what gives credibility?

[gseeker]

Radiometric dating has given us plenty of evidence. Do you have any evidence against the accuracy of it? Scientists adjust their results for possible contamination and use different types of radiometric dating to make sure that the datings are correct.

Radiometric dating is claimed to be accurate up to 45,000 years well short of the 4.5 billion years that is claimed to be the age of the earth. If you think that every mitigating factor that might affect the dating system during the entire 45,000 years.... ever hear of fantasy land because you are living there.

So in the end radiometric dating cannot be used to prove the age of the earth because even if it were accurate it is too limited.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Radiometric dating is not as limited as you think.

Uranium-lead radiometric dating has an error margin of 2-5% And can measure from two million to 2.5 billion years ago.

And radiometric dating is only one of many methods used in determining the age of the Earth, and our Universe.

 

[Curious George]

Again I state, same evidence different interpretation. The evidence you hint at is disproven as a means to define the age of the earth because we use modern measurements trying to define the past though change isn't a constant. When we see something working in a certain way and think to ourselves, that must be exactly how that has always functioned that is a assumption that can't be proven.

I see what you are saying. However, the idea is that while one extrapolation might be incorrect, the more and more independent extrapolations that arise and point to the same answer provides strong evidence toward that answer.

Imagine a graph of which we can only see a small portion of the middle of the graph. On the portion we can see is a function. we don't know where it starts or where it ends but based on its behavior it starts at point (4,0). If we were to assume that this was the starting point we would have reason to do so, however we might very well be wrong. Now imagine the same portion of the same graph is covered with millions of functions that all behave differently. Even though we do not know the starting point of these functions we know that they all share the same starting point. if we were to extrapolate all of the origins and they all pointed to roughly the same point, we would be foolish not to assume that was the origin of the functions.

Now surely we do not have a million different ways to indicate the beginning of the earth, however we have many different fossil remains, we have earths layers, hell we even have the moon and its craters. we have light that travels at a constant speed that would take so long to reach our planet we have radioactive decay we have anthropological and genetic evidence that all fits into a rough estimate that suggest how long the earth has been around. They may not all point to the exact date, nor did all of these functions have the same starting point, but it is evidence nonetheless. evidence we would be remiss to ignore.

But suppose you are right. suppose we discount all of that. Then we are left with today. We know we are here today. We cannot then be sure of anything much outside of that. I might as well suggest that the Bible was written 100 years ago. and suggest that no one could prove me wrong. Sure people have copies that say they were written hundreds of years ago, but they could be complete fabrications. those 3000 year old Vedas? eh, you mean 120 year old Vedas. photographs, paintings all that have existed more than 100 years ago? they could all be fabrications we have no way to prove anything.

Dinosaurs did live and it wasn't last century. If we discount the methods you want to discount then we have no methods left. How then should we proceed to understand the world then?

 

[McBell]

How then should we proceed to understand the world then?

Seems he is content with merely making it all up as he goes along.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Radiometric dating is claimed to be accurate up to 45,000 years well short of the 4.5 billion years that is claimed to be the age of the earth. If you think that every mitigating factor that might affect the dating system during the entire 45,000 years.... ever hear of fantasy land because you are living there.

So in the end radiometric dating cannot be used to prove the age of the earth because even if it were accurate it is too limited.

Who claims that it's only accurate up to 45,000 years? If it is paleontologists rather than creationist institutions, then could you provide me with a peer-reviewed paper from the last ten years suggesting that not a single radiometric dating method is accurate for longer than 45,000 years? And of course not from any of the ID/creationist journals (like BIO-complexity or Journal of Creation).

 

[Quagmire]

"what gives credibility?"

