Proof of Creation?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Is this website, owned and run by Creationist - Randy S. Berg - your primary source? The Age of the Earth ?

 

[EternalDragon]

Its not a case of disproving it. Its a case of it being proven to be accurate.
All radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

Radiometric Dating

They have already been told this may times over.

 

[lasthero]

They have already been told this may times over.

Not even a week ago, you were in a topic where RickG explained every single one of those things to you, and you had absolutely nothing to say against his points. Don't even sit there and pretend that this hasn't been explained to you.

Steve, if you want to talk about radiometric dating, might I suggest you do so on this topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7858775/

Rick was very open to answering questions on the subject, and I imagine he will be again.

 

[lasthero]

And, by the way, I'd still love an explanation for why, if dating methods aren't accurate, we invariably find things in the column that date older and older the farther you go down. That question never seems to get answered.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not even a week ago, you were in a topic where RickG explained every single one of those things to you, and you had absolutely nothing to say against his points. Don't even sit there and pretend that this hasn't been explained to you.

Steve, if you want to talk about radiometric dating, might I suggest you do so on this topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7858775/

Rick was very open to answering questions on the subject, and I imagine he will be again.

Yeah, I read that little chat, and it seems that Dragon has lost it's fire: here

I'll say it again. I don't have a problem with the method or what
is being detected.

 

[EternalDragon]

Not even a week ago, you were in a topic where RickG explained every single one of those things to you, and you had absolutely nothing to say against his points. Don't even sit there and pretend that this hasn't been explained to you.

Steve, if you want to talk about radiometric dating, might I suggest you do so on this topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7858775/

Rick was very open to answering questions on the subject, and I imagine he will be again.

Um. no. He just went over how they test and what they test.

 

[lasthero]

Um. no. He just went over how they test and what they test.

If that's what you think, you weren't paying attention. He answered those questions.

 

[EternalDragon]

If that's what you think, you weren't paying attention. He answered those questions.

Then lets go over it again. Show that nothing had changed from the
past, tell me what the starting ratios were and show me that it all
remained in a closed system in the past up until now.

 

[lasthero]

Then lets go over it again. Show that nothing had changed from the
past, tell me what the starting ratios were and show me that it all
remained in a closed system in the past up until now.

He answered those. You can read, so use the brain you claim god gave you.

And why haven't you answered my question? Why do we find fossils that date older the deeper they are?

 

[Kylie]

How far do you want to go back? Go back far enough and you have
something springing from nothing and somehow getting the spark of
life. Not to mention encoded information to be able to function.

We came from rocks or microbial mats. Darwin proposed this and
the evolution theory proposes it. I am amazed you were unaware of
that.

The last universal ancestor (LUA), also called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), cenancestor, or progenote, is the most recent organism from which all organisms now living on Earth have common descent.[2] Thus it is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all current life on Earth. The LUA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era).[3][4] The earliest evidences for life on Earth are graphite found to be biogenic in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland[5] and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia.[6][7]


In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in which he twice stated the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms. In the summation he states, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."[16]

I suspect that you don't know exactly how this "most recent common ancestor" thing works...

 

[SkyWriting]

Um, sorry to burst your bubble there, but these don't support your claim.

Your original claim was that "reality changes based on the observers intent." The observer's INTENT.

These articles don't say that.

The first one says that "by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality." Notice it specifies the ACT of watching. Not INTENDING to watch, but actually doing it. The second article says much the same thing. So the observer's INTENT means nothing; it is his ACTIONS that make the difference. It is the result of actually watching it, not just intending to watch it, that causes these results.

You make a good case for additional testing....If a researcher intends
to test for one property and accidentally sets up the experiment wrong
and accidentally tests for the wrong property, would that change
the way one reality collapses and the other is observed?

Good point for further testing.

I was wrong to assume the intended experiment would be the final test.
You are correct that accidentally testing the wrong property than the one
intended is a possibility. Scientists are stupid. Good catch!

 

[EternalDragon]

He answered those. You can read, so use the brain you claim god gave you.

And why haven't you answered my question? Why do we find fossils that date older the deeper they are?

Do we? Most fossils aren't that deeply buried.

 

[Kylie]

You make a good case for additional testing....If a researcher intends
to test for one property and accidentally sets up the experiment wrong
and accidentally tests for the wrong property, would that change
the way one reality collapses and the other is observed?

Good point for further testing.

I was wrong to assume the intended experiment would be the final test.
You are correct that accidentally testing the wrong property than the one
intended is a possibility. Scientists are stupid. Good catch!

Are you for real?

You misunderstand the science and say it indicates something when it doesn't, and yet the scientists are the stupid ones?

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[lasthero]

Do we? Most fossils aren't that deeply buried.

We do. And how do you know how many fossils are deeply buried? Where'd you get that from?

 

[EternalDragon]

We do. And how do you know how many fossils are deeply buried? Where'd you get that from?

A good bit of dinosaur bones and footprints were discovered by
accident. Not by digging miles down into the earth. You have got to
break free of this notion that all the fossil layers represent different
long ages of time. That is man's misconception.

I thought you were the one that mentioned Google was a good
tool to use to find things out.

 

[lasthero]

A good bit of dinosaur bones and footprints were discovered by
accident.

That's a nice claim. Evidence would be nice, though. Statistics, anything?

Not by digging miles down into the earth.

Who said anything about miles? We've only been about ten miles under the earth.

[You have got to
break free of this notion that all the fossil layers represent different
long ages of time. That is man's misconception.

You've yet to show it's misconception. You've just claimed it is.

The fact of the matter is that the deeper you find a fossil, the older the age will be. You have no explanation for why that is, so you're only recourse is to just flat out deny it.

I thought you were the one that mentioned Google was a good
tool to use to find things out.

I've also said that I'm not going to find evidence to support someone else's claim. It's your claim, you support it. Why should I go looking for things that back up what YOU say?

 

[lasthero]

Look at this, ED.

These results of both carbon dating and measuring annual varves taken from different lakes, mainly Lake Suigetsu. You might notice the results agree with each other, and they only start to break apart around 50,000 years, which is where the upper limit of carbon dating is supposed to be.

If dating is unreliable and these sediments weren't laid down over tens of thousands of years, why do these results agree with each other so strongly? Why is it that, when we date the 25,000 annual layer, it returns a date of 25,000 years?

 

[EternalDragon]

That's a nice claim. Evidence would be nice, though. Statistics, anything?

Who said anything about miles? We've only been about ten miles under the earth.

You've yet to show it's misconception. You've just claimed it is.

The fact of the matter is that the deeper you find a fossil, the older the age will be. You have no explanation for why that is, so you're only recourse is to just flat out deny it.

I've also said that I'm not going to find evidence to support someone else's claim. It's your claim, you support it. Why should I go looking for things that back up what YOU say?

Many, many things you question and don't seem to know about are usually
common knowledge.

 

[lasthero]

Many, many things you question and don't seem to know about are usually
common knowledge.

I could say the same thing about you.

The difference is that when you ask me for sources, I can typically find them for my claims. You - and many other creationists - just scream that I shouldn't be asking you to back up your claims.

Saying that a claim is common knowledge is a nice little smokescreen, but it fades fast. If it's so common, you should be able to find it easily, and it's not like you often shy away from shoving links in my face. But you won't. Because you can't. Because it's not 'common knowledge'. It's just something you made up.

 

[EternalDragon]

I could say the same thing about you.

The difference is that when you ask me for sources, I can typically find them for my claims. You - and many other creationists - just scream that I shouldn't be asking you to back up your claims.

Saying that a claim is common knowledge is a nice little smokescreen, but it fades fast. If it's so common, you should be able to find it easily, and it's not like you often shy away from shoving links in my face. But you won't. Because you can't. Because it's not 'common knowledge'. It's just something you made up.

First Dinosaur Fossil Discoveries - Paleontology and Geology Glossary

Where Can Fossils Be Found? | eHow

Locations of Dinosaur Digs | Scholastic.com

Here all you bring to the dig are a shovel, pick and awl or a screwdriver.
Best places to find dinosaur bones are ON THE SURFACE. Fossils are not
buried by millions of years of layers of sediment. They were buried very
recently near the surface. Kids even can find them.

Now you will be telling me millions of years of erosion wore down the
sediment in those locations, after the dinosaur bones were buried and
worn down to that exact spot. Nothing disturbed the other fossils
supposedly under the dinosaur fossils though, eh?

I'm not screaming at you at all. I am just asking that you learn the
real facts. Explore a little beyond what you want to believe.