Discussion: Does Yahweh really love us?

[natty dread]

MY P...P...PENIS IS IRREFUTABLE THATS WHY YOURE ALL IGNORING IT

[tkr4lf]

MY P...P...PENIS IS ITTY-BITTY THATS WHY YOURE ALL IGNORING IT

[Army of GOD]

MY TITS IS ITTY-BITTY THATS WHY YOURE ALL IGNORING IT

[Neoteny]

MY COPOUT IS ITTY-BITTY THATS WHY YOURE ALL IGNORING IT

[Army of GOD]

MY TEENSY-WEENSY SPIDER IS ITTY-BITTY THATS WHY YOURE ALL WASHING IT DOWN THE DRAIN

[natty dread]

MY QUOTE PYRAMID IS NOT ITTY-BITTY THATS WHY YOURE ALL NOT IGNORING IT

[Lionz]

Natty,

I'm not sure how old anything is maybe, but...

Sure there was not diamond filled earth created instantly out of nothing and that earth did not have 30 times more plantlife on it 5,000 years ago? Is there any radiometic dating technique that does not assume a starting number in something and assume there's been a constant rate of decay in something?

What suggests magnetic reversals happen only once every 50,000 to 800,000 years? What if several occured at about the same time during a creation event or during the flood or both?

Is mutation the only factor affecting the makeup of DNA on the Y-chromosome if Adam was created from dust of the earth and He was created with a Y-chromosome with DNA makeup?

Also, is there any thousand plus year old bone in the earth that has detectable DNA on it... whether soft tissue of a Tyrannosaurus has been found or not?

Falko,

How about this? http://www.shwiggie.com/wp-content/uplo ... theism.jpg

NotYou2,

You want to talk conspiracy? If there's a conspiracy in support of Yahushua and not a conspiracy against Him, then what happened? Been in a public school classroom or turned on the History Channel? Ever seen a dollar bill without the words NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM on it? http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin ... o+seclorum

Juan_Bottom.

I might have left out the word place in error.

Anyway... Matthew 8:3-4. Yahushua is a humble Man and was not on a mission to make people think He was special maybe?

Also... you might be assuming some things about Numbers 31:18... perhaps some are naturally more dangerous than others.

[natty dread]

Natty,

I'm not sure how old anything is maybe, but...

Ok, this should be interesting. Are you going to address the questions I posted?

Sure there was not diamond filled earth created instantly out of nothing and that earth did not have 30 times more plantlife on it 5,000 years ago?

Interesting claim. Let me ask you a question in response: are you sure you're not just a brain in a jar powered by magical unicorns and imagining that this conversation is taking place?

As either claim (yours and mine) is equally unverifiable and unfalsifiable, I think it's safe to discard them when it comes to rational and logical discussion about reality. Sure, we can never know if we're actually in the matrix, but since we have absolutely no way of finding out, and there's absolutely no evidence that would indicate us being in the matrix, then it's safe to assume that we are not in the matrix.

Furthermore, if we get into the philosophical/religious implications of your argument... you're basically saying, you worship a god that first creates a world in 6 days, then cheats the whole mankind by making that world look exactly like it was billions of years old. This god gives no concrete evidence of his existence, he actually provides fake counter-evidence just to mislead us, but then demands every human to blindly believe in him & worship him or face eternal torture? How could you possibly call such a god "benevolent" or "loving"?

Is there any radiometic dating technique that does not assume a starting number in something and assume there's been a constant rate of decay in something?

This is basically the same argument in different clothing. There is absolutely no evidence that would suggest a non-constant rate of decay. Radiometric dating has proven to be an accurate way of measuring age of objects, and there's no evidence of the contrary.

As has been told to you in previous discussions, in order for the isotope ratios to have been different in such quantities that it would cause a glitch in carbon-dating techniques, the amount of radiation needed to impact the isotope levels would have killed all the life on this planet.

What suggests magnetic reversals happen only once every 50,000 to 800,000 years? What if several occured at about the same time during a creation event or during the flood or both?

