The Day the Dinosaurs Died

[Radrook]

Actually if the bat is moving away, they won't collide at all because it will be going in a different direction than the ball and the only noise will come from a different direction and it will sound like "STRIKE"

True, but the hypothetical analogy is to compare it with the Earth moving away from the direction of a comet or asteroid that is approaching it from the opposite direction and will definitely hit the Earth due to its greater velocity augmented by the pull of Earth's gravity.

In short, the analogy requires that we imagine that the ball has the necessary velocity to close the distance and strike the bat before the full swing is made Just as an asteroid would catch up to the Earth due to its greater velocity even if the Earth were moving in the opposite direction.

It isn't meant to be taken as a literal description of what can actually occur during an actual baseball game.

 

[blackribbon]

Dating Techniques:

*Uranium to Lead --- minerals --- 1M to 4.5B years

*Rubidium to Strontium --- minerals --- 60M to 4.5B years

*Potassium to Argon --- minerals --- 10K to 3B years

*Uranium Series Disequibrium --- minerals, shell, bone, teeth, coral --- 0 to 0.4M years

*Carbon 14 --- minerals, shell, wood, bone, teeth --- 0 to 40K years

*Fission Track --- minerals, natural glass --- 0.5M to 1B years

*Thermoluminsecence --- minerals, natural glass --- 0 to 0.5M years

*Electron Spin Resonance --- minerals, teeth, shell, coral --- 1K to 1M years

*Geomagnetic Polarity --- minerals --- 0.8M to 200M years

*Amino Acid Racemization --- shells, other biocarbonates --- 500 to 0.3M years

*Obsidian Hydration --- natural glass --- 500 to 0.2M years

*Dendrochronology --- tree rings --- 0 to 12K years

*Lichenometry --- lichens --- 100 to 9K years


These and other dating technologies are remarkably consistent with each other. Each of course has its own limitations and like any scientific measurement or calculation each has a range of possible error which is carefully calculated.

um...I actually wanted the name of the tool used to find these numbers and evidence that they know it is accurate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forget it ... I'm done here.

I'm not wasting my time with this propaganda.

 

[Colter]

Here is a source challenging the accuracy of radiometric dating...
Dating Methods

AIG is a quack site. There are a number of dating techniques which correspond with the dating of incoming asteroids.

 

[blackribbon]

True, but the hypothetical analogy is to compare it with the Earth moving away from the direction of a comet or asteroid that is approaching it from the opposite direction and will definitely hit the Earth due to its greater velocity augmented by the pull of Earth's gravity.

In short, the analogy requires that we imagine that the ball has the necessary velocity to close the distance and strike the bat before the full swing is made Just as an asteroid would catch up to the earth due to its greater velocity even if the Earth were moving in the opposite direction.

Actually, isn't that what happens....the ball is hit at the middle of the swing...or else they miss since they are on different trajectory paths...

Why are we assuming that the Earth was moving away from the astroid and the astroid had to play catch up...was that mentioned in the article somewhere?

 

[Colter]

Forget it ... I'm done here.

I'm not wasting my time with this propaganda.

Pride says "you dare not look".

 

[blackribbon]

AIG is a quack site. There are a number of dating techniques which correspond with the dating of incoming asteroids.

Based on what? It has many doctorate level scientists from every discipline.

 

[blackribbon]

Forget it ... I'm done here.

I'm not wasting my time with this propaganda.

Over your head or not willing to actually put in the effort to form complete ideas?

 

[Radrook]

Actually, isn't that what happens....the ball is hit at the middle of the swing...or else they miss since they are on different trajectory paths...

Why are we assuming that the Earth was moving away from the astroid and the astroid had to play catch up...was that mentioned in the article somewhere?

I am not assuming anything at all about that supposed impact.
Why are you assuming that it had to be a head-on collision? Did the article say that it was a head-on collision between the twain?

 

[Colter]

Based on what? It has many doctorate level scientists from every discipline.

AIG has a bunch of brain washed hacks that have been indoctrinated in the false teaching of the inspiration of scripture. Those idiots have dinosaurs living along side of humans. Just because someone has a doctorate does not mean their beliefs are facts.

 

[Papias]

Here is a source challenging the accuracy of radiometric dating...

Which, as pointed out, is a quack site. Most of the stuff on there is lying by omission, with a mix of misleading statements and the same pseudoscience methods used by astrologers. If you like, we can discuss any argument you find strong on there - just explain it in your own words.

About the dating methods -
The age of rocks is well established by the fact that there are literally dozens of different methods, based on often completely different physical properties, that are all used to date rocks. When multiple methods are used on the same sample, they almost always give the same age.

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"

If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.

It's obviously measuring the actual age of the sample. The strawman argument that a given dating method can give inaccurate results is typical of the lies put out by creationist websites. Don't be fooled. That's just like saying that because a clock can be off, we can't have any idea of when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Radrook]

What didn't happen?

I think he means the asteroid impact.

 

[blackribbon]

Subduction

Subduction is downward movement....not upward movement.

AIG has a bunch of brain washed hacks that have been indoctrinated in the false teaching of the inspiration of scripture. Those idiots have dinosaurs living along side of humans. Just because someone has a doctorate does not mean their beliefs are facts.

Aww....the ultimate debate tool...name calling without backing it with evidence. Usually used when the debater has run out of anything factual to contribute.

