Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Brian Schuh]

False, and here's a link whereas you can check out other techniques used: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating

You go back to the same thing-- "Ignorant! False! I got the facts!"

I don't have the time to read all the books, papers, and essays. Just tell me, what dating method is evidence that humanity is older than 5776 years old?

 

[Brian Schuh]

No it your failure in accepting view taught within a science class that clash with your ideology. Other groups that are Christians have no issues with such a course in school. You ignorance is based on the strawmen arguments and distortion of the theory that make you ignorant.



Carbon dating of objects that are older than your time stamp. Look up Uranium-leading and Uranium-thorium dating methods and the results of it along with argon dating

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html



Again its chemistry not physics. You opinion is nonsense since the methods work and are standards used. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence outside your text supporting your time stamp. All you have done is whine about methods that shows your ideology to be false, nothing more.



I said as much. However when you ask for evidence then you have contradicted yourself as you are asking me to educate you in these views and evidence supporting such views. So either you are incompetent or your demands for evidence as all bluster. You have no intention in learning anything that shatters your flawed ideology.

I passed all my evolution exams with As. So obviously I am not rejecting some of it because of ignorance.

You get back to the same thing-- carbon dating. Which we don't agree is accurate and I told you why. Repeating things over and over don't make them true.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I'm getting tired of this. Hearing the same things repeatedly after I make a good rebuttal, it just gets ignored or misunderstood, followed by hearing the same claim as if I didn't already answer it. And then hearing over and over "false!" "Ignorant" "it's a fact!" with no substantiating evidence. You are all boring me to death. I'm logging off, I have better things to do. I'll log back in in a few days to see if any of can really defend your position

 

[Parsimony]

Yeah, and we all might just be brains in jars.

You assume that the Creator's intent was to deceive. I don't believe it was.

Then there is no reason to believe that isotopic ratios were tampered with in such a way to give false ages of billions of years. No deceiver = no deception.

If your entire theory rests on carbon dating, it is flimsy.

It doesn't. Also, literally any evidence becomes "flimsy" when you presuppose supernatural interference. How do you know that a fingerprint at a crime scene wasn't supernaturally placed there if you weren't there to see the person place it? How do you know that a person's memories of a crime weren't supernaturally implanted? Forensic science then becomes just as "flimsy" as you claim radiometric dating techniques to be.

Don't you have more support for your "facts" than something that is so easily disputed?

Anything can be disputed, but not all the disputes are supported with evidence. I'd sure like to know what evidence there even could be for supernaturally-tainted radioisotopes.

A common misconception is that if one doesn't accept a theory that makes sense with evidence, that it must be because the person doesn't understand it.

So are you agreeing that the given evidence makes sense with the theory of an old Earth or what?

I don't reject some things y'all say because of ignorance. I understand it, and still reject it.

Why reject it, though? Because of a cosmic conspiracy for which there is no evidence?

 

[Shad]

I'm getting tired of this. Hearing the same things repeatedly after I make a good rebuttal, it just gets ignored or misunderstood, followed by hearing the same claim as if I didn't already answer it. And then hearing over and over "false!" "Ignorant" "it's a fact!" with no substantiating evidence. You are all boring me to death. I'm logging off, I have better things to do. I'll log back in in a few days to see if any of can really defend your position

You have no made a rebuttal. You made an empty statement that dating methods are wrong without showing how or why. You then by these statements concluded your view is right which is just an argument from ignorance.

 

[Sapiens]

What if I produce a long list of books, everything from religion, theology, philosophy, history etc etc. You don't have time to study what I have studied. Same here, just answer the question.

You've not read any of this, as you have demonstrated.

I have likely read most of what would be on your list as I have demonstrated.

You don't have to read them all, one or two will do. I'm done wasting my time to try and teach you, you have already declared that you are not teachable.

 

[Sapiens]

A common misconception is that if one doesn't accept a theory that makes sense with evidence, that it must be because the person doesn't understand it.

