To all athiests out there: bring it on

Originally posted by tacoman528
Because if you didn't, you would find many of your answers right there

Click to expand...

No, all you find there is his propoganda for his own personal agenda.  You'll find the answers in the scientific textbooks, the lab work where you can repeat the experiments and observe the same results, and the field work where you can observe the evidence first hand.

Originally posted by tacoman528
To Smilin',
Because of the extremely long explanation for Carbon Dating, I will, once again, refer you to Dr. Hovind at www-drdino-com for the answer to your questions about radiocarbon. It was a neat idea, but it doesn't work. You will find all your scientific answers for the radiocarbon question in Hovind's statement about it. Also be sure to read his Equilibrium Response. There you have it for RadioCarbon. I will now respond to Pete Harcoff's statement about my evidence for the age of the earth and I will not be able to respond to questions for a while as it takes a while to type.

Click to expand...

Is that your only answer drdino? I feel sorry you that someone your age believes that crackpot stuff.

Originally posted by tacoman528
To Smilin',
Because of the extremely long explanation for Carbon Dating, I will, once again, refer you to Dr. Hovind at www-drdino-com for the answer to your questions about radiocarbon. It was a neat idea, but it doesn't work. You will find all your scientific answers for the radiocarbon question in Hovind's statement about it. Also be sure to read his Equilibrium Response. There you have it for RadioCarbon. I will now respond to Pete Harcoff's statement about my evidence for the age of the earth and I will not be able to respond to questions for a while as it takes a while to type.

Click to expand...

You missed my point...radio carbon dating is only accurate to about 10,000 years.  I refered to Uranium decay rates as a method of dating.  THIS METHOD was used to determine the currently accepted age of the earth.  I know refer you to a search engine and let you investigate this method of dating yourself.  If you can disprove it, you'll be more famous than Einstein and your Nobel Prize will await.

Originally posted by Smilin
It's not...thus my point.

Click to expand...

Er, Rule #4? No offensive links? (Just don't want ya to get in trouble )

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Er, Rule #4? No offensive links? (Just don't want ya to get in trouble )

Click to expand...

whooopss..thanks....EDIT TIME...

I don't want another 'homosexual stereotype inquisition' again.

Originally posted by tacoman528
However before I write the response to Pete,
Why would I believe the Bible?
How could I possibly believe the Bible?
Because the Bible is just full of junk, right?


wrong


All of the prophecies have come true,
for instance,
Bible predicted Alexander the Great before he was born
also predicted Nebuchadnezzar
also predicted The Persians overtaking the Babylonian Empire
amongst thousands of other historic facts

Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant, and incorrect.

Originally posted by Smilin
I don't want another 'homosexual stereotype inquisition' again.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'll blind 'em with my Travolta-inspired dance moves

tacokid,

What would it take to convince you that science is right and the earth and universe is 4.5 billion years old?

Originally posted by Annabel Lee
I think you better explain this comment. I have no idea who you are or why you said it.

Click to expand...

I'd do what she sais...

Else she'll put on her leather armor...get out her sword...and BOY WILL YOU BE HATIN IT....

 

Originally posted by tacoman528
too bad Hovind wasn't given the Nobel Prize, huh?

Click to expand...

What research did he publish? and what new discoveries has he made that benefited man-kind?

Actually, too bad Hovind has brain-washed you..

Now...I'm still waiting on your responses to my rebuttals of your so-called 'proofs' of a global flood/young earth?  Can you respond, or simply rattle on how great Hovind is?

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Don't worry, I'll blind 'em with my Travolta-inspired dance moves

Click to expand...

BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...(we'd be banned for sure)

Originally posted by Smilin
Where was the tree located and a source please.  I'm interested in your claims.

