Message 6 of 126 (544689) 01-27-2010 9:29 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote 01-27-2010 8:35 PM

I'd like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and say he's just any old creationist whack-job regurgitating AIG crap. But his post just seems to scream, "TROLL!!!" to me.

Am I giving him too much credit?

Maybe...

Message 18 of 126 (544810) 01-28-2010 1:56 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque 01-28-2010 12:03 AM

Sorry for the unsupported misattribution. Sometimes it's difficult for me to not use a brooooooad brush when attributing such things to AIG. Usually it's a pretty accurate method.

My mistake.

Have a good one.

Message 47 of 126 (546339) 02-10-2010 9:22 AM

Reply to: Message 46 by caffeine 02-10-2010 5:42 AM

If you read a bit further, you'll find a section that deals more with this "scrunching" of all the evidenced billions of years of radioactive decay and the heat which would have had to have been generated from said decay. And at the end of it, you'll find a passage (which I'm sure the authors wish could just go away) which can be summed up in Randy Isaac's analysis of the RATE project:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-pscf.htm#1

Emphasis mine.

Seems as if they've come to the same conclusions as the rest of us but would rather not believe their own evidence. That they discovered that our earth and everything on it would have, in fact, vaporized in their scenario (without magick, that is) will probably discourage any other "creation science" attempts to debunk the theory of an old earth.

Have a good one.

Edited by Apothecus, : added bolds

Message 84 of 126 (546789) 02-13-2010 9:20 PM

Reply to: Message 69 by Coyote 02-12-2010 8:55 PM

And what's funny about that is that even if they did absorb C14 differently before the flud, after the flud they'd be dead, thus unable to absorb much at all.

Just sayin'.

Like they say, Buz, the best wine is the wine you like to drink.

Have a good one.

Message 90 of 126 (546851) 02-14-2010 10:34 AM

Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw 02-13-2010 10:18 PM

But we don't see considerably less C14 prior to the date specified for the biblical flood (or any of the other various flood stories). As stated ealier, there is a difference, but one that is accounted for via calibration.

What I do find interesting, though, is not necessarily all the different correlations that soundly refute your position, Buz. Young earth creationists often crow about the fact that the acceptance of carbon dating requires "assumptions" due to the fact that no one was around a half life of C14 ago to be able to quantitatively test this.

But, see, it's kinda like we were. How? Well, looking back at the bristlecone pines (or the European Oaks, etc...) we can use instruments to measure (not date, Buz, measure) how much C14 is in any one tree ring. Then (get this), we count 5730 (appr.) rings back in time (which may require more than one tree) and guess what? If you measure (not date) the amount of C14 in this ring (5730 years ago), we get....surprise!....half the amount of C14. Wow! What another amazing coincidence! No assumptions required.

Sorry, Buz, but I do believe you've exceeded your weekly quota of "perhapses", "maybes" and "what ifs". All in one post.

Have a good one.

Message 92 of 126 (546880) 02-14-2010 4:56 PM

Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD 02-14-2010 12:36 PM

Thanks for the reply. You should probably know that this admitted amateur spent quite some time poring over your lengthy and information-packed correlations thread(s). I have to admit I checked and cross-referenced a lot of your conclusions, and found them all bulletproof, but in searching for the truth, shouldn't we always fact-check? Anyway, you should also know that your posts pretty much sewed up my personal contention against anything flood-related.

Thanks again for your work.

Have a good one.

Message 98 of 126 (546988) 02-15-2010 4:01 PM

Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw 02-15-2010 11:45 AM

You say corroboration, when I think what you actually mean is self-validation. But correct me if I'm wrong here.

For example, regarding the account of creation, biblical literalists will cite the beginning of the book of John, specifically vs. 1-3:

Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, Buz, but is this what you meant? Attempting to verify the truth of the bible with...the bible? John (supposedly) said Jesus was present at creation, so this corroborates the Genesis account, correct? I'll let lie the various theories about who actually wrote the gospel of John, but if you're intending to be taken seriously here, you'll need to bring a little more to the discussion than, "This part of the bible says this other part here is true, so there's your corroboration."

I'll be straightforward here, though Buz, there's not much in the good book that'll strengthen your case, scientifically speaking or otherwise. Like Dr. A said, there's some OK history if you look hard enough, but as far as science goes, bupkus. The closest anyone associated with creation came was when the RATE crew spent all those creationist-donated dollars and just ended up strengthening the old-earthers' case.

Sorry.

Have a good one.

Message 101 of 126 (547022) 02-15-2010 8:19 PM

Reply to: Message 99 by DrJones* 02-15-2010 5:58 PM

Ah. I do remember reading about those remains. Found on a beach somewhere, yes? Some beach where no one except for Egyptian bad-guy pursuers would ever dare to take an ancient pleasure-trip?

Never mind, then.

Have a good one.

Message 110 of 126 (547133) 02-16-2010 2:54 PM

Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw 02-15-2010 9:46 PM

Admittedly, I have less knowledge than you when discussing the Exodus event and evidence. In the limited reading I've done on it, however, I found the "evidence"...wanting. I understand this is a free for all, but as I can see from the past threads on this board, it's all been hashed out multiple times, so I see no need to go through it again. Rest assured, though, your contention of my complete and total ignorance on this subject is mistaken.

Let's set aside, for the moment, whether there was actually a real, historical exodus from Egypt, or if the walls of Jericho were actually brought down with the trumpets of the Israelites, etc, etc, etc...(insert your questionable historical biblical scenario here) How, exactly, when presented with the mountains of evidence, can you extend the (tiny) possibility of the above events to then conclude that the flood must have been an actual event?

Seems like you're reaching here a bit, to me.

Have a good one.

Edited by Apothecus, : grammar

Message 113 of 126 (547912) 02-23-2010 9:35 PM

Reply to: Message 112 by lyx2no 02-23-2010 6:33 PM

He also has to explain how those trees lived through that massive deluge.

So, Buz, without spewing incessant BS about how such and such tropical swamp tree lived after being submerged for such and such amount of time blah blah blah...can you tell us, Buz, short of amazing magick, how Bristlecone Pines, English Oaks, et al showed anything, ANYTHING, except exceptional deadness after remaining underwater for the better part of a year?

Even a, "I'm not sure, but it'll all be revealed to me in the afterlife," would be preferable to your endless string of "maybes", "perhapses" and "what ifs". It's tiresome to read. How can you bring yourself to type it?

Message 125 of 126 (547981) 02-24-2010 2:21 PM

Reply to: Message 116 by Buzsaw 02-23-2010 10:52 PM

Yes, Buz, I read that post. Forgive me, but I found your explanations ... wanting.

However, your imagination is impeccable.

How is it, again, that you as an admitted scientific layperson can draw such striking parallels between Amazonian swamp trees and dry-climate mountain pines with regard to whether or not they could survive long-term immersion and expect reasonable folks to take you the least bit seriously? I understand your dogma is on the line here, but c'mon! Irrationality helps your case not at all.

Edited by Apothecus, : added final paragraph