Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

That was already answered. He is a hostile witness... an anti-creationist.
What he is saying contradicts the claim you were making about consistency amongst the varying dating methods. "Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years)."
And, what he said is consistent with what I have said...Evolutionists reject evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

As usual, you failed to address my point. You will need to provide specific reasons reject specific methods, not taking some quote out of context and force a partisan meaning onto an unclear statement.

Thirteen methods. Pick one and have at it.

 

[6days]

I am not, I was using satire. But I read mercury on the ingredient list. Yes, common US vaccine I think. But I don't think you care so lets let red herrings lie.
Or you could Google mercury vaccine and see what pops up. At least Canadian Google has links to mercury in US vaccines.

I did google...I'm not really that interested in the topic but found that the preservative Thimerosal in US vaccines is 50% mercury. If GC is correct, perhaps its listed by some other name? {Funny side note... Some expensive chocolates contain dirt (a type of clay called bentonite) to give it a creamy texture. It obviously does not list 'dirt' as an ingredient}
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

 

[6days]

As usual, you failed to address my point. You will need to provide specific reasons reject specific methods, not taking some quote out of context and force a partisan meaning onto an unclear statement.

As usual.... you are wrong, and trying to move the goalposts.
Reminder, you claim was that 14 listed dating methods ALL give dates that ARE all consistent with one another? I showed you that is wrong. You could modify your claim to say that sometimes the different dating methods agree, and that you then accept the result...but not always. Evolutionists sometimes reject the date even if two different methods give same result. It all comes down to if it fits their belief system.

 

[gcthomas]

You are right that the mercury based preservative is called Thimerosal, and although it is used in vaccines it has been passed out in vaccines given to under sixes.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose, you have the mistaken impression that if you put a white smock on someone, and call him or her a scientist, that they suddenly don't make any assumptions.

Huh....that's funny. I don't remember ever saying anything like that at all. I'd ask you to show where I have said something like that, but you and I both know you won't.

Hope this doesn't burst your bubble, but the person inside the white smock is not a blank slate. All scientists have biases, and make certain assumptions when examining evidence and making interpretations about our origins.

Yes they do, but not all assumptions are the same and not all interpretations are equally valid, are they? And not only that, but some folks actually test their assumptions, whereas others merely assume their beliefs to be true and on that basis declare anything that contradicts them to be false.

 

[6days]

not all assumptions are the same and not all interpretations are equally valid, are they? And not only that, but some folks actually test their assumptions, whereas others merely assume their beliefs to be true and on that basis declare anything that contradicts them to be false.

We agree... Not all assumptions and interpretations of evidence are equally valid. For example most atheists believe that life came from non life...and that nothing created everything. There are better assumptions that fit the evidence. IE life has the appearance of being intelligently designed, Therefore a Intelligent Creator is a valid assumption.

 

[Jose Fly]

First, the mouse was submitted 100 after it died.

Assuming you mean "100 years after it died", you're changing your story. This is what you first posted: "if Adam on his hundredth birthday had access to the same carbon dating labs that we have today and he submitted tissue from a mouse that died on his tenth birthday, how old would the labs say it was?"

So you've gone from the sample being taken from a mouse that had been dead 10 years to one that had been dead 100 years. But my point remains the same. The mouse had been eating and taking up C14 its whole life and the reduction would start after it died and ceased taking up C14, which means the results you'd get back from the lab would be whatever verbiage they use to basically say "the results are within our margin of error of 150 years".

Adam's submitted his rib on his first birthday.

Well then it depends on how, in the Genesis story, God created the earth. Did he create it completely devoid of C14? It also depends on how God created Adam. Did he create him using pre-existing materials (e.g., the "dust of the ground")? Or did he magically poof Adam into existence?

Where does C14 get absorbed from Jose?

Via the carbon cycle.

When Adam submitted his rib, the earth had only received sunlight for barely over 365 days. Do you have any idea how long it would take a system the size of the earth to receive enough sunlight for Carbon-14 to reach equilibrium in the environment? We're talking about 10,000 years or so, when input from the sun is going to approximate the amount you are losing to radioactive decay.

Sorry, but your baseless say-so isn't meaningful. Research has shown that it only takes just over 10 years for atmospheric C14 to cycle through.

Also, it seems you're saying Adam's sample wouldn't have any C14 in it. But 6days says that's not what you meant. Is he right?

That "Genesis" model you are missing means "with the conditions described in Genesis." The English translation is at a 4th grade reading level and the first five chapters are really short. As a reminder, the earth and the heavens were created in six days, including the man and creatures. It means pretty much test the model with the conditions it describes.

Where in Genesis are the conditions under which God created everything described (relevant to C14)?

Were you intending to argue that it somehow means that God created an "old looking" earth?

Nope.

 

[Jose Fly]

We agree... Not all assumptions and interpretations of evidence are equally valid.

And we can tell which assumptions and interpretations are more accurate by looking at which ones have generated useful results and which ones haven't. As we've been over before, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding of the world in at least the last 150 years, whereas evolutionary common ancestry has (e.g., the entire field of comparative genomics).

For example most atheists believe that life came from non life...and that nothing created everything. There are better assumptions that fit the evidence. IE life has the appearance of being intelligently designed, Therefore a Intelligent Creator is a valid assumption.

Like a broken record.....

Again, do you have anything new?

 

[Jose Fly]

I should have guessed you were a anti-vaxxer as well!

Crank magnetism in action.

 

[Tyrathca]

Our doctor says he is the father of a vaccine-damaged child, and indicated that we should do some of our own research. But what does he know he's just a PhD.

Oh wow you're the gift that just keeps giving aren't you? No wonder you sound like someone with the mentality of an anti-vaccinator! I'm not going to bog this thread down in anti-vac arguments (there already exist threads for that) but you attitude here is precisely what I was talking about. Just like your creationism you latch onto the one dissenter you find and believe them over all others because he agrees with you. Then you use "Dr Google" (say that to most doctors and watch the eye rolls and chuckles) and find something somewhere on the internet that agrees with you and suddenly your an expert who understands things so much better than the experts.

Rosen has it EVER crossed your mind that perhaps the reason you think the issues are so obvious to you and not the "experts" in the field (whatever it may be) is because you have misunderstood or missed something and should do some more reading? Or are you really THAT smart and we'll educated?

(oh and just a curiosity: are you really sure your GP is a "doctor doctor" and is the PhD doctoring part at all relevant to what he is talking about? Most Docs with PhD's have it in a field related to their fairly narrow subspecialties not generalists like GP's.)

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Rosen has it EVER crossed your mind that perhaps the reason you think the issues are so obvious to you and not the "experts" in the field (whatever it may be) is because you have misunderstood or missed something and should do some more reading? Or are you really THAT smart and we'll educated?

An old acquaintance of mine used to ask creationists "Has it ever occurred to you that the problem isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it?"

I seriously doubt any creationist has ever entertained such a possibility.

 

[6days]

"Has it ever occurred to you that the problem isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it?"

You would think that with all evolutionary beliefs that science has proven wrong; that evolutionists would ask themselves that very question. Fortunately, we know some have!

 

[6days]

Well then it depends on how, in the Genesis story, God created the earth. Did he create it completely devoid of C14? It also depends on how God created Adam. Did he create him using pre-existing materials (e.g., the "dust of the ground")?

EXACTLY! A good place to start.

Do you have any idea how long it would take a system the size of the earth to receive enough sunlight for Carbon-14 to reach equilibrium in the environment? We're talking about 10,000 years or so, when input from the sun is going to approximate the amount you are losing to radioactive decay.

I think its actually more years than that... but in any case, has equilibrium been reached? I think the evolutionist model does say input and out put is equal? And, from memory I think the fellow who devized C14 dating realized the problem that equilibrium had not been reached??

However.... even if that problem exists, it does not matter to evolutionism since all data is made to fit their non falsifiable beliefs.

And we can tell which assumptions and interpretations are more accurate by looking at which ones have generated useful results and which ones haven't.

Certainly! Science continues to poof the evolutionary "proofs". Evolutionary beliefs in "useless" biological remants (junk DNA, psuedogenes, organs) has hindered science and harmed people. Assumptions that that there may be purpose and design are the assumptions which are more accurate and generate useful results. [/quote]
As we've been over before, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding of the world in at least the last 150 years[/quote]
Even IF that was true, which it isn't, it hasn't hindered science like evolutionism has. Creationism has not been plagued with frauds and shoddy interpretations that makes its way into medical texts...before science reveals the truth.

whereas evolutionary common ancestry has (e.g., the entire field of comparative genomics).

You are like many of the false evangelists. You know you are wrong but you keep preaching the same message. Comparative genomics if anything helps confirm the lie of evolutionism. As we discussed previous...comparative genomics has destroyed Darwin's evolutionary tree(and the hundreds redrawn trees since Darwin). We can often use comparative genomics to determine function and purpose. We then can ascribe positive results to common ancestry, or our common Designer. As you said earlier... not all assumptions are equal; and the assumption of common design is the best fit to the evidence.

 

[Rosenritter]

I did google...I'm not really that interested in the topic but found that the preservative Thimerosal in US vaccines is 50% mercury. If GC is correct, perhaps its listed by some other name? {Funny side note... Some expensive chocolates contain dirt (a type of clay called bentonite) to give it a creamy texture. It obviously does not list 'dirt' as an ingredient}
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

Our toothpaste has a warning from the state of California that it contains lead. But when I researched why I wasn't worried about it. Mercury in vaccines and shocking a little ones system all at once I am more worried about.

 

[Rosenritter]

Assuming you mean "100 years after it died", you're changing your story. This is what you first posted: "if Adam on his hundredth birthday had access to the same carbon dating labs that we have today and he submitted tissue from a mouse that died on his tenth birthday, how old would the labs say it was?"

So you've gone from the sample being taken from a mouse that had been dead 10 years to one that had been dead 100 years. But my point remains the same. The mouse had been eating and taking up C14 its whole life and the reduction would start after it died and ceased taking up C14, which means the results you'd get back from the lab would be whatever verbiage they use to basically say "the results are within our margin of error of 150 years".



Well then it depends on how, in the Genesis story, God created the earth. Did he create it completely devoid of C14? It also depends on how God created Adam. Did he create him using pre-existing materials (e.g., the "dust of the ground")? Or did he magically poof Adam into existence?



Via the carbon cycle.



Sorry, but your baseless say-so isn't meaningful. Research has shown that it only takes just over 10 years for atmospheric C14 to cycle through.

Also, it seems you're saying Adam's sample wouldn't have any C14 in it. But 6days says that's not what you meant. Is he right?



Where in Genesis are the conditions under which God created everything described (relevant to C14)?



Nope.

Originally I had intended to cancel the mouse sample but it seems the labs got it anyway. The intended point was that it was a young sample in a world less than 100 years old. It isn't as if you could get a precise reading regardless.

I challenge your Ten Year C14 equilibrium theory in grounds of mathematical common sense. Seriously?

And you still aren't paying attention. Did you fail to notice that both the atmosphere was different and that terrestrial life wasn't dying at the same rate as we do today from solar radiation? Its been specifically pointed out to you in the last few days even.

 

[Rosenritter]

Oh wow you're the gift that just keeps giving aren't you? No wonder you sound like someone with the mentality of an anti-vaccinator! I'm not going to bog this thread down in anti-vac arguments (there already exist threads for that) but you attitude here is precisely what I was talking about. Just like your creationism you latch onto the one dissenter you find and believe them over all others because he agrees with you. Then you use "Dr Google" (say that to most doctors and watch the eye rolls and chuckles) and find something somewhere on the internet that agrees with you and suddenly your an expert who understands things so much better than the experts.

Rosen has it EVER crossed your mind that perhaps the reason you think the issues are so obvious to you and not the "experts" in the field (whatever it may be) is because you have misunderstood or missed something and should do some more reading? Or are you really THAT smart and we'll educated?

(oh and just a curiosity: are you really sure your GP is a "doctor doctor" and is the PhD doctoring part at all relevant to what he is talking about? Most Docs with PhD's have it in a field related to their fairly narrow subspecialties not generalists like GP's.)

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

This wasn't our General Practitioner. Regardless, even if it was, we are talking about a vaccine damaged child belonging to a real person.

 

[Tyrathca]

This wasn't our General Practitioner. Regardless, even if it was, we are talking about a vaccine damaged child belonging to a real person.

Yeaahhhh... So you don't understand cognitive biases I presume. Do you understand what people mean when they call something "just an n=1"? Given you also seem to lack the ability to distinguish interpretation of evidence from science (as I noted earlier) you are still lecturing people here about "science" why exactly? You don't seem to have any depth of understanding or training about what science actually involves.

But my question still stands, have you ever considered that the reason you think the problems are so obvious to you and not the "experts" (be they geologists, physicists, doctors, whatever) is because you might have missed something and thus try and read/learn more? Or are you really THAT smart and well educated such a thing is not worth considering (or is dismissed quickly)?

I'm not going to engage you directly on any arguments about vaccines here, only what I can relate back to this thread. There is an old thread you can resurrect of you really want to discuss it (it gets resurrected now and again and lasts for weeks to months before dying down again so have fun)

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, here I went and told Jose that "God created an old earth" was a dumb argument and then you go and make that argument. Adult animals and trees from creation are not the same thing.

Dear Ross,

I do know what you meant and I know what you told Jose. My argument isn't dumb. When God created the Earth, it was 1 day old. It just came with all the trimmings. It also only received one day of sunshine. It had only one continent or land mass. He changed that later to include many continents, islands, etc. He created many continents by moving tectonic plates beneath them, and plates crashing into each other to create mountains, etc. I would suggest that some of the islands are from under-ocean volcanoes. When Adam was tested for his age, he was older {like 16 or 18 years old}, but he was one day old, of course. When the Earth is tested for it's age, it is older, but one day old. etc. When a Rooster or Chicken is tested for it's age, it is older than an egg. When a cow is tested for it's age, it is older. When a fruit tree is tested for it's age in the Garden of Eden, it is older, not a sapling at all, but a tree bearing fruit already. When God creates something, it is to HIS LIKING, not necessarily what seems logical to us. He is far more advanced than you give Him credit for. If He wants a Garden of Eden to be five days old and equips it with older plants and trees bearing fruit, then He has what He creates. This is what I've learned, but I will not tell you how I know. You wouldn't believe me anyway. It's okay to agree to disagree.

May God Always Be With Your Soul,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

This is what I've learned, but I will not tell you how I know. You wouldn't believe me anyway. It's okay to agree to disagree.

Michael most people on this thread are well aware of where you claim to get your "knowledge". Unfortunately you won't listen to pleas to see a doctor about your episodes of psychosis and delusions of grandeur.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[gcthomas]

Our toothpaste has a warning from the state of California that it contains lead. But when I researched why I wasn't worried about it. Mercury in vaccines and shocking a little ones system all at once I am more worried about.

Thimerosal (mercury) was removed from childhood vaccines in the US in 2001, according to the CDC and FDA.

Or do you have evidence that they are sneaking it in, despite the authorities and manufacturers saying otherwise?