Why Evolution is True (2)

[dad]

Wrong. The Cretaceous was roughly 65 million years ago or more..

Only if one inflicts godless beliefs onto evidences. In reality nothing whatsoever except the assumption of a present state in the past allows for any old ages anywhere, period. That is religion only.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Question SZ: Would massive cosmic ray bombardment skew radio carbon dating?

Possibly, but so what? Carbon dating is not used to date the age of the Earth.

And again, if it occurred there would be evidence of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if one inflicts godless beliefs onto evidences. In reality nothing whatsoever except the assumption of a present state in the past allows for any old ages anywhere, period. That is religion only.

And dad has nothing. I guess we should not pay attention to godless gravity when holding a massive weight over our feet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then do it in your own words, using any links for references.

Whats the problem?? Piece of cake.
Already have done that. It is likely a very incomplete record of life in the former state because almost all animals and man could not likely fossilize! Once we could in this present state world, we see man a beast join the record. Piece of cake.

Nope, that does not explain the order of fossils found.

And dad once again goes down in defeat. No evidence and dad is defeated for probably the 1,000th time on this site alone.

 

[dad]

Nope, that does not explain the order of fossils found.

Yep, it sure does, completely.


Now let's see you show how the layers show old ages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, it sure does, completely.


Now let's see you show how the layers show old ages.

Again dad, 9th Commandment warning. If you cannot show that you can explain the fossil record, including micro index fossil, then you were lying.


Once you show support your claim I will show you how we know that the fossils are many millions of years old.

 

[Loudmouth]

Question SZ: Would massive cosmic ray bombardment skew radio carbon dating?

It did skew radiocarbon dating in the form of atmospheric nuclear bomb tests. That's why carbon dating can not be used for very recent samples.

However, if these events happened in the more distant past, then they would show up in the calibration curves that are derived from lake varves, tree rings, and ice layers. It isn't there. In the graph below, the y axis is the 14C measured age, and the x axis is the actual age derived from counting tree rings, ice layers, and varves. The diagonal line represents constant 14C production through time. As you can see, there has been slight changes in 14C production through time, but it is easily controled for by the calibration curve.

If there were a cosmic ray event in the past, then we should see a big bump in that graph, but it isn't there.

 

[dad]

Again dad, 9th Commandment warning. If you cannot show that you can explain the fossil record, including micro index fossil, then you were lying.

I don't see any problem in light of a different past. If you do, point it out, perhaps I can slay that dragon.

I think most folks here know how dating of fossils and layers is done by the wizards of science. So unless you think you can defend the nonsense, no one needs you to support your pitiful claims about dating layers.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't see any problem in light of a different past. If you do, point it out, perhaps I can slay that dragon.

You will lie and say that light is changed by some imaginary bubble that you have no evidence for.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

It did skew radiocarbon dating in the form of atmospheric nuclear bomb tests. That's why carbon dating can not be used for very recent samples.

However, if these events happened in the more distant past, then they would show up in the calibration curves that are derived from lake varves, tree rings, and ice layers. It isn't there. In the graph below, the y axis is the 14C measured age, and the x axis is the actual age derived from counting tree rings, ice layers, and varves. The diagonal line represents constant 14C production through time. As you can see, there has been slight changes in 14C production through time, but it is easily controled for by the calibration curve.

If there were a cosmic ray event in the past, then we should see a big bump in that graph, but it isn't there.

Thanks LM!

 

[justlookinla]

Again dad, 9th Commandment warning. If you cannot show that you can explain the fossil record, including micro index fossil, then you were lying.

LOL! The typical 'yer a liar' response. And of course an antichrist attempting to use scripture is about as effective as satan trying to use scripture on Jesus.

 

[Loudmouth]

And of course an antichrist attempting to use scripture is about as effective as satan trying to use scripture on Jesus.

It is the creationists who use scripture in discussions of science. Guess that makes them the anti-Christ.

