Share good examples of Christian Science

[tas8831]

Can you justify this claim about amino acids?

It seems rather odd, since the actual experiment being discussed is one in which amino acids formed from chemistry rather than life.

It's also odd since amino acids can be found in all kinds of places in space.

What actually is your point about amino acids? It isn't clear.

It is the typical naivete of the creationist thinking that they know more than they actually do.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’m order for carbon dating to be accurate we must know how much C14 was in the atmosphere when the life form died. The fact is we don’t have any way of KNOWING how much C14 was in the atmosphere before 1940. We can PREDICT how much there was based on the CURRENT RATE of C14 increase we observe today but we cannot predict what changes may have occurred in that rate before we were able to measure it.

But we can.

If we have something that we can very well and accurately date by other means (generally, historical means), then we can measure the current C14 and after correcting for decay, know the C14 levels in the atmosphere at at the time the object was made. For example, if we have a leather saddle given as a gift to Mad King George in 1781 by his cousin in Germany, we could test the C14 in the leather and quire accurately determine the C14 in the atmosphere in the late 1770s when the leaves and shoots grew on the plants that were eaten by the mammal that was killed and dressed and had its skin turned into the leather.

Second, we know exactly what has caused large changes in the years since we started testing atmospheric C14 levels (as you note we have for about 80 years). Those are nuclear testing which increases C14 production and didn't happen prior to 1945, and fossil fuel emissions which dilute the C14 in the atmosphere because there is basically none in fossil fuels. The release of fossil carbon is fairly well known, and though not as big an effect prior to 1940 we can well estimate.

The only objection you have at this point is about the decay rate of C14, but that would be silly -- those things don't change.

 

[tas8831]

Any amino acid used by cells originate from cells of either plants or animals. You must have life to get life in other words.

"Scientists confirmed in 1971 that the Murchison meteorite contained amino acids, primarily glycine, and that those organic compounds likely came from outer space (SN: 3/20/71, p. 195). In the decades since, amino acids and other chemical precursors to life have been uncovered in other fallen space rocks. Recent discoveries include compounds called nucleobases and sugars that are key components of DNA and RNA. The amino acid glycine even has been spotted in outer space in the atmosphere of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Such findings bolster the idea that life could exist elsewhere in the universe."
- 50 years ago, scientists caught their first glimpse of amino acids from outer space​

According to you, then, there are earth-like plants and animals in outer space. Cool.

 

[tas8831]

All scientists don’t believe in an ancient earth. See now your just ignoring facts.

It is a fact that there are people that call themselves scientists that ignore evidence and believe in silly things like a young earth. They do this to prop up some zany belief system, not because they have any actual evidence.

 

[tas8831]

That’s exactly my point because you can have several freeze/thaw cycles in one year. We have several per year here in America every year. America doesn’t stay frozen all winter. It doesn’t even stay cold all winter in many places.

Um.... Varves are not about freeze-thaw cycles. They are about cyclical content.
Are you one of these creationists that thinks they understand or even have expertise in any and all areas of science via reading YEC websites and such?

 

[tas8831]

Anyone who knows anything about these two types of dating knows that they are directly related to weather and climate.

Weather and climate.. And everyone knows this...

OK...

Varves are seasonal sediment alternations which appear to represent annual cycles. They are widely studied and correlated, because seasons cause sedimentary variations that repeat. ​

Yeah... "weather"....

Varves

 

[tas8831]

Took an hour to re-watch this documentary as its been 7+ years since I last saw it.

It definitely covers most of the basic scientific arguments for creationism.

This documentary should be broadcast in churches, temples and mosques around the world.

It should be standard curriculum in public schools.

And how is it that you are confident that the things this creationist with a background in journalism claims are correct and accurate?

Could it be that you just take it at face value because you agree with his conclusions and don't care if any of it is accurate?
Because that is what it looks like, and that is how creationists in general operate.

