First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
THE BIG BANG...
559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09



here is an article on how the Big Bang violates light laws. http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang.


I'm not sure if you actually read this article but... it is saying that the arguments against Biblical theories that "violates" the said laws are invalid because the scientific ones themselves are just speculations. It actually goes both sides, assuming that it is correct and objective (which it is not and even you can probably tell that).


Also, the earths rocks have faulty dating systems, and evolutionary scientists may date it millions of years old, while others use more accurate methods and find them to be several thousands of years. Here is a good article on how radiometric dating is flawed and inaccurate (it states they have dated living snails to be over 2000 years old using these methods...). http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Hartman.xhtml


I'm not really sure why you would want an evolutionary scientist to date a rock or even a fossil. And as for your "good" article, Read the whole article please, especially the last 5 paragraphs of page 1. Actually, let me quote it for you:


Did you find the article convincing? I should hope not; it's
a mishmashed jumble of pseudoscience, lies, and ignorance. My first
instinct was to simply hit "delete", since this was
obviously just the usual young-Earth insanity. But I thought about
it some more, and it occurred to me that most of the hate
mail I've gotten in relation to this page has come from
young-Earth creationists (from here on referred to as YECs).


I initially didn't cover YEC theories because I mistakenly
assumed that most creationists weren't stupid enough to
subscribe to young-earth nonsense. Sadly, if the makeup of my
E-mail is any indication, it seems I was wrong. This single article
happened to combine most of the arguments I've heard into a
single stream of semi-consciousness, so I thought it would be good
to pick it apart.


I did a little bit of homework, and discovered that this bizarre
jumble of pseudoscience actually came from a website called
Christian Humor
(from the spelling, I'd guess that it must be an American
site). The author is a guy named Greg Hartman (I hope he's not
related to Phil, since I liked Phil), who claims to be a
"humorist" and who has the oh-so-unusual combination of
devout Christian upbringing and YEC beliefs (how strange that 100%
of YECs just happen to belong to one particular religion,
even though they claim their theories are grounded in science
rather than religion). He has BA's in theology and journalism,
both of which undoubtedly gave him the basic scientific grounding
that he needs in order to authoritatively refute the entire
scientific community on matters of radioactive decay rates,
geology, and cosmology (cough cough).


Since he's a humourist it's tempting to assume that his
article was intended to be satirical of YECs, and that I
shouldn't go after him. But it's located in the
"Apologetics" section of his website, which is a serious
attempt to "prove" that Christianity and logic need not
be mutually exclusive, so it's quite obvious that he actually
thinks this garble makes sense. Sad ... very sad.


If you look at enough creationist arguments (particularly
young-earth creationist argument), you will find that they are all
depressingly similar. It's amazing how many different people
can spout the exact same recycled arguments. There is no
originality or creativity; all of them read the same journals, and
paraphrase the same ideas. Many of them are so bad that they were
debunked decades ago, or in some cases, more than a century
ago! But the sad state of our education system means that people
still graduate from high school every day without enough skills to
see through this kind of nonsense.

Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09

jewishplayer wrote:




here is an article on how the Big Bang violates light laws. http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang.


I'm not sure if you actually read this article but... it is saying that the arguments against Biblical theories that "violates" the said laws are invalid because the scientific ones themselves are just speculations. It actually goes both sides, assuming that it is correct and objective (which it is not and even you can probably tell that).


Also, the earths rocks have faulty dating systems, and evolutionary scientists may date it millions of years old, while others use more accurate methods and find them to be several thousands of years. Here is a good article on how radiometric dating is flawed and inaccurate (it states they have dated living snails to be over 2000 years old using these methods...). http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Hartman.xhtml


I'm not really sure why you would want an evolutionary scientist to date a rock or even a fossil. And as for your "good" article, Read the whole article please, especially the last 5 paragraphs of page 1. Actually, let me quote it for you:


Did you find the article convincing? I should hope not; it's
a mishmashed jumble of pseudoscience, lies, and ignorance. My first
instinct was to simply hit "delete", since this was
obviously just the usual young-Earth insanity. But I thought about
it some more, and it occurred to me that most of the hate
mail I've gotten in relation to this page has come from
young-Earth creationists (from here on referred to as YECs).


