Science Disproves Evolution

Buzsaw We shall see if you want to open this can of worms and explain what difference you believe the properties of the flood could possibly have on radiometric{and other} dating techniques used.
Since there are many techniques that use varying parameters to establish dates however you may want to be careful on the hypothesis you establish concerning the atmosphere at this time.
The reason for this is thus. If you give a list of the only scenarios you are willing to assume correspond to the possible "pre-flood" atmosphere, then it is highly probable that there exists a method of dating {radiometric or otherwise} that will support your position.
That said,however, the same set of conditions representing that which you are willing to accept as possible could also show you that your assumed hypothesis about the atmosphere is incorrect.So how about it Buz? Shall we see if your contention holds water or would you like to remain on the fringes where you can make claim after claim but never test to see the validity of that claim based on your assumptions?Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

---

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."Albert Einstein

Essentially your point reflects the fact that the victims of religious indoctination are more likely to believe further falsehoods asserted by religious authorities. That sounds like a good reason NOT to teach creationism and ID.

quote:

---

As I've argued time and again, the Biblical model implies pre-flood conditions which should render modern dating methodology inaccurate.

---

You mean you've asserted it time and time again. And run away from offering any support for it, time and time again. Because even you don't have any good reason to think that it's true. And don't bother to deny it. you know very well that that's the truth.

quote:

---

Thus if we don't know what the properties of the atmosphere were before the flood, how can we test for acurate dating?

---

Easy. You check different methods against each other. The study of the Lake Suigetsu varves is one example. There is no way that atmospheric conditions should affect the varve count - if they affected it at all - AND affect the radiocarbon readings in the same way. We've had threads on correlations between dating methods and the results utterly explode your idea. Or they would if it was sensiblew in the first place - which it never was.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

The title of this thread is "Science Disproves Evolution," not "The Bible Disproves Evolution."Science does not use revelatory books like the Bible and Qur'an as cheat sheets. It gathers its evidence from the real world, and since researchers everywhere are looking at the same real world they should over time develop consensus, which is precisely what happens.No real world evidence points to a young earth or a recent flood, and no one unaware of Genesis and only looking at the real world would ever arrive at such an idea.Though the title of this thread is "Science Disproves Evolution," a quick look at Message 1 reveals that Pahu is using an exceptionally broad definition of evolution, and the title really should be "Science Disproves Science," which makes as much sense as anything else he's said.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix minor garble in last para.

Except NO ONE including you or Dr. Lennart Mller, has ever presented any evidence to support such an assertion. You cited nothing. You made an unsupported assertion above. You have made that assertion Buz, but you have never presented the evidence or model to support those assertions. It is every bit as reasonable to assert that before the wanggledanggle the world was jello. First you need to present the evidence that there was a flood, when it happened and then the evidence of what the pre-flood environment happened to be. Yet you NEVER offer anything except unsupported assertion. Why is that Buz?And none of that has ANYTHING to do with the topic, which in case you missed it, is "Science Disproves Evolution".

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

You're implying that I am YEC. I'm sure you're aware that that is not the case as I have repeatedly stated.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

It is my understanding that I am in a room where the general subject is dating techniques, which I am addressing. Who said anything about biological evolution? Do you deny that evolutionists consider the universe to be evolving, beginning with a big bang? Of course there is a relationship between the supposed evolution of the universe and life on earth. Why are you concerned with raising issues? Isn’t that what makes a discussion interesting, if no enlightening?

That's blatantly false and you know it. When your people falsify the evidence which has been presented get back to me. Otherwise bug off.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Give me a little help Buz. Please provide links to the messages where evidence that shows "Science Disproves Evolution" is posted.Here is how it stands Buz, you have made a positive assertion that evidence has been presented. Will you actually provide links to those messages?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 46.   Evolving Planets?Pahu, You swiped your entire post (Message 49) from this website.You are a plagiarist and a liar.You need to go. Now.

Really? Look at what you said in Message 59: That's a standard YEC position. Why would you argue that modern dating methods are inaccurate if you're not a YEC and instead think the earth is ancient? You also believe Biblical arguments belong in science threads, another standard YEC position.What your position really is is confused!Looking at Message 1 I'd say that dating arguments are on-topic, but Biblical arguments about prophecy are off-topic, and sophistry about supposed scientific bias and bullying in the face of overt creationist shenanigans and when over 60% of the American public thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old is not only off-topic but ludicrous.The title says, "Science Disproves Evolution," by which the author really meant "Science Disproves an Ancient Earth." If you have scientific evidence against an ancient earth then let's hear it, but no more Bible talk, please.--Percy

He included a link to the site at the bottom of his post, the bottom half of his post comes from this page:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.I couldn't find where at that site the top half came from.--Percy

Ah, but there is a third alternative: ignore and run away. Surely, a tried and true YEC technique.I also like the question regarding exactly what ages do these 'alternative clocks' yield. Sometimes that ends the conversation, but here, I think we are dealing with a 'Gish Gallop' style of argumentation. Pahu will continue to present a moving target while never answering the growing pile of questions that you present.

Here's the original source: Here's where I found it:
Page not found – Evolution-FactsThis guy is a plagiarist.ABE:At the very least, Percy, this creo needs to get schooled on proper cites and proper quotes.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Buz has discussed his position in the past. It's very close to YEC in many respects. However he assumes a long time in which the planet existed but life did not. It's mainly relevant when discussing the age of the universe, and maybe rocks which date to before the appearance of life.

quote:

---

That's blatantly false and you know it. When your people falsify the evidence which has been presented get back to me. Otherwise bug off.

---

As you know full well Buz, the "evidence" that has been produced is hopelessly inadequate.I've been asking for evidence that the coral formations actually contain chariot wheels since the original threads. And NO evidence for that has ever been presented.You know all this. So it is completely inappropriate for you to try to shut Jar up. It would be far better for you to stop making false claims that you have no intention of supporting.