Ok, there never was a worldwide flood.

Get this: in order for the highest mountains on earth to be covered by water in 40 days, the level of rainfall would have been such that Noah's ark would literally have been obliterated by the rain.

As for magnetic reversals, how about evidence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

Is mutation the only factor affecting the makeup of DNA on the Y-chromosome if Adam was created from dust of the earth and He was created with a Y-chromosome with DNA makeup?

Your question doesn't make sense. What exactly are you asking?

Also, is there any thousand plus year old bone in the earth that has detectable DNA on it... whether soft tissue of a Tyrannosaurus has been found or not?

Yes, there is. Lots. We have analyzed the DNA of neanderthals, and they lived thousands of years ago.

Now I answered your questions. Would you address these points:

- Racemization of amino acids can be utilized for a dating technique that has nothing to do with radiometric dating. How do you explain that we have used it to date objects up to millions of years?

- Tree fossils: how is it possible we have tree fossils with 10,000 tree rings on them?

Please try to answer these without resorting to speculation that a god made the earth and put these things here just to trick us.

[Lionz]

I might be sure of little to nothing, but how logical is it for us to assume earth was created over millions of years in trying to determine if earth was created over millions of years in the first place?

What's cheating about Him creating earth in an instant, if He did that? Did He cheat Adam if He created Him as a full grown adult? Maybe I should not tempt you to judge Him and you should consider those questions not to answer.

Would it not be a ridiculous assumption to assume there's a ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere that's always been a constant if there was a hundred times or even ten times as much plantlife on earth in the past and if there was a canopy surrounding earth that's now gone? Are there no tree remains in Antartica?

The earth has expanded in size and mountain ranges were produced during the flood maybe. What were you getting at about magnetic reversals?

Not sure how to make the DNA question or whatever more simple maybe. Is mutation the only factor affecting the makeup of DNA on the Y-chromosome? Not if Adam was created from dust of the earth and He was created with a Y-chromosome with DNA makeup in the first place maybe. Are we going to assume Adam was not created from dust of the earth if we are trying to determine if that happened in the first place?

Where did you read that DNA has never been extracted from dinosaur bone if you read that somewhere? See here? http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-dna ... e-wagging/

Some feedback concerning that or this? Want me to try to summarize something?
http://www.icr.org/article/amino-acid-r ... ng-method/

Where is a tree fossil with over 10,000 rings on it? If you can find a tree (dead or alive) with over 5,000 rings on it, how about let me know? How interesting is it if there is none and the flood was supposed to have happened less than 5,000 years ago? Also, is the Sahara desert not is less than 5,000 years old? Is there any living coral reef on earth that's over 5,000 years old?

[natty dread]

I might be sure of little to nothing, but how logical is it for us to assume earth was created over millions of years in trying to determine if earth was created over millions of years in the first place?

No assumptions required. If you look at the actual evidence, it's a fact. It may not be compatible with your religious views, but it is still a fact.

What's cheating about Him creating earth in an instant, if He did that?

Stop squirming!

Think. You create a world in an instant, but make it look like it was created over millions of years? That is obviously cheating. Worse, a god like that would be not just trying not to give evidence of himself, he would be purposefully misdirecting humankind so as few people as possible would get to heaven. What kind of loving god would do that?

Maybe I should not tempt you to judge Him

No, that's fine. I have no problems with judging your god.

Would it not be a ridiculous assumption to assume there's a ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere that's always been a constant if there was a hundred times or even ten times as much plantlife on earth in the past and if there was a canopy surrounding earth that's now gone? Are there no tree remains in Antartica?

No, it would not be ridiculous. I don't really know what you're reaching at here?

The earth has expanded in size

That's ridiculous. Planets do not expand in size spontaneously. Unless it happened by magic? Where did all the extra mass come from? Did god just conjure it up?

Is mutation the only factor affecting the makeup of DNA on the Y-chromosome?

