Posted on 09/25/2003 2:46:02 PM PDT by HalfFull
A question. Do you agree with this?
Typical...can't refute the evidence so just call them dishonest....how about proof of their misconduct, instead of unsubstantiated insults, Vade
From article: This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin.
It somewhat appears as though some people are telling us that God couldn't do it the way the evolutionists say.
Er,...I'm not about to tell the Boss how to do things, or how He must have gone about it.
If you are at peace with your belief that this intricately complicated universe came from the hand of an omnipotent diety you read about in a book, and whose existence you can't prove, then I feel perfectly comfortable with my belief that it came from, using your terminology, a 'space fart'.
"Using a simplified version of GEMLAB, Bunge, Baumgardner and their colleagues were able to show that it takes about 150 million years for plate material to travel from the surface to the mantle-core boundary."
If he's trying to 'prove' a young Earth in his off time?
Sounds like a schizo.
So.. What garbage can did God fall from?
My point is that once you start trying to "prove" things like creationism with science. Then you open up the question of trying to affirmatively prove God. Which is impossible.
The smart idea for faithful people is to recognize there is no conflict between Genesis and science.
There are two stories of creation in Gensis, and you can reconcile the two by reading between the lines. But once you establish that you CAN read between the lines, then you can reconcile evolution with Genesis too.
I agree, but unfortunately many of the regular posters who hold to evolutionary religion, resort to insults, which often gets these type threads pulled. They cannot stand an opposing viewpoint, it seems.
Would me believing it or not believing it make the point of the article (measurable C14 consistant throught the fossil record) change?
But, to answer your question...yes I believe it.
You're just making me drag you kicking and screaming through the obvious. So be it.
Carbon 14 shows the usual inverse exponential decay curve. Because of the contamination factors already mentioned, and you have done nothing to explain why such should not be considered, the decay curve does not extend to a zero floor. It has a "noisy" floor, just as your local radio spectrum has a floor of static around the spikes of radio station signal.
From article: ... Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin.
"Intrinsic to the samples" means "not introduced in excavation or subsequent handling," which is another way to get contamination. It means that the carbon is thoroughly imbedded in the sample. Ground water or atmospheric contamination will produce this result and is not eliminated thereby.
Do the ICR charlatans not know this? Of course they know this! They're hoping most of the dummies out here don't know this.
Does that help any?
The threshold of comprehension (( zero )) and gullibility (( 100 % )) are maximum --- opposites !
Evos are never out of theatrics - props - evo world !
Rats - blind in wall - less maze ... running the mill on implants !
And if God could make the earth to fool us into thinking it was millions of years old, then He also has the power to create evolution itself.
The fact that he didn't spell it out exactly so you can understand evolution in the few chapters in Genisis, doens't mean he didn't do it.
I agree...
God created the world in 6 days... the thing is, each one of his days are about 670,000,000 years long.
Well, this leads me to a further question. Why didn't Noah save the dinosaurs? I mean, my King James says "every creeping thing" and "of all flesh". So, why didn't Noah take more than a few reptiles when there were so many other magnificent creatures on offer (and when God told him to take all)?
You raise an interesting point.
Logically ... if God created evolution --- then God is the creator !
Your question is off-topic..but your question has been dealt with. Freepmail me, and I'll discuss it with you. thanks.
Oh please.
I just think that the creationism argument is one of the stupidest things religious people fall into. I think it does great harm to faithful people who are forced, for no good reason, to choose between the mountains of proof for evolution, and their faith based on no proof for God.
Faithful people are shooting themselves in the foot over this subject, and when some of try and help you out and show you that there is no REAL conflict between Genesis and evolution, you get all upity and call that "fear".
Thanks loads.
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.