|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When Will The End-Times Be And How Will We Know? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
We have now observed that many dinosaur fossils have significant amounts of C-14 in them. Being generous to a fault, C-14 should be undetectable after 100,000 years. Refer to my reply on this to mike the wiz: Message 2369 Basically, you need to keep in mind how radiocarbon dating actually works! There are many different ways that C-14 can be formed, including from radioactive sources in the ground surrounding the sample. Of those many different ways of producing C-14, only C-14 produced in the atmosphere and incorporated into plants which then enter the food chain have anything to do with dating methods. My message to mikey linked to above goes into far more detail. Please learn something about what your claims are supposed to address in order to determine whether there's any validity to your claims. As long as you and the rest of the creationist community fail to engage in proper and honest scholarship, nobody will take any of your flimsy false claims seriously. And as long as you (plural) tie your creationist claims to your religion and make the validity of your religion dependent on those claims, then nobody will take your religion seriously and even find very valid reasons to reject it as false and ridiculous. Your move.
Instead of changing their beliefs to fit the facts, evolutionists insist that iron is responsible for the C-14 amounts, even after 75,000,000 years. What are you talking about? Please cite your source on that. For that matter, do you have an actual scientific source? Or is this nothing but yet another bogus creationist claim that you are repeating blindly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 827 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I know how carbon dating works.
Isn't it amazing that evolutionists try toconvince us of what happened tens of millions of years ago, and they get offended when we aren't gullible enough To believe them. If I can observe something, such as "kind"reproducing the same "kind," then I can accept that. BUT, if I am being asked to believe thatvariations in a "kind" can over long periods of time turn one "kind" into a totally different "kind," I won't do it. Darwin observed finches with different sizebeaks, and like an idiot, jumped to the conclusion that this, in a way, proved evolution. How long do you think I would have to waitfor my 24 speed mountain bike to evolve into a Harley?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
As long as you and the rest of the creationist community fail to engage in proper and honest scholarship, nobody will take any of your flimsy false claims seriously. This guy isn't messing around. He's going to try and spout all the PRATTs before he runs away. It's a shame really, I haven't seen a new, original creationist claim in more than a decade. Radiocarbon dating has a big list of creationist PRATTs associated with it. I'm always amazed that they are not embarrassed for spouting that BS, considering how simple and straight forward the concepts of radiocarbon dating and radiometric dating are. These methods are supported by Terabytes of data. Radioactive decay is well understood and huge databases have been developed that document isotopic decay chains. I guess when you are as ignorant candle 2 you can't be embarrassed by your ignorance. These guys do really well in the legislatures of republican states. Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
It is observable science (since recorded history) that an animal will have offsprings of the same kind. The same goes for humans. Human mothers will always have human babies. Yes, that is exactly what science says, because that is how life operating in reality does work. That is also why evolution, which is based on how life operates in reality, says the same thing! You seem to be trying to misrepresent evolution as saying something entirely different. What false words are you trying to put into evolution's mouth? Please be as specific as you can be. That would include your explanation of why you are coming to the false conclusions that you appear to be pretending to reach.
Professors cannot give an observable example where one animal evolved (macro) into an entirely different kind of animal. Of course, because that is not how life works. Nor is that what evolution teaches! Why are you misrepresenting what evolution teaches? Because if you told the truth then your anti-evolution position would fall apart? So you end up having to support your position with no other way than one falsehood after another. I know that you have been told the term, "nested hierarchies", but apparently you do not understand what that means. It's also called "clades" or monophyly -- the graphics there are much better than I could create via ASCII art. Basically, offspring will always be in the same clade as their parents, what in your muddled terminology caricature would be a "kind" (BTW, "Kind" is the German word for "child", as in Kindergarten). They will never ever jump into a different clade. Yes, closely related clades may be able to still interbreed with varying degrees of success, but only if they are in the same next-higher clade. Remember that a child will be very highly similar to its parents, yet slightly different. Over many generations, those differences between the n-th kid and the ancestor n generations ago will accumulate. Isolated populations of a species can, through the lack of remixing into a common gene pool, become noticeably different from each other, thus having become two different species. Both new species can go on to form newer species, but all of them will still be a part of that original clade. You will complain that that is only micro-evolution, but that is also how macro works. Except you do not understand macro, but rather you undoubtedly have a massive wrong idea about it. And also apparently about how speciation happens, which does not happen in a single generation (as your "argument" implies) but rather over many generations. Dr. Eugenie Scott recently gave a presentation: "What People Get Wrong--And Sometimes Right--About Evolution." I have posted it in Message 111 preceded by a message in which I presented my notes on it just immediately before finally finding the video. Part of creationists' misunderstanding of evolution is that they are caught in the millennia-old idea of The Great Chain of Being, AKA "The Ladder of Life", in which species progress up the chain (or ladder) from more primitive to more advanced until they reach our position at the top. Thus, according to that absolutely wrong model, evolving involves jumping up the chain (or ladder) to become something completely different. Absolutely wrong and that's why you don't understand anything. We have so often seen that kind of misunderstanding leading to creationist "proofs against evolution" by pointing out that we do not see dogs giving birth to kittens. Absolute rubbish that only a creationist would be ignorant enough to say. Rather, Darwin's idea was a branching tree or bush, which is the right idea. An ancestral species splits into two or more daughter species which then go on to branch out even further. Every single branching is still on the same earlier branch, there's no jumping over to another branch like you would jump from one link in a chain (or rung on a ladder) to another. No dogs giving birth to kittens is possible, yet it can lead to dogs being ancestral to later species of "doggish" (definitely related to dogs, yet different). Let's try to draw a picture of that since I have a feeling that you are not much for reading:
