Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

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

Dear Tyrathca,

You should be so lucky as to have an angel speak to you. I don't have psychosis or delusions. I have hard evidence of the Lord God sending 7 inches of snow on the day that He told me He would, to prove to a reporter that He was really with me and had given me what to say -- my testimony. You don't have a clue what it is like or how it feels to have the Holy Ghost visit you, or for the Lord to speak to you. You don't seem to realize that I am one of two witnesses who gets special knowledge from Him. I am one of two olive trees and candlesticks for the Lord. I just managed to find this theology website by happenstance. That's why this thread has been so successful, in part. Also, in part, by the beautiful caring people who post here. That's why my life has been so successful. If I declare myself a witness, it serves no purpose except for others to deny that I am. So it is best that I let the Lord bear witness of me in the latter days. I have not said anything about this until now, for a reason. It is not meet of me to bear witness of myself. No, I am not absolutely sure who the other witness is yet, but I have an idea. But that is God's trump card. You don't read the Bible much, I know. Check out Rev. 11:3-4KJV. See what you can understand.

With His Blessing,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

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?

Dear gcthomas,

I believe you if you say it is no longer in vaccines. I do know that they put it in eye drops for contact lens wearers as a preservative. Check it out. Hey, thanks for posting on my thread!!

May God Bless You Too!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Dear gcthomas,

I believe you if you say it is no longer in vaccines. I do know that they put it in eye drops for contact lens wearers as a preservative. Check it out. Hey, thanks for posting on my thread!!

May God Bless You Too!!

Michael

Hey, don't drink your contact lens solution if you are worried!

In any case, ALL preservatives are toxic to something or other in some dose, as that is what a preservative is for — to kill bacteria. The alternative is to use hydrogen peroxide as a steriliser.

 

[Rosenritter]

Hey, don't drink your contact lens solution if you are worried!

In any case, ALL preservatives are toxic to something or other in some dose, as that is what a preservative is for — to kill bacteria. The alternative is to use hydrogen peroxide as a steriliser.

Can't way whether that was true or not, but if it was you should not be so hasty to use mercury in your eyes. Dry eyes would be preferable.

 

[Rosenritter]

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

I stated at beginning that I wasn't arguing vaccines on merits or dangers. But for some reason some here thought it an opportunity to attack me. I think that the motivation is one of conformity, a reflex to attack one not of their political tribe, so to speak.

 

[gcthomas]

Can't way whether that was true or not, but if it was you should not be so hasty to use mercury in your eyes. Dry eyes would be preferable.

It is not mercury as such, but methyl mercury (just like water isn't hydrogen). The major risk is developing a contact allergy which is resolved by picking different solutions. \but I have always tried to pick preservative free solutions even if they are a little more expensive.

Incidentally, if you had really dry eyes you run the risk of infections, thinning and scarring of your cornea, with perforation possible. Eye drops might be preferable, even with preservatives (which themselves reduce the risk of introducing infections via the drops.)

 

[Tyrathca]

I stated at beginning that I wasn't arguing vaccines on merits or dangers. But for some reason some here thought it an opportunity to attack me. I think that the motivation is one of conformity, a reflex to attack one not of their political tribe, so to speak.

Actually this all started with me observing you behaved LIKE an anti-vaccinator. I had no idea at the time that you actually were one (that was an amusing surprise). As such I've tried to steer my comments back to why I made the observation in the first place. (as I said I don't want to engage in any arguments on vaccines here, there are other threads for that)

My question still stands regardless. You seem to think the problems with dating methods (and basically anything suggesting an old earth) are very obvious to you yet apparently not the experts. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason for this isn't that you're smart and the experts dumb/blind/corrupt/etc? That perhaps instead you may have missed something they didn't, hopefully leading you to read up a little more on the subject first?

Or do you really think you are THAT smart and we'll educated on these matters that this isn't worth considering?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

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!

Since you use the term "evolutionists" to refer to scientists, you're basically saying "Has it ever occurred to scientists that the problem isn't with the science, but with their understanding of it?"

