Dinosaurs and man.

[Shredmeister]

Can you show me a tree that is billions of years old?

Trees don't live that long.

 

[McBell]

You have a problem then, you are calling Jesus a liar. Jesus was YEC. In Mark 10:6 Jesus says that God made male and female at the beginning of creation. When one tries to reconcile the Bible story of creation with man's ideas, one will always run into problems. It is best to let God tell the story in the Bible and believe it. Mankind will never get it right because mainstream scientists always start with the assumption that the earth is billions of years old and evolution is a fact.

Fine then.
IF what you claim Jesus meant is what he actually meant, then yes, Jesus is a liar.

Of course, there are several Christians who have no problem with what science actually says.
How do you explain them away in your little world?

 

[DeitySlayer]

Can you show me a tree that is billions of years old?

I can show you one that is 330 million years old. It sits quite nicely outside the Natural History Museum in London.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I know some people believe we co-existed. Still yet others believe that the earth is only about 5000 years old.

PLEASE let there be someone here who believes this!

I don't, but I seriously have yet to discuss this with anyone who believes it: I have only discussed it with people who think it's silly.

Please and thank you.

~Bill

You should go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
Skeptical Monkey - A Blog For Skeptics

I will bet you will find lots of people to talk to on this subject.

 

[Misty]

I believe there is a creation museum in the UK it is the butt of jokes. Most people visit it for a laugh, YECs aren't big in the UK!

 

[Kerr]

Assumption 3: Constant decay rate
The radioactive decay rates have been found to be essentially constant so geologists assume they have been constant for billions of years. However this is an enormous assumption through spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof.

Are you going to claim light has changed speed, and that the reason we see other galaxies is because it went much, much faster 6000 years ago? Unless there is a reason to believe that it has, then you cannot make that assumption. Just as you cannot assume radioactive decay rate has changed (ok, I did found a link that pointed to that radioactive decay rate is not constant, but it is deterministic, so you can still use it to calculate age of stuff... not sure if I trust the link I found, though). To my knowledge it has never been observed to do that.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Her popularity in the US is completely mystifying to the rest of us.

But not suprising.

Was reading an article on a poll done in the states concerning who they would vote for.

Atheists were voted least likely to be voted for beating out homosexuals, women and people over 72.

With an attitude like that it's not suprising that that Palin is so popular.

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Obviously not, in fact there some who think science is positively evil!

AgainstScience.com

 

[jmvizanko]

When gathering the data from radiometric dating testing, scientists must make assumptions about the past that cannot be verified. The biggest assumptions are below.

Assumption 1: Conditions at time zero.
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes.
Assumption 2: No contamination
The radioactivity in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes.
Assumption 3: Constant decay rate
The radioactive decay rates have been found to be essentially constant so geologists assume they have been constant for billions of years. However this is an enormous assumption through spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof.

If any one of these, let alone multiple, were mistakes we are making, then why do all of the methods arrive at the same age for whatever they are testing? Explain why you think that is mathematically possible.

 

[McBell]

If any one of these, let alone multiple, were mistakes we are making, then why do all of the methods arrive at the same age for whatever they are testing? Explain why you think that is mathematically possible.

I will tell you right now that unless he can find some website that "answers" this question, it will be ignored.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The above might be a valid objection if scientists only used radiometric dating when determining the age of rocks or whatever. But they use many methods for determining the age, and all of the methods point towards billions of years, not thousands. And the dating methods are fairly consistent.

He knows this, it has been pointed out to him numerous times how this line of thought is incorrect. However, like most dogmatic radicals, he closes his ears to empirical evidence and repeats the same falsehoods over and over.

 

[skepticalmonkey]

I am currently in the middle of a debate with a gentleman who seems very convinced that the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived side by side.

I'm not allowed to post the url, but you can find the debate on my website, SkepticalMonkey.com. The debate is posted under the article "Creation: Gotta Be This or That." At this point, I am at my wit's end, and would welcome someone else jumping in.

Just to bring you up to speed, this gentleman is claiming that one "kind" of animal, i.e. lizards, could never evolve into another kind of animal, i.e. birds, because each kind only has limited genetic material: in other words, a lizard does not have the genetic material to evolve a feather.

I responded by referencing studies which show that our genetic material really isn't vastly different from other animals. His response: it's irrelevant.

 

[Kerr]

I am currently in the middle of a debate with a gentleman who seems very convinced that the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived side by side.

I'm not allowed to post the url, but you can find the debate on my website, SkepticalMonkey.com. The debate is posted under the article "Creation: Gotta Be This or That." At this point, I am at my wit's end, and would welcome someone else jumping in.

Just to bring you up to speed, this gentleman is claiming that one "kind" of animal, i.e. lizards, could never evolve into another kind of animal, i.e. birds, because each kind only has limited genetic material: in other words, a lizard does not have the genetic material to evolve a feather.

I responded by referencing studies which show that our genetic material really isn't vastly different from other animals. His response: it's irrelevant.

Ask him about nylon eating bacterias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

 

[jmvizanko]

Ask him to give a biological definition of this mysterious word "kind," something no creationist has ever done because it doesnt exist.

 

[City_Hunter]

He has no grasp of evolutionary theory. His entire position is a strawman. He has this idea that evolution is pokemon or something, where one species jumps to another species. I would just link him to talkorigins.net and forget about it but if you want to continue with him then you need to actually make him give you an explanation of what he considers evolution to be, and then once he gives you his no doubt incorrect definition, pick holes in it and show him his understanding is wrong. Adressing his points would be a waste of time since he doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about. Then link him to talkorigins.net

 

[Alceste]

He has no grasp of evolutionary theory. His entire position is a strawman. He has this idea that evolution is pokemon or something, where one species jumps to another species. I would just link him to talkorigins.net and forget about it but if you want to continue with him then you need to actually make him give you an explanation of what he considers evolution to be, and then once he gives you his no doubt incorrect definition, pick holes in it and show him his understanding is wrong. Adressing his points would be a waste of time since he doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about. Then link him to talkorigins.net

We do this a dozen times a day over here. We've been trying to correct Man of Faith for months - if you don't want to spend the rest of your life in an intolerably frustrating conversation, I'd just give him the link and let it go. If you aren't ready to do that, pick up The Greatest Show on Earth and just walk him through the evidence detailed there bit by bit.

 

[sniper762]

if a statement is open ended or cant supply me with the definite answers to the questions of who, what, why, when and where then i dont put much weight in it.

 

[jmvizanko]

if a statement is open ended or cant supply me with the definite answers to the questions of who, what, why, when and where then i dont put much weight in it.

What do you mean with this?

 

[sniper762]

put any statement to the test. break it down by asking those 5 questions. if it lacks definate answer, then it is in need of further definition. it leaves room for speculaion.

example: my mother told me that i was born unto her at xxx hospital on the 7th of august xxxx.

who=me, what=i was born, why= procreation (understood), when=date, where= the hospital

if i have doubt, its easy enough to "definately" confirm.

 

[jmvizanko]

put any statement to the test. break it down by asking those 5 questions. if it lacks definate answer, then it is in need of further definition. it leaves room for speculaion.

example: my mother told me that i was born unto her at xxx hospital on the 7th of august xxxx.

who=me, what=i was born, why= procreation (understood), when=date, where= the hospital

if i have doubt, its easy enough to "definately" confirm.

Not that I followed that, because I didn't, but what does it mean you are trying say about the current topic?