 

[tas8831]

I posted a documentary containing scientific evidence for creationism 10 pages ago. But you'll never know this, as you'll never watch it. What's the point in discussing and debating content you'll never see.

Yes, you posted it because it props up your beliefs. How much of the supposed science do you understand, such that you are confident that Stroebel's witnessing is the truth??

Your posting history says that you cannot actually tell if what he claims is true.

The old testament of the christian bible shares some of the same books and verses as the koran. They're more similar than most realize.

Indeed. Modern conservative evangelicals espouse a version of Sharia law and do not even seem to realize it.

 

[tas8831]

This guy debunks Strobel's claims pretty well. He is not a scientist, but then, neither is Strobel. And neither are the people that find Strobel's claims 'scientific.'

 

[tas8831]

Very few christians know who Lee Strobel is. Even fewer have seen his documentary on creationism.

Statistically, you should never have heard any of the arguments made in it.

Are you really claiming that nobody has ever used the arguments he does?
That seems absurd.

 

[tas8831]

"Watch this hour long video." is a very unconvincing argument in and of itself.

As a further support of a statement, sure, but I think you should make the effort to actually present these scientific evidences in the appropriate format of this forum.

Strobel interviewed Jon Wells for his book - that should tell you about the quality of his 'case.'

 

[tas8831]

Seems Strobel's case is unsurprisingly weak. Lot's of debunking out there. Some of these I have read before, some not. Strobel seems to be a charlatan, as are most of the people he gets his information from.

Another Case not Made: A critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator

Book Review: The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

Paul Doland Creator – Internet Infidels

Seems that Strobel just rehashes the same-old same -old nonsense as every other YEC hack out there. Haeckel's embryos? Stanly Miller didn't create life? Really?
Lame...

 

[tas8831]

This is a very obtuse approach which is not surprising but Jesus wasn’t sent here to create computers.

But wheels were totally Jesus' thing - are you implying that Jesus was actually sent here to invent the wheel?
Wow.

I have to laugh at your antics.

 

[sjastro]

My intention wasn’t to validate when the wheel was invented, it was to compare scientific evidence between when historians and scientists claim the wheel was invented and the progression of technological advancements since then. So any errors in the claim of when the wheel was invented falls on the historians and scientists who made the claim not on me. Obviously I simply cited their work, I didn’t conduct the study myself.

Your objective to use the wheel as a validation for YEC can only be consistent if the date 3500 BC is assumed to be correct.
To then go on and claim the methods for coming up with this date are wrong is ridiculously contradictory.
You can’t have it both ways.

Another point that destroys your argument is the sequencing of the technological advancements.
The wheel as a transportation device was introduced in Egypt from the 5th dynasty yet the Great Pyramid was constructed in the 4th dynasty.
The Great Pyramid is a far greater technological advancement than the wheel yet precedes it.

You claim that I don’t know how carbon and thermoluminescence dating works but I explained exactly why they’re not accurate. Perhaps instead of making the simple claim that I don’t know how they work you could actually explain where I erred in my explanation of why they’re inaccurate. I’m order for carbon dating to be accurate we must know how much C14 was in the atmosphere when the life form died. The fact is we don’t have any way of KNOWING how much C14 was in the atmosphere before 1940. We can PREDICT how much there was based on the CURRENT RATE of C14 increase we observe today but we cannot predict what changes may have occurred in that rate before we were able to measure it. The same problem exists with thermoluminescence dating. We can only PREDICT how much gamma radiation an object has absorbed based on the amount it’s been exposed to when we were first able to read gamma radiation but we can’t be certain that this amount has been constant. Especially when scientists believe solar storms have been taking place about once per century. These massive waves of radiation would be greatly increasing the amount of gamma each object absorbed making it appear to be much older than it actually is. So if you disagree with this explanation please explain why it is incorrect.

The reason why you are incorrect is that you are in denial mode pure and simple.
It has been explained ad nauseam dates are not calculated on raw data but calibrated whether it be C-14 or thermoluminescence dating.

