Jump to content


Photo

The Main Reason Creation Evidence Is Never Accepted As Evidence.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
32 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:35 PM

While surfing Real Science Friday website I ran across this video. In the video Bob E of the Radio talk show challenged Jack Horner to carbon date the soft tissue that's supposed to be millions of years old. Bob knew full well that "if" the tissue was millions of years old that the carbon dating would not work. But Bob also knew that if the tissue was not millions of years old and fell into the range of carbon dating there would be a accurate reading.



Now Jack Horner is trying to protect his own interests and pretty much makes that clear by saying there is no way he was going to do this testing. Even though Bob E told him he would pay for all of it and even went up to 20,000 dollar grant to the museum. Jack's response was that he did not want to turn this into a circus because of the spin that could be done with this testing.

Now was that Jack admitting that there is a possibility that the carbon dating might work and that would destroy the credibility of the evidence because it would now support creation instead of evolution?

The way I look at this is if evolution is such a true proven fact with mountains of evidence, what are the evolutionists afraid of here? Is this one prediction that will fail? Now why would Bob E ask them to do it and also make it a blind test? That's because if a creationist does it the evolutionists around the world will claim foul. So even though Bob E was trying to give them the chance to do it under their supervision they don;t want nothing to do with it.

This pretty much proves what creationist have known for a long time. The reason creation evidence is not accepted as evidence by science is because the ones that are in power of doing these things with any credibility are afraid that their credibility will be destroyed if the results do not go in the favor of evolution.

How can something be falsifiable when there is this much bias and protection that runs a muck making sure that it will never happens?

#2 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:47 PM

I had seen that video before. Yes, your thoughts on this are spot on.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 March 2012 - 11:55 PM

This video here makes it very clear that people are afraid to present any evidence that does not go along with what is currently accepted as fact.



All this basically supports Ben Steins movie expelled which all evolutionists deny goes on.



#4 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 06:44 AM

This pretty much proves what creationist have known for a long time. The reason creation evidence is not accepted as evidence by science is because the ones that are in power of doing these things with any credibility are afraid that their credibility will be destroyed if the results do not go in the favor of evolution.


Furthermore, the sniveling, cowardly sheeple that embrace darwin as their God yet claim there is no God vote down, in an endless propaganda campaign, any intelligent discussion on the matter of Intelligent Design. These are the votes from IMDb on "Expelled". Notice the large percentage of "1" votes? This is the way the God-haters attempt to suppress truth, by discouraging people to watch the film by awarding it a ridiculously low score:

Posted Image

#5 Nuada

Nuada

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Kirkcaldy, Scotland

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:04 AM

While surfing Real Science Friday website I ran across this video. In the video Bob E of the Radio talk show challenged Jack Horner to carbon date the soft tissue that's supposed to be millions of years old. Bob knew full well that "if" the tissue was millions of years old that the carbon dating would not work. But Bob also knew that if the tissue was not millions of years old and fell into the range of carbon dating there would be a accurate reading.



Now Jack Horner is trying to protect his own interests and pretty much makes that clear by saying there is no way he was going to do this testing. Even though Bob E told him he would pay for all of it and even went up to 20,000 dollar grant to the museum. Jack's response was that he did not want to turn this into a circus because of the spin that could be done with this testing.

Now was that Jack admitting that there is a possibility that the carbon dating might work and that would destroy the credibility of the evidence because it would now support creation instead of evolution?

The way I look at this is if evolution is such a true proven fact with mountains of evidence, what are the evolutionists afraid of here? Is this one prediction that will fail? Now why would Bob E ask them to do it and also make it a blind test? That's because if a creationist does it the evolutionists around the world will claim foul. So even though Bob E was trying to give them the chance to do it under their supervision they don;t want nothing to do with it.

This pretty much proves what creationist have known for a long time. The reason creation evidence is not accepted as evidence by science is because the ones that are in power of doing these things with any credibility are afraid that their credibility will be destroyed if the results do not go in the favor of evolution.

