Who belives in evolution?

[I_Love_Cheese]

carbon dating is what makes you think that think that fossels etc are very old well after about a 4000 year old fossil it jumps a huge amount. how the dating works is by the amount of radiation in an object as all once living things have an amount of it and they loose an amount every year. well 4000 years ago there was a flood that makes all older fossils have less rediation making them seem older. layering is another method but not alwase does a layer come a year or season etc.

fine, its cute, We have seen enough of the rear end of your 1987 whatever.
If you are serious, you must now explain how the flood changed carbon dating as well as all other measures to simultaneously read the same wrong dates.

We are waiting.

 

[Jet Black]

carbon dating is what makes you think that think that fossels etc are very old well after about a 4000 year old fossil it jumps a huge amount.

actually no it doesn't. There is a constant timeline of C14 dating right back to the limits of the technique, when callibrated against things such as tree rings, ice cores and varves, on a global scale. It also matches up with other more complex age-related techniques using isotopes and without isotopes. Your statement is factually incorrect.

how the dating works is by the amount of radiation in an object as all once living things have an amount of it and they loose an amount every year. well 4000 years ago there was a flood that makes all older fossils have less rediation making them seem older. layering is another method but not alwase does a layer come a year or season etc.

But nobody dates fossils using carbon dating, and fossil dating techniques do not measure the amount of radiation emitted from the fossils. so everything you just said is utterly wrong. Again, you claims are just simply factually incorrect.

 

[nathans1987]

Please demonstrate any evidence for a global flood. Christian Geologists disproved the flood of Noah as a historical event almost 200 years ago.

Carbon dating is a form of radioactive dating. When used correctly, it is extremly reliable method. A world wide flood while impossible, if it had occured would not affect the fossil record in the ways you suggest, nor would it interfere with radiometric dating techniques. Sugessting this implies a lack of knowledge on how geology works, how floods deposit silt layers, how compression works, how radioactive decay functions, how fossilization occurs, how plate techtonics works, how much water there is on this planet, and a lack of any knowledge of engineering, as the ark needed to carry 2 of every species on this planet would probably be as large as Greenland.

Kent Hovind is a known conman and liar. He is not interested in spreading knowledge, only fattening his own wallet. Even Cretionists groups such as ICR and AIG denounce him as a charlatan. Using arguments based on his ideas is a garunteed path to ridicule on this forum.

But then again, since Poe's law seems to be driving this thread, I don't guess you really care anyway.

why dont you belive in the flood?do you want that explained too?

and i barley know this kent guy i get NONE of my info from him.

and not 2 of every species went onto the ark two of each kind 2 dogs 2 cats (they would have taken smaller of the animals ie when they were young then if you work it out there would have been enough room)all the other species came from these kinds however they did not change past there kind.

why does carbon dating jump after 4000 year old mark then just a coincidence?

 

[Baggins]

let me recearch this place i have never heard of befor. it is likley that it happened in the flood tho. will do recreach

Good luck with shoe-horning chalk into a flood scenario

 

[nathans1987]

actually no it doesn't. There is a constant timeline of C14 dating right back to the limits of the technique, when callibrated against things such as tree rings, ice cores and varves, on a global scale. It also matches up with other more complex age-related techniques using isotopes and without isotopes. Your statement is factually incorrect.




But nobody dates fossils using carbon dating, and fossil dating techniques do not measure the amount of radiation emitted from the fossils. so everything you just said is utterly wrong. Again, you claims are just simply factually incorrect.

i dont care what carbon dateing is used on it dosent work.

also this layer theroy you have dosent work also because a ww2 plane was found below 10,000 or something layers. so your statment is as incorect as mine.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

and not 2 of every species went onto the ark two of each kind 2 dogs 2 cats (they would have taken smaller of the animals ie when they were young then if you work it out there would have been enough room)all the other species came from these kinds however they did not change past there kind.

'kay

 

[Baggins]

why dont you belive in the flood?do you want that explained too?

and i barley know this kent guy i get NONE of my info from him.

and not 2 of every species went onto the ark two of each kind 2 dogs 2 cats (they would have taken smaller of the animals ie when they were young then if you work it out there would have been enough room)all the other species came from these kinds however they did not change past there kind.

why does carbon dating jump after 4000 year old mark then just a coincidence?

