Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

I shouldnt bring this up..because the point of this post is that I *cant* back it up.

I saw an article a few years back that listed the way the various forms of dating dovetailed with each other. it was a brilliant explanation of how everything from ice cores to tree rings to molecular clocks and dozens more dating systems all agree.

I wish I had saved the article.

I think that there are several articles like that.

Here's the peer-review by real scientists. Evolution debunked. Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize. The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination. Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.

Assessing the RATE Project
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf

End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING

1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
than 500 million years worth of radioactive
decay.
2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
studies indicate a young earth.
3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
been accelerated by approximately a factor
of one billion during the first three days of
creation and during the Flood.

LOL

It wasn't just dirt (carbon). .

Even your memes are wrong, but it points out a teaching moment.

Creation science uses observational science where it's rarely used in evolution science. Evos give us the conclusion and find facts to support it.

What creationists do is use the Bible as "hypothesis," big difference from "conclusion." We use observational science and are amazed at how God has created the earth and universe. We even accept the discoveries of atheist scientists as science. Just not evolution's historical science of drawing conclusions and making the facts fit it..

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Reliability of radiometric dating
So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].

Reliability of Geologic Dating

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.​

Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution. You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood. Thus, why not a global flood?

I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?

And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable (Again)

 

[Syriusly]

I shouldnt bring this up..because the point of this post is that I *cant* back it up.

I saw an article a few years back that listed the way the various forms of dating dovetailed with each other. it was a brilliant explanation of how everything from ice cores to tree rings to molecular clocks and dozens more dating systems all agree.

I wish I had saved the article.

I think that there are several articles like that.

Here's the peer-review by real scientists. Evolution debunked. Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize. The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination. Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.

Assessing the RATE Project
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf

End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING

1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
than 500 million years worth of radioactive
decay.
2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
studies indicate a young earth.
3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
been accelerated by approximately a factor
of one billion during the first three days of
creation and during the Flood.

LOL

It wasn't just dirt (carbon). .

Even your memes are wrong, but it points out a teaching moment.

Creation science uses observational science where it's rarely used in evolution science. Evos give us the conclusion and find facts to support it.

What creationists do is use the Bible as "hypothesis," big difference from "conclusion." We use observational science and are amazed at how God has created the earth and universe. We even accept the discoveries of atheist scientists as science. Just not evolution's historical science of drawing conclusions and making the facts fit it..

 

[boedicca]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, there is no peer reviews science. It's scientific papers that are peer reviewed or scientific peer reviews of new discoveries

Which is peer reviews science

Oh look, 1000 pages of verbal.masrurbation...and you're still on the worng side of history and of all the evidence. How frustrating it must be for you!

smh. You are a hopeless case Mr. BOY as you do not even understand basic English. No sense staying here I have moved on.

You're a moron. When papers are peer reviewer, it is the methods and conclusions...i.e., the science...that are reviewed. Your queer attempt to asay otherwise is truly embarrassing.

Let's check the scoreboard again:

Golbak scientific consensus and all the evidence supports evolution. The deniers and their magical bullshit are still relegated to being laughingstocks on blogs and message boards.

Well, despite your efforts, there appears to be no change in the score.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?

What the fuck...are you people retarded?

 

[boedicca]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?

What the fuck...are you people retarded?

I said nothing about my beliefs bub.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?

What the fuck...are you people retarded?

I said nothing about my beliefs bub.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[boedicca]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?

What the fuck...are you people retarded?

I said nothing about my beliefs bub.

Is that a yes or a no?

I decline to answer. Your original question was rude, so you forfeited a genuine response.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?

What the fuck...are you people retarded?

I said nothing about my beliefs bub.

Is that a yes or a no?

I decline to answer. Your original question was rude, so you forfeited a genuine response.

Okay then seeya later!

 

[Syriusly]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

What, you don't believe in evolutionary theory?

What the fuck...are you people retarded?

I said nothing about my beliefs bub.

Is that a yes or a no?

he/she/it is just trolling.

 

[james bond]

Reliability of radiometric dating
So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].

Reliability of Geologic Dating

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.​

Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution. You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood. Thus, why not a global flood?

I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?

And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.

Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making. What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work. Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics. The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned. The proof is in the pudding.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another. This can be shown experimentally.

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.

Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start. The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.

Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science? If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.

