Author Topic: OT-Religion...  (Read 134768 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

To answer about morality...
The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response. Is there any experimental evidence supporting this viewpoint? In a newly released book, Three Seductive Ideas, Harvard University psychologist, Jerome Kagan, makes the claim (and backs it up with experimental evidence) that humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth. Dr. Kagan refutes the ideas of evolutionary psychologists, including "infant determinism" (the idea that all human behavior is set by age 2) hedonism (the idea that all human behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain), and "abstractionism" (the idea that all human behavior is controlled by a limited set of laws or rules). He points out that men who committed terrible atrocities had loving parents during their childhood years and that "evolutionary arguments are used to cleanse greed, promiscuity, and abuse of stepchildren of moral taint." Instead, Dr. Kagan shows that humans are a special creation, endowed with a spiritual nature, and motivated by a desire to maintain a feeling of virtue, which is unique among sentient animals. He points out that there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt. Humans also appreciate the difference between moral right and wrong. According to Dr. Kagan, "Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another." According to a recent review of the book in Science, "The idea of the duality of human nature (of meaning over and above mechanism, or mind over and above mechanism, of angel over and above beast), and of the remarkable discontinuity of human nature from everything that came before, is alive and well for Kagan precisely because he has such a high regard for facts."12
--The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out

 
Re: A humorous example...
Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Aristotle


Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
science


Aristotle != science.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Two good reasons for taking young earth creationism seriously and for not relagating it to the same shelf as speculations about the lost city of Atlantis are as follows.


I don't put them on the same shelf.  I find the speculations about the lost city of Atlantis more likely (not the more insane stuff, just the speculation that the myth may have been based on a real city).  Troy was thought to be fiction until it was found.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Firstly, young earth creationism has grown and developed intellectually over time. One need only compare seminal works such as the Genesis Flood published in 1961, and with the papers coming out of the last International Conference on Creationism in 1998, and other examples I have given in previous pages. These papers manifest a great increase in the sophistication of arguments being deployed. If creationism is a pseudoscience, it is only one we are aware of that has grown in this manner.


Your argument is as such:

Premise: Pseudo-science does not grow.
Premise: Creationism has grown.
Conclusion: Creationism is not pseudo-science.

You have not established your first premise.  It seems to me that pseudo-science has grown in many ways over time.  UFOs are generally regarded as pseudo-science, and yet they are a relatively recent invention (1940s/1950s, somewhere around there I think).

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Second, young earth creationism is intellectually exciting. It has a ton of empirical evidence already in its favour (see the collected Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism ). The pivotal fact is that good and interesting science can now be done in a young earth framework.


Premise: Young earth creationism is exciting.
Premise: Pseudo-science is not exciting.
Conclusion: Young earth creationism is not a pseudo-science.

I would disagree with both those premises.  Young earth creationism does not excite me.  Pseudo-science can be exciting, at least until it's proven incorrect; remember cold fusion.
"Vasudans and Shivans don't wear clothes coz they told the serpant to go expletive himself. :D" - an0n

:(:(:(

NotDefault

 
I used to be an evolutionist...
Like most people, I grew up believing in evolution. It was taught at school. There was that Dawkins dude. But after reading books such as M. Behe (1996)- Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, I wanted to find out the truth. If you people want to know the truth, why don't you people try and find all about Christianity, evolution, and creationism?
Me personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read Mere Christianity? by C. S. Lewis with a geniune search for the truth could not become a Christian. (Mere Christianity is a book about Christianity, not about evolution or creationism as such).
--The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out

 

Offline Pera

  • Tapper
  • 28
Re: A humorous example...
Quote
Modern readers find this quotation from Aristotle amusing. This is an example of how science can easily go wrong. Despite evidence in the 17th century to the contrary such ideas were finally laid to rest only from the work of Louis Pasteur.

And that's excactly what makes science science. It changes. Creationists believe the world was created by god, and won't change their opinion even if the whole world shouted "You're wrong!" at their faces. Once again, if someone makes a theory which has more evidence that evolution, then I believe it's more true than evolution. Creotionism isn't.