You are totally oblivious thermoluminescence dating is not only calibrated to subtract cosmic radiation effects but there are two other subtractions made as illustrated.

https://egqsj.copernicus.org/articles/57/95/2008/egqsj-57-95-2008.pdf

C-14 dating is more accurate and scientists have taken the next step in more accurate dating of pottery in using this process on organic residue inside pottery used for cooking and storage.
New approach of dating pottery involves analyzing traces of old meals

From the Nature article.

Pottery is one of the most commonly recovered artefacts from archaeological sites. Despite more than a century of relative dating based on typology and seriation1, accurate dating of pottery using the radiocarbon dating method has proven extremely challenging owing to the limited survival of organic temper and unreliability of visible residues2,3,4. Here we report a method to directly date archaeological pottery based on accelerator mass spectrometry analysis of 14C in absorbed food residues using palmitic (C16:0) and stearic (C18:0) fatty acids purified by preparative gas chromatography5,6,7,8. We present accurate compound-specific radiocarbon determinations of lipids extracted from pottery vessels, which were rigorously evaluated by comparison with dendrochronological dates9,10 and inclusion in site and regional chronologies that contained previously determined radiocarbon dates on other materials11,12,13,14,15. Notably, the compound-specific dates from each of the C16:0 and C18:0 fatty acids in pottery vessels provide an internal quality control of the results6 and are entirely compatible with dates for other commonly dated materials. Accurate radiocarbon dating of pottery vessels can reveal: (1) the period of use of pottery; (2) the antiquity of organic residues, including when specific foodstuffs were exploited; (3) the chronology of sites in the absence of traditionally datable materials; and (4) direct verification of pottery typochronologies. Here we used the method to date the exploitation of dairy and carcass products in Neolithic vessels from Britain, Anatolia, central and western Europe, and Saharan Africa.

 

[sjastro]

No that’s not true at all. Google how long has man existed and you’ll find all sorts of different predictions. I chose a mid range prediction which was the very first one at the top of the list of sites.

How Long Have Humans Been On Earth?.

So your accusation is false.

I asked you to provide evidence of your claim humans were in Australia 300,000 years ago.
The fact you are now trying to spin your way out of it clearly illustrates your claim was a blatant fabrication.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No it isn't. And no I meant derived. There is a difference. Here is the section again in bold emphasis.

The Amino acids are not living organisms (in the experiment) and any amino acid that is USED by a living organism must have been derived by a living organism, so the experiment proves what?
In order to have life you must have organic material period.

If you explained what you mean by 'derived' in this context, it would be clearer. In biochemistry, it implies being made from a precursor.

If all you mean by 'derived' is 'obtained', then so what? organic molecules are plentiful even without life. That's what the experiment demonstrated ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Any amino acid used by cells originate from cells of either plants or animals. You must have life to get life in other words.

Wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think that many ancient sites of human habitation were on rivers, or near the ocean. Fishing and gathering edible marine produce, seems to be more what the ancients spent their time on.

We may have been more settled in older times than what folk might think.

Lots of predators roaming the countryside in ancient times. The women and children would need some kind fenced enclosure to survive.

Yes, there's good evidence for long-term migrations along coastal routes, and likely many settlements left along the way.

The point was that until settled agriculture (with markets and trading) there would be little need of or use for wheeled carts...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No that’s not true at all. Google how long has man existed and you’ll find all sorts of different predictions. I chose a mid range prediction which was the very first one at the top of the list of sites.

Hint: man has been on Earth longer than man has been in Australia. You could have Googled it.

 

[pitabread]

Your objective to use the wheel as a validation for YEC can only be consistent if the date 3500 BC is assumed to be correct.
To then go on and claim the methods for coming up with this date are wrong is ridiculously contradictory.
You can’t have it both ways.

This is a common theme with YECism. Attempts to explain one thing end up causing issues somewhere else.

It's impossible to create a coherent model for YECism.