Why Evolution is True

[Naturalism]

So you admit having no knowledge or fact regarding what laws existed in the past, and that you play a what it game I take it. OK.

There is no evidence at all that the laws where different in the past, that is the whole point. You can't provide any so why assume it was different or could be different?

 

[Naturalism]

That is not any answer it is speculation unless you accompany this with evidence. Since the bible seems to indicate that changes to life was very fast, I see no reason to accept by blind faith your assertions.

This was not me answering, this was me joking about your "explanation" that was totally and utterly void of any evidence. Derp.

 

[dad]

There is no evidence at all that the laws where different in the past, that is the whole point. You can't provide any so why assume it was different or could be different?

There is no evidence at all that the laws where the same in the past, that is the whole point. You can't provide any so why assume it was the same or could be the same? You need reasons. Science has none. Therefore I see no reason to wave off the word of the Almighty.

Different she be.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evidence at all that the laws where the same in the past, that is the whole point. You can't provide any so why assume it was the same or could be the same? You need reasons. Science has none. Therefore I see no reason to wave off the word of the Almighty.

Different she be.

There is no evidence that you would accept for showing a same state past, so quit asking for it. You are wasting pixels.

 

[Loudmouth]

I too would like to see the scientific articles and tests supporting this, but for arguments sake lets say it's right. Does it invalidate Radiometric or Carbon Dating, at least for inorganic material like sandstone or limestone?

All it would seem to indicate is one rock formed before the other. I don't know of a physical law that prevents a person from putting older rock at the top of a pyramid and younger rock at the bottom, so I'm not sure what gradyll's point is at all.

About the only thing it does demonstration is how little gradyll thinks these things through.

 

[dad]

There is no evidence that you would accept for showing a same state past, so quit asking for it. You are wasting pixels.

There is no evidence that you have for showing a same state past, or a different state one so quit asking for it. You are wasting pixels. It is a matter of belief. Not science. Act accordingly.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no evidence that you have for showing a same state past, or a different state one so quit asking for it. You are wasting pixels. It is a matter of belief. Not science. Act accordingly.

What evidence, if found, would demonstrate to you that the past was the same as the present?

 

[dad]

What evidence, if found, would demonstrate to you that the past was the same as the present?

What evidence, if you found any, would demonstrate to you that the past was not the same as the present? When will you admit neither knowing nor being able to know?

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence, if you found any, would demonstrate to you that the past was not the same as the present?

Show me deviations from expected spectra in distant stars.

Now it is your turn.

What evidence, if found, would you accept as evidence for a same state past?

When will you admit neither knowing nor being able to know?

When you admit to beating your dog.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How can we look at the basis when you refuse to post it? If it is not belief based, you ought to be all gung ho and proud to post it! Your actions and lack therof speak for themselves. What a hoot.

As if people aren't all gung-ho about religion

 

[createdtoworship]

Scientific references, please.

lets talk about carbon 14's negative sides as you are apparently at a loss for words.

carbon 14 only lasts in fossils and other dead objects up to 100,000 years (generously), as carbon has a half life. (if you dont' believe carbon has a half life, google it).

secondly, if carbon14 is found in diamonds in the rough, then we know those diamonds are less than a 100,000 years old. But current dating methods place diamonds as old as the earth itself (4.54billion).

anyway there are repeated lab analysis of diamonds with carbon14 in them. proving other dating methods in contradiction.

here is the summary:

" the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surfaces, which would eliminate any possibility of the carbon in the diamonds becoming contaminated. Sure enough, the diamonds submitted for radiocarbon analyses did contain detectable, significant levels of carbon-14, equivalent to an age of around 55,000 years. Again, the laboratory did repeat analyses and discounted any possibility that this carbon-14 was due to contamination, in situ to the diamonds or added in the laboratory. At 1–2 billion years old, these diamonds, which are formed deep inside the earth, are regarded as being related to the earth’s early history. Therefore, it was concluded that carbon-14 in these diamonds was consistent with a young age for the earth itself."

..."Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.3 R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years."

above quotes from:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radiocarbon-in-diamonds-confirmed/

if you believe they were contaminated, well think again. All they had to do was reanalyze and repeat the tests looking for contamination. And they did just that, several times. So we know the 8 year rate project is legit. Now at this moment, I suppose you will be tempted to post a link to the unreliability of the rate project from talk origins or other. However I have pre-read the article on diamonds and they are at a lack of evidence for the re-tested laberatory results. Remember a lab not affiliated with RATE did the testing. So just because the results are not what you would expect, contamination has already been ruled out. Thanks for the comment.