If you don't see how stupid that is....well, I'm not surprised.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

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.

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.

You've gotten beyond boring 6days. I guess you think of these old, ineffective creationist assertions the same way Catholics think of the Hail Mary prayer....the more you repeat them the more effective they become.

So I guess the reason you won't answer my question (Do you have anything new) and instead just keep repeating yourself ad nauseum, is because you don't have anything new. Oh well....have fun channeling your inner parrot. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

Nope. Anything less than 150 years or so is within C14's standard error.

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

Ok, then challenge it. Or were you actually thinking just saying "I challenge that" is all you need to do?

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.

Where is any of that described in Genesis?

 

[Rosenritter]

Actually this all started with me observing you behaved LIKE an anti-vaccinator. I had no idea at the time that you actually were one (that was an amusing surprise). As such I've tried to steer my comments back to why I made the observation in the first place. (as I said I don't want to engage in any arguments on vaccines here, there are other threads for that)

My question still stands regardless. You seem to think the problems with dating methods (and basically anything suggesting an old earth) are very obvious to you yet apparently not the experts. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason for this isn't that you're smart and the experts dumb/blind/corrupt/etc? That perhaps instead you may have missed something they didn't, hopefully leading you to read up a little more on the subject first?

Or do you really think you are THAT smart and we'll educated on these matters that this isn't worth considering?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

I have observed otherwise intelligent people abuse or neglect their abilities because of other objectives or priorities. It should be fairly obvious that if you make an assumption and the assumption is untrue then you will get skewed results. The evolutionist that claims Carbon Dating establishes an old earth isn't even being honest with their assumptions to begin with. Or in most cases never even notices that they were making assumptions.

 

[Rosenritter]

Nope. Anything less than 150 years or so is within C14's standard error.



Ok, then challenge it. Or were you actually thinking just saying "I challenge that" is all you need to do?



Where is any of that described in Genesis?

Let me phrase this another way. Your claim that a new sun and planet would reach equilibrium C14 in its atmosphere in that short span of time as you just suggested is absurd on its face. TalkOrigins (a hostile witness) didn't even conceive that argument.

 

[gcthomas]

I have observed otherwise intelligent people abuse or neglect their abilities because of other objectives or priorities. It should be fairly obvious that if you make an assumption and the assumption is untrue then you will get skewed results. The evolutionist that claims Carbon Dating establishes an old earth isn't even being honest with their assumptions to begin with. Or in most cases never even notices that they were making assumptions.

No-one here would try to use C14 dating to prove the Earth was old, as its half life is too short to verify or refute such an hypothesis. Nor would anyone rely on a single method, as RATE does. Always, multiple methods are needed to convince anyone that figures are reliable.

Let me phrase this another way. Your claim that a new sun and planet would reach equilibrium C14 in its atmosphere in that short span of time as you just suggested is absurd on its face. TalkOrigins (a hostile witness) didn't even conceive that argument.

I nearly jumped in on that point, as I understood that the CO2 half-life in the atmosphere was of the order of a decade, so a few decades should be enough to stock the C14 levels. Think — if it took longer then you would have to concede that C14 levels are stable in the atmosphere, and short term variations would be prevented by the damping inertia of the long time it took excess CO2 to disappear. The short term fluctuations that we see in the atmosphere prove that the time scales are short.

Look at the Keeling Curve, for example, where the CO2 levels fluctuate by 2% over the course of each year.

 

[Cross Reference]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvVt4lDSPeY

 

[Jose Fly]

Let me phrase this another way. Your claim that a new sun and planet would reach equilibrium C14 in its atmosphere in that short span of time as you just suggested is absurd on its face. TalkOrigins (a hostile witness) didn't even conceive that argument.

You know, if you're going to ask people to go along with your "just assume my story is true and go from there" approach, it would help if you could keep that story straight.

This is what you said:

The lab would say "you can't expect carbon dating to work in samples this old. But how did you keep soft tissue intact for such a long time?" In absence of any significant trace of C14 they judge the sample to be OLD not YOUNG.​

You directly said Adam's rib would have no "significant trace of C14". As I showed that wouldn't be the case as the formation and distribution of C14 in the carbon cycle is fairly quick. Whether it was in equilibrium is irrelevant to that point.

So I'm starting to wonder just what your point is with all this. You seem to be going through a lot of effort to try and say that if we took remains from the creation week (Adam's rib or a mouse that lived with Adam) and subjected them to C14 testing the results would come back as older than they really are due to a lack of C14.

If that's your point.....um....so what? Do you have any actual specimens you believe to be from the creation week?

 

[Jose Fly]

The evolutionist that claims Carbon Dating establishes an old earth isn't even being honest with their assumptions to begin with. Or in most cases never even notices that they were making assumptions.

"Radiometric dating has assumptions" is a creationist argument that goes back at least to Witcomb and Morris' book The Genesis Flood from 1961, and possibly even as early as 1941.

Obviously that creationist argument had absolutely no impact on the science of geochronology. So my question to you is, if that argument went nowhere 55-75 years ago, what makes you think repeating it here anonymously will change that?

And again....do you creationists have anything new?

 

[6days]

Radiometric dating has assumptions" is a creationist argument that goes back at least to Witcomb and Morris' book

True 50 years ago that radimetric dating relies on assumptions... true today. Evangelical evolutionists have trouble admitting the truth. Honest / knowlegable evolutionists admit things like...
"Ages determined by radioactive decay are always subject to assumptions about original concentrations of the isotopes. " They then continue to explain methods of testing that assumption, but even still there are "uncertainties" in the process.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html

Or from another
"First, the (isochron) date has to be believable on other grounds. Second, it has to be believable ..." The author continues to explain when and why you need to believe. http://www.scientifictheology.com/Articles/IsoD/IsoD.html

And this anti-creatiinist / evolutionist admits..."While the assumptions of constant decay rate and a closed system are again necessary, the isochron method also has two other critical assumptions—the rock samples must represent the one unit that formed at the same time geologically, and the daughter isotope was uniformly distributed through all the samples when the rock unit formed. Because of the apparent ‘success’ of this isochron method...."
And...
"Evidently, the theoretical basis of the classical Rb-Sr isochron is being challenged and some limitations of its basic assumptions are being revealed…. Some of what this paper contains is not new to isotopic geochronologists, but it is drawn together here for the first time and is placed in a context within unifying general models for Rb-Sr dating.’
Journal 'Chemical Geology', Article "Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity". Auther Y. Zheng

 

[6days]

If that's your point.....um....so what? Do you have any actual specimens you believe to be from the creation week?

Rosenritter exposed your assumptions. You ASSUME C14 would be same rate as now. Rosenritters point is correct... We don't know initial rates. Like GC said... You can't take modern rates and extrapolate that into the unknown past.

 

[6days]

Since you use the term "evolutionists" to refer to scientists, you're basically saying "Has it ever occurred to scientists that the problem isn't with the science, but with their understanding of it?"

??? Nope!

Not all people are evolutionists.

Not all people are scientists.

Not all scientists are evolutionists.

However... all scientists are people.

I guess you think of these old, ineffective creationist assertions ...

Comparative genomics has always been an evidence of our Creator... unlike the ever changing, flip flopping evolutionist 'tree' assertions. What is your flavor today... you will have a new fave tomorrow.

So I guess the reason you won't answer my question (Do you have anything new) ...

Unlike evolutionists, we don't need to invent new trees. The evidence from comparative genomics always has and always will support the Biblical account.

 

[gcthomas]

Rosenritter exposed your assumptions. You ASSUME C14 would be same rate as now. Rosenritters point is correct... We don't know initial rates. Like GC said... You can't take modern rates and extrapolate that into the unknown past.

What I have also said several times, is that the amount of C14 through pre-history has been measured, so it is not assument. You are even quote-mining me now, it seems.