Shouldn't you be researching how chalk fits into a flood model?

Get back to it, because I have follow up questions on evaporites, desert sandstones and coal measures to come.

 

[cobweb]

Hey! How did you get a picture of my kitty, Mr. Whiskers?

 

[Baggins]

i dont care what carbon dateing is used on it dosent work.

also this layer theroy you have dosent work also because a ww2 plane was found below 10,000 or something layers. so your statment is as incorect as mine.

devastating rebuttal.

Back to the drawing board for science?

Did you know, by the way, that the age of the earth and its stratigraphy is not based on carbon dating?

Carbon dating is only accurate for material less than 50,000 years old that isn't marine in origin,

Geologists use different radiometric methods.

But you probably know all this an can enlighten us as to where the problems lie.

Why don't you start out by explaining the problems you find in K/Ar dating

Off you go with that.

Any luck with the chalk problem yet?

 

[nathans1987]

Shouldn't you be researching how chalk fits into a flood model?

Get back to it, because I have follow up questions on evaporites, desert sandstones and coal measures to come.

yes both types of cats are of the same kind. have you seen them breed small horses from big ones?
i will research tomorror its 1:20am here now(australia) and i am waking up today at 6am to mix cement.

 

[tocis]

Just wondering if anyone in a chrisian forum belives in evolution?

You are aware of this being the open-to-all-members (even non-christians) section, no?

That said, I'm an Asatruar (that's Nordic heathenry for you if you don't know that specific term) and if I have to choose between biblical creation (I'll assume you mean that creation myth out of the multitude men have believed in over time) and evolution, I'll gladly put my trust in science.

By the way, for the sake of fairness, the creation myth of my own faith would go down the drain too.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

why dont you belive in the flood?do you want that explained too?

Yes please, it ought to be most interesting.

and i barley know this kent guy i get NONE of my info from him.

Are you trying to make a reference to John Barleycorn here. The deterioration of your spelling might be consistant with it.

and not 2 of every species went onto the ark two of each kind 2 dogs 2 cats (they would have taken smaller of the animals ie when they were young then if you work it out there would have been enough room)all the other species came from these kinds however they did not change past there kind.

So you do believe in hyperevolution.

why does carbon dating jump after 4000 year old mark then just a coincidence?

Say what, show us some evidence, and also why tree rings, varves etc all agree (jump the same way) while you are at it.

 

[Baggins]

yes both types of cats are of the same kind. have you seen them breed small horses from big ones?
i will research tomorror its 1:20am here now(australia) and i am waking up today at 6am to mix cement.

Now why doesn't that suprise me

If this is a parody this was a touch of genius from an otherwise lack-lustre attempt.

I'm in Australia as well and it is nearly 3am, I didn't realise there were so many time zones here

 

[jwu]

Please don't forget to comment on the virus thing when you're back:

This isn't about what virii change into, but about the traces which they leave:

Sometimes such a virus infection fails, the cell survives and continues to function and just has some non-functional viral DNA added to its own. If that cell happens to be a gamete, e.g. a sperm cell, and this particular sperm cell "wins the race", then that offspring will be born with this viral DNA sequence in all of its own cells as it basically was part of its father's DNA.

Do you understand this so far, and do you agree with me that this can happen?

 

[dlamberth]

why dont you belive in the flood?do you want that explained too?

Because the is zero evidence to support it.

.

 

[dlamberth]

why does carbon dating jump after 4000 year old mark then just a coincidence?

I don't know where you get this 4000 year mark from, I've never heard of it. But carbon dating is good up to 50,000 years.

.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Now why doesn't that suprise me

If this is a parody this was a touch of genius from an otherwise lack-lustre attempt.

I'm in Australia as well and it is nearly 3am, I didn't realise there were so many time zones here

well at least he will do something concrete with his life in a few hours, I guess there is hope.

 

[dlamberth]

why does carbon dating jump after 4000 year old mark then just a coincidence?