Often times, credulity

 

[jtartar]

This is just to see who people think when it comes to the hot topic of evolution vs creation.

gseeker,
To my mind, anyone who disagrees with what the Bible says in NOT credible. According to the Holy Scriptures there is no excuse for not believing in God, because of the things made. Teleology and Cosmology are branches of science that deal with the complexities and diversity of creation.
Science knows there is a larger chasm between the most complex non-living thing, and the simplist living thing, than there is between the simplist living thing and man, a chasm that cannot be crossed, except by God, the Creator. The chance of life just happening spontaenously, is the same as having an amoeba become a full grown man overnight in a Petri dish. Scientist have abandoned the idea of Abiogenesis, a long time ago. The Bible tells us that God is the source of life, Ps 36:9.
As for evolution, you could put all that evidence in a match box, even though there have been oven a million fossils found. There has never been found any animal or plant with two different KINDS in their makeup, so that a Paleoscientist could not differenciate,
According to the Bible a well known law was put in place by the creator, the law of Prestabolism. This means that ALL life forms will ONLY reproduce after their own kinds. There has never been found a plant or animal breaking this law. Any changes within a Kind is called Ontogenesis and has nothing to do with crossing the boundry set by the Creator. Notice how the Bible says ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN KIND several times in Genesis chapter one, verses 21,24, 25. Thousands of experiments, both en vivo and en vitro. Of course these were controlled experiments, with scientists trying to cross the boundry, but could not. This line of experimenting has all but been given up on.
It seems that the Bible is right all along, there is just no excuse for man not to believe in God. It seems that the only answer is WILLFUL BLINDNESS. Or as some Pseudoscientists have stated; The only alternative to evolution is creation, and that is unthinkable. True science supports what the Bible says!!!

 

[Curious George]

gseeker,

As for evolution, you could put all that evidence in a match box, even though there have been oven a million fossils found. There has never been found any animal or plant with two different KINDS in their makeup, so that a Paleoscientist could not differenciate,
According to the Bible a well known law was put in place by the creator, the law of Prestabolism. This means that ALL life forms will ONLY reproduce after their own kinds. There has never been found a plant or animal breaking this law. Any changes within a Kind is called Ontogenesis and has nothing to do with crossing the boundry set by the Creator.

so are you suggesting that given one instance of phylogeny that you are willing to admit that Prestabolism has been broken and therefore the Bible is wrong, incorrect and invalid?

 

[Willamena]

This is just to see who people think when it comes to the hot topic of evolution vs creation.

The appearance of truth. The qualifications are, first and foremost, that a statement made must have quality, it has to "work"; then the appearance of truth makes it credible. Secondly, retroactively, the person saying it must be believable. In order for the latter to occur, some fractional bit of his or her history has to be known--but the second isn't really necessary for credibilty. If the person speaking agrees with something someone else of credibility has said, someone in your memory whose history has already been verified, that lends it that qualification. The speaker "borrows" the latter qualification from this other speaker.

 

[McBell]

gseeker,
To my mind, anyone who disagrees with what the Bible says in NOT credible. According to the Holy Scriptures there is no excuse for not believing in God, because of the things made. Teleology and Cosmology are branches of science that deal with the complexities and diversity of creation.
Science knows there is a larger chasm between the most complex non-living thing, and the simplist living thing, than there is between the simplist living thing and man, a chasm that cannot be crossed, except by God, the Creator. The chance of life just happening spontaenously, is the same as having an amoeba become a full grown man overnight in a Petri dish. Scientist have abandoned the idea of Abiogenesis, a long time ago. The Bible tells us that God is the source of life, Ps 36:9.
As for evolution, you could put all that evidence in a match box, even though there have been oven a million fossils found. There has never been found any animal or plant with two different KINDS in their makeup, so that a Paleoscientist could not differenciate,
According to the Bible a well known law was put in place by the creator, the law of Prestabolism. This means that ALL life forms will ONLY reproduce after their own kinds. There has never been found a plant or animal breaking this law. Any changes within a Kind is called Ontogenesis and has nothing to do with crossing the boundry set by the Creator. Notice how the Bible says ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN KIND several times in Genesis chapter one, verses 21,24, 25. Thousands of experiments, both en vivo and en vitro. Of course these were controlled experiments, with scientists trying to cross the boundry, but could not. This line of experimenting has all but been given up on.
It seems that the Bible is right all along, there is just no excuse for man not to believe in God. It seems that the only answer is WILLFUL BLINDNESS. Or as some Pseudoscientists have stated; The only alternative to evolution is creation, and that is unthinkable. True science supports what the Bible says!!!