I initially didn't cover YEC theories because I mistakenly
assumed that most creationists weren't stupid enough to
subscribe to young-earth nonsense. Sadly, if the makeup of my
E-mail is any indication, it seems I was wrong. This single article
happened to combine most of the arguments I've heard into a
single stream of semi-consciousness, so I thought it would be good
to pick it apart.


I did a little bit of homework, and discovered that this bizarre
jumble of pseudoscience actually came from a website called
Christian Humor
(from the spelling, I'd guess that it must be an American
site). The author is a guy named Greg Hartman (I hope he's not
related to Phil, since I liked Phil), who claims to be a
"humorist" and who has the oh-so-unusual combination of
devout Christian upbringing and YEC beliefs (how strange that 100%
of YECs just happen to belong to one particular religion,
even though they claim their theories are grounded in science
rather than religion). He has BA's in theology and journalism,
both of which undoubtedly gave him the basic scientific grounding
that he needs in order to authoritatively refute the entire
scientific community on matters of radioactive decay rates,
geology, and cosmology (cough cough).


Since he's a humourist it's tempting to assume that his
article was intended to be satirical of YECs, and that I
shouldn't go after him. But it's located in the
"Apologetics" section of his website, which is a serious
attempt to "prove" that Christianity and logic need not
be mutually exclusive, so it's quite obvious that he actually
thinks this garble makes sense. Sad ... very sad.


If you look at enough creationist arguments (particularly
young-earth creationist argument), you will find that they are all
depressingly similar. It's amazing how many different people
can spout the exact same recycled arguments. There is no
originality or creativity; all of them read the same journals, and
paraphrase the same ideas. Many of them are so bad that they were
debunked decades ago, or in some cases, more than a century
ago! But the sad state of our education system means that people
still graduate from high school every day without enough skills to
see through this kind of nonsense.



I did read the article, and the part in yellow (or tan) is not from the author. The author runs a pro-evolution site directly established to bash creationism... If you notice those paragraphs he wrote contain no scientific critique of the material and merely bash it using ignorant humor. People discredit creationism without using any science to back their claims. It's a propaganda for naturalism imo. Here are some more proofs. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ROP8IWl0TU. Please observe the scientific arguments being said (I try and say this with utmost respect). Here is another movie (7 parts) you might want to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc&NR=1
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 5/4/09
big bang the korean band? lolz
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

digs wrote:

I did read the article, and the part in yellow (or tan) is not from the author. The author runs a pro-evolution site directly established to bash creationism... If you notice those paragraphs he wrote contain no scientific critique of the material and merely bash it using ignorant humor.


From the article you posted:


This is one of the oldest YEC attacks on radiometric dating: he thinks radioactive "decay rates can change", and that this therefore invalidates the concept of radiometric dating.

This is tantamount to claiming that the gravity of the Earth might have been 5 times stronger in medieval times, or that the boiling point of water might have been a thousand degrees a century ago. The decay rates of radioisotopes are driven by the quantum mechanics of barrier tunneling and the relative strengths of coulomb repulsion and nuclear binding energy which drive all nuclear interactions. If they were to change, this would mean that the characteristics of fundamental particles and forces are changing, which means that the behaviour of all matter in the universe is in a state of flux. Moreover, since they claim the Earth is just 6,000 years old, these sweeping changes would have been occurring right before our eyes, during recorded history!