Quote
The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response


It doesn't matter what the bible says, it's just a collection of stories by a 2000-year old nomad tribe.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Firstly, young earth creationism has grown and developed intellectually over time. One need only compare seminal works such as the Genesis Flood published in 1961, and with the papers coming out of the last International Conference on Creationism in 1998, and other examples I have given in previous pages. These papers manifest a great increase in the sophistication of arguments being deployed. If creationism is a pseudoscience, it is only one we are aware of that has grown in this manner.

Second, young earth creationism is intellectually exciting. It has a ton of empirical evidence already in its favour (see the collected Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism ). The pivotal fact is that good and interesting science can now be done in a young earth framework.


There's one problem with this evidence. The creationists believe they know how things are, and then desperately try to find things to support those beliefs.

You see, I've heard someone say, that before the big flood(or whatever it's called in english, the one with Noah's ark) there was a large amount of water in the atmosphere. Indeed, if this was how it happended, the flood would have been possible. However, there is no evidence saying that the atmosphere once was like this. They just needed an explanation on how the flood was possible.  And that's not science, it's speculation.

That was just one example, but most of the creationists evidence is just like that.

BTW, I understood you believe in young earth creationism? Now, my english is a bit rusty, but does that mean you think the earth was created not so long ago? Say 5000-10000 years ago? If this is the case, then you must see that the flood(in the way bible describes it) is completely impossible, and therefore, the earths fossile layers could not have been created by the flood.

Edit: language
« Last Edit: May 23, 2002, 04:19:02 am by 442 »
One is never alone with a rubberduck - Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy

The Apocalypse Project

 
 
Re: To answer about morality...
Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response. Is there any experimental evidence supporting this viewpoint? In a newly released book, Three Seductive Ideas, Harvard University psychologist, Jerome Kagan, makes the claim (and backs it up with experimental evidence) that


Nice, you reference a book that I have absolutely no desire to read, and then proceed to provide an incomplete summary of what it says.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth.


You think?  :rolleyes:

Other species don't generally use computers, drive cars, or have arguments like this.  Of course humans are different.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Dr. Kagan refutes the ideas of evolutionary psychologists, including "infant determinism" (the idea that all human behavior is set by age 2)


Erm, I don't see this as fundamental to evolutionary theory.  Of course human behavior isn't set by age 2.  That's obvious.

What exactly is his point?

On the other hand, if you ever read or watch a biography of a person, it's obvious that what occured to them in their childhood had a drastic affect on the way they acted later in life.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
hedonism (the idea that all human behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain),


Although I can't see the book, I'd guess this is based upon a distorted view of what provides pleasure and what provides pain.  Pure physical pleasure and pure physical pain are not the only punishment and reward system that humans have.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
and "abstractionism" (the idea that all human behavior is controlled by a limited set of laws or rules).


I can't comment without knowing more about "abstractionism" or the arguments he makes to shoot it down.  

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
He points out that men who committed terrible atrocities had loving parents during their childhood years and that "evolutionary arguments are used to cleanse greed, promiscuity, and abuse of stepchildren of moral taint."


Riiiight...

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_LightningInstead, Dr. Kagan shows that humans are a special creation, endowed with a spiritual nature, and motivated by a desire to maintain a feeling of virtue, which is unique among sentient animals. He points out that there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt.


I'm going to fire back your quote at you: "humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth."

First of all, how could we even tell if an animal was showing pride, shame, or guilt?  After all, they would likely have a different way of expressing it.  Second, most primates do not have TVs.  This doesn't mean that it's impossible that we evolved from them and yet build and use TVs.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Humans also appreciate the difference between moral right and wrong. According to Dr. Kagan, "Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another."


"humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth."