Ah yes,
The creationists ultimate safety net, throwing out the word "kind" as if it had some sort of useful outside their theology definition.

 

[Krok]

gseeker,
Scientist have abandoned the idea of Abiogenesis, a long time ago.

Lie.

As for evolution, you could put all that evidence in a match box, even though there have been oven a million fossils found.

Lie.

Creationists always have to lie. That's all they have.

 

[Krok]

Radiometric dating is not as limited as you think.

Uranium-lead radiometric dating has an error margin of 2-5% And can measure from two million to 2.5 billion years ago.

And radiometric dating is only one of many methods used in determining the age of the Earth, and our Universe.

I see gseeker told untruths about everything here.

Carbon dating is accurate to around 60 000 years , while K/Ar dating is accurate for the oldest rocks found on earth, with the half-live of K-40 being 1.3 billion years.

Gseeker probably thinks that carbon dating is the only radiometric dating method around. There's news for him: we've got many of them. And they agree where they overlap.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To my mind, anyone who disagrees with what the Bible says in NOT credible.

Well, you've saved us a lot of work exposing your bias already, then.

According to the Holy Scriptures there is no excuse for not believing in God, because of the things made. Teleology and Cosmology are branches of science that deal with the complexities and diversity of creation.

Wrong. Teleology is a philosophy, not a science, and cosmology makes no assumptions about whether the Universe was created or not.

Science knows there is a larger chasm between the most complex non-living thing, and the simplist living thing, than there is between the simplist living thing and man, a chasm that cannot be crossed, except by God, the Creator.

Actually, that's not true. The simplest living things can hardly be said to be displaying much more "life" than anything else - a virus, for example.

The chance of life just happening spontaenously, is the same as having an amoeba become a full grown man overnight in a Petri dish.

Nonsense. Firstly, you cannot possibly calculate the possibility of such an event occuring - the formula would be impossible to deduce. Secondly, even if you could it wouldn't mean anything, since life did not occur spontaneously or through chance but through a lengthy sequence of of chemical and physical interactions.

Scientist have abandoned the idea of Abiogenesis, a long time ago.

Flat-out lie. Abiogenesis is still being investigated. In fact, several breakthroughs have been made in field in the last few months.

The Bible tells us that God is the source of life, Ps 36:9.

Well, I'm sure you're happy believing whatever a book tells you. The rest of us will continue looking for the actual truth.

As for evolution, you could put all that evidence in a match box, even though there have been oven a million fossils found.

Ugh, that doesn't even make sense.

There has never been found any animal or plant with two different KINDS in their makeup, so that a Paleoscientist could not differenciate

Again, that doesn't even make sense. What exactly are "kinds" and how do you expect to find "two different kinds" in an animal's genetic makeup? How would the absence of that demonstrate evolution? Do you even know what you're talking about?

According to the Bible a well known law was put in place by the creator, the law of Prestabolism. This means that ALL life forms will ONLY reproduce after their own kinds. There has never been found a plant or animal breaking this law. Any changes within a Kind is called Ontogenesis and has nothing to do with crossing the boundry set by the Creator. Notice how the Bible says ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN KIND several times in Genesis chapter one, verses 21,24, 25. Thousands of experiments, both en vivo and en vitro. Of course these were controlled experiments, with scientists trying to cross the boundry, but could not. This line of experimenting has all but been given up on.

Define "kind" and demonstrate how and why species cannot evolve beyond the boundary of "kind".

In fact, while we're at it, define "evolution", because the above paragraph to me indicates that your understanding of it is nil.

It seems that the Bible is right all along, there is just no excuse for man not to believe in God.

Other than a complete lack of evidence.

It seems that the only answer is WILLFUL BLINDNESS. Or as some Pseudoscientists have stated; The only alternative to evolution is creation, and that is unthinkable. True science supports what the Bible says!!!

There are so many things wrong with these sentences that I can't even be bothered to point them out.