Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
As predicted- people scream for facts and links- when provided- they throw their hands over their ears and say 'nuh uh'
Want to know why dating methods aren't reliable? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059
Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-
ah the classic bow out- and you're right- God did state that we're not to argue facts when confronted with lies- Being spiteful? I'm sorry- you're right- calling those sites that present scientific facts as 'gospel tracts' isn't being spiteful- Don't dish it out of you don't like the return serve.
The scary thing is they'd have argued just as hard for the geocentric universe if they'd been born a few centuries earlier.
Here's how your sources distort:
" When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent."
They have deleted the number "70 million years" and replaced it with "recent"!
If your sources believe recent is 70 million years ago, then you lose the YEC argument.
BTW, your "Cook" was a creationist.
Your link leads to a page of additional links. Rather than try to wade through them all I looked at the first link (which I have examined before).
The article deals with radiometric dating, and the section on radiocarbon dating (which is what we have been discussing) concludes with:
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.Want ot ignore it because it's on a Christian website despite hte fact that SCIENCE proves the facts listed? Fine-
Anyone who attempts to calibrate a scientific method by reference to a mythical flood is not doing science. They are doing apologetics (defense of religion).
Is there any better science on any of the other links? So far, your links are just a waste of our time.
--The scary thing is they'd have argued just as hard for the geocentric universe if they'd been born a few centuries earlier.--
Not that bad. They lost.
--Is there any better science on any of the other links?--
No. See my 264.
Typical creationist, ask him to back up a silly claim and you get nothing but dodging.
---SCIENCE proves the facts listed?---
One of their scientists they use to support their position.
Dr Andrew Snelling ... now works full-time with the Creation Science Foundation
For some reason I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail where they use "logic" to determine if someone is a witch.
BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,...she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore?
VILLAGER #2: A witch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBXuFxMYd0
Aw crap. A perfectly good thread turned over to the EVO vs. Creationist people. Thats enought for me....
and this disproves that he presented scientific facts how now?
No sir that wasn't the only point being made on that site- and attempting to disprove every point made based on ONE point being discussed is disingenuous and amounts to dismmissing everything simply because somehwere in the article the name God or flood or some similiar point is mentioned- there ar lots of FACTS in those articles that do NOT rely on the mention of that one point about hte flood- and you're attemptiong to misrepresent the whole by picking and choosing something you perceive as innacurate- The site also goes on the explain WHY adjustments could JUST AS validly be used to account for the anomilies that throw off the radio carbon dating-
the trueorigin site also goes into great detail the facts showing why different dating methods are wrong and can't be trusted and why those asserting old age MUST make assumptons based on error in order to come up with hteir findings-
Sure they'rew a waste of your time because you autom atically dismiss somethign hwen they make a point like a flood could very well have accouinted for for what they are findijng- incase you missed it- the article ALSO said the flood model has to be very carefully applied-
Take a look at that trueorigin site- but the creationontheweb site also has plenty of scientific fact for you to noodle over if you can get around the fact that they might mention God now and again
and these are by no means the only sites- there are sites that are quite technical and featured in peer reviewed scientific journals- but alas, they too might mention God & so the 'cast out anyone who does so' crowd will automatically discount any of the evidences
UpallNight- Sure- yep- every other point in that article is automatically thrown out- Facts swept under the rug- you're right- argument lost-
Many things that are called science are not science.
Science does not require faith because it is based on facts and theory.
This is true of real science. So there must be a "scientific" field of origins. This is where we step deep into faith. We can never verify the past but we must believe a stack of things about the past to accept any belief about our origin.
When people accept these assumptions about an unprovable past, no matter which ones they accept, the result is to form religion. We may think we see light coming from a source that is 10 billion light years away, and we may believe that the only way for that light to have gotten here is for it to have traveled the whole distance at a fixed speed, but we can never know that to be true.
"and this disproves that he presented scientific facts how now?"
Not by itself, but I have shown other 'distortions' (lies) and you have not addressed those. This is just an example that your 'scientific sources' are paid to generate pre-determined' facts.
look- stop with the petty little accusations- IF you have an argument for or against what is being discussed- then present it- otherwise all you're doing is getting your little anti-Christian jabs in- feel good does it? Yeah? well it's still petty and childish- stay on topic- do some research- counter what I am stating with facts if you can rather than indulging in the irresistable temptation of bakcbiting and bickering- you can do it- I have faith
--UpallNight- Sure- yep- every other point in that article is automatically thrown out- Facts swept under the rug- you're right- argument lost--
It would take forever to address each 'fact' on your link. I did, however, show how they deliberately lied to make results that showed something was 70 million years old to match the YEC hypothesis. Address that lie and we will go on to another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.