Recently I was in an argument with a Christian who thought I didn't accept Jesus just because I failed to understand the gospel. She was mortified when she saw that I did understand the gospel and still reject it.

I don't reject some things y'all say because of ignorance. I understand it, and still reject it.

Good try but miss by a mile. Your simile depends on gospels being something they are not, e.g., scientific evidence.

Also, the rejection of a scientific theory because you don't accept the evidence, without disputation of the evidence in such a fashion that results in the falsification of the hypotheses on which the theory is based, is about as illogical as it gets.

Both ways ... you fail massively.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm getting tired of this. Hearing the same things repeatedly after I make a good rebuttal, it just gets ignored or misunderstood, followed by hearing the same claim as if I didn't already answer it. And then hearing over and over "false!" "Ignorant" "it's a fact!" with no substantiating evidence.

People have presented you with tonnes of evidence. I myself have presented you with examples of three objects which pre-date your supposed origin of the earth. Posters above have linked you to numerous pages and sites, and your response to them was:

"I don't have the time to read all the books, papers, and essays. Just tell me, what dating method is evidence that humanity is older than 5776 years old?"

So, on the one hand, you aren't willing to actually READ the evidence people present, but on the other hand you don't want people to make claims WITHOUT evidence. You seriously need to make up your mind. There is no point asking for evidence if you're just going to respond to it by saying "I don't have time to read it".

 

[metis]

You go back to the same thing-- "Ignorant! False! I got the facts!"

I don't have the time to read all the books, papers, and essays. Just tell me, what dating method is evidence that humanity is older than 5776 years old?

As far as I know, pretty much all of them.

BTW, we have excavations of neolithic villages that go back before that date.

Also, I did not say you were "ignorant". What you have said, however, is that this area of science is not really something you know much about, which one would think should propel you to actually look at what the research is telling us and you-- but you don't. Why is this?

The Bible is obviously a great book, but it is not a science book nor an objective history book. Therefore, to use that source to trump scientific research not only is not science in any way, it's also lousy theology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'll repeat a story, a scientist (who happened to believe in creationism) created a rock somehow and took it to a scientist friend who believed in evolution and asked him to carbon date it, as a prank. The scientist said some long time, and the creationist said that the rock is a couple days old.

Sounds made up.

 

[McBell]

Y'all get back to same argument, "Creation is ignorant, the Bible is false, evolution is fact!" And no matter how many times in many ways you repeat this, it isn't convincing to someone intelligent. I need real evidence

Is it that you lack basic reading comprehension skills or that you cannot stop yourself from twisting what is actually said to better fit your self martyr agenda?

 

[McBell]

I'm getting tired of this. Hearing the same things repeatedly after I make a good rebuttal, it just gets ignored or misunderstood, followed by hearing the same claim as if I didn't already answer it. And then hearing over and over "false!" "Ignorant" "it's a fact!" with no substantiating evidence. You are all boring me to death. I'm logging off, I have better things to do. I'll log back in in a few days to see if any of can really defend your position

your transference is showing...

It is not our fault you have multiple standards for evidence.

 

[Parsimony]

Just tell me, what dating method is evidence that humanity is older than 5776 years old?

What dating method is evidence that humanity is specifically 5,776 years old? Why can't it be, say, only 4,000 years old?

I need real evidence

You like real evidence. Good. So if you reject scientific dating methods as not being real evidence, then what real evidence do you have that the Earth is 5,776 years old? Don't say "that's what the Bible says" because that's just a restatement of the claim, not verifiable evidence of the claim.

