences to find answers.
> You lot, however, find answers in a book and then try to fit YOUR
> understanding of these sciences to suit it. That's why you and your
> creationism isn't taken seriously.
Creation is taken seriously, many scientists recognise Creation as the logical answer to the race of humans, as science has proved we all come from a man and woman. Argue with that.
>
> From there there were a lot examples where radioactive dating
> produced questionable results until:
>
> Conclusion
> There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not
> the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that
> the
> world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the
> answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the
> true history of the world.
>
>
> No. Some radioactive dating results were questionable because they
> disagreed wth the other 99% of results given.
> That's the nature of experimentation.
Radioactive datings always contradict each others results.
>
>
>
>
>
> That is because of more nutrients available, we know more health
> dangers as the centuries pass, like alcohol, cigarettes and now
> mobile phones and their masts. The first ever human; Otzi the Ice
> Man
> was a man and stood 5'2", which is only about 7 inches shorter
> than the average size of a man today.
>
> Size is genetic. That's why tall people have tall kids, and short
> people have short kids. Besides, ciggerettes weren't around until
> AFTER 500 years ago.
> Alcohol was but people haven't stopped drinking it.
People now know fruit and vegetables are good for them and we now (in some parts of Britain at least!) have good healthcare. You have told me how the human race is "evolving" cleverer and advances in healthcare would agree with your theory, but now you are denying that. Strafio, it is make your mind up time. What's it going to be?
Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> How do you explain, the prediction in the Bible of Israel being
> reformed in 1948?
>
> That Israel would fall an be re-united?
Yes and the exact year of 1948, which was prophesised.
> It was bound to happen sooner or later and so vague that it could be
> applied to anything. Remember Nostradamas?
> People read what he wrote and thought he'd seen Hitler, the end of
> the world and that we'd all be dead by now.
Except the Bible actually predicts the very year 1948, thousands of years ago. Beat that.
>
> Funilly enough...
> Anything over about 50,000 years
> old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why
> radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a
> sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of
> years old.
But you use carbon dating, to prove the world is "millions of years old".
>
> This is where you went wrong.
> Every 5000 years the amount of carbon 14 halves, but it's still
> measurable beyond the tiniest fractions within a sample.
So now you see, you can use Carbon 14.
>
> However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate
> against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less
> than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.
> Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently.
> This
> also has to be corrected for.2
>
> What are you on about?
> Carbon 14 is just comething that naturally builds up on something
> living.
> The plant doesn't go to the carbon 14, "come here I want you to
> be part of me". It naturally produces it as part of it's living
> structure.
> When it dies, this carbon 14 starts decaying so scientists work out
> it's life by the percentage decayed.
>
> Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been
> constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when
> the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide
> that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that
> time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise
> in
> 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the
> 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear
> younger than their true age.
>
> You nonse! Background radiation won't make a difference to the
> experiment.
> They'll check for background radiation first and then delete this
> background noise from the results.
But some scientists like to twist the experiments and are not so thorough in not including the background radiation.
>
> If you're thinking that this extra carbon 14 is going to embed itself
> into the fossils then you don't know what you're on about.
I know what I am on about.
>
> Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the
> graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the
> atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration
> of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully
> applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even
> with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C
> dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on
> dating methods that link into historical records.
>
> The atmosphere at the time is irrelevant. Do you have ANY idea what
> you're on about? Living things have carbon 14 which is frequently
> decaying.
> When a living thing stops living, they stop producing carbon 14, so
> this leaves a set amount which decays exponentially.
>
>
> The rest of your argument was about how there have been Carbon 14
> changes in the atmosphere over the years, which was irrelevant.
Which you can not answer to.
>
>
>
>
> Other radiometric dating methods
> There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to
> give
> ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques,
> unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of
> parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For
> example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to
> lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to
> lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques
> are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the
> time since solidification.
>
> The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but
> isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such
> measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
>
> The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no
> daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was
> there).
>
> They base it on how much radio-active material there is in freshly
> formed indegnious rocks, which were formed in EXACTLY the same way.
>
> Decay rates have always been constant.
>
> That's almost scientific fact and is based around the internal
> structure of the atom's, NOT the surrounding environment.
>
> Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter
> isotopes were lost or added.
>
> Well yeah. That's common sense for such rocks.
>
> There are patterns in the isotope data
> There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are
> not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not
> measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be
> explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older
> ‘ages.’
> Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but
> not
> by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating
> critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other
> large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with
> radioactive decay.
>
> Really...
Yes.
>
> ‘Bad’ dates
> When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent
> excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such
> posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious
> problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to
> explain ‘bad’ dates.9
>
> Maybe. No technique is infallible, and this one probably has it's
> flaws, but it's more or less accurate to what we know so far.
