How can Christians not admit Christianity is all a pile of garbage when ...?

[chi pan]

Assuming what you say about carbon-14 is correct (which believe me it isn't), how can you cite one example as proof of your claims while ignoring the dozens of other examples which show you to be the ignorant fool you really are?

It has been long established that the Earth is billions of years old and the universe even older, the fact you actually believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and the young earth theory just shows what an ignorant, uneducated and closed minded individual you are. I have the utmost pity for you.

What exactly is wrong with what I've said about carbon 14? And I'm not ignoring dozens of examples that prove an old earth. It has been well established off of what? Radio dating based off of a geologic column that is false? Or the fact that an old earth is required to allow the process of evolution? Give me facts to support your theory or I won't give you credit.

[MrSkeptic]

Radiometric dating is universally accepted amongst the scientific community as perfectly valid data which shows the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has also been used on meteorites and samples bought back from the moon landings, all of which concur with the 'old earth' theory. And I'm not just talking about carbon-14, there are many radioactive elements which can be use to reliably date matter, ALL of which are in agreement with each other (which is more than you can say about your hypocritical story book). How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations, it is dismissed without a thought.

And by the way, it isn't MY theory. It is the accepted theory amongst the scientific community. You state "It is estimated by most scientists that it would take about 50,000 years to reach equilibrium to the point where the amount of carbon 14 produced and the amount decaying are equal and the amount of existing carbon 14 remains constant", I would love to know where you got this information from...one of your creationist web-sites?

And please (for the love of god! - see what I did there :p) explain to me how "The theory of gravity does not support an old earth therefore the statement you made is false" supports your young-earth assertion?? I'm quite amused at that statement alone!

Regarding the Old-Earth theory as a way to prove the theory of evolution which requires the huge time scales, you're just clutching at straws here I'm afraid. Allow me to educate you a little . For decades after the great Charles Darwin first proposed his magnificent and eloquent theory there was much debate, and one of the biggest objections against his theory was the very long timescales involved which just couldn't be conceived of. At the time it was thought the sun was just a giant sphere of coal (or similar combustible material), slowing burning away, and it was thought only a few tens of thousands of years old so was impossible to allow the time necessary for evolution. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century with the advances made by the likes of Henri Becquerel and Ernest Rutherford in the field of radioactivity that it was discovered the sun wasn't a sphere of coal at all but a huge nuclear reactor! This allowed for a much longer timescale of the suns life which in turn vindicated Darwins theory (in regard to the timescale issue)

I'm doing something I keep telling myself not to, and that is try and reason with a religious fundamentalist. And yes you are a fundamentalist, anyone who actually believes the literal truth of the bible (in particular the old testement) is nothing short of a complete crackpot! Even your church leaders acknowledge a lot of the bible is just creative writing to impart some kind of moral or lesson to be learned!

[chi pan]

Radiometric dating is universally accepted amongst the scientific community as perfectly valid data which shows the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has also been used on meteorites and samples bought back from the moon landings, all of which concur with the 'old earth' theory. And I'm not just talking about carbon-14, there are many radioactive elements which can be use to reliably date matter, ALL of which are in agreement with each other (which is more than you can say about your hypocritical story book). How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations, it is dismissed without a thought.

And by the way, it isn't MY theory. It is the accepted theory amongst the scientific community. You state "It is estimated by most scientists that it would take about 50,000 years to reach equilibrium to the point where the amount of carbon 14 produced and the amount decaying are equal and the amount of existing carbon 14 remains constant", I would love to know where you got this information from...one of your creationist web-sites?

And please (for the love of god!) explain to me how "The theory of gravity does not support an old earth therefore the statement you made is false" supports your young-earth assertion?? I'm quite amused at that statement alone!

Regarding the Old-Earth theory as a way to prove the theory of evolution which requires the huge time scales, you're just clutching at straws here I'm afraid. Allow me to educate you a little . For decades after the great Charles Darwin first proposed his magnificent and eloquent theory there was much debate, and one of the biggest objections against his theory was the very long timescales involved which just couldn't be conceived of. At the time it was thought the sun was just a giant sphere of coal, slowing burning away, and it was thought only a few tens of thousands of years old so was impossible to allow the time necessary for evolution. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century with the advances made by the likes of Henri Becquerel and Ernest Rutherford in the field of radioactivity that it was discovered the sun wasn't a sphere of coal at all but a h

---

Radiometric dating is universally accepted amongst the scientific community as perfectly valid data which shows the Earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has also been used on meteorites and samples bought back from the moon landings, all of which concur with the 'old earth' theory. And I'm not just talking about carbon-14, there are many radioactive elements which can be use to reliably date matter, ALL of which are in agreement with each other (which is more than you can say about your hypocritical story book). How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations, it is dismissed without a thought.