How can something be falsifiable when there is this much bias and protection that runs a muck making sure that it will never happens?


There is an inerrant problem here which seems to be overlooked. The initial samples themselves are tested for abundance of specific elements, C12 and C14 are both included in these initial test samples. After this they are dated based on the abundance and the decay of atoms contained within the fossil. Once dated the fossils are placed in a foreign (usually organic) solution to keep the atoms that lie within from decaying any further. The problem here is that any organic solution contains a large portion of C12 and C14 already in it, and after being chemically treated will give obscure results. The initial fossils (often petrified) rarely contain any carbon at all, the fossils instead are usually mineralized imprints. If not mineralized, any trace of C12 and C14 would have disappeared long ago... leaving only the treated solutions to give false readings. For future reference, any fossil that is donated to a museum is treated in a solution prior to being placed on display (or within the accepted museum parameters).

Horner is simply trying to prevent people who don't know what they are doing from dating organic solutions found on the surface of fossils and falsely heralding them as proof of a young earth creation. After all, this is not the first time this has happened.

- Nuada.
  • Alex likes this

#6 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:17 AM

Furthermore, the sniveling, cowardly sheeple that embrace darwin as their God yet claim there is no God vote down, in an endless propaganda campaign, any intelligent discussion on the matter of Intelligent Design. These are the votes from IMDb on "Expelled". Notice the large percentage of "1" votes? This is the way the God-haters attempt to suppress truth, by discouraging people to watch the film by awarding it a ridiculously low score:

Posted Image


Ow the irony of your post. What about the people giving it a 10? Not sheeple? People making desicions what movie to watch based on imdb scores aren't sheeple?

I gave it a 1 or 2 because I sincerely thought it didn't deserve anything above that number. I've seen creation based documentaries that are far better than this overhyped movie. Talking about propaganda: what do you think this movie is for Ben Stein?

#7 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:19 AM

Ow the irony of your post.


A favorite word of the Atheist/Agnostic. Yet generally inaccurate.

What about the people giving it a 10? Not sheeple?


This may be difficult, but think for a moment. I'm targeting the "1" crowd. The people that award a "1" to ANY movie believe it's the lowest piece of dung there is, worthless, and a total waste of time. Yet 56.4 % people believe this is worthless? Only if one is a God-hater. And a sheeple God-hater to boot.

On the other hand, people like me, who've watched the film and believe it's a good message, good production, etc etc etc award it a 8, 9, 10 on that basis. So your argument is all washed up.

People making desicions what movie to watch based on imdb scores aren't sheeple?


Many people browsing through films and don't know what their content are, are swayed by very low scores. That's human nature. They think the film "sucks". And most films that are rated this low DO SUCK. This one is artificially lowered, so again your argument is all washed up.

I gave it a 1 or 2 because I sincerely thought it didn't deserve anything above that number. I've seen creation based documentaries that are far better than this overhyped movie. Talking about propaganda: what do you think this movie is for Ben Stein?



You gave it a 1 or a 2 because you are biased and adverse to anything that discusses God, so be honest. I'm glad you've seen "better" but you failed to name any. This one does what it's suppose to do, nothing more, nothing less.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 March 2012 - 04:16 PM

There is an inerrant problem here which seems to be overlooked. The initial samples themselves are tested for abundance of specific elements, C12 and C14 are both included in these initial test samples. After this they are dated based on the abundance and the decay of atoms contained within the fossil. Once dated the fossils are placed in a foreign (usually organic) solution to keep the atoms that lie within from decaying any further. The problem here is that any organic solution contains a large portion of C12 and C14 already in it, and after being chemically treated will give obscure results. The initial fossils (often petrified) rarely contain any carbon at all, the fossils instead are usually mineralized imprints. If not mineralized, any trace of C12 and C14 would have disappeared long ago... leaving only the treated solutions to give false readings. For future reference, any fossil that is donated to a museum is treated in a solution prior to being placed on display (or within the accepted museum parameters).