Click to expand...

http://www.cmdrmark.com/200111.html

Back in 1964, a graduate student was taking core samples of various trees in the Wheeler Peak area of Nevada. He was looking for evidence of past glaciers. These trees were well known in the scientific/conservation community, some were even named such as Buddha and Socrates. When the student's coring tool broke, he asked and received permission from the Forest Service to cut down the tree! Counting the 4,844 rings, it was later discovered that the tree was actually 4,950 years old. It's quite possible that the grad student killed the oldest living thing on the planet. It's name was Prometheus. Since that remarkable lapse in judgement of the Forest Service, the agency has elevated the welfare of the Ancients to "high priority". Proof of this can be seen when any member of the agency is asked about Methuselah, the oldest tree in the park. Discovered to be 4,723 years old in 1957, its location is kept secret. Were it to be generally known, the feet of thousands of tourists wanting pictures would mercilessly compact the soil around the tree's roots, further stressing what now may be the oldest living thing on the planet. For more on these truly Ancients click here

Tacoman, the problem here is, I've asked God, and I've talked to God, and you know what He's said? He's said "IT IS NOT A SCIENC TEXTBOOK. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH."

So, when I'm looking for the age of the earth, I must do as God has directed me and look at the earth.

One of the things I look at is radiometric dating. From your response, I see you've been lied to, by someone who wants to mix you up about radiocarbon dating (good to perhaps 50,000 years, and occasionally misled) and radiometric dating (goes back at least a billion years, and much better safeguards against error). The only reason to mix these up and pretend it's all "radiocarbon" is to proceed to mix up more examples, and avoid the relevant fact - which is that, in places where we have multiple ways of dating things, they always seem to line up. The only way all the "flawed" methods would get compatible answers is if they're actually *working* methods.

So... I ask you again, what evidence do you have *FOR* a young earth? I want physical stuff I can test and look at. It's not enough to throw doubt on an existing method; show me the evidence *for* your position.

I'm pretty sure the oldest living thing is one of those weird desert plants, it's a circle of plants now, but it's the same plant, gradually spreading over a large area.

JohnR7 no disrespect, but most of the links that you always post I have never seen. lol it's nice to read new things.

Originally posted by ocean
tacokid,

What would it take to convince you that science is right and the earth and universe is 4.5 billion years old?

Click to expand...

I think that's probably impossible by now. Taco seems to be a classic stonewaller, so wrapped up in his own beliefs that he refuses to look at the evidence from different angles. Eventually, he'll realize his attempts to turn people on to "Dr. Dino" are futile, get bored and leave. Then a month or so later, someone new will take his place.

Originally posted by tacoman528
Please see one of my previous posting for a list of reason why the earth is less than 6000 years old.

Click to expand...

Your list was refuted.

 goto www-drdino-com for even more reasons.

Click to expand...

"Dr. Dino" is not a scientist, nor have his arguments withstood scrutiny. You're going to have to do better than this if you want to debate this topic. That is, you ought to bring in scientific evidence.

And I would appreciate some evidence as to why the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Before you say RADIOCARBON!!! be sure to see Dr. Hovind's explanation for that at his website near the top of this message.

Click to expand...

This just shows how you don't even know what you're talking about and don't even really know what you think you're refuting.

Radiocarbon dating is not used to determine the age of the Earth. This first misconception you made illustrates perfectly how you don't even know the scientific methods used to date the Earth, but you have already assumed that they are false.

C-14 has a half life of approximately 5000 years. We use isotopic systems whose parent nuclides have much longer half-lives. U-Pb, Rb-Sr, Sm-Rb, K-Ar, and even extinct nuclide systems like Al-26/Mg-26 can provide relative dates that far exceed 6000 years. In fact, even my geochemistry professor this past semester recently published a paper on his calculations of the Xenon closure age of the Earth which also corresponds to dates from decaying isotopes measured in chondritic meteorites.

Furthermore, even before radiometric dating systems were used, geologists inferred an old earth from simply looking at multiple lines of evidence--the time required for fossilization, sedimentary deposition rates, stalactite formation rates, evidence of migrating glaciers, etc. The latter half of the 20th century also saw new advances in the field of paleomagnetism which established old ages to account for continental drift. We also know more about plate tectonics now and from geophysical exploration can determine how fast plates are moving. Geophysicists can also determine the cooling time for magma bodies by conduction with the surrounding country rock which, in some cases of large intrusions, gives a large time period.

Every piece of "evidence" for a 6000 year old earth is either a misconception and twisting of the evidence to fit someone's interpretation of the Bible, or it is in conflict with standard scientific principles (thermodynamics, kinetics, etc.). And there is certainly no "evidence" for a 6000 year old earth that makes any of the above evidence for an extremely old earth go away. That's a lot of evidence we have for an old earth, yet none of it has been refuted.