Why, then, do Egyptian pyramids built 4500 years ago still stand? How did a 4800 year old California Bristlecone Pine tree (nicknamed "Methuselah") survive? Changes in physical constants such as the electric charge of electrons and protons or the strength of the nuclear binding force would have changed the fundamental behaviour of matter. Let's imagine that electromagnetism was much stronger in the past; this would help pry apart nuclei faster, thus increasing the rate of radioactive decay. However, it would also make solid objects stronger and more rigid, it would make fire burn hotter, it would change the melting points and densities of all materials, it would increase the coulomb barrier for nuclear fusion in the Sun (thus cooling and dimming it to the point that we would have frozen to death), it would drastically alter the electrochemical reactions used in living organisms, and that's just the tip of the iceberg! Alternatively, let's suppose that the strong nuclear force was much weaker in the past. This would also increase decay rates, with similarly severe side-effects. Large elements would become more radioactive, thus greatly increasing the background radiation and producing anomalous low mass radioisotopes. Worse yet, the binding energy of nuclei would be much smaller, so the energy yield of nuclear fusion would be much lower and the ancient Sun would have been so cool and dim that the Earth would have been a dark, frozen, barren rock.



Lead, like hydrogen, has several naturally occurring isotopes. And just as with hydrogen and deuterium, the probabilities dictate that measurable quantities of naturally occurring lead will be found in a fixed ratio of lead-204 to lead-206. Chemicals don't "know" which isotope they're dealing with, because the electrical properties are identical. But we can tell the difference with sophisticated devices such as mass spectrometers. When uranium decays, it always decays into lead-206. Therefore, an unnaturally high ratio of lead-206 to lead-204 can only come from uranium decay, and since the half-life of U-238 is measured in hundreds of millions of years, a high ratio of lead-206 is completely incompatible with YEC.



The isochron method dispenses with the assumption of fixed isotope ratios in the daughter element by using an ingenious trick. As before, it takes a three nuclides again: one parent, one daughter and one non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter. But this time, several samples are taken from chemically dissimilar minerals which were once part of a contiguous pool (this is the part that requires a skilled geologist, since proper identification is important). Each sample is plotted on a graph in which the X-axis is the ratio between parent and isotope #2 (the stable one), and the Y-axis is the ratio between isotope #1 to #2.

The ratio of isotope #1 to #2 would have been the same for all samples in the original pool of liquid matter, because their physical characteristics are virtually identical and there is no reason why one of them would preferentially group together in any particular place. As the liquid matter solidified and differentiated into various minerals, this ratio would remain constant for all the minerals because they had no way of "knowing" which isotope they were getting. Therefore, the Y values would have been the same for samples taken from any of the various minerals and a horizontal line could be drawn through all the points, regardless of the concentration of the parent.

As the rocks aged, the parent decayed into isotope #1, while isotope #2 remained constant. Therefore, the Y-values (ratio of #1 to #2) increased and the X-values (ratio of parent to #2) decreased. Each point moved up and to the left. The interesting part is that a mineral with twice as much parent nuclide would experience an upward shift which is twice as large (because there's twice as much decay), therefore all of the points which originally laid on a straight line will stay on a straight line, albeit one which is tilting upwards. Therefore, you can check the accuracy of isochron dating by simply checking whether the points lay on a straight line.



Coal is often formed from peat, which in turn is formed in bogs and swamps. Got that? Bogs and swamps. Trees exist with their bases and root systems buried under thick swamps or bogs today, so should we be shocked to find an upright tree in a coal seam? Not at all.

Ah, but what about the "millions of years of sedimentation?" Well, when peat compacts into a coal seam, the process is not identical to the formation of, for example, limestone. When creationists say that a tree trunk was found cutting across millions of years of sedimentation, what they're really saying is that the tree trunk was found cutting across what would have been millions of years of sedimentation if it weren't coal.


All of these explanations sound pretty scientific to me, and I'm not even done with the article. I don't mean to jump on you since a few other people are already doing that, but you happened to post that at the moment when I was about to post and ask you this question:

I keep seeing Creationists state that the Earth is both 6,000 years old and 10,000 years old. Which one is generally agreed upon among Creationists?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


digs wrote:

I did read the article, and the part in yellow (or tan) is not from the author. The author runs a pro-evolution site directly established to bash creationism... If you notice those paragraphs he wrote contain no scientific critique of the material and merely bash it using ignorant humor.