 

[james bond]

Research Shows Radiometric Dating Still Reliable (Again)

Ha ha. I'm one or more steps ahead of you. I already read the papers on the anomalies of constant decay rates and did not use that argument. However, I did use the hourglass analogy which you had no logical or scientific counter-arg.

I didn't mention this before, but there is circular reasoning going on when trying to validate the radiometric dates. They refer to the layers and the acceptable date ranges in a standards chart. These layers are dated because of the items in the date range already found in the layer. When someone brings in a new item and after it is dated via radiometric dating, then they go to the same chart with past items and date layers. If the item doesn't fit, then it is discarded as wrong. if it does fit, then it is accepted and added to the layer. When they first started doing this when there was no radiometric dating, they would do the same thing. The verifiers would estimate the age of the item to the layer and what was found and compare it to estimated age by the finder. The finder went to the same chart to see where they could estimate the dates and did chemical tests to see where it would fall.

If you're interested in pre-radiometric dating methods, then you can find it here. Too many to list here.
Dating Techniques facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Dating Techniques

 

[james bond]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

Just ignore Fort Fun Indiana. He could be an example of an ape-spawn with its low brow forehead, monkey nose, lips and small cranium. Many times, I've asked myself if a human like him walked on fours, would they put him in a zoo or sanitarium?

 

[RWS]

You believe that we got "poofed" into existence...

By the will of "God".

'nuff said

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Reliability of radiometric dating
So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].

Reliability of Geologic Dating

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.​

Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution. You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood. Thus, why not a global flood?

I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?

And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.

Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making. What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work. Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics. The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned. The proof is in the pudding.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another. This can be shown experimentally.

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.

Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start. The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.

Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science? If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.

You are delusional and totally confused and post nonsense.

See ya later, Ace.

 

[boedicca]

Some people believe they came from monkey. So in this era of Self-Identification, be all means, let them self-identify as Ape-Spawn.

Just ignore Fort Fun Indiana. He could be an example of an ape-spawn with its low brow forehead, monkey nose, lips and small cranium. Many times, I've asked myself if a human like him walked on fours, would they put him in a zoo or sanitarium?

That's quite an insult to simians, bub. They aren't to blame for FFI.

 

[LittleNipper]

Reliability of radiometric dating
So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].

Reliability of Geologic Dating

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.​

Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution. You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood. Thus, why not a global flood?

I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?

And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.

Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making. What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work. Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics. The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned. The proof is in the pudding.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another. This can be shown experimentally.

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.

Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start. The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.

Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science? If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.

You are delusional and totally confused and post nonsense.

See ya later, Ace.

And you believe what exactly? How do you know? And what comfort does that give you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Reliability of radiometric dating
So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].

Reliability of Geologic Dating

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.​

Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution. You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood. Thus, why not a global flood?

I admit it doesn't work in water? When did I say something like that?

And I just showed you an excellent article that tells you the technique has been used many many times and has proven quite reliable, You dwell on a few cases where results have been erroneous and say that makes the technique invalid. Sorry, doofus. You are very very confused.

Sure the companies who do it will find plenty of reason, as in $$$$s and other monies, because radiometric dating is expensive and profit making. What you do is completely ignore the uniformitarianism that is it based on and that evolution needs long, long, long ages for it to work. Since you admitted it doesn't work in water, the global flood would reset the radiometrics. The global flood is not uniformitarianism, but catastrophism as I mentioned. The proof is in the pudding.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents - We find fossils of sea creatures above sea level on all the continents.

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals - We find fossil graveyards with beautifully preserved marine life.

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas - Its found across continents and in-between.

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances - Sediment from one area found across the country.

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata - Continuous deposits of one layer over another. This can be shown experimentally.

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession - The shape of the strata shows that it formed rapidly before becoming hard or else it would show breaks.

Thus, the radiometric data is over before it could start. The global flood reset all the clocks and the relatively modern items found in millions and billions of years layers or trees vertically running through various layers show the millions and billions of years layers of evolution from radiometric dating are wrong.

Can I just put you down as a faith-based evolution believer and not someone interested in real science? If I was a faith-based evo believer, then I would keep an open mind when presented with such contrary evidence, investigate to the best of my ability and figure it out for myself.

You are delusional and totally confused and post nonsense.

See ya later, Ace.

And you believe what exactly? How do you know? And what comfort does that give you?

Elieve it or not, some people do not need magical religion for comfort.