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
According to a recent review of the book in Science, "The idea of the duality of human nature (of meaning over and above mechanism, or mind over and above mechanism, of angel over and above beast), and of the remarkable discontinuity of human nature from everything that came before, is alive and well for Kagan precisely because he has such a high regard for facts."12


It seems to me the book isn't about disproving evolution, anyway.  It's about showing that humans are very distinct mentally from those which we evolved from.  This is reasonable.  I don't see why you put this forward as evidence for Creationism.
"Vasudans and Shivans don't wear clothes coz they told the serpant to go expletive himself. :D" - an0n

:(:(:(

NotDefault

 
The Genesis flood doesn't have to be Global...
Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalms 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalms 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalms 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood.

Give me a break! The Bible says that the water covered the whole earth... Really?
When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered the entire earth.2 However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible usually refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground." We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.

The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)
Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.3

The "whole earth" often refers to the people not geography
However, there are many more examples of where kol erets is used without reference to any specific land, although the interpretation clearly indicates a local area. For example, in Genesis 11 (the Tower of Babel) the text says, "the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language."4 We know that this reference is not really to the earth at all (and certainly not to the "whole earth"), but to the people of the earth, who all lived in one geographic location. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth.5 There are many other examples of where kol erets actually refers to people rather than the geography of the "whole earth".

This extract is from this site
--The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out

 

Offline Pera

  • Tapper
  • 28
Blitz, stop spamming with links to sites containing 5 cent philosophy, and answer to other peoples posts.
One is never alone with a rubberduck - Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy

The Apocalypse Project

 

Offline Pera

  • Tapper
  • 28
Re: The Genesis flood doesn't have to be Global...
Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth...]


This leads to an obvious guestion, if the flood didn't cover the whole world, then how did the fossile layers get there? :)

And what makes you think english bible is any closer to the truth than the Finnish(my home country) one? Actually, I believe it was translated to finnish _earlier_ than english(though not 100% sure about this), which would make it even closer to the original.
One is never alone with a rubberduck - Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy

The Apocalypse Project

 
That one was answering another post...
NotDefault obviously hasnt been reading the last few pages... those people were saying that morality comes from evolution.
The last post of mine was to say that humans have morality only, that is one of the reasons why we are so different to other animals. My last post gave a reason why morality could'nt come from evolution. Read stuff in context, plz!
--The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out

 
Re: A cool site of reasons to believe in Christianity
Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
10 reasons to believe

In this site, there are: -
10 reasons to believe in the Christian Faith

10 reasons to believe in the Bible

10 reasons to believe in the existence of God

10 reasons to believe in a God who allows suffering

10 reasons to believe there is life after death

10 reasons to believe in Christ rather than religion

10 reasons to believe Christ Rose from the Dead

10 reasons to believe God became a man

10 reasons why Real Christians can look like they're not ...........


Give me a break.  That's ridiculous.  I started looking at it but gave up when I realized that it was only quoting the Bible.

Saying the Bible says that such and such was healed by Jesus, therefore Jesus is the son of God, therefore the Bible is accurate, therefore you should believe in the Christian faith is stupid.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read Mere Christianity? by C. S. Lewis with a geniune search for the truth could not become a Christian.


Obviously.  You're a Christian.  I find it hard to believe anyone could read a book on evolution and not realize that Creationism is bogus.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
*various things about the flood


Erm, the flood may have happened.  That doesn't make the Bible correct.
"Vasudans and Shivans don't wear clothes coz they told the serpant to go expletive himself. :D" - an0n

:(:(:(

NotDefault

 

Offline Pera

  • Tapper
  • 28
Re: Re: A cool site of reasons to believe in Christianity
Quote
Originally posted by NotDefault

Erm, the flood may have happened.  That doesn't make the Bible correct.


But not in the way the bible describes it.
One is never alone with a rubberduck - Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy

The Apocalypse Project

 
Re: That one was answering another post...
Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
NotDefault obviously hasnt been reading the last few pages... those people were saying that morality comes from evolution.


Actually, I have read the last few pages, and guess what, I was the one who said that morality comes from evolution (well, maybe "those people" did as well).  Nothing you have said disproves that!  I find it very hard to figure out what you're trying to argue against in your posts because you post pages upon pages of links to irrelevant sites and information and you never quote anyone you're trying to argue against.