From the article you posted:


This is one of the oldest YEC attacks on radiometric dating: he thinks radioactive "decay rates can change", and that this therefore invalidates the concept of radiometric dating.

This is tantamount to claiming that the gravity of the Earth might have been 5 times stronger in medieval times, or that the boiling point of water might have been a thousand degrees a century ago. The decay rates of radioisotopes are driven by the quantum mechanics of barrier tunneling and the relative strengths of coulomb repulsion and nuclear binding energy which drive all nuclear interactions. If they were to change, this would mean that the characteristics of fundamental particles and forces are changing, which means that the behaviour of all matter in the universe is in a state of flux. Moreover, since they claim the Earth is just 6,000 years old, these sweeping changes would have been occurring right before our eyes, during recorded history!

Why, then, do Egyptian pyramids built 4500 years ago still stand? How did a 4800 year old California Bristlecone Pine tree (nicknamed "Methuselah") survive? Changes in physical constants such as the electric charge of electrons and protons or the strength of the nuclear binding force would have changed the fundamental behaviour of matter. Let's imagine that electromagnetism was much stronger in the past; this would help pry apart nuclei faster, thus increasing the rate of radioactive decay. However, it would also make solid objects stronger and more rigid, it would make fire burn hotter, it would change the melting points and densities of all materials, it would increase the coulomb barrier for nuclear fusion in the Sun (thus cooling and dimming it to the point that we would have frozen to death), it would drastically alter the electrochemical reactions used in living organisms, and that's just the tip of the iceberg! Alternatively, let's suppose that the strong nuclear force was much weaker in the past. This would also increase decay rates, with similarly severe side-effects. Large elements would become more radioactive, thus greatly increasing the background radiation and producing anomalous low mass radioisotopes. Worse yet, the binding energy of nuclei would be much smaller, so the energy yield of nuclear fusion would be much lower and the ancient Sun would have been so cool and dim that the Earth would have been a dark, frozen, barren rock.



Lead, like hydrogen, has several naturally occurring isotopes. And just as with hydrogen and deuterium, the probabilities dictate that measurable quantities of naturally occurring lead will be found in a fixed ratio of lead-204 to lead-206. Chemicals don't "know" which isotope they're dealing with, because the electrical properties are identical. But we can tell the difference with sophisticated devices such as mass spectrometers. When uranium decays, it always decays into lead-206. Therefore, an unnaturally high ratio of lead-206 to lead-204 can only come from uranium decay, and since the half-life of U-238 is measured in hundreds of millions of years, a high ratio of lead-206 is completely incompatible with YEC.



The isochron method dispenses with the assumption of fixed isotope ratios in the daughter element by using an ingenious trick. As before, it takes a three nuclides again: one parent, one daughter and one non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter. But this time, several samples are taken from chemically dissimilar minerals which were once part of a contiguous pool (this is the part that requires a skilled geologist, since proper identification is important). Each sample is plotted on a graph in which the X-axis is the ratio between parent and isotope #2 (the stable one), and the Y-axis is the ratio between isotope #1 to #2.

The ratio of isotope #1 to #2 would have been the same for all samples in the original pool of liquid matter, because their physical characteristics are virtually identical and there is no reason why one of them would preferentially group together in any particular place. As the liquid matter solidified and differentiated into various minerals, this ratio would remain constant for all the minerals because they had no way of "knowing" which isotope they were getting. Therefore, the Y values would have been the same for samples taken from any of the various minerals and a horizontal line could be drawn through all the points, regardless of the concentration of the parent.

