If God doesn't exist...

[forkup]

James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a 45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

 

[james bond]

.
Flood stage - Biker washed away ...




what possible point was worth making by including the above video ... and one viewing was not enough ?

.

I would guess to point out how dangerous flooding is due to the power of rushing water. We have that in the news here when you're driving and see a little stream of water cross in front of you. It means to stop because a large amount of water is coming immediately after. Or people wade into a river when signs warn not to. They get trapped and end up being washed away after tiring. The water isn't that deep, so people ignore the warnings. I would not try nor recommend trying a class 6 river. I suppose it was class 6 with the help of gravity. Most people would not recommend it as it could cause death or serious injury.

.

due to the power of rushing water.

especially a Rocky Mtn creek (Colorado) without knowing an extra step can send one cascading to their death and unfortunately the Mountain god seems to do that each summer ...

I just wondered why they kept showing the clueless person's mistake over and over again ...

.

Welp, if the guy was riding a Harley, then he prolly would've made it. Not slick tires, but some deep treads. I wonder if those class 6 guys would try the flood stage like those surfers who run towards the ocean a hurricane? They would have vests and the guy wasn't wearing one. All of these vids and stories are about the power of water. Heed the warning. You jump off the Golden Gate bridge and hit the water, then it's like hitting cement due to its density. It's very deceptive, so one has to be aware. That's the whole point, but some will see something else.

 

[james bond]

James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a 45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Basically, the facts will speak for themselves if you investigate and study them long enough. I started with science and learned about evolution from the evolution.berkeley.edu website. UCB is my alma mater, but it's a pro-evolution school. Look at its prestigious faculty, especially when it comes to geology and extinction theory. I'm not against them. Just don't think they're right. It comes down to uniformitarianism vs catastrophism from the 1800s. It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science. To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if you can't wrap your mind around a creator (let alone God) and believe that a global flood can happen, then you won't believe in an afterlife and judgment. He said that in the first century and it is very true today. My faith was deepened while going there when I was young and was deepened again in 2012 when I finally became a Christian. Then I started reading the Bible and found creation science about two years later. That and the realization that the Big Bang Theory started to support Genesis (except for the "bang")..

 

[BreezeWood]

James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a 45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Basically, the facts will speak for themselves if you investigate and study them long enough. I started with science and learned about evolution from the evolution.berkeley.edu website. UCB is my alma mater, but it's a pro-evolution school. Look at its prestigious faculty, especially when it comes to geology and extinction theory. I'm not against them. Just don't think they're right. It comes down to uniformitarianism vs catastrophism from the 1800s. It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science. To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if you can't wrap your mind around a creator (let alone God) and believe that a global flood can happen, then you won't believe in an afterlife and judgment. He said that in the first century and it is very true today. My faith was deepened while going there when I was young and was deepened again in 2012 when I finally became a Christian. Then I started reading the Bible and found creation science about two years later. That and the realization that the Big Bang Theory started to support Genesis (except for the "bang")..

.

It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.

that is not true, only christianity attempts to alter science to conform to their predetermined and unverified agenda and is not the consideration for the other disciplines than certain other religions nor is it uniformly true for the religious that are not christians.

.

 

[james bond]

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Basically, the facts will speak for themselves if you investigate and study them long enough. I started with science and learned about evolution from the evolution.berkeley.edu website. UCB is my alma mater, but it's a pro-evolution school. Look at its prestigious faculty, especially when it comes to geology and extinction theory. I'm not against them. Just don't think they're right. It comes down to uniformitarianism vs catastrophism from the 1800s. It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science. To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if you can't wrap your mind around a creator (let alone God) and believe that a global flood can happen, then you won't believe in an afterlife and judgment. He said that in the first century and it is very true today. My faith was deepened while going there when I was young and was deepened again in 2012 when I finally became a Christian. Then I started reading the Bible and found creation science about two years later. That and the realization that the Big Bang Theory started to support Genesis (except for the "bang")..

.

It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.

that is not true, only christianity attempts to alter science to conform to their predetermined and unverified agenda and is not the consideration for the other disciplines than certain other religions nor is it uniformly true for the religious that are not christians.

.

Wrong again, woodie.

 

[james bond]

How can apemen have existed when there probably can't be an humanzee?

Humanzees: Ultimate Soviet Experiment

"MUMBAI: In a war-torn, forgotten remnant of the Soviet Union a battered laboratory stands, housing the remnants of twisted experiments.

Some of the surviving tenants — part of an attempt by the veterinary doctor Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov to breed a slave race of ape/human hybrids - have escaped into the surrounding forest, their whereabouts unknown.

We’re not making this up; this is happening right now at the once-famous Research Institute of Experimental Pathology and Therapy in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, a small nation-state on the Black Sea. The institute, the eyesore of many a Western eye was the first primate testing centre in the world."

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-humanzees-ultimate-soviet-experiment-1159879

Human-mammals cultivation of synthetic organisms

160: Human-Animal Synthetic Organisms

 

[BreezeWood]

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Basically, the facts will speak for themselves if you investigate and study them long enough. I started with science and learned about evolution from the evolution.berkeley.edu website. UCB is my alma mater, but it's a pro-evolution school. Look at its prestigious faculty, especially when it comes to geology and extinction theory. I'm not against them. Just don't think they're right. It comes down to uniformitarianism vs catastrophism from the 1800s. It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science. To paraphrase the Apostle Peter, if you can't wrap your mind around a creator (let alone God) and believe that a global flood can happen, then you won't believe in an afterlife and judgment. He said that in the first century and it is very true today. My faith was deepened while going there when I was young and was deepened again in 2012 when I finally became a Christian. Then I started reading the Bible and found creation science about two years later. That and the realization that the Big Bang Theory started to support Genesis (except for the "bang")..

