Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[John53]

The problem I have with some attempted discourses is that the information presented by those who claim to know scientific responses to questions are simply repeating what scientists have proposed yet those offering the proposals cannot explain the details but simply accept what it says as long as it agrees with their opinion.

Like what? How about some examples so we know what you're talking about and can try to fix it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry if I presumed what was not there. I apologize if I misunderstood from your comments. That was the feeling I had, perhaps nothing you said in the past about the Bible.
The problem I have with some attempted discourses is that the information presented by those who claim to know scientific responses to questions are simply repeating what scientists have proposed yet those offering the proposals cannot explain the details but simply accept what it says as long as it agrees with their opinion. Now from some recent research I have done on the age of the earth (I am not a "young earth" proponent, but believe from the evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years that some people propose). I'll look for the research again but brings out that physical situations change, earth contents go back and forth.

If you asked honest questions they would be answered. But the problem is that your questions look as if you were looking for an excuse to reject the science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, that was the one I found. I was on the tablet lying on the bed so couldn't copy it. Next I knew the tablet was on the bed and I'd lost 30 minutes. But a nap is still a nap.

A nap is always a winner. But the least best are the ones where my passengers wake me up with their screams.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sorry if I presumed what was not there. I apologize if I misunderstood from your comments. That was the feeling I had, perhaps nothing you said in the past about the Bible.
The problem I have with some attempted discourses is that the information presented by those who claim to know scientific responses to questions are simply repeating what scientists have proposed yet those offering the proposals cannot explain the details but simply accept what it says as long as it agrees with their opinion. Now from some recent research I have done on the age of the earth (I am not a "young earth" proponent, but believe from the evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years that some people propose). I'll look for the research again but brings out that physical situations change, earth contents go back and forth.

There are plenty of sites where you could look up these things yourself. Google.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like what? How about some examples so we know what you're talking about and can try to fix it.

It has been my experience here that details are shared, but that sharing produces no more response than those typically available. In other words, you get nothing for your effort but more of the same.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are plenty of sites where you could look up these things yourself. Google.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is another good point. Most of the basic information is freely and widely available. And the evidence of the past performance here indicates a familiarity with the internet and how to find that information.

It seems to me there isn't a real interest in the facts, but attacking positions based on them for reasons not always revealed, but often very clear in the nature of the commentaries.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sorry if I presumed what was not there. I apologize if I misunderstood from your comments. That was the feeling I had, perhaps nothing you said in the past about the Bible.
The problem I have with some attempted discourses is that the information presented by those who claim to know scientific responses to questions are simply repeating what scientists have proposed yet those offering the proposals cannot explain the details but simply accept what it says as long as it agrees with their opinion. Now from some recent research I have done on the age of the earth (I am not a "young earth" proponent, but believe from the evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years that some people propose). I'll look for the research again but brings out that physical situations change, earth contents go back and forth.

When the explanations are offered in greater detail they are waved away in the same manner as the briefer responses. There is no incentive to extend the information into deeper and more detailed effort. I have done it regularly in an effort to summarize and provide information to those that may be reading and not participating directly, but experience has taught me that doing so for some participants is a waste of time.

I recall from memory that detailed explanations have been provided to you on many occasions only to have you return at regular intervals demanding that same information again. I conclude two possible main reasons for this, and one is a concern and the other is not very flattering.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

There are plenty of sites where you could look up these things yourself. Google.

Age of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All that has been refuted in many ways.
Even isochron dating, which is supposed to be the most accurate, is not accurate at all.
There are many "clocks" that show that the earth and the universe are not billions of years old or even millions of year old, but thousands of years old.

 

[ratiocinator]

All that has been refuted in many ways.
Even isochron dating, which is supposed to be the most accurate, is not accurate at all.

Baseless, unargued, unevidenced assertions are never convincing. And you have already proved that you're scientifically illiterate.

There are many "clocks" that show that the earth and the universe are not billions of years old or even millions of year old, but thousands of years old.

Another baseless assertion. What 'clocks'?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand your point but is death evil?

No.

Or is death by gravity evil if a person lost his balance?

No.

If a person lost his balance and accidently fell on a person nearby and that person fell to his death, would the act be evil?

No.

If we didn't have gravity of course he wouldn't have fallen to his death.

There would be no "falling", period.
There also wouldn't be any life or stars or planets.
There might in fact not even be a universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All that has been refuted in many ways.
Even isochron dating, which is supposed to be the most accurate, is not accurate at all.
There are many "clocks" that show that the earth and the universe are not billions of years old or even millions of year old, but thousands of years old.

