Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you exhibit so much dishonesty?

You have not said anything about what we are talking or discussing here but here you are accusing me of being dishonest. Why don’t you join us in this discussion instead of whining. Please join us.

 

[JM2C]

Lastly I would suggest that you edit the claim about using c14 dating on fossils to give the date of 5700 years. C14 dating does not work for dating fossils, people will just laugh at that claim.

Try to understand this mate: Collagen in the bones contains carbon. Carbon can be tested using 14C dating.

 

[Salvador]

Try to understand this mate: Collagen in the bones contains carbon. Carbon can be tested using 14C dating.

"Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation." Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE

"Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is: the effect is greater for older samples." Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McBell]

You have not said anything about what we are talking or discussing here but here you are accusing me of being dishonest. Why don’t you join us in this discussion instead of whining. Please join us.

Fair enough.

How about you start supporting your claims?
Until then, there is no reason to even reply to them.

 

[David M]

Where is your proof that it wasn’t true?

The proof is the words of the people who found those "collagen fragments", it was fragments that were found, not collagen itself.

You can ask all you want but the burden of proof is on your side now. Prove me wrong with your knowledge about this.

No, you need to provide the evidence because you are the one making the claim, and its fairly important to your argument.

For instance Osteocalcin can last 100 million years at 0 Celcius. No mineralisation involved just temperature.

Fossil protein breakthrough will probe evolution - 13 November 2002 - New Scientist

 

[Bunyip]

Try to understand this mate: Collagen in the bones contains carbon. Carbon can be tested using 14C dating.

Try to understand mate, FRAGMENTS OF MINERALISED COLLAGEN in the bones were found NOT collagen. FRAGMENTS (which means little bits) of MINERALISED (which means turned to stone) collagen. No collagen was found, it does not last that long.
Also try to understand - fossils don't form in 6000 years, they take much longer.
Lastly try to understand that you are telling lies that were exposed years ago, it is very boring rehashing silly old frauds like this one.

I honestly can not understand why people keep bringing up these silly, implausible hoaxes that were exposed so long ago. What point there is in doing so I can't imagine.

 

[Bunyip]

JM2C

Just as a little extra info for you, science has uncovered several frozen mammoths - where the flesh is still fresh enough to eat. One of these specimens was 39,000 years old.

If your fantasy of dinosaurs living 6000 years ago was true, we would have found specimens that were unfossilised like the mammoth. We haven't. Across the entire earth - not one single unfossilised dinosaur bone has ever been found. If your claim were true the earth would be covered with them.

 

[Sapiens]

JM2C

Just as a little extra info for you, science has uncovered several frozen mammoths - where the flesh is still fresh enough to eat. One of these specimens was 39,000 years old.

I've had the "honor" of a small bite of some very, very old barbeque ... courtesy of some Russian colleges.

If your fantasy of dinosaurs living 6000 years ago was true, we would have found specimens that were unfossilised like the mammoth. We haven't. Across the entire earth - not one single unfossilised dinosaur bone has ever been found. If your claim were true the earth would be covered with them.

Excellent point, never thought of that argument.

 

[Bunyip]

I've had the "honor" of a small bite of some very, very old barbeque ... courtesy of some Russian colleges.

Excellent point, never thought of that argument.

Wow! No kidding!
That is amazing - please, please expand. What does mammoth taste like?

 

[JM2C]

"Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation." Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE


"Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is: the effect is greater for older samples." Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to David M

Wrong. It can be tested accurately to over 60,000 years.

Let me ask you about dating rocks. How do geologists measure the millions of years in a piece of rock?

 

[JM2C]

JM2C

Just as a little extra info for you, science has uncovered several frozen mammoths - where the flesh is still fresh enough to eat. One of these specimens was 39,000 years old.

You think that’s impossible? Sushi bars in Manhattan, NY deep freeze their tuna for years before they serve them. 39,000 years? How did they measure the years again?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Can you explain the collagen protein they’ve found in T-Rex?

It's been done numerous times now, not least of which includes my original post to you.

This matches the history given to us in the book of Genesis.

Ah yes, Genesis, that great bastion of Historical Accuracy and Scientific Teaching...
I mean, where else could we learn about the biology of talking reptiles, people living to be 1,000 years old, or the aeronautics of Enoch's levitation? Where else could we learn of the botanical magic of olive trees that grow to maturity in 7 days? Where else can learn the best possible way to commit genocide? Or the currently unknown ability of people to turn into salt blocks...

Let me ask you about dating rocks. How do geologists measure the millions of years in a piece of rock?

Why don't you just go ahead and tell us your theory, since you're so certain it's all based on anti-biblical conspiracies and science which you fully understand?

Or, you can just educate yourself some...
Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[JM2C]

If your fantasy of dinosaurs living 6000 years ago was true, we would have found specimens that were unfossilised like the mammoth. We haven't. Across the entire earth - not one single unfossilised dinosaur bone has ever been found. If your claim were true the earth would be covered with them.

I think the fantasy is the billions of years you guys were advocating without any proof at all. If you can explain it to me how the parent isotopes started clocking or decaying some billions of years ago into the daughter isotopes, then you can convince me that a frozen mammoths is really a 39,000 year old.

 

[JM2C]

Right now Mount Everest is about 29,035 ft and growing at the rate of 2.6 inch per year.