Tree: A | +-------------+---------------+ | | B C | | +---+--------+ +----------+------+ | | | | D E F G | +---+--------+ | | H I A through I are species. Time flows down-screen. A is the common ancestor of B and C. B is the common ancestor of D and E, neither of which have daughter species of their own. C is the common ancestor of F and G. F is the common ancestor of H and I. G has no daughter species of its own. What can we say about the relationships of these species?. First, we can classify B and C as being A-ish, which is to say that they are in the A-clade. Furthermore, D and E are B-ish so that's the B-clade, F and G are C-ish and in the C-clade, and finally H and I are F-ish and in the F-clade. However, because their ancestors are in the A-clade, we can also say that the members of the B-clade and of the C-clade are all also members of the A-clade. H and I, being in the F-clade, are also in the C-clade and in the A-clade. But, we can also say that D and E are not in the C-clade; that ship branched off and sailed a long time ago (mixing metaphors there). Nor are H and I in the B-clade nor, if G should ever spawn its own daughter species, would they ever be in that G-clade. In essence, that is how nested hierarchies work. Descendant species are in the same clades as their ancestors, but not those of their cousins. So, dogs and cats are in two very different clades, so dogs cannot have kittens. However, they, along with bears, are in a same clade because they all share a common ancestor, a carnivore. That carnivorous ancestor was also placental (carrying its fetus longer thanks to having a placenta as opposed to what marsupials need to do). Not only that, but it was also ( ... wait for it, wait for it ... ) a mammal! Going further back through the cladistic levels, it was also an amniota (egg bearing), and a tetrapod (basic body plan including four limbs), and a chordate (AKA vertebrate), as well as being a member of Animalia. I'm sure you've been fed that BS argument against Peppered Moths: "BUT THEY'RE STILL MOTHS!" Are you starting to see the error in that non-argument? Of course they're still moths! And even though speciation did not occur in that study, when they do eventually speciate their daughter species will still be moths, just a different kind of moth! Please learn something about evolution so that you can oppose it with truthful arguments that actually address actual problems with it, not with false claims based on abject ignorance. You've been trying ignorance for about a century now and it still does not work! You might consider trying a different approach, like actually learning what evolution actually is. Edited by dwise1, : Had to fix the hierarchy diagram
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
I know how carbon dating works. Obviously you do not, since you are relying on such complete and utter bullshit. So show me that you know. Describe how carbon dating works, including where the C-14 comes from and how it gets into organic specimen. Then explain what that is supposed to have to do with dinosaur fossils; ie, how is that C-14 supposed to have gotten into inorganic mineralized material which is what those fossils are. So if you know so much about radiocarbon dating and all that, then why don't you demonstrate to us just how much you do know. Oh, yeah, you already have. Nothing. Until you do so, we can arrive at no other conclusion than that you are deliberately lying to us. And that your god is The Lord of Lies. Pleased to meet you, can you guess his name?
If I can observe something, such as "kind" reproducing the same "kind," then I can accept that. That is exactly what evolution teaches. So why don't you accept it as you just promised? Oh yeah, you just told us yet another lie.
BUT, if I am being asked to believe that variations in a "kind" can over long periods of time turn one "kind" into a totally different "kind," I won't do it. That doesn't happen. Nor does evolution say that that would happen. Why would you think such a ridiculous thing? Only a brainless creationist would even come with such total nonsense. So you've been fooled by yet another creationist lie. Read my Message 484 for some good gouge on that.
How long do you think I would have to wait for my 24 speed mountain bike to evolve into a Harley? That is not how bikes work. And that is not even remotely close to how evolution works. Your nonsense is so completely wrong on so many levels. Do you really believe such complete and utter nonsense? Only a brainless creationist would.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
candle2 writes:
I meant what I said. The one being punished doesn't care if there's a difference between punishing and punishment. Did you mean punisher? Only apologists trying to make excuses for the punisher would care if there's a difference."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Bicycles do not reproduce. Not ever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
The off-topic continues.
Admin (the message this is a reply to) and a couple of others have offered up links to more appropriate threads and/or or have replied via more appropriate threads. Please follow there guidance. AdminnemooseusOr something like that©.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 827 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Bicycles have as much of a chance of reproducing
as a human mother has of giving birth to a crow. In any event, couldn't a bicycle evolve into aHarley if we allowed it tens of millions of years to do so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 827 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I'm not making excuses for God. He needs no excuse.
If you do not wish to be given eternal life, then so be it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
The only reason the punishee cares is that he questions the authority of the source of the punishment. You always argued in defense of satan and hypothetically wondered whether or not he was actually the good guy.
Were I the one being punished, I might want to at least know if I was being punished by the Lawmen or the criminals. "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 827 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Dwise 1.
You have a rather long post, and I have a small cellphone. I would prefer you to make much smaller post if possible, even if it requires a greater number of posts. Isolation leads to a loss of information; thisis not evolution. You still make the assertion that minute changesover millions of years will create a different "kind" than the parent "kind." This is not provable. In fact, it is impossible toprove this. It is not observable. And, it takes an enormous amount of faith to do believe this. All evolutionists believe in the same fairly tale. It begins like this: "long ago and far away."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Did the Jews need to question Hitler's authority? Isn't it pretty damn obvious that nobody has the authority to exterminate other people? The only reason the punishee cares is that he questions the authority of the source of the punishment."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 827 Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
C-14 decays into N-14.
The half life of C-14 is roughly 5700and some-odd years. This is why I stated that after 100,000years (probably closer to 50,000) no C-14 is detectable in fossils. The soil has nothing to do with this. It is ludicrous to believe that significantamounts of C-14 is still present in 75,000,000 year old fossils, regardless of the soil or the presence of iron in the soil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
candle2 writes:
You still haven't told us what you think the difference is between punishing and punishment. I'm not making excuses for God. Edited by ringo, : Fixed attribution."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024