As the rocks aged, the parent decayed into isotope #1, while isotope #2 remained constant. Therefore, the Y-values (ratio of #1 to #2) increased and the X-values (ratio of parent to #2) decreased. Each point moved up and to the left. The interesting part is that a mineral with twice as much parent nuclide would experience an upward shift which is twice as large (because there's twice as much decay), therefore all of the points which originally laid on a straight line will stay on a straight line, albeit one which is tilting upwards. Therefore, you can check the accuracy of isochron dating by simply checking whether the points lay on a straight line.



Coal is often formed from peat, which in turn is formed in bogs and swamps. Got that? Bogs and swamps. Trees exist with their bases and root systems buried under thick swamps or bogs today, so should we be shocked to find an upright tree in a coal seam? Not at all.

Ah, but what about the "millions of years of sedimentation?" Well, when peat compacts into a coal seam, the process is not identical to the formation of, for example, limestone. When creationists say that a tree trunk was found cutting across millions of years of sedimentation, what they're really saying is that the tree trunk was found cutting across what would have been millions of years of sedimentation if it weren't coal.


All of these explanations sound pretty scientific to me, and I'm not even done with the article. I don't mean to jump on you since a few other people are already doing that, but you happened to post that at the moment when I was about to post and ask you this question:

I keep seeing Creationists state that the Earth is both 6,000 years old and 10,000 years old. Which one is generally agreed upon among Creationists?


We aren't entirely sure. We generally believe the earth to be between 12,000 and 6,000 years old. We estimate that 6,000 years or so have passed sense the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

digs wrote:

We aren't entirely sure. We generally believe the earth to be between 12,000 and 6,000 years old. We estimate that 6,000 years or so have passed sense the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.



So does that mean that it is possible that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden for up to 6,000 years before they were cast out?
559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09



I did read the article, and the part in yellow (or tan) is not from the author. The author runs a pro-evolution site directly established to bash creationism... If you notice those paragraphs he wrote contain no scientific critique of the material and merely bash it using ignorant humor. People discredit creationism without using any science to back their claims. It's a propaganda for naturalism imo


If you actually went to the other pages of that link earlier, the scientific back-ups as to why that article by the humorist is wrong can be seen there. It is dissected thoroughly. Go read through it, might take a while though.


Here are some more proofs. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ROP8IWl0TU. Please observe the scientific arguments being said (I try and say this with utmost respect).


I think I should use your reference earlier since it refuted a lot of these Young Earth arguments (in details): http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Hartman.xhtml (From page one to page seven, and possibly Introduction to get the
whole argument).

And to be honest, I did not check the youtube link as it is probably one of the worst places you can acquire a source from.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:
Who in CR has endowed themselves in science AND their own religion? Like who can actually incorporate both sides? I know I've tried at least twice, just now and in the man=ape thread.


I don't think it's possible for science and religion to completely coordinate with each other. Anyone who tries to equally incorporate both into their world view will inevitable lean towards one side or the other. The absolutism of religion does not coincide well with the constant changing and expanding of science. However, science and spiritiality can compliment each other very well, depending on the person.


Okay, so what's the difference between religion and spirituality? I've heard many definitions of both, they're all pretty extreme.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The Big Bang is naturalistic propaganda... there are SO MANY problems and holes within it. Some scientists genuinely study it for scientific value, but many also use it to push the naturalistic philosophical view and disregard anyone who disagrees with it as a ignorant religious moron... Scientists are some of the most prejudice people on earth. I personally do not believe in the Big Bang and I am highly skeptical of the theory for scientific reasons/ http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


WHy is it everytime I look at any of your postings there from Bad sources from people who don't even know anything about the topics there attacking?

Look for and check out the sources for your Source you might see why I always point out why your sourses are no good before you post them, then you save us a lot of time going over this crap every time. Not trying to be an ass this time, I am just pointing out that your sources are bad, and you can see that for your self if you took a look at them for there sources.

You might wanna use a real scientest as well, and Not just some Holy bible thumper with no education in what there attacking.







