Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,967 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 126,963
Pageviews Today: 172,630Threads Today: 39Posts Today: 599
01:09 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The earth is NOT 6000 years old.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 10:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
This thread had basically boiled down to two people of oposing beliefs, presenting evidence as they saw fit. Must I remind you folks that there is no room for illumimati conspiracy theories, which can also be easily debunked within a two minute google search. Simply stop trying to push away credible evidence and resort to conspiracy as your sources. It is beyond pathetic..

But since you are relentless in your dumb theories:

There is less than zero evidence that an illumimati' have infiltrated the American government whatsoever. These theories have been debunked over and over by many people since they began. The recources, coupled with the sheer amount of people that would have to be included in such a global conspiracy are preposterous, and inconceivable. This would mean that every single high ranking political figure, military figure, celebrity, or voice of authority, including the entire global media comglomer would have to be aware and or, actively invloved in this global conspiracy. The fact remaining, that people are selfish, they talk often about whatever they know, and have a long history of exposing themselves. This, you claim would have to have infected the public education system, including many teachers who do not even agree with evolution let alone devote any time to it in their general science teaching. This would mean, (much like your dumb 911 shit) that every single person without fail would have been tight lipped throughout the entire run of its global reach. This would never be the case given the way people act in groups, or independently as human beings.
These theories were born from the necessity of fundamentalism,
The fear of atheism somehow infecting the population, with its evolution based dogma.. there remains however no evidence that all atheists even subscribe to an evolution based world view. These claims are built around the ideas of earlier conspiracy theories, that were not accepted, and therefore debunked during their time of creation.
We could go on and on about how a global conspiracy is virtually impossible in the 21st century. But these are solid arguments. People cannot keep secrets, and the beans would eventually spill, and that is without question. It would be a cataclysm when this happens, no a conspiracy, written with paranoia that is not generally accepted. These things are what differentiates normal people from the schizophrenic.
That is all. So please, can we get back to your YEC 'facts' and back to the science that debunks them one by one, without you lowering us to your paranoid drivel?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 10:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?


-Exposition of creationism.
-Definitions of terms.
-Evidence for creationism.
-Rules of evidence.
-Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
-Evidence which modifies creationism.

How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

-evolution
-primitive
-natural selection
-theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.

(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

-What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
-What is does conventional science say?
-What is the evidence for conventional science?
-What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



What is this, the fucking 'answersingenesis' manifesto?
Or are creationist rules for a debate? Either way this entire post is a waste of your copy and paste abilities. We don't need you to give us rules to asking questions. We are quite aware of how to post and reply without these silly rules.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO 'FACTS' PRESENTED IN THIS THREAD BY A CREATIONIST THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DEBUNKED, PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG, AND ILLOGICAL. NOT ONE. I'VE CONTINUALLY GIVEN LINKS TO RESEARCH PAPERS FULL OF SCIENCE AND MATH THAT PROVE WITHOUT THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT EVERYONE OF THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

If you'd like to revise any of your theories, feel free. I don't suspect you can find one that I cannot debunk, given they are all by definition based on the fundamental reasoning of 'magic', or divine circumstances.
No science yet for creationism has been accurate.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 10:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?


-Exposition of creationism.
-Definitions of terms.
-Evidence for creationism.
-Rules of evidence.
-Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
-Evidence which modifies creationism.

How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

-evolution
-primitive
-natural selection
-theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.

(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

-What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
-What is does conventional science say?
-What is the evidence for conventional science?
-What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



What is this, the fucking 'answersingenesis' manifesto?
Or are creationist rules for a debate? Either way this entire post is a waste of your copy and paste abilities. We don't need you to give us rules to asking questions. We are quite aware of how to post and reply without these silly rules.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO 'FACTS' PRESENTED IN THIS THREAD BY A CREATIONIST THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DEBUNKED, PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG, AND ILLOGICAL. NOT ONE. I'VE CONTINUALLY GIVEN LINKS TO RESEARCH PAPERS FULL OF SCIENCE AND MATH THAT PROVE WITHOUT THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT EVERYONE OF THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

If you'd like to revise any of your theories, feel free. I don't suspect you can find one that I cannot debunk, given they are all by definition based on the fundamental reasoning of 'magic', or divine circumstances.
No science yet for creationism has been accurate.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


First of all, you are attacking the wrong person. I am an atheist, and my post was directed towards creationists.

Second of all, you obviously responded to my post without having readit assuming that I am some loony creationist posting a wall of text directed soley towards you. This was the highest degree of arrogance. I had the basic respect to read the majority of your posts, the least you can do is read ONE of mine.

This thread will only be between one creationist and you as long as you keep kicking others who actually agree with you out of your thread through alienation and then pretending like there's no one on your side.

I do not need to revise any of my theories on creationism...Creationism is bullshit and the planet is about 4.5 billion years old in a galaxy that began to form about 13.7 billion years ago.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16553869
United States
12/02/2012 10:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
This thread had basically boiled down to two people of oposing beliefs, presenting evidence as they saw fit. Must I remind you folks that there is no room for illumimati conspiracy theories, which can also be easily debunked within a two minute google search. Simply stop trying to push away credible evidence and resort to conspiracy as your sources. It is beyond pathetic..

But since you are relentless in your dumb theories:

There is less than zero evidence that an illumimati' have infiltrated the American government whatsoever. These theories have been debunked over and over by many people since they began. The recources, coupled with the sheer amount of people that would have to be included in such a global conspiracy are preposterous, and inconceivable. This would mean that every single high ranking political figure, military figure, celebrity, or voice of authority, including the entire global media comglomer would have to be aware and or, actively invloved in this global conspiracy. The fact remaining, that people are selfish, they talk often about whatever they know, and have a long history of exposing themselves. This, you claim would have to have infected the public education system, including many teachers who do not even agree with evolution let alone devote any time to it in their general science teaching. This would mean, (much like your dumb 911 shit) that every single person without fail would have been tight lipped throughout the entire run of its global reach. This would never be the case given the way people act in groups, or independently as human beings.
These theories were born from the necessity of fundamentalism,
The fear of atheism somehow infecting the population, with its evolution based dogma.. there remains however no evidence that all atheists even subscribe to an evolution based world view. These claims are built around the ideas of earlier conspiracy theories, that were not accepted, and therefore debunked during their time of creation.
We could go on and on about how a global conspiracy is virtually impossible in the 21st century. But these are solid arguments. People cannot keep secrets, and the beans would eventually spill, and that is without question. It would be a cataclysm when this happens, no a conspiracy, written with paranoia that is not generally accepted. These things are what differentiates normal people from the schizophrenic.
That is all. So please, can we get back to your YEC 'facts' and back to the science that debunks them one by one, without you lowering us to your paranoid drivel?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


People can't keep secrets and the beans have been spilled. If you don't want to except that, well good for you. 9/11 really? Guess we need to completely regulate and censor the internet so people like you can feel safe in your selective ignorance. Don't worry the UN is working on it, we can all go back to puttin our heads in the sand soon, sheesh.
BICOG

User ID: 27538243
Canada
12/02/2012 10:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
here is ken hams response

[link to www.answersingenesis.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16553869
United States
12/02/2012 10:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?


-Exposition of creationism.
-Definitions of terms.
-Evidence for creationism.
-Rules of evidence.
-Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
-Evidence which modifies creationism.

How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

-evolution
-primitive
-natural selection
-theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.

(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

-What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
-What is does conventional science say?
-What is the evidence for conventional science?
-What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



What is this, the fucking 'answersingenesis' manifesto?
Or are creationist rules for a debate? Either way this entire post is a waste of your copy and paste abilities. We don't need you to give us rules to asking questions. We are quite aware of how to post and reply without these silly rules.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO 'FACTS' PRESENTED IN THIS THREAD BY A CREATIONIST THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DEBUNKED, PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG, AND ILLOGICAL. NOT ONE. I'VE CONTINUALLY GIVEN LINKS TO RESEARCH PAPERS FULL OF SCIENCE AND MATH THAT PROVE WITHOUT THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT EVERYONE OF THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

If you'd like to revise any of your theories, feel free. I don't suspect you can find one that I cannot debunk, given they are all by definition based on the fundamental reasoning of 'magic', or divine circumstances.
No science yet for creationism has been accurate.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


First of all, you are attacking the wrong person. I am an atheist, and my post was directed towards creationists.

Second of all, you obviously responded to my post without having readit assuming that I am some loony creationist posting a wall of text directed soley towards you. This was the highest degree of arrogance. I had the basic respect to read the majority of your posts, the least you can do is read ONE of mine.

This thread will only be between one creationist and you as long as you keep kicking others who actually agree with you out of your thread through alienation and then pretending like there's no one on your side.

I do not need to revise any of my theories on creationism...Creationism is bullshit and the planet is about 4.5 billion years old in a galaxy that began to form about 13.7 billion years ago.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821


Yes and numerous civilizations have thrived and been extinguished over several millions years or more. Archeology supports this, real archeology that is, not the textbook version.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4767491
Czech Republic
12/02/2012 11:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Serious question.
Are all creationists autistic?

They tick every single box apart from one, i.e. the one which suggests that some people with autism are highly intelligent.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 11:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?


-Exposition of creationism.
-Definitions of terms.
-Evidence for creationism.
-Rules of evidence.
-Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
-Evidence which modifies creationism.

How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

-evolution
-primitive
-natural selection
-theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.

(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

-What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
-What is does conventional science say?
-What is the evidence for conventional science?
-What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



What is this, the fucking 'answersingenesis' manifesto?
Or are creationist rules for a debate? Either way this entire post is a waste of your copy and paste abilities. We don't need you to give us rules to asking questions. We are quite aware of how to post and reply without these silly rules.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO 'FACTS' PRESENTED IN THIS THREAD BY A CREATIONIST THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DEBUNKED, PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG, AND ILLOGICAL. NOT ONE. I'VE CONTINUALLY GIVEN LINKS TO RESEARCH PAPERS FULL OF SCIENCE AND MATH THAT PROVE WITHOUT THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THAT EVERYONE OF THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

If you'd like to revise any of your theories, feel free. I don't suspect you can find one that I cannot debunk, given they are all by definition based on the fundamental reasoning of 'magic', or divine circumstances.
No science yet for creationism has been accurate.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


First of all, you are attacking the wrong person. I am an atheist, and my post was directed towards creationists.

Second of all, you obviously responded to my post without having readit assuming that I am some loony creationist posting a wall of text directed soley towards you. This was the highest degree of arrogance. I had the basic respect to read the majority of your posts, the least you can do is read ONE of mine.

This thread will only be between one creationist and you as long as you keep kicking others who actually agree with you out of your thread through alienation and then pretending like there's no one on your side.

I do not need to revise any of my theories on creationism...Creationism is bullshit and the planet is about 4.5 billion years old in a galaxy that began to form about 13.7 billion years ago.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821


Yes and numerous civilizations have thrived and been extinguished over several millions years or more. Archeology supports this, real archeology that is, not the textbook version.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16553869


See, I think that's delving back in to the demon-haunted world of belief. We have found some artifacts (the Antekytherum Device and the Baghdad Battery) that suggest some level of technological development during previous epochs of human development, but they cannot be considered to be evidence of previously existing developed species or civilizations which reached the level of sophistication of the current epoch/

I do feel, such as with the Antekytherum Device, that we have developed scientific theories and methods which were suppressed by the religions of the day just as round earth theory was suppressed by early christian geocentric flat-earthers all through the first centuries AD creating an artificial gap between the development of the knowledge of latitude (3 BC) and longitude (1756 AD when the problem was finally solved). If christianity had never developed, my theory is that we would have attained the knowledge to land a man on the moon by 1850.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26125917
United States
12/02/2012 11:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Don't forget Aristarchus of Samos was ahead of the curve when he came up with the heliocentric model of the solar system long before Copernicus, but the church authorities decided to go with Aristotle's view of a geocentric solar system.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 12:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Don't forget Aristarchus of Samos was ahead of the curve when he came up with the heliocentric model of the solar system long before Copernicus, but the church authorities decided to go with Aristotle's view of a geocentric solar system.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26125917


Right, because Aristotle's view supported the theory of human, and therefore earth, supremacy in the universe. A heliocentric theory of the solar system would necessitate that we were not all that and a Shoney's Breakfast Bar.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 12:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
This is why I've gone on automatic attack mode, because of the numerous off topic replies that keep popping up, your post was incredibly wrong, and yes I admit to not reading it, as it appeared to have no additions to the argument. In retrospect I do regret not reading it and have since gone back to see why I was so eager to neglect its contents.

Secondly, I don't want this turning into a debate on the NWO. There are plenty of those. The fact remains on the issue that if 911 and such cases were to be actual huge conspiracies they would require a level of silence on part of massive amount of people involved. From the firemen to the camerandn, right down to the people in the building. From the politicians, to the entire operation, which in a logical way of thinking is far, far too many people to keep a conspiracy alive. There's no possible way that every single person involved could be part of this conspiracy. I've read all of the evidence to contrary and don't believe it is possible.

Next, the issue of claiming that Ken has the answer is one that has already been pointed out to be false. If you've been paying attention to the thread, I've posted the links to articles, directly proving ken to be incorrect.
His science does not add up, and forces one to rely on supernatural forces to create the set of circumstances that he claims. On the other hand, fossils are arranged in a certain matter, one predicted by science. True science. And they are not found as ken's theory would suggest all bunched together. But the links are there, and if you've read them, disprove creationism directly with no question about it.

Soo... What are we discussing now? Is there a newer revised theory in the last few hours I'm not aware of? Otherwise this case is closed.
We didn't even need the science of creationists to be inacurrate, we simply needed to look at the artifacts as someone has stated nicely in this thread. Creationists don't believe the dating techniques to be solid, but I've posted links to prove they have been and remain so.
What is next to discuss then? Bring it on.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 12:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Incredibly *wrong* is a typo
I meant incredibly *long*
And again, I do apologize for not reading it.
Please note that I have read everyone's responses so far,
And visited everyone's links.
There is no excuse for assuming your post was from a certain viewpoint,
And I do promise to not skim again when replies are posted.
I'm glad you've joined the argument, and think you have some great points. For a minute, it did seem like I was the only active atheist left in the thread. Defending sanity amidst the psychobabble.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 12:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Incredibly *wrong* is a typo
I meant incredibly *long*
And again, I do apologize for not reading it.
Please note that I have read everyone's responses so far,
And visited everyone's links.
There is no excuse for assuming your post was from a certain viewpoint,
And I do promise to not skim again when replies are posted.
I'm glad you've joined the argument, and think you have some great points. For a minute, it did seem like I was the only active atheist left in the thread. Defending sanity amidst the psychobabble.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


It's OK. Usually it's creationists coming up with wall-o-text of shitty bible quotes. I did copypasta the post from an atheist website, however I'd still like to see a christian even make an attempt at answering even half of those questions without going into looney-babble bible-land.

There ARE NO good arguments for creationism. Either young-earth or old-earth, though I will say that the "old-earth creationists" are at least one step further away from utter delusion.

I just can't believe it's really 2012 and I'm having this conversation on a computer. HOW can someone be able to go out on their own, wearing clothes that they put on by themselves and buy a computer, drive it home in THEIR car, driven by THEMSELVES, plug it in and get it hooked up to the internet to be able to have this ridiculous debate, and YET STILL believe the nonsense that is creationism?

I'm even surprised that these people are able to do basic things like grocery shopping, and paying the bills on their own without professional assistance. I can't imagine someone with that much delusion as having good enough perception of reality to NOT walk out into the middle of traffic if there isn't someone there to stop them.

People ask me what my problem with religionists is...It's that believing many of the tenets of religionism requires such a suspension of reality that it suggests very poor decision-making skills. If you are not smart enough to see that this one thing isn't real so much so that you will actively socially deny its unrealisticness, then WHAT ELSE are you going to mistake as real and try and foist on those around who can plainly see that it isn't?

It makes one dangerous to society because they will force bad behavior and bad decisions on other people and force large swathes of the population to keep quiet about any doubts they may have....that's exactly how religion gained the power it has, and that's exactly why atheists and agnostics are treated the way that they are. They are trying to shame freethinkers back into silence once more so they can continue about their disgusting little agenda of ignorance uninterrupted.
DGN
Revelation in real time

User ID: 27870140
United States
12/02/2012 12:58 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Radio carbon dating is a very haphazard way of estimating the age of fossils but they're likely hundreds of thousands of years old. Mankind has written history dating back to the creation of Adam 6,037 years ago because Jehovah provides our wayward history and it's consequences.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21689021
12/02/2012 01:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Radio carbon dating is a very haphazard way of estimating the age of fossils but they're likely hundreds of thousands of years old. Mankind has written history dating back to the creation of Adam 6,037 years ago because Jehovah provides our wayward history and it's consequences.
 Quoting: DGN


Thats why it isnt used, you creationtards really need to come up with some new lies.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 01:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Radio carbon dating is a very haphazard way of estimating the age of fossils but they're likely hundreds of thousands of years old. Mankind has written history dating back to the creation of Adam 6,037 years ago because Jehovah provides our wayward history and it's consequences.
 Quoting: DGN


What evidence can you link to that supports your claim of C-14 dating as being haphazard?

Here's an article from Spring of 1982 refuting your claim against C-14 dating.

[link to ncse.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 01:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Incredibly *wrong* is a typo
I meant incredibly *long*
And again, I do apologize for not reading it.
Please note that I have read everyone's responses so far,
And visited everyone's links.
There is no excuse for assuming your post was from a certain viewpoint,
And I do promise to not skim again when replies are posted.
I'm glad you've joined the argument, and think you have some great points. For a minute, it did seem like I was the only active atheist left in the thread. Defending sanity amidst the psychobabble.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


It's OK. Usually it's creationists coming up with wall-o-text of shitty bible quotes. I did copypasta the post from an atheist website, however I'd still like to see a christian even make an attempt at answering even half of those questions without going into looney-babble bible-land.

There ARE NO good arguments for creationism. Either young-earth or old-earth, though I will say that the "old-earth creationists" are at least one step further away from utter delusion.

I just can't believe it's really 2012 and I'm having this conversation on a computer. HOW can someone be able to go out on their own, wearing clothes that they put on by themselves and buy a computer, drive it home in THEIR car, driven by THEMSELVES, plug it in and get it hooked up to the internet to be able to have this ridiculous debate, and YET STILL believe the nonsense that is creationism?

I'm even surprised that these people are able to do basic things like grocery shopping, and paying the bills on their own without professional assistance. I can't imagine someone with that much delusion as having good enough perception of reality to NOT walk out into the middle of traffic if there isn't someone there to stop them.

People ask me what my problem with religionists is...It's that believing many of the tenets of religionism requires such a suspension of reality that it suggests very poor decision-making skills. If you are not smart enough to see that this one thing isn't real so much so that you will actively socially deny its unrealisticness, then WHAT ELSE are you going to mistake as real and try and foist on those around who can plainly see that it isn't?

It makes one dangerous to society because they will force bad behavior and bad decisions on other people and force large swathes of the population to keep quiet about any doubts they may have....that's exactly how religion gained the power it has, and that's exactly why atheists and agnostics are treated the way that they are. They are trying to shame freethinkers back into silence once more so they can continue about their disgusting little agenda of ignorance uninterrupted.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



I couldn't agree more. Dangerous is an understatement. Some of us rational people tend to forget, there is a very active campaign to teach this to OUR children, this complete and utter lack of correct scientific understanding. It's very dangerous to hold ancient beliefs, and disregard the world around you. Putting faith in an external force will only negate any form of self responsibility. As we've seen recently, this goes all the way to the top, as when a man in office can declare war, without the consent of congress, based on the sole reason that "god told him to". The dangerous idea here people, some with lots of power, are speaking to voices that aren't actually there, and claiming them justification to murder people. There are so many more reasons why religion is the most dangerous thing in our culture and in most cultures..

You ask what else they could believe in.. the answer is tons. Tons and tons of similar superstitions thrive with those who are open to such things. When astrology has more coverage in the newspaper than astronomy, we have completely lost touch with what is important, and Moreso what is real. Those who believe in the superstition of god, are often likely to believe in various other superstitions, like psychics, fortunes, predictions, and as we see on this message board directly: prophesy. Which is another probably far more dangerous thing.
The group behavior as predicted by things like game theory and the likes tell us what happens in the group dynamic when a prophesy is revealed. It causes panic, and sometimes things much worse. Even on this thread, I've been threatened with one of these prophesies. It's quite scary.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 01:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Radio carbon dating is a very haphazard way of estimating the age of fossils but they're likely hundreds of thousands of years old. Mankind has written history dating back to the creation of Adam 6,037 years ago because Jehovah provides our wayward history and it's consequences.
 Quoting: DGN


His reasoning is based on the personal philosophy of one man. That man is Ken Hamm. And here is the quote in question:

" First of all, Robertson makes a very common error of assuming that carbon dating is how scientists determine the age of the earth. He uses this as proof for an old earth, revealing his ignorance about dating methods. Carbon dating is not a method that can be used to date things that are supposedly millions of years old. Secular scientists do not derive their millionsof yearsfrom carbondating. The outer limit for carbon dating would be 80,000–90,000 years. Secular scientists interpret data from other radiometric dating methods to arriveatvast ages for the earth. However, these interpretations are based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. These assumptions and the inconsistencies of radiometric dates have been dealt with"

Ken, wrongly is assuming that the age of earth has been reached using
"Carbon dating". What ken does not understand, besides basic science, is how science is actually dating the earth. This statement alone, by one of the masterminds behind the creationism propaganda machine ls direct proof that what creationists believe, and are being forced to believe is based on is so unfounded, and based one one person's uneducated perception of how science using dating methods..

He's not only believing this himself, which is harmful, but he's presenting it to the rest of the creationist community as absolute fact. It's false however, along with every other statement he's made.

Making up false facts about science, and encouraging people to believe it, is by definition, deceitful, manipulating, and downright disgusting.
He's a terrible man, who should have been silenced a long time ago.
Or perhaps given a science lesson.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 01:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
"Carbon dating" in my quote should have read "radiometric dating". My phone is having a hard time not cooperating..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 01:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Ken is so ignorant he describes this

" Historical science, on the other hand, is the sort of science used to explain our origins. Because we cannot return to the time of our origins to make actual observations and scientifictests,we must rely on a historical record describing that time. Scientists can either accept the biblical record of those unobservableevents long past, or they can make unverifiable assumptions that reject the biblicalhistory provided by God."

He's saying that science is "telling stories", whereas the bible is an historical account. Does he not realise, that he taking about a book of stories, and disregarding science as making things up. The man is a walking oxymoron. He completely regards all other science, things like cell phones and such as true science that works, only because it does not refute the bible, but when the rest of science, which is just as real and has just as much validity and credibility as "stories". You can't pick and chose like this you can't credit all of something, except the one part of it that disagrees with what you believe. Either you believe in it, or you don't. He then goes on to say young people are leaving the church, because men are "picking and chosing" what parts of the bible to believe and disbelieve, but that is exactly what he is doing with his interpretation of science!! What an idiot. Young people are leaving the church because the church promotes ideas that have no relevance any longer. Ancient ideas can no longer explain the world, and its place in the universe. I won't stop until I've changed at least one person's mind about this. I don't care what other atheists will say. My purpose on earth is to disprove god. I'm sure of it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 01:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Ken Ham says it himself. Haha.

"After all, “science” (i.e., the majority of biologistsand anthropologists)insiststhat virgins don’t have babies and dead men don’t come to lifeagain afterthree days. So, based on science alone, the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ would only be myths. So why not teach that the Gospel accounts should be rejected?"

Why hasn't science disproved the gospels yet? They have.
Just not publicly, because of what you idiots would be what you accuse us of. Senseless murderers, and lunatics. Look at the truth. Look at it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 01:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Radio carbon dating is a very haphazard way of estimating the age of fossils but they're likely hundreds of thousands of years old. Mankind has written history dating back to the creation of Adam 6,037 years ago because Jehovah provides our wayward history and it's consequences.
 Quoting: DGN


His reasoning is based on the personal philosophy of one man. That man is Ken Hamm. And here is the quote in question:

" First of all, Robertson makes a very common error of assuming that carbon dating is how scientists determine the age of the earth. He uses this as proof for an old earth, revealing his ignorance about dating methods. Carbon dating is not a method that can be used to date things that are supposedly millions of years old. Secular scientists do not derive their millionsof yearsfrom carbondating. The outer limit for carbon dating would be 80,000–90,000 years. Secular scientists interpret data from other radiometric dating methods to arriveatvast ages for the earth. However, these interpretations are based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. These assumptions and the inconsistencies of radiometric dates have been dealt with"

Ken, wrongly is assuming that the age of earth has been reached using
"Carbon dating". What ken does not understand, besides basic science, is how science is actually dating the earth. This statement alone, by one of the masterminds behind the creationism propaganda machine ls direct proof that what creationists believe, and are being forced to believe is based on is so unfounded, and based one one person's uneducated perception of how science using dating methods..

He's not only believing this himself, which is harmful, but he's presenting it to the rest of the creationist community as absolute fact. It's false however, along with every other statement he's made.

Making up false facts about science, and encouraging people to believe it, is by definition, deceitful, manipulating, and downright disgusting.
He's a terrible man, who should have been silenced a long time ago.
Or perhaps given a science lesson.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


DGN is a long time troll on this site. I know I will be kicked off the site soon because he is given preference by the people that run the site and I always get kicked out for several months every time he posts in a thread that I post in.

I'm not surprised to see him using Ken Ham as a source.

He's so mentally ill (delusional) that he has virtually no grasp on reality. Last time he and I interacted (before his delusions were given expressional preference over facts) he was trying to claim that the sky being blue was proof of god and would violently refute any attempt at logical ideas such as light refraction.

He's also the guy who constantly posts the "evolution doesn't explain 'X' so how do you explain that Chuck?" threads. Usually the premise is weak and ridiculous like "evolution doesn't explain why ducks have feathers" and shit like that.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 02:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Here's the summary of how creationists have distorted facts about dating, taken things out of context to arrive at forced conclusion, and then then it into dogma.

People pick and chose what they here. For instance,bold and daring scientists tried to take C-14 dating to before 30,000 years ago using new techniques and had all sorts of trouble. The creationists then claimed that all dating techniques don’t work. Meanwhile, the scientist mostly gave up on pre-60,000 dates with C-14 but managed to extend into that range between 30,000 and 50,000 K with good samples. It is also the case that a “radiocarbon” year is not the same as a calendar year and there is a calibration one must do, and we fight over the calibration methods. But the method still works. It’s like car-jocks fighting over engine capacity vs. horsepower vs. torque as the best way to compare engines (sort of).

In another instance, it was discovered that there is a category of volcanic ash that you could not date with Potassium-Argon dating. There were lots of samples dated by in retrospect the samples were all wrong and it did not seem easy or possible to figure out when the system was working vs. not .

That confusion lasted for about two or three years, when a) it was determined that certain ashes could not be dated and other’s could, but those that could not be dated could be easily identified (and still used as markers); the, b) they figured out how to date the ‘difficult’ ashes anyway; and c) the new technique came with a nifty advantage: The lab results would tell you both the date and whether or not the date was any good.

In each of these cases, creationists picked a scientific argument, reported only parts of it, used the fact that there was an argument to totally discredit the entire field, and when confronted with the truth, punted. And by “punted” I mean “lied.”

(And that’s why people are so mad at the Creation museum … THAT’s the guy who did most of this … same person, same organization, same web sites, same funding sources, etc. etc.)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 02:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Radio carbon dating is a very haphazard way of estimating the age of fossils but they're likely hundreds of thousands of years old. Mankind has written history dating back to the creation of Adam 6,037 years ago because Jehovah provides our wayward history and it's consequences.
 Quoting: DGN


His reasoning is based on the personal philosophy of one man. That man is Ken Hamm. And here is the quote in question:

" First of all, Robertson makes a very common error of assuming that carbon dating is how scientists determine the age of the earth. He uses this as proof for an old earth, revealing his ignorance about dating methods. Carbon dating is not a method that can be used to date things that are supposedly millions of years old. Secular scientists do not derive their millionsof yearsfrom carbondating. The outer limit for carbon dating would be 80,000–90,000 years. Secular scientists interpret data from other radiometric dating methods to arriveatvast ages for the earth. However, these interpretations are based on a number of unverifiable assumptions. These assumptions and the inconsistencies of radiometric dates have been dealt with"

Ken, wrongly is assuming that the age of earth has been reached using
"Carbon dating". What ken does not understand, besides basic science, is how science is actually dating the earth. This statement alone, by one of the masterminds behind the creationism propaganda machine ls direct proof that what creationists believe, and are being forced to believe is based on is so unfounded, and based one one person's uneducated perception of how science using dating methods..

He's not only believing this himself, which is harmful, but he's presenting it to the rest of the creationist community as absolute fact. It's false however, along with every other statement he's made.

Making up false facts about science, and encouraging people to believe it, is by definition, deceitful, manipulating, and downright disgusting.
He's a terrible man, who should have been silenced a long time ago.
Or perhaps given a science lesson.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


DGN is a long time troll on this site. I know I will be kicked off the site soon because he is given preference by the people that run the site and I always get kicked out for several months every time he posts in a thread that I post in.

I'm not surprised to see him using Ken Ham as a source.

He's so mentally ill (delusional) that he has virtually no grasp on reality. Last time he and I interacted (before his delusions were given expressional preference over facts) he was trying to claim that the sky being blue was proof of god and would violently refute any attempt at logical ideas such as light refraction.

He's also the guy who constantly posts the "evolution doesn't explain 'X' so how do you explain that Chuck?" threads. Usually the premise is weak and ridiculous like "evolution doesn't explain why ducks have feathers" and shit like that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821


I've been banned many times as well. About several, and I've only been on this board for about a month. I threatened to report the site for banning without reason, and then the bans stopped... Wow weird...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 02:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Here's the summary of how creationists have distorted facts about dating, taken things out of context to arrive at forced conclusion, and then then it into dogma.

People pick and chose what they here. For instance,bold and daring scientists tried to take C-14 dating to before 30,000 years ago using new techniques and had all sorts of trouble. The creationists then claimed that all dating techniques don’t work. Meanwhile, the scientist mostly gave up on pre-60,000 dates with C-14 but managed to extend into that range between 30,000 and 50,000 K with good samples. It is also the case that a “radiocarbon” year is not the same as a calendar year and there is a calibration one must do, and we fight over the calibration methods. But the method still works. It’s like car-jocks fighting over engine capacity vs. horsepower vs. torque as the best way to compare engines (sort of).

In another instance, it was discovered that there is a category of volcanic ash that you could not date with Potassium-Argon dating. There were lots of samples dated by in retrospect the samples were all wrong and it did not seem easy or possible to figure out when the system was working vs. not .

That confusion lasted for about two or three years, when a) it was determined that certain ashes could not be dated and other’s could, but those that could not be dated could be easily identified (and still used as markers); the, b) they figured out how to date the ‘difficult’ ashes anyway; and c) the new technique came with a nifty advantage: The lab results would tell you both the date and whether or not the date was any good.

In each of these cases, creationists picked a scientific argument, reported only parts of it, used the fact that there was an argument to totally discredit the entire field, and when confronted with the truth, punted. And by “punted” I mean “lied.”

(And that’s why people are so mad at the Creation museum … THAT’s the guy who did most of this … same person, same organization, same web sites, same funding sources, etc. etc.)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


That's actually really common in christianity. They have had to layer on lie after lie over the years to prop up peoples continued belief in their made-up stories. They've been lying so long, that it has become an automatic reaction any time they are confronted with facts. Ken Ham doesn't even cogitate that he is making an active decision to lie every time he does...his broken psyche is the epitome of the fallacy of "the end justifies the means."
-
User ID: 1547099
United States
12/02/2012 02:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Here's the summary of how creationists have distorted facts about dating, taken things out of context to arrive at forced conclusion, and then then it into dogma.

People pick and chose what they here. For instance,bold and daring scientists tried to take C-14 dating to before 30,000 years ago using new techniques and had all sorts of trouble. The creationists then claimed that all dating techniques don’t work. Meanwhile, the scientist mostly gave up on pre-60,000 dates with C-14 but managed to extend into that range between 30,000 and 50,000 K with good samples. It is also the case that a “radiocarbon” year is not the same as a calendar year and there is a calibration one must do, and we fight over the calibration methods. But the method still works. It’s like car-jocks fighting over engine capacity vs. horsepower vs. torque as the best way to compare engines (sort of).

In another instance, it was discovered that there is a category of volcanic ash that you could not date with Potassium-Argon dating. There were lots of samples dated by in retrospect the samples were all wrong and it did not seem easy or possible to figure out when the system was working vs. not .

That confusion lasted for about two or three years, when a) it was determined that certain ashes could not be dated and other’s could, but those that could not be dated could be easily identified (and still used as markers); the, b) they figured out how to date the ‘difficult’ ashes anyway; and c) the new technique came with a nifty advantage: The lab results would tell you both the date and whether or not the date was any good.

In each of these cases, creationists picked a scientific argument, reported only parts of it, used the fact that there was an argument to totally discredit the entire field, and when confronted with the truth, punted. And by “punted” I mean “lied.”

(And that’s why people are so mad at the Creation museum … THAT’s the guy who did most of this … same person, same organization, same web sites, same funding sources, etc. etc.)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140



The ash is a result of the volcanoes that were going off at the time of the global flood when water jetted out of the mid-atlantic ridge causing the continental shelf sprint that pushed up the parallel mountain ranges. This is not my personal belief but is accepted by creation geologists the world over.

I'll try and find you some links that show this and more:

[link to www.detectingdesign.com]

[link to www.pseudepigrapha.com]

[link to www.tasc-creationscience.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

I believe this guy has a bit different view

[link to www.youtube.com]
-
User ID: 1547099
United States
12/02/2012 02:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
That's actually really common in christianity. They have had to layer on lie after lie over the years to prop up peoples continued belief in their made-up stories. They've been lying so long, that it has become an automatic reaction any time they are confronted with facts. Ken Ham doesn't even cogitate that he is making an active decision to lie every time he does...his broken psyche is the epitome of the fallacy of "the end justifies the means."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821




Such as, what 'lie'?


Actually its the marxist with the political agenda and no interest in the truth who censor 'science' at the Freemason's Royal Society. Darwins were even members.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28880109
United States
12/02/2012 02:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Time is a relative physical property.

Think about it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28880109
United States
12/02/2012 02:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
I find it amusing how constantly the God-haters say that the people who believe in God, in the God who commands them not to lie and that they are accountable to Him, are all lying liars...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Here's the summary of how creationists have distorted facts about dating, taken things out of context to arrive at forced conclusion, and then then it into dogma.

People pick and chose what they here. For instance,bold and daring scientists tried to take C-14 dating to before 30,000 years ago using new techniques and had all sorts of trouble. The creationists then claimed that all dating techniques don’t work. Meanwhile, the scientist mostly gave up on pre-60,000 dates with C-14 but managed to extend into that range between 30,000 and 50,000 K with good samples. It is also the case that a “radiocarbon” year is not the same as a calendar year and there is a calibration one must do, and we fight over the calibration methods. But the method still works. It’s like car-jocks fighting over engine capacity vs. horsepower vs. torque as the best way to compare engines (sort of).

In another instance, it was discovered that there is a category of volcanic ash that you could not date with Potassium-Argon dating. There were lots of samples dated by in retrospect the samples were all wrong and it did not seem easy or possible to figure out when the system was working vs. not .

That confusion lasted for about two or three years, when a) it was determined that certain ashes could not be dated and other’s could, but those that could not be dated could be easily identified (and still used as markers); the, b) they figured out how to date the ‘difficult’ ashes anyway; and c) the new technique came with a nifty advantage: The lab results would tell you both the date and whether or not the date was any good.

In each of these cases, creationists picked a scientific argument, reported only parts of it, used the fact that there was an argument to totally discredit the entire field, and when confronted with the truth, punted. And by “punted” I mean “lied.”

(And that’s why people are so mad at the Creation museum … THAT’s the guy who did most of this … same person, same organization, same web sites, same funding sources, etc. etc.)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140



The ash is a result of the volcanoes that were going off at the time of the global flood when water jetted out of the mid-atlantic ridge causing the continental shelf sprint that pushed up the parallel mountain ranges. This is not my personal belief but is accepted by creation geologists the world over.

I'll try and find you some links that show this and more:

[link to www.detectingdesign.com]

[link to www.pseudepigrapha.com]

[link to www.tasc-creationscience.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

I believe this guy has a bit different view

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: - 1547099


"when water jetted outof the mid-atlantic ridge at the time of the great flood?" Really? You're really going to say something THAT patently ridiculous without even THINKING about it BEFORE you say it? You think that's whre the water for the "great flood" (that never happened) came from? It just bubbled right on up because god turned on the bath faucet of the oceans a couple hundred years after he created us to punish us, is that what you're trying to say?

The first website in that list is one of the best examples of pseudoscience quackery I have seen in a long time. The author is a certain Dr. Sean D. Pitan, M.D. Sounds prestigious right? Dr.? M.D.? He is a medical doctor and I would trust his opinion on geology about as much as I would trust and astronomers theories on evolutionary biology. They are just not educationally and intellectually equipped to make an educated statement on that subject.

But Edward Bernays proved something to us all in the 1950's...You don't have to be a "real doctor" but people will believe you more if thy call you "Dr so-and-so." So this Dr. Pitman can seem like a legitimate scientist to a christian whose faith guided them to drop out of high school at age 16 because public secular education is demonic, or those poor completely uneducated folks who were given the unfortunate treatment of "home-schooling" which, when coming from an evangelical perspective equals "no-schooling."

News