Not really, you have just seen the flaws of it, so you can't accept a flawed technique, can you?
>
> For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating
> of
> Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest
> to
> the fossil-bearing strata give 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. That is how radiometric dating
> works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view
> that pervades academia today.
>
> I think you'll find they first went in with an unbiased open mind and
> got a whole range of sameples before deciding what that maximum range
> could be before they started pointing to anomalies that don't fit
> with the rest of them.
>
> Anyway, it's rich talk coming from a group which decided that
> radiactive dating was wrong before they even looked at the evidence,
> bar their religous book.
They looked at evidence, REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
>
> A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as
> KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which,
> according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans
> ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the
> volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was
> settled upon because of the agreement between several different
> published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’
> from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
>
> However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope
> with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in
> Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull
> was
> much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the
> rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several
> studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.
>
> Some results are accurate. Some are anomalous.
> Because Radioactive decay is essentially random, some results are
> going to give misleading answers. That's why a whole host of results
> are taken and the really wierd and anomalous ones are dismissed.
No-one can take bones and predict how old they are. Bones that are only a few years old, but have been kept in poor condition, could look just like some animal bones, for example.
>
> Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the
> data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all
> observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or
> belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is
> so
> strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every
> observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers,
> who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public,
> select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
>
> Even with the odd dodgy result, the overall picture still supports
> evolution more than any theory. And there's almost conclusive proof
> that the earth has been around for about 5 billion years or so.
"Almost conclusive proof", sorry Strafio, I thought we work with CONCLUSIVE PROOF!
>
> We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes
> of
> experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the
> present.
> A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the
> past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure
> isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely
> accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about
> the past that cannot be proven.
>
> Not proven. But based on modern rocks that formed the exact same
> way.
>
> We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I
> laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:4).
>
> Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the
> present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof
> demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in
> the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular
> biology, physiology, etc.
>
> It uses these sciences to find answers.
> You lot, however, find answers in a book and then try to fit YOUR
> understanding of these sciences to suit it. That's why you and your
> creationism isn't taken seriously.
Creation is taken seriously, many scientists recognise Creation as the logical answer to the race of humans, as science has proved we all come from a man and woman. Argue with that.
>
> From there there were a lot examples where radioactive dating
> produced questionable results until:
>
> Conclusion
> There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not
> the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that
> the
> world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the
> answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the
> true history of the world.
>
>
> No. Some radioactive dating results were questionable because they
> disagreed wth the other 99% of results given.
> That's the nature of experimentation.
%
> Forest Fan wrote:
> How do you explain, the prediction in the Bible of Israel being
> reformed in 1948?
>
> That Israel would fall an be re-united?
Yes and the exact year of 1948, which was prophesised.
> It was bound to happen sooner or later and so vague that it could be
> applied to anything. Remember Nostradamas?
> People read what he wrote and thought he'd seen Hitler, the end of
> the world and that we'd all be dead by now.
Except the Bible actually predicts the very year 1948, thousands of years ago. Beat that.
>
> Funilly enough...
> Anything over about 50,000 years
> old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why
> radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a
> sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of
> years old.
But you use carbon dating, to prove the world is "millions of years old".
>
> This is where you went wrong.
> Every 5000 years the amount of carbon 14 halves, but it's still
> measurable beyond the tiniest fractions within a sample.
So now you see, you can use Carbon 14.
>
> However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate
> against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less
> than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.
> Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently.
> This
> also has to be corrected for.2
>
> What are you on about?
> Carbon 14 is just comething that naturally builds up on something
> living.
> The plant doesn't go to the carbon 14, "come here I want you to
> be part of me". It naturally produces it as part of it's living
> structure.
> When it dies, this carbon 14 starts decaying so scientists work out
> it's life by the percentage decayed.
>
> Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been
> constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when
> the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide
> that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that
> time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise
> in
> 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the
> 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear
> younger than their true age.
>
> You nonse! Background radiation won't make a difference to the
> experiment.
> They'll check for background radiation first and then delete this
> background noise from the results.
But some scientists like to twist the experiments and are not so thorough in not including the background radiation.
>
> If you're thinking that this extra carbon 14 is going to embed itself
> into the fossils then you don't know what you're on about.
I know what I am on about.
>
> Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the
> graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the
> atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration
> of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully
> applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even
> with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C
> dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on
> dating methods that link into historical records.
>
> The atmosphere at the time is irrelevant. Do you have ANY idea what
> you're on about? Living things have carbon 14 which is frequently
> decaying.