I'll assume you're talking about the "Three Seductive Ideas" book; if so, human morality being unique doesn't mean it didn't evolve!  Most of the changes leading up to humans had to do with changing our brains.  On the other hand, maybe the book did present arguments against it, but you just failed to mention them.  In that case, shut up about how I didn't read your post until you provide said arguments.

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
The last post of mine was to say that humans have morality only, that is one of the reasons why we are so different to other animals. My last post gave a reason why morality could'nt come from evolution.


It did not give a reason why morality couldn't come from evolution!  Read your own posts before you complain about me not reading them! :mad:

Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Read stuff in context, plz!


Maybe if you didn't post massive amounts of irrelevant information, I'd have more time to carefully analyze each of your posts to figure out what you meant by it.  Until then, I'm heading for bed.
"Vasudans and Shivans don't wear clothes coz they told the serpant to go expletive himself. :D" - an0n

:(:(:(

NotDefault

 
Re: Re: Re: A cool site of reasons to believe in Christianity
Quote
Originally posted by Pera
But not in the way the bible describes it.


Yep.  I didn't realize you were talking about him saying that the flood explains the fossil record.  This debate nearly moves faster than I can read it and post about it...
"Vasudans and Shivans don't wear clothes coz they told the serpant to go expletive himself. :D" - an0n

:(:(:(

NotDefault

 

Offline Top Gun

  • 23
Re: That one was answering another post...
Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
The last post of mine was to say that humans have morality only, that is one of the reasons why we are so different to other animals. My last post gave a reason why morality could'nt come from evolution. Read stuff in context, plz!

Ha, you're making me laugh. Go and study animal behaviour. A species would not survive for very long if they randomly attacked each other without restraint.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2002, 04:57:08 am by 266 »

 
How bout reading what I posted on pages 27-28?
You people haven't yet posted anything contrary to the evidence for a young earth on pages 27, 28... not one whit...

Here's a sample of what I posted...  :)
First of all, about all the "radiometric dating". Only the uranium-lead method of dating is the method that gives all those billions of years. But it is now known that radioactive thorium (the stuff that is always found in the ores that are used to date the age of the world) itself changes normal lead into radiogenic lead when it decays (which is the lead produced by the decay of uranium into lead, which ratio of which (lead-uranium) is used to date the earth). Now when you consider that uranium emits alpha particles (helium nuclei) when it decays into lead, you would ask, where is all the supposed helium? The amount of helium found on earth and in the atmosphere, supposing that it was made just from this decay, is nowhere near the amount it should be if the earth was billions of years old. The amount of helium found now suggests to scientists that the earth is <10000 years old. Now you might say that all the helium escapes from the earth. This is not true. Only hydrogen is light enough to escape the earth, for those who study physics would realize. In fact, earth gains helium when travelling through the space dust around the earth. And this amount gained this way is about the same as from decay of uranium. Thus, the amount of helium is only gaining.

Another radiometric dating is C14. Did you know that the amount of C14 is now known not to be at equilibrium, as it should have after only 30 000 yrs? The rate of creation of C14 is about 25% more than it is destroyed. Tracing this rate back to a time in which the amount of C14 is zero, it gives a date of the earth as <10000 yrs!

Fred Hoyle (the man who coined "the big bang" phrase) stated that the probability of the making of the simplest possible organism by chance would be around 10^7800 (this is for an organism with 200 genes, while the most simple one known has 300). The universe has only 10^80 particles, and only 10^18 seconds have elapsed, according to the big bang model. This is a truly staggering figure. Now, this is even only a very conservative estimate. Neutral scientists on this issue have even suggested values such as 10^10500!.

We can also consider the strengths of the weak and strong nuclear force. If either of these forces were off by a fraction of a percent, then either all the elements that could exist would be either hydrogen or helium, as all the elements such as lithium and beyond would be unstable. Or, on the other hand, hydrogen would automatically merge to form helium, all carbon to form heavier elements, etc.

