MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[fishtank]

PDF file.

[ALS]

That already happened when you god-hating clowns made the entire agreement a free for all to call people trolls.

I see now that pattycakes has created an entirely NEW RULE.
Blanket name calling.

I do believe that is 180° from the existing restrictions on calling people trolls.

hence, this prophecy is true:

To: js1138

If not, I'm afraid the contract is toothless.

Not only toothless. It's counterproductive. All the "evildoers" will joyfully sign on and continue their merry ways, emboldened by a document that will be used to legitimize their behavior.


1,221 posted on 07/30/2003 9:43 AM CDT by Nebullis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/952079/posts?page=1221#1221

[Terriergal]

OOPS, you *must* be engaging in a straw man attack

Gasp! Who, me? Never!

[ALS]

Scenes left inexplicably on the cutting room floor..

[bondserv]

God put on the brakes.

Gen 6:3
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

[Terriergal]

There's little if anyhing any substance being discussed by them anyway.

Hmm... well I guess I call discussing false/unsupported theories as truth 'non substantial' as well.

[wgeorge2001]

"Perhaps it is not God who has fooled us, but we who have fooled ourselves."


The just shall live by faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

1. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2. By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4. And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5. And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Ro.5:1-9

Hello, sleepy hollow. All the scientific proof in the world would be insufficient for the unbeliever, unfortunately. But we must continue to preach the word of God, the elect are still out there, as faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
I do enjoy these articles, science proves the Lord God's Word as correct, of course, but also proves that only the faith of Jesus Christ is what God expects and accepts of mankind.

[Right Wing Professor]

All these 'missing link' discussions are moot if you cannot explain where the stuff came from by natural means.

Why? Are you suggesting we can't know anything unless we know its entire history? If I steal your wallet, will you be unable to prove it's theft unless you can tell me where each bill was minted?

Because we know mice don't come spontaneously from dirty blankets, that does not rule an abiogenetic origin of single celled organisms over a long time and very different conditions from the earth we live in today.

[Terriergal]

Are you asserting that pre-flood people typically lived 900+ years?

Bingo! Or at least a lot longer than they do today.

If there was a canopy of water over the earth (or ice) it would block much of those aging UV rays... and create a greenhouse atmosphere, where plants and animals and people would grow quite large.

In addition C-14 decay would be drastically different than it is today.

[Terriergal]

When they get three down, they'll have about 37 to go. Right now it's about 40 to zero for an old earth. I doubt that they intend to ever address, much less make any serious dent in, the real evidence for the age of the earth.

If that ain't anti creationist bias I don't know what is. THAT is what I was referring to.

Creationists are incapable of being scientific, don't you see?

ahem.

[ALS]

Your screed is less logical than this

[Terriergal]

Yep, now I believe. God created us and put fossils in the ground to make us think that the Earth was far older than it is.

Ever think we might be misinterpreting what we see? Or have we always been right on down through the ages? You know, the earth being flat and all?

[Terriergal]

Are you suggesting we can't know anything unless we know its entire history?

no, you are.

[Ichneumon]

[he's trying to seriously discuss the scientific matter at hand]

Have you been here long?

About five years.

Have you *ever* seen an evo 'discuss' a scientific matter seriously to its logical conclusion?

Yes indeed, very frequently. Although I have seen them often give up midstream when faced with frequent namecalling, catcalls, hoots from the peanut gallery, and denials of basic fact that make any sort of common ground difficult to find.

Hey by now we just cut to the chase. We know they always back out when it comes down to "where'd it all come from?"

Not true -- I've seen many "evos" cheerfully dive into discussions of the question "where'd it all come from?". If you think they "always back out" at that point, you're simply not paying attention, or are mistaking your preconceptions about them for reality.

Because the answer to that either A. doesn't matter or B. it turns a person's whole world upside down. Quite a choice. Easier to just ignore it.

I see no problem with "doesn't matter". You don't have to know where air came from to study meteorology. Weather is weather either way. And when physicists study the manner in which balls roll down hills, they rightly get exasperated at people who keep insisting on asking, "but how did the ball get up the hill to start with, huh, huh?"

That's not "ignoring" the question as if there's something they're trying to avoid, it's just that the question is not pertinent to the phenomenon currently at hand.

And your simplistic characterization totally fails to address the many "evos" who are Christian or Jewish and comfortably answer the "where'd it come from" question with "God did it", but still accept evolution also. You sort of "forgot" to even consider them when you incorrectly said that evos "always back out" from pondering first causes, eh?

Your mischaracterization of the participation of "evos" on these threads says a lot more about your own preconceptions than it does about theirs.

[Right Wing Professor]

If there was a canopy of water over the earth (or ice) it would block much of those aging UV rays.

So people who religiously apply sunscreen, or live exclusively indoors, can be expected to live 900 years?

and create a greenhouse atmosphere, where plants and animals and people would grow quite large.

I'm not sure what this means. So in the tropics, it's hot and very human, people would be expected to grow very large. Like the pygmies, say?

In addition C-14 decay would be drastically different than it is today.

Nothing we currently know of nuclear physics allows a significant change in the ¹⁴C decay rate (unless the ¹⁴C is in another frame, and the rate will be the same measured within that frame. )

[Right Wing Professor]

very human

very humid, dammit.

[ALS]

One day they're all gonna be traipsing off to the computer to partake of their Daily Dissing of the Diety and suddenly THIS happens.

IMHO

[Gamecock]

Also, the earth is flat and astronauts never went to the moon.

Actually, Scripture teaches it is round.... "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" (Isaiah 40:22).

The Hebrew language did not have a word for "sphere." Circle is quite sufficient.

[Right Wing Professor]

Are you suggesting we can't know anything unless we know its entire history?

no, you are.

Then I shall have to ask you to clarify your previous statement "All these 'missing link' discussions are moot if you cannot explain where the stuff came from by natural means.". I maintain the evolution of life as we know it from a few single celled organisms, for which we have abundant evidence, is a separate issue from the issue of where those single-celled organisms came from. I certainly think we should look for a natrualistic explanation for their origin, too, but I don't see why the issue of their origin impacts their later evolution.

[Terriergal]

that does not rule an abiogenetic origin of single celled organisms over a long time and very different conditions from the earth we live in today.

From such a learned man I am surprised you haven't read the evolutionist Michael Behe's book.

Very different conditions huh? Like a primordial sea with electrical charges zapping the surface every so often? Yeah I can see how that might create a protein strand or two.

Then again, wonder where that soup and electricity came from? How did love, consciousness, personality, intellect, imagination, creativity, morality, a thirst for the imaginary God, arise from essentially, a rock?

[RadioAstronomer]

If there was a canopy of water over the earth (or ice) it would block much of those aging UV rays

ROFL! I haven't heard that argument for a while.