 

[Only Me]

above quotes from:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radiocarbon-in-diamonds-confirmed/

Well that just about says it all, it's like asking a liar to swear they are not telling lies.
Answers in Genesis tell lies for a living, it's how they make their money and stay in business.
Answers in Genesis tell lies, sell DVD's and books and cater to the creationist market.
That's right creationism is nothing more than a business to these people, a way to make money, they are using your fears and needs to get you all to buy stuff, we know they need to make money to keep going but do they need to make millions in profits every year?

Why would anyone go to a creationist website to get the answers to scientific questions anyway? what do creationists know about science? would you go to a plumber to have a tooth pulled? or a dry cleaners to have a puncture mended?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well that just about says it all, it's like asking a liar to swear they are not telling lies.
Answers in Genesis tell lies for a living, it's how they make their money and stay in business.
Answers in Genesis tell lies, sell DVD's and books and cater to the creationist market.
That's right creationism is nothing more than a business to these people, a way to make money, they are using your fears and needs to get you all to buy stuff, we know they need to make money to keep going but do they need to make millions in profits every year?

Why would anyone go to a creationist website to get the answers to scientific questions anyway? what do creationists know about science? would you go to a plumber to have a tooth pulled? or a dry cleaners to have a puncture mended?

That and these same creationists wouldn't even defend creationism under oath

 

[Loudmouth]

lets talk about carbon 14's negative sides as you are apparently at a loss for words.

carbon 14 only lasts in fossils and other dead objects up to 100,000 years (generously), as carbon has a half life. (if you dont' believe carbon has a half life, google it).

secondly, if carbon is found in diamonds in the rough, then we know those diamonds are less than a 100,000 years old. But current dating methods place diamonds as old as the earth itself (4.54billion).

anyway there are repeated lab analysis of diamonds with carbon in them. proving other dating methods in contradiction.

here is the summary:

" the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surfaces, which would eliminate any possibility of the carbon in the diamonds becoming contaminated. Sure enough, the diamonds submitted for radiocarbon analyses did contain detectable, significant levels of carbon-14, equivalent to an age of around 55,000 years. Again, the laboratory did repeat analyses and discounted any possibility that this carbon-14 was due to contamination, in situ to the diamonds or added in the laboratory. At 1–2 billion years old, these diamonds, which are formed deep inside the earth, are regarded as being related to the earth’s early history. Therefore, it was concluded that carbon-14 in these diamonds was consistent with a young age for the earth itself."

..."Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.3 R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years."

above quotes from:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radiocarbon-in-diamonds-confirmed/

if you believe they were contaminated, well think again. All they had to do was reanalyze and repeat the tests looking for contamination. And they did just that, several times. So we know the 8 year rate project is legit. Now at this moment, I suppose you will be tempted to post a link to the unreliability of the rate project from talk origins or other. However I have pre-read the article on diamonds and they are at a lack of evidence for the re-tested laberatory results. Remember a lab not affiliated with RATE did the testing. So just because the results are not what you would expect, contamination has already been ruled out. Thanks for the comment.

Scientific references, please.

 

[createdtoworship]

Scientific references, please.

please reread the post, I provided two or more references to independent lab tests done on diamonds.

 

[Loudmouth]

please reread the post, I provided two or more references to independent lab tests done on diamonds.

Please cite the peer reviewed scientific journal where those results are presented.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well that just about says it all, it's like asking a liar to swear they are not telling lies.
Answers in Genesis tell lies for a living, it's how they make their money and stay in business.
Answers in Genesis tell lies, sell DVD's and books and cater to the creationist market.
That's right creationism is nothing more than a business to these people, a way to make money, they are using your fears and needs to get you all to buy stuff, we know they need to make money to keep going but do they need to make millions in profits every year?

Why would anyone go to a creationist website to get the answers to scientific questions anyway? what do creationists know about science? would you go to a plumber to have a tooth pulled? or a dry cleaners to have a puncture mended?

all the more to refute what they actually said and correct the misinformation, not dodge it. Secondly, if you read the post you would know that there was an independent study done. Thirdly, the RATE project is not affiliated with AIG anyway. So you have a number or errors here.

 

[dad]

Show me deviations from expected spectra in distant stars.

Show me light from the stars IN another spacetime!!

Now it is your turn.

What evidence, if found, would you accept as evidence for a same state past?

Since the evidence would be outside of the ignochamber of science, I would accept biblical evidence. Got any?

 

[dad]

As if people aren't all gung-ho about religion

In some cases, they OUGHT to be! In the case of pathetic failed so called science beliefs, that is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me light from the stars IN another spacetime!!

You first.

Since the evidence would be outside of the ignochamber of science,

Evidence please.

I would accept biblical evidence. Got any?

There is no evidence in the Bible. Stories aren't evidence.