They aren't bad sources and the science behind them is accurate. They are Christian sources, but just because they are Christian doesn't make them bad. They use real science to back what the Bible says and disprove what others try to push as fact. This page lists a few of the scientists who work for Creation Ministries http://creation.com/about-us. most have Ph.D. in what they are researching and talking about, they are just as educated as evolutionary scientists and big bang theorists.


Actually digs I might have to disagree with you on this one. I've taken a quick look at bigbangneverhappened link and I myself find it quite biased and here's what I've noticed and what I have to say about each.

-Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
It's science. Deep down inside the field not everything makes it out alive. The theories are like musicians who are trying to go mainstream, it's really that hard. So what if there's unstable measurements of the element count of the past. Every one of those measurements is made from different angles, and they may not always be right. Even if this stuff is disproven, the idea that the universe is made out of "nothing" is still out there because of other theories that are more well supported.

-Large-scale Voids are too old
They are called "voids" for a reason. That void is what is considered nothingness. Oh, and you don't even want to hear what I've heard from a graduating physics student, even he doesn't want to believe the following: the universe has no beginning. That's right, according to some guy he somehow drew from his conclusions that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting with no beginning or end. The Big Bang as we know it may not have been the first one. Scary.

-Surface brightness is constant
I had to re-read this one a couple times but I got it somehow. Correction, the galaxy as we know it now isn't what it was when it first started. It could be that such said galaxies were made while the universe was stablizing so their brightness could be evidence of a different rule of physics that the universe was once in before it stablized.

-Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Dark matter has been in fact proven mathematically proven. As for the other two I don't know of. Dark matter doesn't exist now obviously becuase they were all negated by matter.

-No room for dark matter
"While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter"
What does he mean by this, the ordinary matter that we have today? Of course there's less of it than the dark matter that has onced existed. He even contradicts himself by presenting this, he just said there was no evidence of dark matter.

-Ya this is as far as I went and I've already pointed flaws in this arguement. If it wasn't for the big bang that made the universe, what other scientific explaination is out there?


I agree that some of his arguments are old and hard to understand, I prefer the second link (Creation ministries).

I don't think science can explain the origins of the universe, I personally believe in the Biblical creation account in Genesis, so I believe that God created all that is in existence.


Ya me too but it's always neat to see the flip side of the coin. Like I mean it'd be sweet to see physical evidence of creation, after all I'm pretty sure God follow his own laws of physics and biology, even some that we may not know of (including loopholes).
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09

crunchypibb wrote:

Okay, so what's the difference between religion and spirituality? I've heard many definitions of both, they're all pretty extreme.


Religion is more of an adherence to absolute, unchanging dogmas, while spirituality is more of an awareness of a "higher" sense of existence granted to us by our human qualities, and it's very vauge and a lot of what it constitutes is up to the person. This gives them the freedom to incorporate science into their beliefs without it contradicting them. Religion is too strict to allow all of natural science to work well alongside it.




crunchypibb wrote:

Ya me too but it's always neat to see the flip side of the coin. Like I mean it'd be sweet to see physical evidence of creation, after all I'm pretty sure God follow his own laws of physics and biology, even some that we may not know of (including loopholes).


If God were a physical being then he would be bound by the laws of physics, which would mean that he couldn't do a lot of the things he can supposedly do, like create the laws of physics.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/4/09 , edited 5/4/09

digs wrote:

We aren't entirely sure. We generally believe the earth to be between 12,000 and 6,000 years old. We estimate that 6,000 years or so have passed sense the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.