No, of course not. It is passed from father to son, so the father's genes also affect it.

Not if Adam was created from dust of the earth and He was created with a Y-chromosome with DNA makeup in the first place maybe. Are we going to assume Adam was not created from dust of the earth if we are trying to determine if that happened in the first place?

Yes, we are going to assume that, unless there is evidence to suggest that such has happened. So far, I have not seen any evidence that any human was created, all the humans I have ever seen have been birthed by their mothers.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that creating a human from "dust of earth" is possible, not the other way around.

Where did you read that DNA has never been extracted from dinosaur bone if you read that somewhere? See here? http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-dna ... e-wagging/

That's not a scientific source. ICR is a bunch of unscientific hacks spreading misinformation.

According to wikipedia,

Current estimates suggest that in optimal environments, i.e. environments which are very cold, such as permafrost or ice, an upper limit of max 1 Million years exists. As such, early studies that reported recovery of much older DNA, for example, from Cretaceous dinosaur remains, have been proven to be wrong, with results stemming from sample or extract contamination, as opposed to authentic extracted DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA

Some feedback concerning that or this? Want me to try to summarize something?
http://www.icr.org/article/amino-acid-r ... ng-method/

That article is pure bullcrap. Again, try some articles from scientific sources.

Where is a tree fossil with over 10,000 rings on it? If you can find a tree (dead or alive) with over 5,000 rings on it, how about let me know?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html

Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986). A worldwide cataclysm during that time would have broken the tree ring record.

How interesting is it if there is none and the flood was supposed to have happened less than 5,000 years ago?

Very little. Even if there was no evidence of a tree older than 5000 years, it would still not be evidence for a global flood happening back then. However the fact that we have observed fossilized trees older than 10000 years suggests that no such event has taken place during the last 10000 years.

Is there any living coral reef on earth that's over 5,000 years old?

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/ ... cts-01.pdf

[Lionz]

What would you expect to see if Someone created a planet with gold and gems in it automatically?

Are you meaning to argue that a hundred times more plantlife and a canopy surrounding earth would not effect 14C to 12C in the atmosphere?

Would earth expanding in size necessarily mean earth has increased in mass? You're assuming men know exactly what's in the earth and Columbus did not even traverse the Atlantic Ocean until about 500 years ago maybe. When has there been a 100% correct mainstream scientific body? And then we can get into stuff concerning fallen angels and ponder what has been influenced by what? Do you know what novus ordo seclorum means?

You earlier sent words claiming the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome was mutation and now you claim of course mutation is not the only factor affecting the makeup of DNA on the Y-chromosome?

I do not need to assume or not assume that Adam was created from dust of the earth maybe, but are you using data based on an assumption that universal common descent is true and humans evolved from a single celled organism in order to try to prove that Adam was not created about 6,000 years ago? Would you see no logical fallacy in doing so?

Wikipedia throws things off as being proven wrong with results stemming from sample or extract contamination? It might simply be that there are individuals who will not buy something if it's evidence against ucd and macroevolution in the first place. When has there not been a mainstream orthodox scientific body that was gravely wrong about things whether fallen angels have tried to turn man from the Father or not?

A claim of pure bullcrap is basically your whole response to the second link? What specifically is bullcrap and what do you consider a scientific source if there is a reference section there with eighteen sources?

What does the talkorigins page have to do with a tree with over 10,000 rings? Do you mean to call on dendrochonology to go back over a few thousand years and what does the King Clone have to do with tree rings? It or they have have been dated how? By looking at bush roots and making estimations based on what someone thinks happened with climate in the past?

We might be able to give conflicting sources concerning the Great Barrier Reef, but even you give a source that refers to sea levels rising 6000 years ago? We can guess about the past all day long maybe, but is there any living coral reef older than 6000 years?

[natty dread]

What would you expect to see if Someone created a planet with gold and gems in it automatically?

Let me put it this way.

