Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!

unique: |yoō'nēk| adj. unlike anything else; one of a kind.irrational |i'ra sh ənl| adj. (Mathematics) not expressible as a ratio of two integers, and having an infinite and nonrecurring expansion when expressed as a decimal.√2If you can't even get the little things right

---

---

Being less windyEdited by lyx2no, : Typo.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.Edited by lyx2no, : Swapped out my def. for "irrational" with Webster's, and removed a joke no one was going to get.

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

Hello Coyote,I know all about dating process, you don’t have to go on and elaborate to me (but thank you for putting the effort into your posts - much apprciated). What I do know is that all dating processes is a imperfect science! What’s more, the early earth had more oxygen. We witness this in the fossil records In the fossil record we find insects and animals that still exist today, the only difference is they were MUCH BIGGER back then!This indicates that the early earths atmosphere was quite different, perhaps a hyperbaric chamber of sorts (likened onto a terrarium and greenhouse effect). The Bible describes that the Earths atmosphere before the flood was quite different with a separating water canopy.Genesis 1:6-8 - And G-d said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And G-d called the firmament Heaven.Genesis 2:5-6 - And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord G-d had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.This mist that came up from the face of the ground is the exact effect expected if the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy.This atmosphere would also throw carbon dates off after the Great Flood There was much more oxygen and carbon in the atmosphere which would suggest that there was more plants and trees, which created more oxygen which allowed things to grow much bigger - both plants, insects and animals. This high concentration most likely contained enormous amounts of carbon. Additionally, when insects eat trees and plants, even more carbon is released into the air and eventually THE GROUND. Therefore, we cannot say with any true confidence that the earth is billions of years old!Carboniferous - WikipediaNow Coyote, you can go on believing what you like, but as for me I do not fit into the little square box of what science tries to cram down societies throat as evolutionary fact. I believe G-d’s word through, threw and thru! The Bible is a recorded piece of historical documentation, it is not mythological as some claim, there is some very real science here. Another thing you must remember is that the Evolution Theory is still only a theory there was no witnesses to seeing it happen. However we do have a recorded eye-witness - the Bible. Please do tell! Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

Just a quick question. Do you have any idea what a scientific theory is? A little hint. It is not a guess.
Give me what you believe is the definition for a scientific theory.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You know, the gestational period of every animal really is a multiple of seven, if you just allow yourself 3 days leeway plus or minus to account for these hatching delays and so forth that everyone seems familiar with.Furthermore, as proof that Enoch and the other sleestacks really did build Stonehenge, the days in every single month in the calendar are multiples of seven, so long as you allow up to three days margin to account for the three days (and three nights) that whatshisname spent in the thingie between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.Furthermore though, and this is the really spooky part, if you take any prime number greater than 7, and square it, and subtract one, you will have a multiple of 24. This is a secret message from the true creators of the world, revealing to us, that the so called 7-11, is actually open 24 x 7.You can check it for yourself.

Please don't try to lecture me on radiocarbon dating. You have shown with every post that you don't know a thing about it.Examples:1) The amounts of carbon in the atmosphere would have no effect on radiocarbon dating because that method does not rely on amounts of carbon, but ratios between different isotopes of carbon.2) Radiocarbon dating is not used to establish the age of the earth. It's maximum limit is about 50,000 or so years (and getting better all the time). But even that is sufficient to demolish the young earth belief.3) We are able to account for atmospheric variations in C14 through tree ring calibrations and other methods. The divergence doesn't get beyond about 10% at the most, and modern dating methods let us correct for that. We have continuous tree ring sequences for several parts of the world that extend much beyond the purported dates for the global flood. That allows us to calibrate our radiocarbon dates for atmospheric fluctuations. (And it also shows that there was no flood, as those tree rings are from things like the standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California.)And I did that without looking anything up on the web! Can you say the same? Has nothing to do with any purported flood. The Carboniferous was millions of years ago, while the purported flood was about 4,350 years ago. Believe whatever you want. Rub blue mud in your naval on alternate Thursdays if that makes you happy.But when the overwhelming evidence of science contradicts your beliefs, don't try to claim that they are supported by science. That is apologetics and creation "science," not real science. And many of us here know the difference.Now, do you have any empirical evidence for your claims, or are you going to continue with the religious apologetics you have been dishing out?

---

If you are actually interested in learning, here are some good links for your edification:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

​

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

​

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

​

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

​

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

​

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

​

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

​

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry Coyote, she is not here to learn anything, just to sell her book. Tesla is probably the only customer she'll find.If she learned anything she would have to go to Barnes & Noble and Amazon and review her own book and admit that it is the stupidest pile of made up crap since Erich von Daniken, and that she is trying to con halfwits out of their money.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Yeah she has to sell her books so she can get her investment back.
From the publisher.

quote:

---

In that spirit, In Search of the Universal Truth Publisher has a
policy of offering to publish all manuscripts that are submitted, at the authors own expense,
while at the same time offering a wide range of options to help get you published for a
reasonable price.

---

If you pay the costs they will publish anything.Edited by Theodoric, : subtitle

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

But cuneiform is not an alphabetic script. It's logographic/syllabic.Why didn't you research the subjects you're talking about? A few minutes' study would have told you you were wrong. But this is not actually true. Stop making stuff up. Ah, yes, omphalism. Apparently your take on the Tower of Babel is that if it really had happened, the effects would be just exactly the same as if linguists were absolutely right about the evolution of languages.Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.One question, though --- we have actual written records of the descent of the Romance languages from Latin. How does that fit into your fantasy world?