Here's a Link to "Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Please read this, you will learn a lot about radiometric and other dating methods. AND, it's written by a Christian.

.

.

 

[z3ro]

why dont you belive in the flood?do you want that explained too?

and i barley know this kent guy i get NONE of my info from him.

and not 2 of every species went onto the ark two of each kind 2 dogs 2 cats (they would have taken smaller of the animals ie when they were young then if you work it out there would have been enough room)all the other species came from these kinds however they did not change past there kind.

why does carbon dating jump after 4000 year old mark then just a coincidence?

So you believe in hyperevolution then. Let me ask you this; how many "kinds" did Noah bring on the ark? Remember that the more kinds, the more likely the ark didn't exist, and the fewer kinds, the more hyperevolution needs to take place.

 

[Beastt]

god wrote the bible(well not phisically but he did tell them what to put in it)

There needs to be an understanding of the difference between a claim, a demonstration of probability and a fact. What you're talking about here is a claim. You assume the claim to be factual but you do so without evidence. The evidence that God told men what to put in the Bible is no greater than the evidence that Allah told men what to put in the Qur'an. Yet you blindly assume the Bible's claim is true and blindly assume the Qur'an's claim is false. You most likely also assume the claims of The Book of Mormon, Oahspe and all the other religious books claiming divine inspiration from other gods to be false.

and the bible never teaches of a flat world or any other science things that have layter proven wrong

Open your Bible to Page One.
Look to Genesis 1:14-16 where God is said to create the sun, moon and stars. This is on "day 4".

Now back-track to Genesis 1:11, ("Day 3") where we see the claim that the Earth is bringing forth grasses, seed bearing herbs and trees bearing fruit. See a problem here? Science shows us that all plants require light for the process of photosynthesis. They also require a certain amount of thermal energy -- warmth. Those things come from the sun, without which, Earth would be the approximate temperature of space, (454°F below zero).

Now move to Genesis 1:9 and note that we see the first dry land beginning to appear. So up to this point, the Earth must have been covered with the water mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Just store that away in your mind for a couple of minutes. (Dry land appears - Gen 1:9)

Now look to Genesis 1:6-7, where the Earth's atmosphere, "firmament" is formed. So up to this point, Earth hasn't had an atmosphere.

Now step back to Genesis 1:2 and note the water. So we can see the claim that the Earth was created covered in water, but without an atmosphere. Scientifically, this doesn't/can't happen. An atmosphere is key in capturing and retaining liquid water. You'll also note that the water must have been flowing in Genesis 1:9, meaning it was liquid. But since there was no sun yet, the water would have been several hundred degrees below freezing, so it couldn't have been flowing.

1. So we have liquid water without an atmosphere; scientifically unsound.

2. We have liquid water in sub-freezing temperatures; scientifically unsound.

3. We have plants growing without light; scientifically unsound.

4. We have plants growing in sub-freezing, (cryogenic) temperatures; scientifically unsound.

5. And if you look once again to Genesis 14-16, where does it say the sun, moon and stars reside? It claims they're within the Earth's "firmament" or atmosphere. Scientifically unsound.​

And remember, that's just the first page.

Now, for the flat earth references.​

(Job 28:24) For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.
Where can one stand on a sphere and see all of the sphere?

(Daniel 4:10-11) The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.
Where upon a sphere can you plant a tree so that it will grow tall enough that you can see the entirety of the sphere's surface, all at the same time? How tall would the tree have to be?

(Isaiah 40:22) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
Circles are flat - two dimensional, not spherical. How would you pitch a tent over the entirety of a sphere?

Still not convinced?

Take a look at a depiction of the Earth from the original Hebrew, etched by those who didn't have the discoveries of science to guide their interpretation of the Bible and to whom Hebrew was a native language. Do you see a flat Earth, the sun, moon and stars within the solid dome-like firmament? Do you see the waters above the firmament? This is what the Bible claims as the configuration of the Earth, sun, moon and stars. Today's common Christian interpretation comes from scientific discovery applied to the words in the Bible, with the outcome of distorting what the Bible actually claims.