What would you expect to see if the whole universe was just a computer simulation on some advanced alien race's supercomputer? If it was so advanced and massive that it could render and simulate each atom individually, along with their interactions. It would be totally indistinguishable from a real universe.

So, what would you expect to see? Care to prove that we do not live in a computer simulation?

That's the problem with theories that can't be falsified.

Are you meaning to argue that a hundred times more plantlife and a canopy surrounding earth would not effect 14C to 12C in the atmosphere?

No, it wouldn't. Not in sufficient quantities. Do you understand how much the isotope ratios would have to be skewed in order to 6000 years look like 50000 years? The difference is tenfold. Such a difference could not be born from any conditions we could have had on the planet.

Anyway, carbon dating is not the only dating technique, and it is only used on objects no older than 50000 years, because it stops being reliable for older items. For older items, there are other dating techniques. Therefore, we know how much the amount of 14C has varied during those 50000 years, by comparing the results to other dating techniques, like dendrochronology for example. So your whole point here is moot.

Would earth expanding in size necessarily mean earth has increased in mass?

Of course it would! The only other way earth could expand was if all the matter on earth was suddenly vaporized, ie. turned into gas. This is not the case today, there's lots of solid mass everywhere around me even now. So what exactly are you trying to argue here?

You're assuming men know exactly what's in the earth and Columbus did not even traverse the Atlantic Ocean until about 500 years ago maybe.

Blah blah, boring creationist talking points. WTF does Columbus have to do with this? Nothing.

When has there been a 100% correct mainstream scientific body? And then we can get into stuff concerning fallen angels and ponder what has been influenced by what? Do you know what novus ordo seclorum means?

No, let's not get into your crazy conspiracy theories either.

As for your other huge fallacy... no, science does not claim to be infallible. Only your religion does that. Science is, however, based on evidence and observation. If evidence comes up that disproves a part of a scientific theory, then that scientific theory is changed. See how simple it is?

The fallacy here being, "we can't know what will be proved false in the future, so therefore I can claim whatever I want to be true".

You earlier sent words claiming the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome was mutation and now you claim of course mutation is not the only factor affecting the makeup of DNA on the Y-chromosome?

Don't put words in my mouth. You're grasping at straws here, trying to catch me on some silly semantic mistake, while ignoring the real point of the argument.

Y-chromosome DNA is inherited from the father. So when talking about a single male person's Y-chromosomal DNA, there are two factors affecting it: mutation, and the genes inherited from his father. Understand?

Good. So we can track all of the DNA of the Y-chromosome back to a single person. And calculations have been made that this person lived 60,000 years ago. You can read more about it here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ofman.html

I do not need to assume or not assume that Adam was created from dust of the earth maybe, but are you using data based on an assumption that universal common descent is true and humans evolved from a single celled organism in order to try to prove that Adam was not created about 6,000 years ago? Would you see no logical fallacy in doing so?

There is no assumption. There is evidence to prove that universal common descent is true. I am basing my argument on that evidence. Do you see the difference?

Wikipedia throws things off as being proven wrong with results stemming from sample or extract contamination? It might simply be that there are individuals who will not buy something if it's evidence against ucd and macroevolution in the first place. When has there not been a mainstream orthodox scientific body that was gravely wrong about things whether fallen angels have tried to turn man from the Father or not?

Again, the same fallacy. "Scienctists have been proven wrong before so I get to invent whatever I want and call it a fact".

Oh and also, there's no such thing as "macroevolution". There's just evolution, period.

A claim of pure bullcrap is basically your whole response to the second link? What specifically is bullcrap and what do you consider a scientific source if there is a reference section there with eighteen sources?

Anyone can throw up a list of references and claim that they support his point. That whole article is unscientific wishful thinking and willful ignorance. Try an objective source next time, something that's not hosted on a creationist website.

The article jumps to conclusions, trying to poke holes into amino-acid racemization. It's all conjecture, and it doesn't address the fact that amino-acid racemization as a dating technique is a proven method - it has been proven to be accurate by comparison to other dating techniques. Otherwise, it simply would not be used!

What does the talkorigins page have to do with a tree with over 10,000 rings? Do you mean to call on dendrochonology to go back over a few thousand years and what does the King Clone have to do with tree rings? It or they have have been dated how? By looking at bush roots and making estimations based on what someone thinks happened with climate in the past?

Sigh... you asked for evidence of a fossilized tree that is over 10,000 years old. The talkorigins page refers to a study of such a tree.

We might be able to give conflicting sources concerning the Great Barrier Reef, but even you give a source that refers to sea levels rising 6000 years ago? We can guess about the past all day long maybe, but is there any living coral reef older than 6000 years?

Sigh. I just told you, the Great Barrier Reef is over 600,000 years old. I provided a source for that claim. What sea levels did or did not do 6000 years ago is entirely irrelevant to the point.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker by every post.

[Lionz]

Is there not a true theory out there somewhere that can't be falsified because it's true?

How about we consider scripture? How much sense would it make for liars to back up lies of liars they never met in order to promote something that's against lying in the first place? If that is what you propose has occured? How many are there who went on to become martyrs as Christians after knowing Yahushua personally and witnessing things thought to be miracles?

Is there any radiometric dating technique at all that's not based on an assumption of both a starting point and a steady rate of decay?

It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

Quotes within and hyperlinks missing and numbers included that should be raised up higher and smaller and messed up formatting and generally messed up quoting maybe... you might want to check here... http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -the-bible

Got a certain technique not involving C-14 that you want to discuss?

What does Dendrochr-nology have to do with 50,000 years?

Who knows how many times seperate disturbances have been lined up in error and who knows how many times missing rings have been inferred if that's common in BCP chr-nology? I'm not sure how recent this is, but it's useful for considering how subjective it would be to line up over 5,000 years worth of time using bristlecone pines for dendrochr-nology perhaps. How many rings do you see here?



How surprised would you be if earth itself is mostly hollow? If the earth did not expand, then what is up with Australia? Is there not evidence suggesting it was beside land of both Africa and South America? And is there not evidence suggesting Africa and South America have spread apart as well? The earth itself has stretch marks on it maybe.





There might have been a point concerning the past that Columbus can be used to get at. How much to you trust and rely on men? And how sure are you that there are not men and angelic beings who want to lead you astray?

Do you mean to try to argue that there is not an emotional attachment in anyone to believe in macroevolution and universal common descent? Humans become emotionally attached to many different kinds of beliefs and have shown strong resistance to contradictory ideas through much or all of history maybe.

Is mutation and genes from a father THE ONLY FACTORS that have EVER have effected makeup of a single male person's Y-chromosomal DNA, if Adam was created out of dust of the earth with Y-chromosomal DNA? Who knows what Adam had for DNA if He existed? What if Adam lived with DNA about 6,000 years ago that would now be mistaken for DNA of someone who descended from a 44,000 year old ancestor? See where false assumptions could lead us to misleading results?

What do you consider evidence to prove universal common descent is true? And do you say universal common descent and mean that on an actual universal scale?

Do you mean to claim that something is only objective if it is not supporting young earth creationism?

The rate of racemization is highly temperature dependent. The study with bone indicated that an uncertainty of ±2° would yield an age with an error of ±50%. Additional uncertainties are introduced by the possible contamination of the fossil with free amino acids from the environment, and the possibility of racemization during the acid hydrolysis of the protein in the fossil. The former would reduce the apparent age of the fossil by introducing amino acids from recent material which would have undergone little racemization. Racemization which occurs during acid hydrolysis would, of course, increase the apparent age.

The talkorigins page refers to no tree over 10,000 years old and does refer to dendro related stuff and a bush or a system of bushes also known as a clonal colony plant maybe.

And what is alive as far as the Great Barrier Reef? There might be living stuff on top of nonliving stuff and mainstream perspectives that include no earthwide flood about 4,200 years ago.

Can we try to avoid putdowns? What do you or I really know?

Note: Been messing with this after some time and it has one or more misquote possibly. How about check stuff for yourself?

[natty dread]

Is there not a true theory out there somewhere that can't be falsified because it's true?

For a theory to be scientific, there must be a way for it to be able to be falsified. If there is a viable way that a theory could be falsified, but it hasn't been falsified so far, then that theory is considered to be correct. For the time being. Until someone falsifies it.

A theory, for which no means exist to be falsified, is not a scientifical theory. It is just metaphysical conjecture.

How about we consider scripture? How much sense would it make for liars to back up lies of liars they never met in order to promote something that's against lying in the first place? If that is what you propose has occured? How many are there who went on to become martyrs as Christians after knowing Yahushua personally and witnessing things thought to be miracles?

Do you consider the Lord of the Rings trilogy to be evidence that orcs and elves have once existed? Why would Gandalf lie to us?

The Bible is a fictional story. It is fiction. It did not actually happen. That's what people do, they invent stories and mythologies to explain things they cannot understand.

That's all very well and fine for 2000 years ago, but today, we have this thing called science, which can be used to discern how most things work. There's no more need to believe in myths and mythologies.


As for the rest of your post... ugh, it's full of so much stupid that I have to put on protective goggles before I start dissecting it.



There. Now, let us begin here....

Is there any radiometric dating technique at all that's not based on an assumption of both a starting point and a steady rate of decay?

Yes. All of them. None of them are based on assumptions. They are based on evidence.

I understand that this can be hard to understand for you. But the laws of physics do not just change. The speed of light does not change. It was the same 10000 years ago, it will be the same 10 billion years from now. The rate of decay does not change.

How many times do I have to tell you this? We know how much C14 there has been in the atmosphere during the last 50000 years. It has been measured by various scientific methods.

Look:


Now that's just the last 7000 years there, but it still gives an idea on how accurately we know the expected ratios of isotopes.

It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates.

Incorrect. We know that the amount of C14 has not been the same. We also know how much it has varied. Therefore the whole point of this quote is moot.

You are employing the same tactic as so many young-earth-creationists have before you: you create a strawman version of science by twisting it into something it's not, possibly because of lack of understanding, possibly because you want to spread misinformation (lying in the name of christ) or for some other reason. You then "prove" this strawman wrong to trick gullible people into thinking you have poked a hole in science.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you were correct. Let's assume that all the various very accurate and scientifically proven dating methods are flawed. (Because that's what it would take for radiocarbon dating to be flawed, you know. They are cross-tested.) So let's assume that. Ok. Here comes the bomb: that still does not prove that the world was made in 6000 years, nor that there was ever a global flood!


Want to prove global flood? Ok, I'll give you some things you have to explain.

How did Noah get all the animals to come to the Ark from all around the world?

Some animals can't swim. So they could not have come from lands that are not connected to Mesopotamia.
Some animals would have died by the time that would have taken them for the journey.
Some animals can not survive outside their natural habitat. Koalas are one such species.

How did aquatic life survive the flood? If the whole world was flooded, this would mean all water would be mixed. Salt water species do not survive in sweet water, and vice versa.

How did Noah fit all of the species of animals on his ark? There are millions of species of animals. An ark could not house all of the animals in the world.

How were the animals cared for and fed during the flood?

How did Noah's ark survive the rainfall? In order for the whole world to be flooded in 40 days, the level of rainfall must be so high that it would obliterate any kind of ark.


The idea of the earth changing size is simply ridiculous.

The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!!!!!! This text I just quoted is so stupid that I am now officially scarred for life. Damn you for doing this to me.

This is so circular logic, can't you see? "We believe in global flood and a young earth. Therefore, the fossil fuels must be the result of a vastly larger quantity of vegetation. Therefore, the global flood and young earth are valid theories!"



Ok, the rest of your post is making me die inside. It's so horribly, unfathomably STUPID. Such brainless garbage. I have to put on stronger goggles now.

How surprised would you be if earth itself is mostly hollow? If the earth did not expand, then what is up with Australia? Is there not evidence suggesting it was beside land of both Africa and South America? And is there not evidence suggesting Africa and South America have spread apart as well? The earth itself has stretch marks on it maybe.

TRIPLE FACEPALM

Earth is hollow? Wow. Where does the extra mass come from, then?

Is it news to you that we know the mass of the earth?

This was the stupidest thing I have ever read.

As for the continents, look up Plate Tectonics. LOOK IT UP SOMEWHERE ELSE THAN A CREATIONIST WEBSITE!!!!!!!

I see your bet and raise with:

Do you mean to claim that something is only objective if it is not supporting young earth creationism?

No. I claim that there is no objective evidence that supports young earth creationism. Which you would know if you visited somewhere other than creationist sites for information.

And what is alive as far as the Great Barrier Reef? There might be living stuff on top of nonliving stuff and mainstream perspectives that include no earthwide flood about 4,200 years ago.

that's because THERE WAS NO DAMN FLOOD.

What do you consider evidence to prove universal common descent is true? And do you say universal common descent and mean that on an actual universal scale?

Common descent, as in that we have all evolved from a common ancestor, some 4 billion years ago. I don't know what you are trying to mean by "universal scale" here.

As for evidence, this quote explains it the best

The most powerful evidence for common descent includes:

* Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.

* DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.

* Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.

* Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.

* Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.

* Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.

* Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.

What if Adam lived with DNA about 6,000 years ago that would now be mistaken for DNA of someone who descended from a 44,000 year old ancestor?

Yeah? Where's your proof for that?

And don't say "the bible".

See where false assumptions could lead us to misleading results?

Yes, you are a living proof of that.

[shieldgenerator7]

you silly dudes. you don't even see the obvious truth right in front of you.
There's no way we can force you to believe. You've got to choose to believe yourself. But when you do, God will be waiting for you and will accept you with open arms, forgiving you for all you've done / haven't done. It's your choice. And God loves us, and will forgive us. Period.

[natty dread]

you silly dudes. you don't even see the obvious truth right in front of you.
There's no way we can force you to believe. You've got to choose to believe yourself. But when you do, God will be waiting for you and will accept you with open arms, forgiving you for all you've done / haven't done. It's your choice. And God loves us, and will forgive us. Period.

Which god is that again? Allah? Brahman? Odin? Zeus?

[shieldgenerator7]

you silly dudes. you don't even see the obvious truth right in front of you.
There's no way we can force you to believe. You've got to choose to believe yourself. But when you do, God will be waiting for you and will accept you with open arms, forgiving you for all you've done / haven't done. It's your choice. And God loves us, and will forgive us. Period.

Which god is that again? Allah? Brahman? Odin? Zeus?

Which one do you think I meant? You know exactly who I'm talking about. You crack me up.

[natty dread]

you silly dudes. you don't even see the obvious truth right in front of you.
There's no way we can force you to believe. You've got to choose to believe yourself. But when you do, God will be waiting for you and will accept you with open arms, forgiving you for all you've done / haven't done. It's your choice. And God loves us, and will forgive us. Period.

Which god is that again? Allah? Brahman? Odin? Zeus?

Which one do you think I meant? You know exactly who I'm talking about. You crack me up.

I don't know, I'm not a mind reader. There are so many gods out there so, you tell me. Which one did you pick?

[shieldgenerator7]

This is the guessing game. Which one do you think i picked?

[natty dread]

This is the guessing game. Which one do you think i picked?

Marduk?

[shieldgenerator7]

EHT! no, try again.

[natty dread]

EHT! no, try again.

Ok, ok. Let's get serious for a while.

Do you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago?

Do you believe that evolution is false?

[shieldgenerator7]

ok, let's see here:
Do you believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago? What about evolution? What's your take on that?

[natty dread]

ok, let's see here:
Do you believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago? What about evolution? What's your take on that?

I asked you first. You answer first.

[shieldgenerator7]

common reply