 

[Sapiens]

Here's real evidence, of the simplest sort:

Dendrochronology is the scientific method of dating the age of trees by the number of rings that they have grown. Trees continually grow outward during their lifespan by surrounding the central, live section with dead cells, or bark. However, trees grow faster in summer and slower in winter, causing 'tree rings' of different growth rates to form. A tree's age can be dated to within one year by "counting" the number of these rings that a tree possesses. However, just counting the rings may lead to an inaccurate result, because of seasonal variations in ring growth and malformations. Instead, dendrochronologists determine the qualities of each ring and determine whether other local trees possess the same qualities in the same ring in a process called "skeleton plotting". If the tree rings between different trees formed in a similar way, then it's likely that those trees have undergone the same variation at the same time. In addition to allowing more certain proof of a tree's age, it allows dendrochronologists to link together a part of the life of one tree to part of the life of another tree and make an effective "chain" of tree lives.

Young Earth creationists often doubt other forms of dating, such as radiometric dating, that invalidate their worldview of a 6,000-year-old Earth, often because those dating methods are harder to understand, more prone to potential error, and are too sciencey. Dendrochronology, on the other hand, can be done by anyone, and feels less sciencey. If a tree is proven to be older than about 4,350 years, then it is impossible for that tree to have survived the global flood, which in turn proves biblical literalism and creationism false. Until creationists say that God is a trickster and that he protected this singular tree as a test of faith. Many tree records have been constructed that extend beyond 4,350 years old. The oldest unbroken string of tree ring records go back 11,750 years, while the oldest living tree is 5063 years old. Both of these dates contradict young Earth creationism.

(thanks to rationalwiki)

 

[Parsimony]

I'm getting tired of this. Hearing the same things repeatedly after I make a good rebuttal, it just gets ignored or misunderstood, followed by hearing the same claim as if I didn't already answer it. And then hearing over and over "false!" "Ignorant" "it's a fact!" with no substantiating evidence. You are all boring me to death. I'm logging off, I have better things to do. I'll log back in in a few days to see if any of can really defend your position

I did think of other pieces of evidence that shows that not all rocks could have been spontaneously brought into existence by supernatural power at the beginning of Earth's creation. One of these are ancient, hardened lava flows. The lava could not have always been there since the volcano would have had to erupt first in order to deposit it. Since this means that the lava must have cooled and hardened naturally, then the assumptions behind isochron plots of lava flows are valid.

Second is fossils. Any rock that a fossil is contained in could not have always been there. First the organism would have to have died and then deposits on top of the organism's remains would have to harden into rock. These would therefore be naturally-formed rocks and not supernaturally-formed rocks. Dating method assumptions would then be valid for them.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Look, there are 13 principles of the Jewish faith, there are only 5 for Gentiles.

It doesn't matter at what point in history one places the creation. But I feel like it's important to believe in a Creator, according to my interpretation of the 5 principles.

I proved one can believe that creation happened at any point in time. So pick a time it happened and go with it. I'm leaving this thread.

"A fool says in his heart, there is no God."

 

[viole]

"A fool says in his heart, there is no God."

And a wise says it to the whole world.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian Schuh]

I have a problem with your survival of the fittest. The story of Abraham disproves it. For the sake of argument assume it is true. Abraham wasn't fit to reproduce, whether Sarah was barren or he was impotent, they had a couple children against all odds.

The Jews clearly have not been fit to survive. One pope asked a wise man to offer proof of God. The wise man said, "The Jew, if there was no God, how the hell did the Jews survive all these years?" (That's not a direct quote.)

Before Darwin taught survival of the fittest, it was an economic theory. I bet unfit welfare mamas have more children than the economically viable. Politicians use evolution to try to abort babies, push eugenics, and break up happy couples just because they are "unfit." What good is evolutionary theory doing?

 

[Brian Schuh]

I agree, I don't want a doctor who doesn't understand evolutionary theory. I'll give you that. What good is evolutionary theory doing for humankind? Genetically engineered food has not created a better food supply. You can't even artificially mutate food to be superior, how the hell could it happen by random. Answer me that!

 

[Brian Schuh]

GMO's must be an embarrassing failure to evolutionists.