Horner is simply trying to prevent people who don't know what they are doing from dating organic solutions found on the surface of fossils and falsely heralding them as proof of a young earth creation. After all, this is not the first time this has happened.

- Nuada.


What I find funny and ironic about this claim of cross contamination is that to keep the evidence from being tested and the possibility of it supported YEC, you come up with this. While all along the geologic column is also "organic" and is full of C12 and C14, yes or no? If cross contamination is so easy to get how can you prove that the column did not cross contaminate the fossil?

So if you are going to claim this on one instance to stop evidence from possibly supporting YEC and ignore it in another instance because it supports old earth and evolution what does that tell us?

So explain if you will how the C12 and C14 in the geologic column are able to cross contaminate the fossils buried there? Which by the way using logic would explain the find.

If the fossils are really less than 6,000 years old, but were cross contaminated by the layers they were buried in. It would explain how a fossil that dates millions of years old can have soft tissue. It was never that old in the first place,

Also this would explain the circular reasoning behind the layers dating the fossil and the fossils dating the layers. What else would one expect in a case of cross contamination?

So let's boil this all down to simpler terms of what we have so far. Nuada claims that the organic solution that fossils are put in would cross contaminate the evidence making the dating date more like young earth evidence. But yet would ignore that the same cross contamination also would take place in the geologic column that would make the fossils date older than they normally would.

Proof of cross contamination of the fossils from the layers is that a fossil found would never date differently from the layer. And to prove that time did not lay the layer the atheists would not be able to provide an actual process or mechanism that requires time to sort the layers. What this inability does is prove that time did not lay the layers which would make everything else fit.

Because if time did not lay the layers then the flood did. And unlike the atheist problem of show how time sorting layers the water can be shown to sort layer and is observable test that cane be repeated in any lab.

Sorting layers from flood is empirical evidence because it is observable and repeatable. Time sorting layers is not observable or even explainable.

Another problem that everyone seems to miss is that if one thing can cross contaminate another with C12 and C14 then how does the same thing keep from cross contaminating itself?

Think about that for a minute. You have something as big as the geologic column that is trying to release C12 and C14 into the atmosphere. So as it tries to release this upward it cross contaminates everything around it and would make the upper layers date younger because the C12 and C14 from the lower layers cross contaminated the upper layer making them date younger while the layers below will date older.

So what needs to be explained is how one works as to the reason one should not be tested, while the other in a similar situation won't and therefore is considered reliable?

Also since you said "most solutions used is organic". There are solutions that are not, right? So why not put the evidence is a non-organic solution and solve the problem and then test it?

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 March 2012 - 04:30 PM

Ow the irony of your post. What about the people giving it a 10? Not sheeple? People making desicions what movie to watch based on imdb scores aren't sheeple?

I gave it a 1 or 2 because I sincerely thought it didn't deserve anything above that number. I've seen creation based documentaries that are far better than this overhyped movie. Talking about propaganda: what do you think this movie is for Ben Stein?


What I find ironic is the fact that you ignored the other video that proves what Ben Stein's movie said was true. Why was the Mary S scared to present her findings? Because she knew that because her evidence did not go along with the current accepted truth, she would be attacked. And that this attacked could end up in the credibility of her and everyone associated with her being destroyed.

1. Do you deny that Mary S. said she was afraid of being attacked for her find?
2. Do you deny that her fear was solely based on that her evidence did not support evolution?
3. Do you deny that this happened even though anyone here can watch the video and see her admit that?
4. Is Mary S. lying?

What I find ironic is that the creationists has given the atheists a chance to test this and it was denied. Now because you guys are not the only ones who hold fossils like this what do you think will happen next? The creationists will test this. And if the results come out in their favor guess what? The only way you guys are going to be able to save face is do the test anyway to try and prove us wrong. So you are going to end up doing it anyway, why not be the first to do it? But that will be hanged over your head as well. That we offered you guys the chance to be first, even offered to pay for it along with grant money. You refused forcing us to test first so whatever happens it can be blamed on you guys because we tried to do the right thing.