> When a living thing stops living, they stop producing carbon 14, so
> this leaves a set amount which decays exponentially.
>
>
> The rest of your argument was about how there have been Carbon 14
> changes in the atmosphere over the years, which was irrelevant.
Which you can not answer to.
>
>
>
>
> Other radiometric dating methods
> There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to
> give
> ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques,
> unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of
> parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For
> example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to
> lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to
> lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques
> are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the
> time since solidification.
>
> The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but
> isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such
> measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
>
> The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no
> daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was
> there).
>
> They base it on how much radio-active material there is in freshly
> formed indegnious rocks, which were formed in EXACTLY the same way.
>
> Decay rates have always been constant.
>
> That's almost scientific fact and is based around the internal
> structure of the atom's, NOT the surrounding environment.
>
> Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter
> isotopes were lost or added.
>
> Well yeah. That's common sense for such rocks.
>
> There are patterns in the isotope data
> There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are
> not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not
> measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be
> explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older
> ‘ages.’
> Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but
> not
> by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating
> critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other
> large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with
> radioactive decay.
>
> Really...
Yes.
>
> ‘Bad’ dates
> When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent
> excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such
> posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious
> problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to
> explain ‘bad’ dates.9
>
> Maybe. No technique is infallible, and this one probably has it's
> flaws, but it's more or less accurate to what we know so far.
Not really, you have just seen the flaws of it, so you can't accept a flawed technique, can you?
>
> For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating
> of
> Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest
> to
> the fossil-bearing strata give 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. That is how radiometric dating
> works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view
> that pervades academia today.
>
> I think you'll find they first went in with an unbiased open mind and
> got a whole range of sameples before deciding what that maximum range
> could be before they started pointing to anomalies that don't fit
> with the rest of them.
>
> Anyway, it's rich talk coming from a group which decided that
> radiactive dating was wrong before they even looked at the evidence,
> bar their religous book.
They looked at evidence, REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
>
> A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as
> KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which,
> according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans
> ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the
> volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was
> settled upon because of the agreement between several different
> published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’
> from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
>
> However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope
> with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in
> Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull
> was
> much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the
> rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several
> studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.
>
> Some results are accurate. Some are anomalous.
> Because Radioactive decay is essentially random, some results are
> going to give misleading answers. That's why a whole host of results
> are taken and the really wierd and anomalous ones are dismissed.
No-one can take bones and predict how old they are. Bones that are only a few years old, but have been kept in poor condition, could look just like some animal bones, for example.
>
> Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the
> data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all
> observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or
> belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is
> so
> strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every
> observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers,
> who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public,
> select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
>
> Even with the odd dodgy result, the overall picture still supports
> evolution more than any theory. And there's almost conclusive proof
> that the earth has been around for about 5 billion years or so.
"Almost conclusive proof", sorry Strafio, I thought we work with CONCLUSIVE PROOF!
>
> We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes
> of
> experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the
> present.
> A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the
> past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure
> isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely
> accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about
> the past that cannot be proven.
>
> Not proven. But based on modern rocks that formed the exact same
> way.
>
> We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I
> laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:4).
>
> Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the
> present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof
> demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in
> the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular
> biology, physiology, etc.
>
> It uses these sciences to find answers.
> You lot, however, find answers in a book and then try to fit YOUR
> understanding of these sciences to suit it. That's why you and your
> creationism isn't taken seriously.
Creation is taken seriously, many scientists recognise Creation as the logical answer to the race of humans, as science has proved we all come from a man and woman. Argue with that.
>
> From there there were a lot examples where radioactive dating
> produced questionable results until:
>
> Conclusion
> There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not
> the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that
> the
> world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the
> answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the
> true history of the world.
>
>
> No. Some radioactive dating results were questionable because they
> disagreed wth the other 99% of results given.
> That's the nature of experimentation.
%
Lindgren wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> You still cannot understand,
>
> It's not that we don't understand FF, its that we think its a load of
> bullplop. Simple.
...
And don't want to believe you are a sinner and fall short of God's expectations and need His grace through forgiveness.
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> You still cannot understand,
>
> It's not that we don't understand FF, its that we think its a load of
> bullplop. Simple.
...
And don't want to believe you are a sinner and fall short of God's expectations and need His grace through forgiveness.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> So I actually can deny it.
> Well, thanks a lot for your permission to think what I like.
>
> Jesus sucks.
You can't with CONCRETE SCIENTIFIC PROOF, but you can try.
> So I actually can deny it.
> Well, thanks a lot for your permission to think what I like.
>
> Jesus sucks.
You can't with CONCRETE SCIENTIFIC PROOF, but you can try.
Page: