Share good examples of Christian Science

[BNR32FAN]

I really don't care what the cosmetologists believe, it isn't relevant.

it was a joke hence the XD

 

[sjastro]

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.

Ironically what we are seeing in this thread is a clear demonstration why creationism is not a science.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

Your using the amount of C14 from 300 years ago to determine what it was up to 50,000 years ago. That quite an assumption to say that is was the same rate of increase. Here’s a study on the effects solar storms have on C14. They’re quite drastic as the graph clearly shows.

(PDF) Causes of an AD 774-775 C-14 increase

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

Not in the slightest and this doesn’t make any sense at all since 3,500BC is astonishingly close to 3.500 years before Christ was even born. Go figure.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

The date 3500 doesn’t have to be correct it just needs to be close. Remember we’re comparing this to 300,000 years of homo sapien’s existence. The point is to examine the rate of technological advancement. If the wheel was invented 10,000 years ago it still wouldn’t make much sense that it took man 290,000 years to invent such a simple piece of technology.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

And this is what we see about those on the other end of the discussion, they completely ignore the whole basis of it. The goal was to analyze the rate of technological advancement to see if it’s proportional of man’s alleged 300,000 year existence. The exact timing of the invention of the wheel is irrelevant unless your going to claim that man invented it 200,000+ years ago or something off the wall like that. What we can see is that man’s rate of technological advancement does not suggest that he has existed for 300,000 years. Of course that’s only for those who don’t want to turn a blind eye to it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

Obviously, but I did prove my point that I didn’t just pull up some random number from the top of my head like you falsely accused me of, now didn’t I?

 

[sjastro]

The date 3500 doesn’t have to be correct it just needs to be close. Remember we’re comparing this to 300,000 years of homo sapien’s existence. The point is to examine the rate of technological advancement. If the wheel was invented 10,000 years ago it still wouldn’t make much sense that it took man 290,000 years to invent such a simple piece of technology.

It doesn't matter whether 3500 BC is a 'correct' or mean value, it is still based on dating techniques which you claim are wrong and therefore makes your argument incoherent.
Another of your incoherent arguments is suggesting technological advancement follows a timetable.

Your use of the wheel as an example is motivated since it conveniently falls within the 6000 year old time limit of YEC, yet other inventions such as the intentional use of fire or the development of art go way beyond this limit.

This cave painting shows a marsupial with the characteristic hind legs and tail.

Scientists believe this is Thylacoleo Carnifex also known as the marsupial lion.
The problem for YEC is that Thylacoleo became extinct around 30,000 years ago possibly due to climate change but the extensive fossil record allows scientists to reconstruct the appearance of Thylacoleo.

 

[pitabread]

What we can see is that man’s rate of technological advancement does not suggest that he has existed for 300,000 years.

This claim makes zero sense. There is nothing that dictates that humans had to have invented things at certain time periods. Things were invented when they were invented, which is determined based on archeological findings.

 

[Hans Blaster]

it was a joke hence the XD

I didn't know if it was a typo or a joke hence my tongue-in-cheek response. (I have no idea what an "XD" is.)

If you'd actually written "cosmologist" then I would have replied:

No reputable cosmologist thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old.

 

[Shemjaza]

I didn't know if it was a typo or a joke hence my tongue-in-cheek response. (I have no idea what an "XD" is.)

If you'd actually written "cosmologist" then I would have replied:

No reputable cosmologist thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old.

It really doesn't matter if they do or don't. The point is that none of them can justify it with evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your using the amount of C14 from 300 years ago to determine what it was up to 50,000 years ago. That quite an assumption to say that is was the same rate of increase.

That's not what I claimed. You'd claimed that we couldn't know the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere in the past, prior to direct sampling (or even the discovery of isotopes). I crafted an example of how we could use a historical artifact to determine the C14/C12 ratio at a specific time in the past.

I didn't speak of "increases" related to my example, it was an example of a calibration. It's all about calibrations if you want to correct for the variations in atmospheric C14 ratios.

Here’s a study on the effects solar storms have on C14. They’re quite drastic as the graph clearly shows.

(PDF) Causes of an AD 774-775 C-14 increase

This doesn't quite work in your favor the way you seem to think it does.

The only reason a couple of astronomers/physicists are even looking for an explanation for the C14 increase in 774/5 is because the calibration showed that C14 was higher after that year. It's the reliability of the calibration that demonstrated a need for an explanation for the added C14 source.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Obviously, but I did prove my point that I didn’t just pull up some random number from the top of my head like you falsely accused me of, now didn’t I?

Now you're confused - that was someone else. But wherever you pulled that number from, it was a careless mistake.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Christians in the united states are the strongest supporters of 2nd amendment gun rights for citizens. Christians believe God grants them rights and freedoms.

Atheists in australia the UK and elsewhere have no such ideology.

Which ideology are ruling elites more likely to target and attack given the above description.

Nonsensical non-sequitur and meaningless tautology. I've seen American Christians lambast and deride the 2nd Amendment as much as I've seen British atheists support the right to bear arms.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you can't support Creationism as a scientific idea!!

@1rreducibly Complex, I'm still waiting on why you think this is any relation to your claim of creationism being science when it really isn't.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I didn't know if it was a typo or a joke hence my tongue-in-cheek response. (I have no idea what an "XD" is.)

If you'd actually written "cosmologist" then I would have replied:

No reputable cosmologist thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old.

XD is a person squinting their eyes smiling. And there’s no such thing as a reputable cosmetologist.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Now you're confused - that was someone else. But wherever you pulled that number from, it was a careless mistake.

Like I said the number I chose was a mid range from the numbers that are claimed. If my intention was to inflate the scenario then I could’ve chosen the highest of numbers like 800,000 years since the debate on man’s existence is pretty vast. So I chose a medium average.

 

[tas8831]

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.


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.

But he was sooo CONFIDENT!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Like I said the number I chose was a mid range from the numbers that are claimed. If my intention was to inflate the scenario then I could’ve chosen the highest of numbers like 800,000 years since the debate on man’s existence is pretty vast. So I chose a medium average.

It wasn't a problem with inflating or deflating the scenario, the problem was answering the wrong question and so getting the wrong answer. The question was to do with the earliest humans in Australia, not the earliest humans on Earth.

 

[Astrid]

And this is what we see about those on the other end of the discussion, they completely ignore the whole basis of it. The goal was to analyze the rate of technological advancement to see if it’s proportional of man’s alleged 300,000 year existence. The exact timing of the invention of the wheel is irrelevant unless your going to claim that man invented it 200,000+ years ago or something off the wall like that. What we can see is that man’s rate of technological advancement does not suggest that he has existed for 300,000 years. Of course that’s only for those who don’t want to turn a blind eye to it.

Did it occur to you that people easily saw the principle of
rolling but had no use for a wheel, only started making them when
they had a use?

How would Eskimos use a wheel?
What use are wheels unless there is a road?

The approach you are trying to use for dating has a lot
of issues- speaking of blind eyes, and all. Maybe casting
forth a beam would be in order.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Did it occur to you that people easily saw the principle of
rolling but had no use for a wheel, only started making them when
they had a use?

How would Eskimos use a wheel?
What use are wheels unless there is a road?

The approach you are trying to use for dating has a lot
of issues- speaking of blind eyes, and all. Maybe casting
forth a beam would be in order.

Ok so because Eskimos couldn’t use a wheel it was useless to man all over the world, is that your point? So by that logic because snowboards are useless in the Philippines then they must be useless for everyone else in the world as well. Obviously that’s a false assessment, oh and wheels work just fine off road. Have you never seen a wheel being used in the grass or on a trail?