If the amount of matter in the universe was to be over by a trillionth of what it is, big bang theorists say that the universe would have started contracting before the inflationary epoch. If it was a fraction less, galaxies, clusters, etc would be impossible.

Now don't tell me you'll suggest natural selection in these properties of the universe?
--The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out

 
Some more for a young earth...
Extract from this site

Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.


Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically -- these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of "rock" bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris[26] and Austin.[27]

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]

The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.[29]

Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape -- certainly not billions of years.[30]

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star -- the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for "young" galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.[31]

The moon is slowly receding for the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric "dates" assigned to moon rocks.[32]
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old -- far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.[33]
--The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out

 

Offline Top Gun

  • 23
Re: How bout reading what I posted on pages 27-28?
Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
Only the uranium-lead method of dating is the method that gives all those billions of years. But it is now known that radioactive thorium (the stuff that is always found in the ores that are used to date the age of the world) itself changes normal lead into radiogenic lead when it decays (which is the lead produced by the decay of uranium into lead, which ratio of which (lead-uranium) is used to date the earth).

That's misleading and almost an outright lie. Yes, Thorium is a problem, which is why, when dating rocks using this method, we need to be careful that the rock hasn't taken up any thorium. The places where it is least likely to have done is in caves, deep water and land fall areas. Now why don't you focus your amazing critical thinking skills on the Bible, which has thousands of faults which you seem to be able to ignore :rolleyes:

 
More about C14 dating...
A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as “infinite.”

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it is interesting that so few specimens have old dates, suggesting a rapid increase in the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

On the same subject, some fossils from the Paluxy River are “anomalous” as well. Carbonized (burnt) wood was discovered in Cretaceous limestone, and dated to 12,800 to 45,000 YBP.

Coffin gives quite a bit of evidence from increases of C14 ages with depth that the concentration of C14 has increased rapidly in recent years, making C14 dates too old, especially after about 4000 years ago. The fact that C14 is still increasing in the atmosphere shows that the earth recently went through some kind of a catastrophe, and this increase is even admitted by some evolutionists.

It has been claimed that Carbon 14 dating was revolutionized in 1969 or so. But it remains to establish how much in error the old dates were. It seems to be a common pattern that when dating methods are revised, we are told how inaccurate the old methods were, but are not told how inaccurate the current methods are.

A number of people requested references for my statements about young carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils. Here is what I found at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a small amount of C14 that for practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In fact, of thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to 1968, only a handful were classed “undatable” - most were of the sort which should have been in this category. This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago! Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views:

Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).

Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old, yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966. Many of the earlier radiocarbon dates on objects such as coal and gas, which should be undatable, have been attributed to contamination from, for example, workers’ fingerprints, creationist researchers are currently working on the construction of an apparatus, using existing technology, to look for very low levels of C14 activity in, for example, coal after excluding contamination. Such low-level activity would not be expected on the basis of old earth theory, and so is not looked for at present.)

Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000-one million years old, gave a date of 28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968)
--The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out

 

Offline HotSnoJ

  • Knossos Online!
  • 29
    • http://josherickson.org
Re: Re: A humorous example...
Quote
Originally posted by Pera

1. And that's excactly what makes science science. It changes. Creationists believe the world was created by god, and won't change their opinion even if the whole world shouted "You're wrong!" at their faces. Once again, if someone makes a theory which has more evidence that evolution, then I believe it's more true than evolution. Creotionism isn't.

2. It doesn't matter what the bible says, it's just a collection of stories by a 2000-year old nomad tribe.


1. So what you are saying here is. That one guy (can't remember his name) said the earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth. Now what you said to Blitz Lightning was that what the masses say is true is true. So back when that guy said differently to what was believed he was wrong. But now we know today that he was right!

It will be the same with God! You will one day bow on your knee before him and confess that He is Lord!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2002, 07:06:21 am by 516 »
I have big plans, now if only I could see them through.

LiberCapacitas duo quiasemper
------------------------------
Nav buoy - They mark things