Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 5, 2015 at 11:12 pm)Neber Wrote: Hi all to be honest i'm here to collect some evidence surrounding evidence against creation from the Evolutionist and the Atheist point of view.
Well, that's good: investigation is never bad. However, one quick tip: "Evolutionist," is not a word. It's not even a thing; it's a dishonest rhetorical tactic employed by creationists to try and equate acceptance of evolution with a religious position. I'd suggest rejecting the term outright; acceptance of gravity doesn't make you a Gravitationalist, after all.
Quote:Hopefully this doesn't put you off but i've recently listened to the creationist talk at church about evidence of Dinosaurs within last 6000 years, evidence of flood through tectonic plates leading to Mt Ararat(showing that land masses literally moved upwards from the surface) and also inaccuracy and uses of Carbon dating only to within the the last 25000-50000 years or so.
Well, that is off-putting, but only insofar as creationists always tend to, you know, lie, when they talk about this subject. Dishonesty is off-putting.
Quote:[*]Carbon dating has inaccuracies, where pyroclastic flows and volcanic activities have showed a volcano explosion dated at 23.7 million years whereas it only occured in the last 200 years.
Let me ask you this: where did the matter that makes up the pyroclastic flow come from? Did it pop into existence 200 years ago? Or did it exist before then, just in a different form that ended up within the volcano?
Now consider this: carbon dating measures the age of the materials, not the current state of the materials.
Quote:[*]Carbon dating relies on C-14 with calculations dependent on trees accurate to what i've found 14,000 years and possible use of coral reefs beyond that to determine carbon dates. My question is how can you carbon date to the millions or billions of years? What techniques does science use alongside carbon-dating, how can the substantiate the 50000+ years dates of historical evidence if it only can accurately go to 50,000. I've read that fossils rely on the rock and sediments around it, but does this use carbon-dating? What am i missing here?
What you're missing is that carbon dating is just one of a number of radiometric dating methods that are available to us. Other dating methods can reach back further, and through the use of all of them together, we can get a hold on a really rather impressive range of dates.
Quote:[*]For Evidence with dinosaurs, Alexander the great wrote in his diary of an experience with a huge animal with eyes as big as a shield.
There are no other large animals but dinosaurs?
Quote: An asian temple has a picture of a fleshed out brachisarausBrachiasaurus, how did they come up with this besides imagination, something so accurate as a carving on their temple,
That's not a dinosaur, more likely it's a pig or some other farm animal; note the exterior ears, which no dinosaur has. Also note that the pattern on its back- you're thinking of a Stegosaurus, not a Brachiosaur, by the way. The things along its back are reminiscent of the spines- is a recurring pattern throughout the carving, not a specific part of the figure itself. It's quite simply not a dinosaur carving, and even if it was, that's not evidence against evolution: why would it be?
Quote:Also they've found the existence of soft-tissue within dinosaurs this seems to prove in theory they're far more recent than we expected, what's the refutation for this?
Quote:[*]Lastly the evidence for the flood whilst seemingly more of a stretch was that in the bible it says: So according to this the earth needed to rise and from what i heard that evidence for this is that alot of the tectonic plates actually line up with Mt Ararat where Noah landed so if the earth were to rise it lines up with Noah landing at Mt Ararat. Also evidence at Mt Everest that water and a layer of dirt was found shows evidence of the flood which you may heard of. And the last of that evidence was talking about how the Grand Canyons and similar type structures exist because of water-formations, and a flood seems to explain that very well.
Considering that there are layers of the geologic column, consistent and continuous, that are seasonal or windblown in ways that would be impossible during a worldwide flood, it doesn't even matter if this is true: it is literally impossible that the flood happened, so presenting stuff that maybe lines up with the old story if you squint is simply irrelevant.
GodDAMN, Esq! 24 minutes?? That's ridiculous.
Godfuckingdamn.
On another note: I like the OP's approach. This one's not a chew toy; he's actually interested, guys!
(March 6, 2015 at 12:47 am)Neber Wrote: Animals with the eyes the size of a greek shield would lend itself to being a dinosaur, that was the recount of Alexander the great. Elephants are what the biggest, otherwise it'd need to be a large sea creature, but the instance of Alexander the great's was that his army was walking through a foreign nation and those people referred an animal with huge eyes and told them not to annoy it, but as Alexander's Army marched across the valley they heard a huge roar and were terrified, and some had sighted the great beast.
Hang on, "...eyes the size of a greek hoplon..." ??? WTF?
You're talking 3' diameter there, even with a Macedonian style Aspis you've got a 2' diameter.
No dinosaur had anything like that, indeed all vertebrates have eyes within a relatively narrow size range. A blue whale has an eye roughly the size of a grapefruit. Giant squid have the largest eyes in the animal kingdom at 10".
I call BS.
Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?
(March 5, 2015 at 11:12 pm)Neber Wrote: Hi all to be honest i'm here to collect some evidence surrounding evidence against creation from the Atheist and scientific point of view.
With all due respect, and you've earned very little, creation isn't a serious enough theory to warrant arguing against. I just throw it in the bin with all the other crazy-ass theories.
Creation isn't a serious theory because it begs the question, "and who or what created the creator". You can't define your way out of that one. So if anyone is seriously interested in origins, they just follow the evidence as far back as it leads. Beyond that, no one yet knows nor has any defensible theory. You're free to speculate all you want. But I don't feel any need to argue against your indefensible opinions.
Abrahamic creationists must understand that the closer they approach to the Intelligent Design idea (as in God may have created Universe 13.5 billion years ago and let it live by itself) the more they discredit their own Scriptures.
The radiometric dating is always hard for me to keep straight.
Here is a quote from a Wikipedia article. I don't understand it in detail, but maybe it helps:
Quote:If a material that selectively rejects the daughter nuclide is heated, any daughter nuclides that have been accumulated over time will be lost through diffusion, setting the isotopic "clock" to zero. The temperature at which this happens is known as the closure temperature or blocking temperature and is specific to a particular material and isotopic system. These temperatures are experimentally determined in the lab by artificially resetting sample minerals using a high-temperature furnace. As the mineral cools, the crystal structure begins to form and diffusion of isotopes is less easy. At a certain temperature, the crystal structure has formed sufficiently to prevent diffusion of isotopes. This temperature is what is known as closure temperature and represents the temperature below which the mineral is a closed system to isotopes. Thus an igneous or metamorphic rock or melt, which is slowly cooling, does not begin to exhibit measurable radioactive decay until it cools below the closure temperature. The age that can be calculated by radiometric dating is thus the time at which the rock or mineral cooled to closure temperature.
March 19, 2015 at 12:23 pm (This post was last modified: March 19, 2015 at 12:23 pm by Tonus.)
(March 8, 2015 at 2:44 am)snowtracks Wrote: Once a person understands that the Hebrew word ‘yom’ has multiple meanings for the English word ‘day‘,
Those appear to be the same meanings that we use in English. And therefore it is reasonable that the understanding of the term is context-dependent. Which part of the first creation account in Genesis indicates that the writer is referring to a day longer than 24 hours?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