Now that's what I call ironic.

#10 Nuada

Nuada

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Kirkcaldy, Scotland

Posted 15 March 2012 - 05:47 PM

What I find funny and ironic about this claim of cross contamination is that to keep the evidence from being tested and the possibility of it supported YEC, you come up with this. While all along the geologic column is also "organic" and is full of C12 and C14, yes or no? If cross contamination is so easy to get how can you prove that the column did not cross contaminate the fossil?

So if you are going to claim this on one instance to stop evidence from possibly supporting YEC and ignore it in another instance because it supports old earth and evolution what does that tell us?

So explain if you will how the C12 and C14 in the geologic column are able to cross contaminate the fossils buried there? Which by the way using logic would explain the find.

If the fossils are really less than 6,000 years old, but were cross contaminated by the layers they were buried in. It would explain how a fossil that dates millions of years old can have soft tissue. It was never that old in the first place,

Also this would explain the circular reasoning behind the layers dating the fossil and the fossils dating the layers. What else would one expect in a case of cross contamination?

So let's boil this all down to simpler terms of what we have so far. Nuada claims that the organic solution that fossils are put in would cross contaminate the evidence making the dating date more like young earth evidence. But yet would ignore that the same cross contamination also would take place in the geologic column that would make the fossils date older than they normally would.

Proof of cross contamination of the fossils from the layers is that a fossil found would never date differently from the layer. And to prove that time did not lay the layer the atheists would not be able to provide an actual process or mechanism that requires time to sort the layers. What this inability does is prove that time did not lay the layers which would make everything else fit.

Because if time did not lay the layers then the flood did. And unlike the atheist problem of show how time sorting layers the water can be shown to sort layer and is observable test that cane be repeated in any lab.

Sorting layers from flood is empirical evidence because it is observable and repeatable. Time sorting layers is not observable or even explainable.

Another problem that everyone seems to miss is that if one thing can cross contaminate another with C12 and C14 then how does the same thing keep from cross contaminating itself?

Think about that for a minute. You have something as big as the geologic column that is trying to release C12 and C14 into the atmosphere. So as it tries to release this upward it cross contaminates everything around it and would make the upper layers date younger because the C12 and C14 from the lower layers cross contaminated the upper layer making them date younger while the layers below will date older.

So what needs to be explained is how one works as to the reason one should not be tested, while the other in a similar situation won't and therefore is considered reliable?

Also since you said "most solutions used is organic". There are solutions that are not, right? So why not put the evidence is a non-organic solution and solve the problem and then test it?



The organic material used to treat fossils is living organic material, which is why it will give a false reading. Also note, that I never once said that these readings would match up with a 6000 year old earth, I prefer to keep my own words in my mouth. Some information about the find itself is in order I think. The finding itself, and testing was completed by four noted Scientists Mary Schweitzer, Jennifer Wittymeyer, John Horner and Jan Toporski. The initial find produced a simple Hindlimb, encased in a mineralized casing. The mineralization process allowed for the preservation of the bone and all inside it. The Scientists then decided to crack the bone open (which is highly unusual) and wallaaa, small amounts of soft tissue. Sampling and testing were done immediately, as the tissue now being exposed would soon begin to decay they proceeded with all haste. After they extrapolated what they could from the data they basically embalmed the tissue so that the decay process would not take hold; They used an organic solution for this. There are of course synthesized solutions that can do the same job, however they are quite harsh and would cause extensive damage to something like soft tissue.

