Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Physical & Life Sciences > Creation & Evolution
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Unread 30th August 2003, 09:06 AM
obediah001's Avatar
Senior Member

52 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th July 2003
Location: Thayer Missouri
Posts: 633
Blessings: 149,800
Reps: 14 (power: 0)
obediah001 is on a distinguished road
These are tree trunks no roots they were deposited in their positions by the flood they did not nor could they grow thru those layers. Refrence Mt. St Helens Washingtom state (USA) volcano which erupted in believe 1981 it, in Spirit lake has thousands of logs blown down off the mountains now standing up in the layers of muck in the bottom of the lake. This is science the Evolutionary strata depository thoeries have been conclusively been demonstrated i.e. PROVEN to be wrong.
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #22  
Unread 30th August 2003, 09:09 AM
JohnR7's Avatar
Legend

62 Gender: Male Married Faith: Pentecostal Country: United States Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 9th February 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,401
Blessings: 260,067
Reps: 12,682 (power: 0)
JohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to behold
JohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by obediah001
You is silly. Them trees are standing thru multiple layers of stata which PROVES they did not grow thru them & that it did not take millions of years to form the strata. The flood did it!!
I do not know if the "flood" did it, but it sure is evidence against evolution and an old world model of creation.

So far are on this thread we have Dr. Dino 2 Evolutionists 0.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 30th August 2003, 09:11 AM
JohnR7's Avatar
Legend

62 Gender: Male Married Faith: Pentecostal Country: United States Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 9th February 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,401
Blessings: 260,067
Reps: 12,682 (power: 0)
JohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to behold
JohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by obediah001
This is science the Evolutionary strata depository thoeries have been conclusively been demonstrated i.e. PROVEN to be wrong.
What does evolution have to do with geology?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 30th August 2003, 09:12 AM
Jet Black's Avatar
WinAce > cdesign proponentsists

35 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: England Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 24th June 2003
Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,427
Blessings: 185,860
Reps: 16,712 (power: 46)
Jet Black is a splendid one to behold
Jet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to behold
polustrate fossils were understood 200 years ago:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 30th August 2003, 09:15 AM
obediah001's Avatar
Senior Member

52 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th July 2003
Location: Thayer Missouri
Posts: 633
Blessings: 149,800
Reps: 14 (power: 0)
obediah001 is on a distinguished road
Everything as the Evolutionists claim the geology is billions of years old & then use that long age theory to support their Evolutionary ideas. Aint you ever heard of how they date the fossils by the layers they find them in?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Unread 30th August 2003, 09:22 AM
JohnR7's Avatar
Legend

62 Gender: Male Married Faith: Pentecostal Country: United States Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 9th February 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 25,401
Blessings: 260,067
Reps: 12,682 (power: 0)
JohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to behold
JohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to beholdJohnR7 is a splendid one to behold
Originally Posted by obediah001
Everything as the Evolutionists claim the geology is billions of years old & then use that long age theory to support their Evolutionary ideas. Aint you ever heard of how they date the fossils by the layers they find them in?
That is what they claim, that geology layers are formed or break down at a very slow rate. But I have seen to much evidence to show otherwise.
Attached Thumbnails
wpe2.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 30th August 2003, 09:26 AM
obediah001's Avatar
Senior Member

52 Gender: Male Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th July 2003
Location: Thayer Missouri
Posts: 633
Blessings: 149,800
Reps: 14 (power: 0)
obediah001 is on a distinguished road
Yes, & it is this evidence the Evolutionist CHOOSES to ignore in defrence to their unproven- unproveable I should also say theories, which are only cloaks for their disdain for the Creator God.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 30th August 2003, 09:29 AM
Jet Black's Avatar
WinAce > cdesign proponentsists

35 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: England Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 24th June 2003
Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,427
Blessings: 185,860
Reps: 16,712 (power: 46)
Jet Black is a splendid one to behold
Jet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to behold
The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare,
the lack of modern species is irrelevant.
developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about.
actually we know rather alot about the environments
If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.
this is why the method is callibrated with other things, such as tree rings and sedimantary carbon in varves.
The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed.
this is wrong. Scientists know that the amount of c14 has changed, but we also know by how much.
This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.
the state of the environment is not important here, the state of the ratios is, and we know these from callibration, as above.
Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data.
but there are no catastrophic meteors in the past few thousand years. bringing up the dinosaurs is irrelevant, they are millions of years old.
Moreover, it is established fact that the earth’s magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation,
false, basing a falsehood on a falsehood now. and again, even if it has, we still callibrate things.
Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to “old-age” proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention,
it isn't.
was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14.
no-one dates things that old with c14.
Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.
the important thing is the background radiation. scientists know this, and that is why we don't use c14 dating for really old stuff.
which provide several sources of additional radiation. This has the concomitant effect of providing a source of neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the presence of such bombardment,
this is an extreme lie. a mother of lies. the grand daddy of lies. neutrinos from rocks have nothing to do with decay rates. zilch. nada. the actual reaction rate of neutrinos is hideously small, that is why we need hige machines to detect them full of lead, in order to slow them down, and even then, the number of reactions is very small.... in dedicated atom smashers where there are millions of decays per second. neutrinos have less than nothing to do with C14 decay, I could go on for hours about this.
and again the effect would be to cause the specimen to appear much older than it actually is.
many more examples could be given, as well as some documented, glaring failures such as live clams being dated at 1,500 years,
you can't use seafish because their source of carbon is not atmospheric.
and parchment documents from the 17th century being dated to the 4th.
evidence? there are a number of reasons it could be off.
The point however, is that radiocarbon dating has serious problems in terms of reliability and veracity, and its use is at best quite limited.
not based on anything said thus far, all I have seen so far is poor science and lied from this essay.
and this article appears on www.drdino.com
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Unread 30th August 2003, 10:31 AM
Jet Black's Avatar
WinAce > cdesign proponentsists

35 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: England Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 24th June 2003
Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,427
Blessings: 185,860
Reps: 16,712 (power: 46)
Jet Black is a splendid one to behold
Jet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to behold
http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=1


gentry dropped the polonium halos because he admitted that he falsified his data.
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 30th August 2003, 10:34 AM
Jet Black's Avatar
WinAce > cdesign proponentsists

35 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: England Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 24th June 2003
Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,427
Blessings: 185,860
Reps: 16,712 (power: 46)
Jet Black is a splendid one to behold
Jet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to beholdJet Black is a splendid one to behold
http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=7


his knowledge of black holes is poor to say the least. light cannot escape them, because that is what defines them as black holes. light is affected by gravity, and this has been measured several times. black holes have been detected in the scentres of galaxies, and passing between us and stars, and also black holes are not a "fix" ... he is confusing them with dark matter, which they are not.
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Return to Creation & Evolution

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:13 PM.