Really? Then please link the peer reviewed papers that do this. I must have missed all of the headline papers that came out when this happened.

Why do you keep calling your god a liar?

 

[Valjean]

All that has been refuted in many ways.

Name some of the ways.
If radiometry were inaccurate, why haven't scientists stopped using it?

Even isochron dating, which is supposed to be the most accurate, is not accurate at all.
There are many "clocks" that show that the earth and the universe are not billions of years old or even millions of year old, but thousands of years old.

Once you get down to thousands of years there are other, non-radiometric dating dating methods that can be brought into play. They confirm an Earth >6,000 years.

 

[John53]

It has been my experience here that details are shared, but that sharing produces no more response than those typically available. In other words, you get nothing for your effort but more of the same.

There was no response to my request of examples. Not surprising.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Name some of the ways.
If radiometry were inaccurate, why haven't scientists stopped using it?

Once you get down to thousands of years there are other, non-radiometric dating dating methods that can be brought into play. They confirm an Earth >6,000 years.

Well there are fossils that are supposedly about 100 million years old and are not C-14 dead, so evolution is false using C-14 dating .
There are many other things that are supposed to be C-14 dead based on evolution and are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well there are fossils that are supposedly about 100 million years old and are not C-14 dead, so evolution is false using C-14 dating .
There are many other things that are supposed to be C-14 dead based on evolution and are not.

No, there really are not. There are dates from fossils that indicate that their dates are from contamination. We went over this. Here is a link from the dishonest (they lied about what their topic was when the finagled their way into a scientific discussion). The figures are what one would expect if the C14 was from contamination. They do not math flud figures.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, there really are not. There are dates from fossils that indicate that their dates are from contamination. We went over this. Here is a link from the dishonest (they lied about what their topic was when the finagled their way into a scientific discussion). The figures are what one would expect if the C14 was from contamination. They do not math flud figures.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

What contamination?
They were not and there are a whole lot of them. More than just that.
Coal, diamonds, etc.
And those measurements are correct.

BTW, all fossils and things supposedly older than 6000 years old should be C-14 dated immediately and for evermore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What contamination?
They were not and there are a whole lot of them. More than just that.
Coal, diamonds, etc.
And those measurements are correct.

BTW, all fossils and things supposedly older than 6000 years old should be C-14 dated immediately and for evermore.

We do not know exactly what contamination since once again they did not follow proper protocols. That alone makes their dates worthless. One cannot just dig up a sample and say "here, date this". It only takes a very small amount of contamination to give a false date.

As usual you are not paying attention to the argument. If the C14 was from the flood they should all be the same age. And they are not. In fact none of them are from the proper age for creationists. If the C14 was from contamination it would likely be on the higher ages for C14 since it takes more contamination, in fact a lot more contamination to get younger ages in an old sample. But since contamination would have been added rather randomly we would expect to see a range of ages that has nothing to do with how old the fossils are. And that is what we see. A range of ages for fossils that according to creationists should all have the same far younger age. That shows it was almost certainly contamination and not actual dates.

You probably won't understand that, but others will.

 

[Valjean]

Well there are fossils that are supposedly about 100 million years old and are not C-14 dead, so evolution is false using C-14 dating .
There are many other things that are supposed to be C-14 dead based on evolution and are not.

But noöne is using C-14 dating on a fossil believed to be older than ~ 50,000 years. Do you not think researchers know the appropriate tool for a task, and how to use it?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We do not know exactly what contamination since once again they did not follow proper protocols. That alone makes their dates worthless. One cannot just dig up a sample and say "here, date this". It only takes a very small amount of contamination to give a false date.

As usual you are not paying attention to the argument. If the C14 was from the flood they should all be the same age. And they are not. In fact none of them are from the proper age for creationists. If the C14 was from contamination it would likely be on the higher ages for C14 since it takes more contamination, in fact a lot more contamination to get younger ages in an old sample. But since contamination would have been added rather randomly we would expect to see a range of ages that has nothing to do with how old the fossils are. And that is what we see. A range of ages for fossils that according to creationists should all have the same far younger age. That shows it was almost certainly contamination and not actual dates.

You probably won't understand that, but others will.

If you looked at the dated fossils in the link, they are in pretty good agreement.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

 

[SavedByTheLord]

But noöne is using C-14 dating on a fossil believed to be older than ~ 50,000 years. Do you not think researchers know the appropriate tool for a task, and how to use it?

Why?
That is just an assumption.

All things supposedly older than must be C-14 tested ASAP.

These were and look at the results.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us