 

[justlookinla]

It is the creationists who use scripture in discussions of science. Guess that makes them the anti-Christ.

There's a good free bible program you can download...e-Sword....to use to find how God's word defines antichrist.

I suggest you use it.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's a good free bible program you can download...e-Sword....to use to find how God's word defines antichrist.

I suggest you use it.

I suggest you use it. Pay special attention to how the anti-Christ will use lies and misrepresentation, a perfect description of creationists like yourself.

For example, you claimed that the book, "Origin of Species", is fiction, and yet you failed to show how a single sentence in that book was fiction. Not a single one.

If that isn't what an anti-Christ would do, then what would be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! The typical 'yer a liar' response. And of course an antichrist attempting to use scripture is about as effective as satan trying to use scripture on Jesus.

It is only typical because many creationists tend to lie in debates.

If creationists were honest soon there would be no more creationists.

And you are also wrong about atheists using scripture. Since most western atheists were Christians and most did not become atheists lightly they understand the Bible better than most Christians:

Survey: Atheists, Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious : The Two-Way : NPR

When someone is breaking the rules of his own religion it is easily recognizable and it merits a warning.

You are being dishonest again here with a strawman argument. I never say "yer a liar" (please note the proper use of double quote marks). I point out the specific lie that was just made.

I just showed that you made a dishonest post so I want to know why it is so difficult for you to argue honestly? There is no question that strawman arguments are dishonest. So is quote mining, though I do not think I have ever seen you do this recently. So are countless other uses of logical fallacies.

If someone thinks I am being dishonest I welcome them to point it out with quotes. I have challenged you this way in the past. I am not holding you to a standard that I do not apply to myself.

 

[justlookinla]

I suggest you use it. Pay special attention to how the anti-Christ will use lies and misrepresentation, a perfect description of creationists like yourself.

You're speaking from a position of scriptural ignorance in your view of antichrist.

For example, you claimed that the book, "Origin of Species", is fiction, and yet you failed to show how a single sentence in that book was fiction. Not a single one.

If that isn't what an anti-Christ would do, then what would be?

From post #595, maybe you missed it....

From Chapter 5.....
"Effects of Use and Disuse
From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited. "​

 

[justlookinla]

It is only typical because many creationists tend to lie in debates.

If creationists were honest soon there would be no more creationists.

And you are also wrong about atheists using scripture. Since most western atheists were Christians and most did not become atheists lightly they understand the Bible better than most Christians:

Survey: Atheists, Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious : The Two-Way : NPR

When someone is breaking the rules of his own religion it is easily recognizable and it merits a warning.

You are being dishonest again here with a strawman argument. I never say "yer a liar" (please note the proper use of double quote marks). I point out the specific lie that was just made.

I just showed that you made a dishonest post so I want to know why it is so difficult for you to argue honestly? There is no question that strawman arguments are dishonest. So is quote mining, though I do not think I have ever seen you do this recently. So are countless other uses of logical fallacies.

If someone thinks I am being dishonest I welcome them to point it out with quotes. I have challenged you this way in the past. I am not holding you to a standard that I do not apply to myself.

If you knew scripture, you'd know it identifies you as antichrist. Would you be honest enough to admit that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're speaking from a position of scriptural ignorance in your view of antichrist.

Why? Because you say so? You are hardly an authority. Again, meaningful evidence please.

From post #595, maybe you missed it....

From Chapter 5.....
"Effects of Use and Disuse
From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited. "​

Yes, that was well explained. What part of the explanation didn't you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you knew scripture, you'd know it identifies you as antichrist. Would you be honest enough to admit that?

It might call me antichrist by certain translations. They would be wrong of course.

For example are you "antiSantaClause"?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're speaking from a position of scriptural ignorance in your view of antichrist.

You don't know me.

From Chapter 5.....
"Effects of Use and Disuse
From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited. "​

That is not fiction. That is Darwin's conclusion.

Do you know the difference between fiction and a bad conclusion?