And I agree with you...that just because someone has a doctorate does not mean their beliefs are facts....but that ball bounces back at the scientists that you believe. I do say that a doctorate does add more credibility to the debate because those aren't easy to get. Now who witnessed or reproduced any evidence to prove your scientific beliefs which form them into facts?

 

[Papias]

Based on what? It has many doctorate level scientists from every discipline.

Based on their contradicting every major scientific organization on a long list of topics. There are millions of scientists. These scientists have a full range of religions, including millions who are Christians. Those millions of scientists, including the Christians, are practically unanimous on basic facts, like gravity, the spherical earth, atoms, evolution, germs, deep time, and so on. Scientists are people, so there are of course a few crackpots here and there who deny each of those - such as insisting on a flat earth, denying that HIV causes AIDS (or other germ denial), denying the holocaust happened, creationists, etc. Their existence doesn't suggest that any of that denial has any basis in reality.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[blackribbon]

Which, as pointed out, is a quack site. Most of the stuff on there is lying by omission, with a mix of misleading statements and the same pseudoscience methods used by astrologers. If you like, we can discuss any argument you find strong on there - just explain it in your own words.

About the dating methods -
The age of rocks is well established by the fact that there are literally dozens of different methods, based on often completely different physical properties, that are all used to date rocks. When multiple methods are used on the same sample, they almost always give the same age.

"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"

If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.

It's obviously measuring the actual age of the sample. The strawman argument that a given dating method can give inaccurate results is typical of the lies put out by creationist websites. Don't be fooled. That's just like saying that because a clock can be off, we can't have any idea of when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

In Christ-

Papias

Again...saying that it is a "quack site" doesn't make it a quack site.

What is the tool used to verify that the dating done to date is correct? There has to be a way to verify your evidence otherwise is simply a theory back by faith....faith that the original measurement is good.

 

[blackribbon]

Based on their contradicting every major scientific organization on a long list of topics. There are millions of scientists. These scientists have a full range of religions, including millions who are Christians. Those millions of scientists, including the Christians, are practically unanimous on basic facts, like gravity, the spherical earth, atoms, evolution, germs, deep time, and so on. Scientists are people, so there are of course a few crackpots here and there who deny each of those - such as insisting on a flat earth, denying that HIV causes AIDS (or other germ denial), denying the holocaust happened, creationists, etc. Their existence doesn't suggest that any of that denial has any basis in reality.

In Christ-

Papias

Pretty speech but it would also back the idea that the scientist that you believe in could actually be the crackpots. I promise that none of your examples of bad science are taught on AIG ... well, except creation and I happen to believe it is a much more viable theory based on actual evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

Here is a source challenging the accuracy of radiometric dating...
Dating Methods

That is not a valid scientific source, it is a religious website.

 

[Jimmy D]

Pretty speech but it would also back the idea that the scientist that you believe in could actually be the crackpots. I promise that none of your examples of bad science are taught on AIG ... well, except creation and I happen to believe it is a much more viable theory based on actual evidence.

Papias invited you to discuss any of the specific points on there.

 

[Papias]

Pretty speech but it would also back the idea that the scientist that you believe in could actually be the crackpots. I promise that none of your examples of bad science are taught on AIG ... well, except creation and I happen to believe it is a much more viable theory based on actual evidence.

I know there are a lot of creationists out there, with websites and preachers decrying evolution as the spawn of the pit of hell.

However, there are also millions of Christians who see evolution as perfectly compatible with Christianity. Accepting evolution is not somehow anti-Christian or anti-Bible. Looking back and the history of the finding of the evidence for evolution, we can see that most of the people who did so were Christians, including Christian monks, ministers, and priests. Today, most of the support for evolution comes from Christians. Evolution is an idea developed mostly by Christians, for Christians, in support of Christian theology.

It's also extremely well supported. There is more evidence showing that evolution is a fact than there is for the existence of the US Civil War. Here si a summary of some of that evidence:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent The more some Christians claim that evolution didn't happen, the more Christianity will look like a crackpot flat-earth religion.

I know what it is like to be convinced of something, and I'm sure you've heard many other Christians say that evolution is evil for a long time. However, please take the time to look into both sides with an open mind.

One place to start with examining the evidence for evolution is at www.talkorigins.org. There are plenty of others - including any high-school or college level biology class.

Important things to realize (and check these out, don't just take my word for it) are:

• Practically all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon. Compare any creationist "list" with Project Steve, times 100.
• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.
• There are tons of excellent series of clearly transitional fossils. The horse, whale, mammal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile and many others series are so clear that creationists generally just avoid them, and don't deny that they are clear.
• Creationists don't agree on their basics. You can see this from OEC websites. Those creationists say the earth is billions (>2,000,000,000) of years old, while most creationists say it is about 6,000 years old.
• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years, deciding this long before Darwin published his book.
• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud.
• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution. Evolution is as firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception.

Take your time. There is no time limit to decide on evolution, and it will take time to test all of the statements above.

In Christ-
Papias

 

[blackribbon]

That is not a valid scientific source, it is a religious website.

I beg to differ. It is a scientific organization (yes, complete with qualified SCIENTISTS) who happen to believe that God exists. Most of science involves faith (believe in something that we can't actually see or prove) but backs its beliefs with proof.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it an invalid source.