And by the way, it isn't MY theory. It is the accepted theory amongst the scientific community. You state "It is estimated by most scientists that it would take about 50,000 years to reach equilibrium to the point where the amount of carbon 14 produced and the amount decaying are equal and the amount of existing carbon 14 remains constant", I would love to know where you got this information from...one of your creationist web-sites?

And please (for the love of god!) explain to me how "The theory of gravity does not support an old earth therefore the statement you made is false" supports your young-earth assertion?? I'm quite amused at that statement alone!

Regarding the Old-Earth theory as a way to prove the theory of evolution which requires the huge time scales, you're just clutching at straws here I'm afraid. Allow me to educate you a little . For decades after the great Charles Darwin first proposed his magnificent and eloquent theory there was much debate, and one of the biggest objections against his theory was the very long timescales involved which just couldn't be conceived of. At the time it was thought the sun was just a giant sphere of coal, slowing burning away, and it was thought only a few tens of thousands of years old so was impossible to allow the time necessary for evolution. It wasn't until the turn of the 20th century with the advances made by the likes of Henri Becquerel and Ernest Rutherford in the field of radioactivity that it was discovered the sun wasn't a sphere of coal at all but a huge nuclear reactor! This allowed for a much longer timescale of the suns life which in turn vindicated Darwins theory (in regard to the timescale issue)

I'm doing something I keep telling myself not to, and that is try and reason with a religious fundamentalist. And yes you are a fundamentalist, anyone who actually believes the literal truth of the bible (in particular the old testement) is nothing short of a complete crackpot! Even your church leaders acknowledge a lot of the bible is just creative writing to impart some kind of moral or lesson to be learned!

Radio dating is all based on the geologic column that doesn't exist in one piece anywhere except in a textbook. This creates an assumption that they should use the dating methods that best fit the geologic column. They have never carbon dated a dinosaur. Why? Because they already assume it's millions of years old and carbon dating can only date up to 50,000 years theoretically. Also, they often repeat the dating until they get what they call an "accurate answer." its not consistant at all and as I learned in science "something can be consistant without being accurate, but nothing can be accurate without being consistant."

And Darwin's eloquent theory? Darwin was wrong about most all his theories according to all evolutionary scientists except for natural selection and the general sense of evolution. Any scientist will tell you that and say "but we've made so much progress since then with the discovery of DNA...." I don't see much evidence for the theory as far as the change of an animal to a completely different kind of animal. You can present your case though.

[MrSkeptic]

So what about Uranium-lead dating? Which can have a much larger date range (with extremely high accuracy).

quote "Darwin was wrong about most all his theories according to all evolutionary scientists except for natural selection and the general sense of evolution" so by this statement you are ackowledging Darwin was correct about evolution? "he was wrong about a lot of things EXCEPT natural selection"? DNA was the final 'conclusive' proof that evolution is fact, many scientists had already accepted the validity of evolution. How do you explain that we share so much of our DNA with other animals and plants? DNA analysis can trace back many common ancestors between species and every organism on the planet share common genes. Humans believe it or not are actually 60% banana! yes we share 60% of our genes with the banana plant...isn't nature amazing?

Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, trying to argue science with a religious fundamentalist is absolutely pointless. No matter what I say you will not change your train of thought so I think its best I stop trying

[chi pan]

So what about Uranium-lead dating? Which can have a much larger date range (with extremely high accuracy).

quote "Darwin was wrong about most all his theories according to all evolutionary scientists except for natural selection and the general sense of evolution" so by this statement you are ackowledging Darwin was correct about evolution? "he was wrong about a lot of things EXCEPT natural selection"? DNA was the final 'conclusive' proof that evolution is fact, many scientists had already accepted the validity of evolution. How do you explain that we share so much of our DNA with other animals and plants? DNA analysis can trace back many common ancestors between species and every organism on the planet share common genes. Humans believe it or not are actually 60% banana! yes we share 60% of our genes with the banana plant...isn't nature amazing?

Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, trying to argue science with a religious fundamentalist is absolutely pointless. No matter what I say you will not change your train of thought so I think its best I stop trying

Uranium dating is highly accurate? I think you must understand something quick. The bigger the scale, the less accurate it is. The smaller the scale, the more accurate it is. And what's wrong with it? It gives dates of millions of years to rocks that are 10 years old. Scientists say that it can't be used on rocks that are less than 6000 years old to explain these results but what if there is no rock older than that? The whole theory is out the window.

DNA does not prove evolution. What is the fact? It is the genetic code or blueprint to the animal. It does not prove evolution.

And I know plenty of science. It would be informative to see your facts but I can't force you. However, next thing you say about evolution without evidence will be ignored by me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Radio dating is all based on the geologic column that doesn't exist in one piece anywhere except in a textbook. This creates an assumption that they should use the dating methods that best fit the geologic column. They have never carbon dated a dinosaur. Why? Because they already assume it's millions of years old and carbon dating can only date up to 50,000 years theoretically. Also, they often repeat the dating until they get what they call an "accurate answer." its not consistant at all and as I learned in science "something can be consistant without being accurate, but nothing can be accurate without being consistant."

And Darwin's eloquent theory? Darwin was wrong about most all his theories according to all evolutionary scientists except for natural selection and the general sense of evolution. Any scientist will tell you that and say "but we've made so much progress since then with the discovery of DNA...." I don't see much evidence for the theory as far as the change of an animal to a completely different kind of animal. You can present your case though.

So, let's assess the situation. You're convinced that dating methods are too inaccurate to be relied upon, despite the success they have shown and the widespread use of such methods across a variety of fields. You would have us rely, instead, on a dusty old collection of fairy tales? Sorry Chip, no dice. Some of us have higher standards. You're unable to make your own case even if a person completely capitulates to your ignorance. All you have is a list of complaints. No explanations, no evidence, no credibility.

[chi pan]

Radio dating is all based on the geologic column that doesn't exist in one piece anywhere except in a textbook. This creates an assumption that they should use the dating methods that best fit the geologic column. They have never carbon dated a dinosaur. Why? Because they already assume it's millions of years old and carbon dating can only date up to 50,000 years theoretically. Also, they often repeat the dating until they get what they call an "accurate answer." its not consistant at all and as I learned in science "something can be consistant without being accurate, but nothing can be accurate without being consistant."

And Darwin's eloquent theory? Darwin was wrong about most all his theories according to all evolutionary scientists except for natural selection and the general sense of evolution. Any scientist will tell you that and say "but we've made so much progress since then with the discovery of DNA...." I don't see much evidence for the theory as far as the change of an animal to a completely different kind of animal. You can present your case though.

So, let's assess the situation. You're convinced that dating methods are too inaccurate to be relied upon, despite the success they have shown and the widespread use of such methods across a variety of fields. You would have us rely, instead, on a dusty old collection of fairy tales? Sorry Chip, no dice. Some of us have higher standards. You're unable to make your own case even if a person completely capitulates to your ignorance. All you have is a list of complaints. No explanations, no evidence, no credibility.

What exactly do you consider success? Dating a 10 year old rock to be millions of years old? I don't know how you can say its successful. Examples please?

[MrSkeptic]

Fingers in ears. La la la la.

You believe in Noah and his Ark. You believe all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. That in itself tells us exactly how ignorant you are. As I said, even your church leaders have acknowledged that is a fairy story! I just cannot take anyone, who thinks the bible is the literal truth, serious in any capacity.

[chi pan]

Fingers in ears. La la la la.

You believe in Noah and his Ark. You believe all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. That in itself tells us exactly how ignorant you are. As I said, even your church leaders have acknowledged that is a fairy story! I just cannot take anyone, who thinks the bible is the literal truth, serious in any capacity.

Good evidence really convinced me. All I asked was for evidence and if you're incapable of giving some then I will ignore you. I don't care about your empty theories I care about anything that can back them up.

[MrSkeptic]

But they are not empty theories! They have been proven time and time again!

You on the other hand spout the most bizarre assertions which your own church leaders accept are false. How on earth, for example, does gravity disprove that the Earth is billions of years old?

Nothing I or others say will make any difference to your opinion will it?