1. Saying Goodbye to a Great Staffer: Edial
    Please help me wish Edial a wonderful blessed journey as he steps down from CF staff.
    His footprint on our ministry will always remain but his presence will be greatly missed. I'm sure he will come around as a member to all his favorite forums but for now please join me at his profile page to wish him many thanks for the years of service he has brought to us all.
    All of us on CF staff will miss him dearly!!
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dr Dino: Can Man Tell Time?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by JohnR7, Aug 29, 2003.

  1. obediah001

    obediah001 New Member

    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  2. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,314
    Likes Received:
    189
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Pentecostal
    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.
     
  3. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,314
    Likes Received:
    189
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Pentecostal
    What does evolution have to do with geology?
     
  4. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

  5. obediah001

    obediah001 New Member

    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    5
    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?
     
  6. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,314
    Likes Received:
    189
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Pentecostal
    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 Files:

    • wpe2.jpg
      wpe2.jpg
      File size:
      41.9 KB
      Views:
      348
  7. obediah001

    obediah001 New Member

    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  8. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    the lack of modern species is irrelevant.
    actually we know rather alot about the environments
    this is why the method is callibrated with other things, such as tree rings and sedimantary carbon in varves.
    this is wrong. Scientists know that the amount of c14 has changed, but we also know by how much.
    the state of the environment is not important here, the state of the ratios is, and we know these from callibration, as above.
    but there are no catastrophic meteors in the past few thousand years. bringing up the dinosaurs is irrelevant, they are millions of years old.
    false, basing a falsehood on a falsehood now. and again, even if it has, we still callibrate things.
    it isn't.
    no-one dates things that old with c14.
    the important thing is the background radiation. scientists know this, and that is why we don't use c14 dating for really old stuff.
    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.
    you can't use seafish because their source of carbon is not atmospheric.
    evidence? there are a number of reasons it could be off.
    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
     
  9. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

  10. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    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.
     
  11. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/polystrate_trees.html
     
  12. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,314
    Likes Received:
    189
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Pentecostal
    The point I was trying to make was that evolutionists will go to a site like Dr. Dino and search it with a fine tooth comb for some tiny little point that they think is easy to falsify. But then when you bring up one of the major points he is trying to establish, they run for cover.

    Matthew 23:24
    Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

    For every point that they think is so easy to falsify, we can bring up two points that is not so easy for them to falsify.
     
  13. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    what major point? Look, if the guy is going round lying and spreading blatant mistruth, how can you trust anything he says?
     
  14. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    Messages:
    8,410
    Likes Received:
    43
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    John, his argument is philosophical in nature, therefore un-falsifiable. I mean look at some of the stuff he writes:
    How could you possibly begin to falsify "invisible" laws? There is no way to (scientifically) test for such things.
     
  15. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    no, you resort to the cartoon version of evolution, and then we spend ages telling you why you are wrong.
     
  16. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    Messages:
    8,410
    Likes Received:
    43
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    Sure they can. The cumulative physical evidence in the Earth and solar system point to its formation some 4.5 billion years ago.

    Unless, of course, you want to argue that the universe is a deception (i.e. created to "look" billions of years old), but science can only tell you what the Earth and universe looks like. And the Eath looks 4.5 billion years old.

    That is the strength of science, not a weakness. Unlike religious dogma, science changes its theories and ideas to fit the data it finds, not the other way around. Young-Earth creationism was falsified 200 years ago. You are clinging to false doctrine.
     
  17. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    Messages:
    8,410
    Likes Received:
    43
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    Obviously some geological formations formed rapidly, but to assume this means ALL geological formations formed rapidly is erroneous.

    Trace fossils in different layers, for example, are very good evidence that those strata were not laid down rapidly during the flood.

    http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/tracefos.html
     
  18. Plan 9

    Plan 9 Absolutely Elsewhere

    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    647
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Methodist

    Your comment could equally well be applied to Dr. Dino, et al.

    I don't see Jet Black running for cover; he's right here. What major point do you feel he's missed?
     
  19. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    Messages:
    8,410
    Likes Received:
    43
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    Admitedly, Hovind "won" that debate, but it was primarly due to his opponent's inexperience and allowing Hovind to get away with using strawman caricatures of things like evolution to support his position (the minute Hovind began with his 6 definitions of evolution and White was obviously not familar with them, I knew White would get into trouble...).

    The crux of Hovind's argument, however, rests of the case that inductive reasoning via historical evidence is invalid. But adopting Hovind's position, I could very well argue that anything historical becomes religious in nature, especially if one proceeds to invent ad-hoc explanations to explain all the available evidence. And I could further apply that line of reasoning to current events as well (i.e. all the evidence for France is part of a vast conspiracy--and Hovind loves conspiracies-- and since I haven't been to France myself, therefore my acceptance of France is religious, and therefore it should be stricken from the textbooks).
     
  20. Jet Black

    Jet Black Guest

    yeap, that is the thing with hovind, he is a master at dodging the point and obfuscation. What he really needs is a widely versed opponent with good debating skills (something scientists don't always have) to sit there and set fire to his strawmen and get him to stop talking about his pokemon version of evolution.
     
Loading...