Oh ? If the earth is only 12,000 years old, how do you explain all the fossils we've found that are obviously far older then that, And explain the life we've found frozen in amber, that's older than that, explain the rocks we've found that are far older than that, explain the sun, its 4.5 billion years old, and explain homo-spaien, homo-sapien been on earth for 250,000 years, anbd what about homo-erectus which lived before homo-sapien, we have tools from them to prove their existance, and we have fossils as well that also prove they existed, explain all that, there is no way the earth is only 12,000 years old, and there is more then enough proof to prove it.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/09

nuk3zord wrote:

BTW Gravity is an interesting topic. You're everyday experiences tell you that it exists. The planets tell you that it exist. General relativity tells you that exists. But the particles (they like to call them gravitons) that govern it haven't yet been detected.quote]

Gravity is fascinating. Anything that can shrink time and slow place to the point of creating a singularity is just plain worth looking into.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/09

Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:

We aren't entirely sure. We generally believe the earth to be between 12,000 and 6,000 years old. We estimate that 6,000 years or so have passed sense the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.



Oh ? If the earth is only 12,000 years old, how do you explain all the fossils we've found that are obviously far older then that, And explain the life we've found frozen in amber, that's older than that, explain the rocks we've found that are far older than that, explain the sun, its 4.5 billion years old, and explain homo-spaien, homo-sapien been on earth for 250,000 years, anbd what about homo-erectus which lived before homo-sapien, we have tools from them to prove their existance, and we have fossils as well that also prove they existed, explain all that, there is no way the earth is only 12,000 years old, and there is more then enough proof to prove it.


The fossils are not that old, and the fossil record is not evolutions friend.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/5/09

digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:

We aren't entirely sure. We generally believe the earth to be between 12,000 and 6,000 years old. We estimate that 6,000 years or so have passed sense the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.



Oh ? If the earth is only 12,000 years old, how do you explain all the fossils we've found that are obviously far older then that, And explain the life we've found frozen in amber, that's older than that, explain the rocks we've found that are far older than that, explain the sun, its 4.5 billion years old, and explain homo-spaien, homo-sapien been on earth for 250,000 years, anbd what about homo-erectus which lived before homo-sapien, we have tools from them to prove their existance, and we have fossils as well that also prove they existed, explain all that, there is no way the earth is only 12,000 years old, and there is more then enough proof to prove it.


The fossils are not that old, and the fossil record is not evolutions friend.


The fossils are that old, they have been dated so, and rocks have been dated using not a carbon dating method but a far more accurate Pb/Pb isochron method, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. More accurate then carbon dating. The earth is roughly 13.7 billion years old, deny it all you want, your choice to be ignorant not mine, but its true, the earth is 13.7 billion years old, and so are some of the meteor's we've found and dated. So no telling me some bullcrap like the earth is only 12,000 years old when it's not, again it's your choice to remain ignorant, not mine.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/09

Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


digs wrote:

We aren't entirely sure. We generally believe the earth to be between 12,000 and 6,000 years old. We estimate that 6,000 years or so have passed sense the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.



Oh ? If the earth is only 12,000 years old, how do you explain all the fossils we've found that are obviously far older then that, And explain the life we've found frozen in amber, that's older than that, explain the rocks we've found that are far older than that, explain the sun, its 4.5 billion years old, and explain homo-spaien, homo-sapien been on earth for 250,000 years, anbd what about homo-erectus which lived before homo-sapien, we have tools from them to prove their existance, and we have fossils as well that also prove they existed, explain all that, there is no way the earth is only 12,000 years old, and there is more then enough proof to prove it.


The fossils are not that old, and the fossil record is not evolutions friend.


The fossils are that old, they have been dated so, and rocks have been dated using not a carbon dating method but a far more accurate Pb/Pb isochron method, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. More accurate then carbon dating. The earth is roughly 13.7 billion years old, deny it all you want, your choice to be ignorant not mine, but its true, the earth is 13.7 billion years old, and so are some of the meteor's we've found and dated. So no telling me some bullcrap like the earth is only 12,000 years old when it's not, again it's your choice to remain ignorant, not mine.


Actually most evolutionary scientists believe the earth is only 4.6 billion years old. And is it ironic that different dating methods yield different dates? And the dating methods used by evolutionary scientists are flawed. http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers. Here are many articles over time dating methods. The billions of years old earth and evolution are an ideology that is being pushed by exaggerated and false science to feed a naturalistic worldview.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.