Naturally, the ways to determine the age of Mount Everest is to divide the height, i.e., 29,035 ft, to 2.6 inch/yr and that would give you the age at 134,007.69 years from flat to the peak. If we follow this theory then we could say that the Himalayans used to be like a flat deserted piece of land or like the Sahara desert, or maybe hundreds, or thousands of feet below sea level. If we follow the creation of earth in Genesis around 6000 years ago, at the rate of 2.6 inch/yr it would have grown only about 1,300 ft or at the beginning of the creation Mount Everest height is at 27,735 ft plus 1,300 ft of growth = 29,035 ft.

And you can apply the same principles or analogy or whatever idioms you want to stalactite and stalagmite.

Were they here or formed already when God created the earth? Yes! And when man started observing their growth, with simple arithmetic, all theories about the age of the earth came out, some are saying billions of years while others hundreds of millions of years. Where is the proof? NONE!

 

[McBell]

Right now Mount Everest is about 29,035 ft and growing at the rate of 2.6 inch per year.

Naturally, the ways to determine the age of Mount Everest is to divide the height, i.e., 29,035 ft, to 2.6 inch/yr and that would give you the age at 134,007.69 years from flat to the peak. If we follow this theory then we could say that the Himalayans used to be like a flat deserted piece of land or like the Sahara desert, or maybe hundreds, or thousands of feet below sea level. If we follow the creation of earth in Genesis around 6000 years ago, at the rate of 2.6 inch/yr it would have grown only about 1,300 ft or at the beginning of the creation Mount Everest height is at 27,735 ft plus 1,300 ft of growth = 29,035 ft.

And you can apply the same principles or analogy or whatever idioms you want to stalactite and stalagmite.

Were they here or formed already when God created the earth? Yes! And when man started observing their growth, with simple arithmetic, all theories about the age of the earth came out, some are saying billions of years while others hundreds of millions of years. Where is the proof? NONE!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Right now Mount Everest is about 29,035 ft and growing at the rate of 2.6 inch per year.

This is another perfect example of expounded confirmation bias... You're trying to validate your belief using faulty information.
If you had spent another 30 seconds on google you would have found the actual rate of growth of Everest via more credible sources...
It's .15xx inches each year (less then 4mm)

Everest @ nationalgeographic.com
"How fast is the great peak growing? In 1994 researchers placed a global positioning satellite (GPS) device on the South Col, a plateau below the summit. Readings suggest that Everest grows 0.1576 inches (about four millimeters) each year."

There are some grander claims in the geologic community which suggest it's growing at the unfathomable speed of .25 inches each year! Either way, it's 10 times less than what you're suggesting.

The Himalayas [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]


Let's do the same math again, this time using the proper number, and making the huge assumption that it's a constant rate:

29035 / .0125 = 2,322,800yr

Now let's check that math:

.15 * 2,322,800 = 348,420in

348,420 / 12 = 29,035ft

So using your own method of dating geologic formations, Everest is at least 2.3 Million years old...

There are a couple of caveats though, namely that this isn't scientific at all and has no basis in how geologists date formations. How do we know, for example, that this growth rate applies evenly over each and every year? We cannot assume a constant unless there is data to suggest that there is one. There's also the little problem of data congruency. If 15 studies lead to one conclusion, and one study leads to something completely different, you can pretty much ensure that the one outlier is exactly that, an outlier or an anomaly; ie, not as accurate or dependable as the other studies or data sets. .

I'm sure Genesis got it right,though and math and science are probably just conspiracies.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Validating creationism, one post at a time.

 

[McBell]

Right now Mount Everest is about 29,035 ft and growing at the rate of 2.6 inch per year.

Naturally, the ways to determine the age of Mount Everest is to divide the height, i.e., 29,035 ft, to 2.6 inch/yr and that would give you the age at 134,007.69 years from flat to the peak. If we follow this theory then we could say that the Himalayans used to be like a flat deserted piece of land or like the Sahara desert, or maybe hundreds, or thousands of feet below sea level. If we follow the creation of earth in Genesis around 6000 years ago, at the rate of 2.6 inch/yr it would have grown only about 1,300 ft or at the beginning of the creation Mount Everest height is at 27,735 ft plus 1,300 ft of growth = 29,035 ft.

And you can apply the same principles or analogy or whatever idioms you want to stalactite and stalagmite.

Were they here or formed already when God created the earth? Yes! And when man started observing their growth, with simple arithmetic, all theories about the age of the earth came out, some are saying billions of years while others hundreds of millions of years. Where is the proof? NONE!

Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away at a tiny, although
measurable distance from the earth every year. If you do the math, you
can calculate that 85 million years ago the moon was orbiting the
earth at a distance of about 35 feet.
This would explain the death of the dinosaurs...
the tallest ones, anyway.

 

[David M]

Lets open by pointing out that the first article that JM2C seems to think I am "contradicting" was dated 1982, the change in time frames that can be determined is for no reason other than the improved sensitivity of the equipment used. None of the underlying principles have changed and back in 82 the dates we see today were theoretically possible but not practically achievable.

The Wiki page does mention the more up to date figure of 60,000 years.

Let me ask you about dating rocks. How do geologists measure the millions of years in a piece of rock?

Radiocarbon dating is not used on rocks.

Other radiometric dating methods are used and they are highly accurate.

 

[outhouse]

follow the creation of earth in Genesis around 6000 years ago

Then we refuse all academia. And start literally throwing education and facts out the window.

Some people here give great examples of this fanaticism.