.

It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.

that is not true, only christianity attempts to alter science to conform to their predetermined and unverified agenda and is not the consideration for the other disciplines than certain other religions nor is it uniformly true for the religious that are not christians.

.

Wrong again, woodie.

.

Wrong again, woodie.

not so Goldfinger ...

It is based on atheism vs Christianity in regards to science.

nor is conformity uniformly true for the religious that are not christians.

The Triumph of Good vs Evil is applicable to both the religious and to atheism the same, not so for christianity.

the difference lies between the truth and what is predetermined without verification that is replete throughout history and modern science.

.

 

[james bond]

James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a 45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

I accept your apology. Listening is an important quality. One question though and it is why you think just presenting an argument means that people automatically accept. Didn't I do the same thing when I was young and only after investigating what the Bible and creation science had to say that I thought it was better?

 

[forkup]

James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a 45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

 

[forkup]

James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a 45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to reason the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

 

[james bond]

James I'm very doubtfull that you will but I'd very much like you to watch this. The entire thing. The reason for it because it very clearly illustrates a couple of things.
First quite obviously it explains exactly how they figured out radiometric data. The other things it illustrates is the importance of the scientific method and how science goes about solving problems. Thirdly it also makes the point that science in some things lead to other discoveries. In this case lifesaving discoveries If he wouldn't had to come up with the clean room he never would have been able to make his second discovery. Fourthly it illustrates the lenghts vested intrests are willing to go to ignore and discredit undisputable evidence, something I feel you do to. And lastly as current events prove it illustrates that even after people lost the fight of the data, people will still ignore what the data sais. It's a lot to ask since it's a 45min clip and as a creasionist I'm pretty sure you hate Neil Degrasse. The only thing I can say that it is a thouroughly informative and entertaining clip, if off course you truly have an open mind.

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

 

[james bond]

Some recent news on the Piltdown Man fraud. They name the suspect and how he did it -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristin...hoax-at-piltdown-finally-solved/#395dec3c6065 . Atheists and evos keep getting it wrong.

Remember this?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So no one knows what kick started the universe the best answer we have so far is that a miracle occurred about 14-15 billion years ago that set everything in motion.

Makes sense if there was nothing there prior to that momentous event.

*****SMILE*****

 

[james bond]

So no one knows what kick started the universe the best answer we have so far is that a miracle occurred about 14-15 billion years ago that set everything in motion.

Makes sense if there was nothing there prior to that momentous event.

*****SMILE*****

Ah, something we can debate. No one knows because there was no 14-15 or 20 billion years ago. There is no historical evidence for it. The belief of it existing is based on faith, philosophy and religion. However, I can give you plenty of evidence for 6,000-10,000 years ago range.

We study the past using history and facts, reasoning and historical truths. We use science to study the present and future. What good is it to study the past using science?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So no one knows what kick started the universe the best answer we have so far is that a miracle occurred about 14-15 billion years ago that set everything in motion.

Makes sense if there was nothing there prior to that momentous event.

*****SMILE*****

Ah, something we can debate. No one knows because there was no 14-15 or 20 billion years ago. There is no historical evidence for it. The belief of it existing is based on faith, philosophy and religion. However, I can give you plenty of evidence for 6,000-10,000 years ago range.

We study the past using history and facts, reasoning and historical truths. We use science to study the present and future. What good is it to study the past using science?

I'm content with the theory that 14-15 billion years ago a miracle happened and that the scientists for the most part are on the right track in many of the theories.

As for your question. Your question has two edges too it one of which is not conducive to your own cause...

If we're not going to study the past then what's the point of keeping records of the past?

*****SMILE*****

 

[james bond]

So no one knows what kick started the universe the best answer we have so far is that a miracle occurred about 14-15 billion years ago that set everything in motion.

Makes sense if there was nothing there prior to that momentous event.

*****SMILE*****

Ah, something we can debate. No one knows because there was no 14-15 or 20 billion years ago. There is no historical evidence for it. The belief of it existing is based on faith, philosophy and religion. However, I can give you plenty of evidence for 6,000-10,000 years ago range.

We study the past using history and facts, reasoning and historical truths. We use science to study the present and future. What good is it to study the past using science?

I'm content with the theory that 14-15 billion years ago a miracle happened and that the scientists for the most part are on the right track in many of the theories.

As for your question. Your question has two edges too it one of which is not conducive to your own cause...

If we're not going to study the past then what's the point of keeping records of the past?

*****SMILE*****

It's fine you believe in 14-15 billion years ago. To me, that's philosophy and we all should have a philosophy. I am for keeping history as it can teach us something about ourselves and maybe we can learn from it to help in the future. What I do not subscribe to is using the present to learn about the past or uniformitarianism. There is no point to it. We should be interested in the present and the future. I guess that's my philosophy .

 

[rcfieldz]

what kick started the universe?

Gravity.

God farted.

 

[dpr112yme]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either... ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either... ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London

Well that's true because then none of us would be here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[dpr112yme]

If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either... ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London

View attachment 85711

Well that's true because then none of us would be here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I don't understand what you mean but, "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done."
Robert A. Heinlein