I am not Coyote. He and I are two different people.Can't you be right about anything? No, you can date pillow basalt radiometrically, just not with K-Ar. You just admitted that the Hawaiian pillow basalts do not support your fantasy about water magically changing radiometric dates. Is there anything that does, or is this just more of the koo-koo stuff you make up in your head?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The sad thing is that nowadays it's possible to publish for free. Anyone who pays a single cent for the privilege is being royally ripped off.

Post 57, Anita. America (and Holland and the UK) wants to know! Where was it published?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Coyote, I do happen to know that one of the oldest trees is called Methuselah (named after the longest lived of all the biblical patriarchs). It is a bristlecone pine tree that grows on a remote hillside near Las Vegas Nevada. This tree is proclaimed to be the oldest known living thing on Earth. Nearly 5,000 years old!Only 5,000 years old, this sure fits into the Biblical perspective! However, I also happen to know that sometimes a tree might produce two rings in a year. You can generally tell because the rings are narrower than normal. It is also possible a tree might not produce a ring in a given year because of a succession of droughts, fire, or even a bug infestation can influence tree rings. THIS WOULD MAKE TREE RINGS UNRELIABLE AS A TESTING METHOD. There have even been some rare finds where a tree can grow continuously and not produce any rings. This can occur if the environments temperature (and moisture) remain consistent. These type of environmental conditions may have certainly been prevalent before the Great Flood.As far as all processes for dating are concerned, I will repeat myself again. ALL PROCESSES ARE UNRELIABLE! It is an imperfect and unperfected science that continually has anomalous results. The dates for the Carboniferous are purely rubbish! Additionally, that wasn’t what I was trying to prove. I was proving from that website that living things grew bigger because of the OXYGEN content of the early atmosphere which also grew more and bigger plants and trees that the animals and insects ate, which eventually ended up in the GROUND, which would account for high levels of carbon that suggest millions/billions of years. If this is the case, then obviously some of the processes for dating things are INCORRECT.As far as my book goes, I am not here to sell it as some claim. I am here to get the GOOD WORD out. People have been dumbed-down and I am here to reeducate.Everything that I have written still stands firm! Nobody here has made any sort of strong dent in disclaiming anything that I have said thus far.Know one thing science does not really tell us the origin of ANYTHING!Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

By using standing dead bristlecone pines they have extended the tree ring sequence past 12,000 years. European oaks have produced a sequence twice that long.Bristlecone pines do not produce two rings a year. The way this can be determined is correlation with historic volcanic events of known age. If there is an abnormal ring at the appropriate place, reflecting the temperature changes caused by the volcano, that rules out more than one ring per year, no rings some years, and so on. So? See above. The trees used for tree ring dating have none of these problems. (Sorry.) And tree rings are supplemented by coral growth and glacial varves, among other things. They agree with one another! There was no "Great Flood" -- that is a myth with no scientific backing. Nonsense. You just don't like the results! And you know next to nothing about the dating methods themselves, beyond what the creationist websites tell you -- and they lie. They have to lie -- they don't have any real data to use against these dating methods, so the make things up to mislead the unwary and shore up their beliefs.Check out RAZD's correlation threads and learn something beyond your creationist fantasies. Then try to explain why multiple dating methods, relying on many different lines of evidence, all produce the same results?If any one of these test was imperfect that test would produce results which differed from the rest. If all were imperfect they would produce random results.Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. The different dating methods correlate with one another quite well. This shows that they are accurate and creationists who deny them because they don't like the results are wrong.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are saying science is unreliable, but you try to use science to prove your point. By your (low) academic standards your argument is unreliably.You still need to provide sources.If the tree is 5000 years old the great flood could not have happen since the great flood destroyed everything around 4350 years ago or something like that.What about this?
250-Million-Year-Old Bacillus permians Halobacteria Revived - Bioinformatics.orgFits perfectly with the bible.... or maybe not.And at last, you are a dishonest person. "I am not here to sell my book" - then why do you talk about your book? And what the heck is going on with the price if you just try to spread the word. You are viewing Jesus as a salesman rather as the son of God. Your way of believing in God is disgusting even by Christian standards. You do not live for God but of God - abusing his authority.You have poor academic background and lie. I can accept stupidity most of the time, but this kind of attitude is horrible.

The Methuselah tree is no longer the oldest living tree. Prometheus beat it out a few years ago, and this tree crushes it at over 9,000 years old.Even supposing Methuselah was the oldest, that's not evidence of anything other than pure coincidence. There are millions of examples of radiometric dating which proves things to be millions of years old. You, of course, reject ALL of those out of hand but stick to a single tree that couldn't even be considered circumstantial evidence?You have no objections in using dates that conform to your beliefs about the biblical record, but reject any other dates that refute it?Confirmation bias much? Certainly??? Evidence please. So I guess we should just stop using science altogether then, eh? If you're going to remain consistent with this statement:

quote:

---

ALL PROCESSES ARE UNRELIABLE! It is an imperfect and unperfected science that continually has anomalous results

---

You are going to have to provide justification for how you know that the oxygen content in the past was greater than it is today, yet all other tests that point away from a Young Earth model are unreliable. How do you explain that? It sounds very condescending to tell actual scientists (of which this forum has many) that they need to be re-educated by a woman who wraps wire around objects and thinks it proves God. Anita, you don't even make any sense. These are ramblings. If no one has refuted what you're saying, it's because what you're saying is incoherent. It's like trying to decipher the slurred speech of a drunk. It only makes sense in your mind. I can assure you no credible scientist would look at your "work" as if it were worth a damn. I'm sorry, but you suffer from a particularly bad case of delusions of grandeur.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal