• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Brewtus;735445; said:
Isn't this what we would expect to find if sea levels have been fluctuating and crustal plates have been shifting horizontally and vertically for millions of years? The sea creatures were in a shallow pond or sea at one time, then died and were covered, the seas drained or lands shifted upward due to plate tectonics, fossils were created, weather eroded the rock and then man found the fossils.
Click to expand...
fluctuating seas do not account for the massive amounts of sediment that cover every sqaure inch of land on earth. fluctuating seas do not explain fossilized sea life at the top of the Himalayas.

Okay, that was easy. :wink2:
Click to expand...
Glen Kuban is the same 'scientist' who was observed taking a hammer and chisel to the human footprints in the Poluxy river bed in Glen Rose, Texas. :wink:

No, you leaned that from a Creationist website or publication. That is not how fossils are dated.
Click to expand...
it is an established FACT that carbon 14 dating is only reliable for 5,000 years. maybe you could stretch that out to 50, but never into the millions.

:smash: For the millionth time, Darwinism is not a religion.
Click to expand...
just like i believe in a God which i can neither observe nor explain, so you believe in a process which you can neither observe nor explain.

BTW, READ THIS.


Once again, please don't post pictures without providing some kind of taxonomic description. I'm not a paleontologist and can't determine the exact species from a photo.
Click to expand...
they look strikingly similar. no?

Because there is no evidence for it. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...
i'd say that massive amounts of sediment and fossil layers that cover the entire globe as plenty of evidence for it.
 
Upvote 0
Bleed S & G;736397; said:
The OT is not a history book. Wheter or not God parted the red sea (just one tiny example) is not important to me and dosen't interfer with my belifs.
Click to expand...
Red Sea Crossing

However, Christ actually walked this earth. A man named Jesus Christ walked this planet, historically, and did worked many wonders. He was hung on the cross. The rest is faith, but historically that much is true. Did he rise? Was he the Son of God? Why is He still remembered today, 2,000 years later, if he were just another man?
Click to expand...
if you're going to believe part of it, why not believe the whole thing?
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;736835; said:
Carbon 14 myth
Click to expand...

Sorry LV, I'm simply not accepting the word of yet another Creationist hack. Do-While Jones (Call him R. David Pogge, if you prefer)? Are you serious? It's seriously not worth arguing with you.

Go ahead and think whatever you want about the world. I don't care. But keep the fuck away from my kids with that shit. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
Oh my god... are you friggin kidding me? This what you mean?
Uranium-238 ~half life=4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 ~half life=704 million years

The half life of U-238 is ALWAYS about 4.5 Million years. the Half life of U-235 is ALWAYS about 704 Million years. Different isotopes have different half lives. Shocking. Try again
Click to expand...
Trying to find that exact link, but unable to now.But there is other evidence of fluctuating decays:
Billion-fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Demonstrated in Laboratory
Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/geologictime.asp
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
sandgk;736932; said:
The funny thing is that BKB's original link provides perfectly adequate responses to these statements.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that even if we accept the hackery as "true" we're still not left with the conclusion that the Bible is "correct." Interesting how creationists simply gloss over that... So as to not understate my point here...

Even if the holes poked in any particular theory are valid - that is, should someone "show" that assumption A (here scientists who would trust dating) cannot be true, the conclusion is not that assumption B (Here, creationism) must therefore be true.

It's interesting to me that Creationists never set out to prove anything regarding their theory, but instead assume they're correct because they think they've poked holes in the prevailing - and scientifically accepted - view. I said before that the fact that a majority believe something doesn't make it true, and I maintain that even now. Afterall, it used to be "known" by everyone that the earth was flat. Perhaps science is wrong about the date of the Earth... perhaps.... Regardless, the conclusion is still not "Creationists are therefore right" The benefit of science is that it can accomodate errors by refining the answer. Creationists are stuck with a book that doesn't change, and have to manipulate reality to conform with that which they for whatever reason feel needs to be "proven" so their silly, desperately weak, little God doesn't disappear.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;736952; said:
I will respectfully disagree BKB's guy says these things without providing empirical evidence. These guys are. I'll take the hack with the empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
Are you medicated?

I mean, I shouldn't say that because it's really below this conversation, but at this point I'm simply at a loss to explain how or why you people exist.

Take Do-While, for example.... and "Half Life"
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Definition: The time required to convert one half of a reactant to product. The term is commonly applied to radioactive decay, where the reactant is the parent isotope and the product is a daughter isotope.

[/FONT]Do-little concludes that after 50,000 years there's no more C14 left to be used for dating.... Seems to me, he doesn't understand simple mathematics. Work with me here.

Pretend you have a thing that every hour half of it disappears. You start with 1 of it.
After hour you have .5 of it (1/2)
After 2, you have .25 (.5/2)
After 3, you have .125 (.25/2)
After 4, you have .0625 (.125/2)

And so on..... but, no matter how many times you slice it, you STILL have some amount of it remaining.

Now, in reality, there is some point where the trace amount cannot be perceived. Dudley DoWhile makes no offer of proof as to when that is... and you call his nonsense "empirical evidence?"

So, I ask once again.... are you medicated?

EDIT: I fully anticipate dings for my "cheap shot" but in my mind the dings are worth it to have been able to get that off my chest. THat said, I hope Tbuckeyescott and LV can appreciate that I am not mad at them, or that I have some sort of ill feelings for them. I just so strongly disagree with their position, and hold it in such contempt (hey, just being honest) that I no longer see the benefit in even entertaining the lunacy. Like I said above, believe what you want to.... just stay the hell away from my kids.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
For anyone interested, Here is Pogge's credentials While apparently pretty good with Analog and Digital signal processing, his scientific credentials on the issue at had leave much to be desired (Notably by being wholly non-existant) But, don't let that unfortunate problem stop you from buying his particular breed of analysis. After all, when it comes to empirical evidence - that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses, Dave has .... well... none, actually. But he does make use of some nice charts and graphs, so that's close enough, I guess.

One might be curious how he can say in one sentence, "By 50,000 years, it will be almost completely gone" and then conclude that "almost completely translates to: "decaying to 0% after 50,000" I guess my concept of Zero and "almost completely gone" is mistaken, afterall, I don't have any empirical evidence to support my contention that ZERO means the complete absence of a thing and "almost completely gone" fails to meet that defintion. In any case, don't let this bother you. Poggle knows what he's doing.

Afterall, he states, "knowledgeable evolutionists never claim that carbon 14 is used to prove that dinosaurs lived 50 million years ago" and, that being so, any discussion about the problems with C14 dating is irrele...... oh... wait.. he doesn't stop talking about it. So, empirically, I guess, we can see that even knowledgeable evolutionists would never claim C14 proves dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and so it makes sense, then to continue bothering with c-14 debunking, because no one in their right mind would even use such a tool (probably using Uranium Dating instead since it's up to the task, and all). But, never mind that..... we should focus on the problems of C-14 dating, which no one uses to prove the point about the Dinosaurs (by Poggle's own admission).

What a fuckin joke.

(And Goddamnit, why can't I resist talking about this quack!)
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;736968; said:
Are you medicated?

I mean, I shouldn't say that because it's really below this conversation, but at this point I'm simply at a loss to explain how or why you people exist.

Take Do-While, for example.... and "Half Life"
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Definition: The time required to convert one half of a reactant to product. The term is commonly applied to radioactive decay, where the reactant is the parent isotope and the product is a daughter isotope.[/FONT]

Do-little concludes that after 50,000 years there's no more C14 left to be used for dating.... Seems to me, he doesn't understand simple mathematics. Work with me here.

Pretend you have a thing that every hour half of it disappears. You start with 1 of it.
After hour you have .5 of it (1/2)
After 2, you have .25 (.5/2)
After 3, you have .125 (.25/2)
After 4, you have .0625 (.125/2)

And so on..... but, no matter how many times you slice it, you STILL have some amount of it remaining.

Now, in reality, there is some point where the trace amount cannot be perceived. Dudley DoWhile makes no offer of proof as to when that is... and you call his nonsense "empirical evidence?"

So, I ask once again.... are you medicated?

EDIT: I fully anticipate dings for my "cheap shot" but in my mind the dings are worth it to have been able to get that off my chest. THat said, I hope Tbuckeyescott and LV can appreciate that I am not mad at them, or that I have some sort of ill feelings for them. I just so strongly disagree with their position, and hold it in such contempt (hey, just being honest) that I no longer see the benefit in even entertaining the lunacy. Like I said above, believe what you want to.... just stay the hell away from my kids.
Click to expand...
Once again you twist what I said, but then maybe I wasn't clear enough. The articles I last gave explained in detail(with empirical data) how and why half lives changed. Sandgk said that the article you first posted had already dealt with that, but I said I disagreed because all your guy managed to do was say they don't without giving data as to that.

BKB, as a side note the posting behavior of many parties on this board does not allow me to take anything personally. I hope that my recent behavior towards you has come across as nothing less than civil and friendly. I'm sorry if I failed. If anything I should be offended that you apparently don't believe I have a highschool education( the part about explaining half life) but then maybe that's what you were saying was cheapshot not the medicated part. Either way I have seen way worse things on this board.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top