The reason these solutions give false readings is because most of it is living organic material, without which the bonds that keep the structure from decaying could not be maintained. Material within the earth is not quite the same; it does not bond with the fossil. In order to bond with the fossil the solution would have to be of a specific type of semi-aqueous solution; such properties have never been found beneath the earth’s surface. Not to mention that they are the summation of various substances (which by themselves would decay or dissipate very quickly). Which is why solutions like embalming fluid were consider rarities to such races as the Egyptians. Furthermore, the majority of fossils found are mineralized or encased in a mineralized shell; this essentially negates what very little chance there was of contamination to begin with.

Okay, how can something cross contaminate itself? It’s not like the solution has a varying atomic consistency; once the solution is created it is bonded, simple chemistry. You made some remarks about flood mechanics and spatial sorting, neither of these are really relevant to the topic at hand, if you want to discuss them I would be happy to do so elsewhere. The rest of what you said is pretty much answered in the above. Or is simply a misunderstanding of the mechanics of Carbon Dating.

I would also note that there are dinosaur fossils found every day that are not submitted to any kind of treatment or contamination, perhaps it would be better to get a hold of one of them for dating purposes. Note also that despite popular opinion, mineralized fossils cannot be carbon dated… namely cause they contain no carbon atoms.

- Nuada

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:06 PM

I would also note that there are dinosaur fossils found every day that are not submitted to any kind of treatment or contamination, perhaps it would be better to get a hold of one of them for dating purposes. Note also that despite popular opinion, mineralized fossils cannot be carbon dated… namely cause they contain no carbon atoms.


It's not the fossil that needs to be carbon dated. But since it is more than obvious that the atheists won't do it we will wait until a creationist does it then that will force you guys to do it. So no more problem.

#12 Nuada

Nuada

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Kirkcaldy, Scotland

Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:17 PM

It's not the fossil that needs to be carbon dated. But since it is more than obvious that the atheists won't do it we will wait until a creationist does it then that will force you guys to do it. So no more problem.


What then? The treated sample of T-Rex soft tissue? Or do you mean the earth that surrounds it? And I hate to tell you, but I am not Atheist, I am Agnostic. So again I return to my question, Carbon date what exactly?

- Nuada

#13 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:40 PM

What I find funny and ironic about this claim of cross contamination is that to keep the evidence from being tested and the possibility of it supported YEC, you come up with this. While all along the geologic column is also "organic" and is full of C12 and C14, yes or no? If cross contamination is so easy to get how can you prove that the column did not cross contaminate the fossil?

Well, no, you see, the C12 and C14 in the geologic column is all mixed up, thus totally useless for dating.

So if you are going to claim this on one instance to stop evidence from possibly supporting YEC and ignore it in another instance because it supports old earth and evolution what does that tell us?

So explain if you will how the C12 and C14 in the geologic column are able to cross contaminate the fossils buried there? Which by the way using logic would explain the find.

Well, no, again, the geologic column itself will not cross-contaminate the fossil, because what's been preserved inside the fossil has been necessarily isolated from the outside, or else it wouldn't be preserved.

If the fossils are really less than 6,000 years old, but were cross contaminated by the layers they were buried in. It would explain how a fossil that dates millions of years old can have soft tissue. It was never that old in the first place,

Also this would explain the circular reasoning behind the layers dating the fossil and the fossils dating the layers. What else would one expect in a case of cross contamination?

I hope you are aware that we rarely use carbon dating to determine the age of layers right? Because 1) carbon dating sometimes cannot give an old enough estimate, and 2) because rocks can't absorb C12/C14 in the correct ratios for us to know anything by analyzing them. That's why we use one of dozens of other radiometric dating systems, such as uranium and its radionuclides.

So let's boil this all down to simpler terms of what we have so far. Nuada claims that the organic solution that fossils are put in would cross contaminate the evidence making the dating date more like young earth evidence. But yet would ignore that the same cross contamination also would take place in the geologic column that would make the fossils date older than they normally would.

No, what Nuada is saying is that after they opened the bone, they didn't want whatever was inside to rot away, so they placed it in a special oil. That special oil is young, and if you were to make a dating of the fossilized soft tissue, you'd read the age of the young oil instead. If the scientists hadn't put the fossilized remains in the oil, the remains would have broken down to something useless.

Proof of cross contamination of the fossils from the layers is that a fossil found would never date differently from the layer. And to prove that time did not lay the layer the atheists would not be able to provide an actual process or mechanism that requires time to sort the layers. What this inability does is prove that time did not lay the layers which would make everything else fit.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here, but yes, we do have a very simple model for the sorting of layers by time. Simply put, layers are deposited one after the other as conditions on the surface change. So for say 2 million years a certain area is underwater. marine sediments form a layer. Then, that sea floor is elevated to the surface. Then, for a few more hundred years, sand forms another layer. Etc etc etc.

Because if time did not lay the layers then the flood did. And unlike the atheist problem of show how time sorting layers the water can be shown to sort layer and is observable test that cane be repeated in any lab.

Ummm no. If time didn't do it, then anything else could have done it. It's not either science, or biblical you know. As for water, it's interesting to see how fossils of whales can be found atop fossils of fast-moving land animals, but never next to fossils of marine dinosaurs. How exactly does the flood model explain that two animals who share the same habitat at the time of the flood are NEVER found together?

Sorting layers from flood is empirical evidence because it is observable and repeatable. Time sorting layers is not observable or even explainable.

Well, we can see layers being deposited and eroded today, so again, no.

Another problem that everyone seems to miss is that if one thing can cross contaminate another with C12 and C14 then how does the same thing keep from cross contaminating itself?

Think about that for a minute. You have something as big as the geologic column that is trying to release C12 and C14 into the atmosphere. So as it tries to release this upward it cross contaminates everything around it and would make the upper layers date younger because the C12 and C14 from the lower layers cross contaminated the upper layer making them date younger while the layers below will date older.

Well, to begin with, if C12 and C14 can escape from a material, then it's really useless to try to date it with C12/C14 anyways. Which is why we have OTHER radiometric dating methods also.

You might wish to read this post to see what is going on with radionuclide dating.
http://www.rationals...rous-t1783.html

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:08 PM

What then? The treated sample of T-Rex soft tissue? Or do you mean the earth that surrounds it? And I hate to tell you, but I am not Atheist, I am Agnostic. So again I return to my question, Carbon date what exactly?

- Nuada


What is it that is basically impossible but yet is was found to exist?

We find that about 99% of the people who come here and claim agnostic are really atheists looking for an edge in debating.

#15 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:16 PM

Ow the irony of your post. What about the people giving it a 10? Not sheeple? People making desicions what movie to watch based on imdb scores aren't sheeple?

I gave it a 1 or 2 because I sincerely thought it didn't deserve anything above that number. I've seen creation based documentaries that are far better than this overhyped movie. Talking about propaganda: what do you think this movie is for Ben Stein?


Not just that...if you go to wikipedia a place where you can find the info of any movie I checked the movie info on wikipedia after watch this move...Wow it doesnt have just the info you find arguments to debunked the movie.....seriously wikipedia.......So I thought maybe with this kind of documental they do this..so I checked zeitgeist article because that movie has so many fallacies......the history of jesus......it is a old pagan history.and they use..ridiculous comparisons..like sun = son xD. So maybe I going to find info like this in the article and guess what.. nothing just the info movie Wikipedia administratrors are clearly extrem atheist,,,if you search for christianity articles you always are going to find..thing..like...parallels christianity and Budhism or thing like that

#16 Nuada

Nuada

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Kirkcaldy, Scotland

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:40 PM

What is it that is basically impossible but yet is was found to exist?

We find that about 99% of the people who come here and claim agnostic are really atheists looking for an edge in debating.



I don't quite understand the first question, in fact it sounds more like a riddle... Could you expound a little.

I could argue the point with you, but I believe this will prove pointless as it is simply a matter of opinion. And seeing as this is your home ground, I will yield to your understanding here and place myself under the Classification of Atheist. I do think the difference between Agnostic and Atheist is fairly translucent however. But if it pleases you, I shall allow you folks to classify me as the latter. But I will say that I do entertain the possibility of a divine intervention playing at the strings of the finer points of the Cosmos.

In any case, back to my question:

What then? The treated sample of T-Rex soft tissue? Or do you mean the earth that surrounds it?..... Carbon date what exactly?



- Nuada

#17 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 16 March 2012 - 02:52 AM


This may be difficult, but think for a moment. I'm targeting the "1" crowd. The people that award a "1" to ANY movie believe it's the lowest piece of dung there is, worthless, and a total waste of time. Yet 56.4 % people believe this is worthless? Only if one is a God-hater. And a sheeple God-hater to boot.

On the other hand, people like me, who've watched the film and believe it's a good message, good production, etc etc etc award it a 8, 9, 10 on that basis. So your argument is all washed up.


In order to have a trust-worthy result, you'd need to have a Gaussian curve, which a lot of movies have, but which this movie lacks. You might conclude it is a hate it or love it movie. Even if you remove the haters and lovers, you still have a widely spread result with an almost equal amount of 9 and 2s.

I did in fact believe this was a waste of time. A good documentary would investigate the testimonies at the beginning of the movie for instance. A good documentary would provide more definitions, more clarity. So yes, I did give it a low number and apparently therefor I'm God-hating sheeple. Well, I can't believe you give this documentary a 8, 9 or 10 without being a sheeple of Ben Stein.

Many people browsing through films and don't know what their content are, are swayed by very low scores. That's human nature. They think the film "sucks". And most films that are rated this low DO SUCK. This one is artificially lowered, so again your argument is all washed up.


The idea of imdb is that you get information on genre, content, user reviews (written ones) and a score yes, of which you can see the results based on males/female and age, along with the spread.

My point is that it is also artificially heightened but that you do not mention that (come on a 10? that means this is the best docu you have ever seen in your life?). The scores are very far apart and a Gaussian is curve missing.

You gave it a 1 or a 2 because you are biased and adverse to anything that discusses God, so be honest. I'm glad you've seen "better" but you failed to name any. This one does what it's suppose to do, nothing more, nothing less.


Everyone is biased. I'm completely open for documentaries that disuss God but this documentary doesn't do that in detail, instead it throws hints around along with accusations that they do not investigate or try to substantiate.

Here are two examples:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938294/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1447799/
  • Nuada likes this

#18 cico34

cico34

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Seeland, Denmark

Posted 16 March 2012 - 12:58 PM

It's not the fossil that needs to be carbon dated. But since it is more than obvious that the atheists won't do it we will wait until a creationist does it then that will force you guys to do it. So no more problem.

So, what is to be dated again?
In the beginning, I thought creationists wanted the fossil tested.
Then they wanted the tissue tested, (however that would work, since organic material decays at an alarming rate after just one year of isolation.)
And now, the fossil is not to be dated at all?
Then what is?

#19 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:26 PM

What I find ironic is the fact that you ignored the other video that proves what Ben Stein's movie said was true. Why was the Mary S scared to present her findings? Because she knew that because her evidence did not go along with the current accepted truth, she would be attacked. And that this attacked could end up in the credibility of her and everyone associated with her being destroyed.


According to her profile, she isn't a people person but a lab person so I can understand why she would be affraid of making her findings public. They are very important findings after all which will get you a lot of attention. Apparently her credibility nor career has been destroyed so really this last sentence is only hypothetical.

1. Do you deny that Mary S. said she was afraid of being attacked for her find?
2. Do you deny that her fear was solely based on that her evidence did not support evolution?
3. Do you deny that this happened even though anyone here can watch the video and see her admit that?
4. Is Mary S. lying?


1. She was affraid to make her findings public. Afaik the video doesn't specify why exactly.
2. Yes. She doesn't have any problems with evolution, in fact she does have problems with creationists claiming her data to support YEC. I must say that now that I know more about her, that I must admire her. She is strong enough to ask questions, to investigate the unknown or to reinvestigate what is supposedly known. And to leave all options open as any scientist should. She got where she is by working hard and being good at what she does.
3. Filler question
4. Filler question

What I find ironic is that the creationists has given the atheists a chance to test this and it was denied. Now because you guys are not the only ones who hold fossils like this what do you think will happen next? The creationists will test this. And if the results come out in their favor guess what? The only way you guys are going to be able to save face is do the test anyway to try and prove us wrong. So you are going to end up doing it anyway, why not be the first to do it? But that will be hanged over your head as well. That we offered you guys the chance to be first, even offered to pay for it along with grant money. You refused forcing us to test first so whatever happens it can be blamed on you guys because we tried to do the right thing.

Now that's what I call ironic.


So the creationists are once again doing a test which doesn't follow the scientific method, which doesn't comply to empirical testing. Well, all I can say is: if you cannot contain yourself to spend money on tests which have no merit, then go ahead. I think it is more useful to first find out what exactly this soft tissue is, whether it is contaminated or not, and if we can use any kind of dating mechanism on it. You know, to do exactly what Mary S is doing with her findings.

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:00 PM

According to her profile, she isn't a people person but a lab person so I can understand why she would be affraid of making her findings public. They are very important findings after all which will get you a lot of attention. Apparently her credibility nor career has been destroyed so really this last sentence is only hypothetical.



1. She was affraid to make her findings public. Afaik the video doesn't specify why exactly.
2. Yes. She doesn't have any problems with evolution, in fact she does have problems with creationists claiming her data to support YEC. I must say that now that I know more about her, that I must admire her. She is strong enough to ask questions, to investigate the unknown or to reinvestigate what is supposedly known. And to leave all options open as any scientist should. She got where she is by working hard and being good at what she does.
3. Filler question
4. Filler question



So the creationists are once again doing a test which doesn't follow the scientific method, which doesn't comply to empirical testing. Well, all I can say is: if you cannot contain yourself to spend money on tests which have no merit, then go ahead. I think it is more useful to first find out what exactly this soft tissue is, whether it is contaminated or not, and if we can use any kind of dating mechanism on it. You know, to do exactly what Mary S is doing with her findings.

According to her profile, she isn't a people person but a lab person so I can understand why she would be affraid of making her findings public. They are very important findings after all which will get you a lot of attention. Apparently her credibility nor career has been destroyed so really this last sentence is only hypothetical.



1. She was affraid to make her findings public. Afaik the video doesn't specify why exactly.
2. Yes. She doesn't have any problems with evolution, in fact she does have problems with creationists claiming her data to support YEC. I must say that now that I know more about her, that I must admire her. She is strong enough to ask questions, to investigate the unknown or to reinvestigate what is supposedly known. And to leave all options open as any scientist should. She got where she is by working hard and being good at what she does.
3. Filler question
4. Filler question



So the creationists are once again doing a test which doesn't follow the scientific method, which doesn't comply to empirical testing. Well, all I can say is: if you cannot contain yourself to spend money on tests which have no merit, then go ahead. I think it is more useful to first find out what exactly this soft tissue is, whether it is contaminated or not, and if we can use any kind of dating mechanism on it. You know, to do exactly what Mary S is doing with her findings.



Perhaps her career isn't destroyed because she makes the claim that evolution is still true despite these findings. I am sure if she was advocating creationism with this data then this would be an entirely different story. So in a sense you are allowed to find data contradictory to evolution.... You're just not allowed to use that data against it.


How does wanting something carbon dated independently, not an empirical test? You are going to have to show some form of support for your claims here or retract them.
We already know what the tissue is, go research. Further DNA has been found, I am sure verification on what DNA is, is not needed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users