Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

If you have an argument, make it. If it's valid it's valid, and if it's not it's not, regardless of whether I post a treatise on C-14 dating at ToL.

Stop playing games and state your case.

Again you make reference to this "model", yet you haven't said what it is. So to repeat....what is "the Genesis model"?

Jose, what you have done is pretty much shown why talking to you doesn't work. You're either intentionally forgetful or a moron. You don't know what your opponent has said because you won't listen, you don't remember, and/or you're incapable of honest intellectual thought. You're not even able to tell me what my position is, you can't even define the science of your own position when asked, yet you argue and argue away.

You're here to argue, as a troll.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're not even able to tell me what my position is, you can't even define the science of your own position when asked, yet you argue and argue away.

You're here to argue, as a troll.

You can stamp your little feet and wave your little arms all you like, but it boils down to one simple thing....if you think you have a valid argument, then present it.

All this nonsense about me having to post a treatise on C-14 dating as a requirement before you'll say what your argument is, is nothing more than bluster and evasion.

If you have an argument, present it. And since you keep mentioning this "Genesis model", it would help a lot if you would explain what that is.

 

[Rosenritter]

You can stamp your little feet and wave your little arms all you like, but it boils down to one simple thing....if you think you have a valid argument, then present it.

All this nonsense about me having to post a treatise on C-14 dating as a requirement before you'll say what your argument is, is nothing more than bluster and evasion.

If you have an argument, present it. And since you keep mentioning this "Genesis model", it would help a lot if you would explain what that is.

You don't even know the arguments that have already been presented, nor have you shown a glimmer of good faith so far. You don't understand your own argument. Evasion? I'm the only one adding data to this equation.

Go back under your bridge and wait for Billy Goats Gruff.

 

[Rosenritter]

You can stamp your little feet and wave your little arms all you like, but it boils down to one simple thing....if you think you have a valid argument, then present it.

All this nonsense about me having to post a treatise on C-14 dating as a requirement before you'll say what your argument is, is nothing more than bluster and evasion.

If you have an argument, present it. And since you keep mentioning this "Genesis model", it would help a lot if you would explain what that is.

The ball was left bouncing multiple times in your court. You seem to pretend you respond to arguments, but you don't know the creationist argument. You say you read Genesis, but apparently you don't comprehend the first five chapters nor are able to pick out where its world was different from our modern world. You claim you stand on the science of C-14 dating, but you've multiple times refused to describe it or admit what assumptions it makes. In this game you're suppose to return the serve after a bounce. More than that is your foul.

Prove to me that you understand what we are talking about and I will have a heart attack and die of surprise.

 

[gcthomas]

The ball was left bouncing multiple times in your court. You seem to pretend you respond to arguments, but you don't know the creationist argument. You say you read Genesis, but apparently you don't comprehend the first five chapters nor are able to pick out where its world was different from our modern world. You claim you stand on the science of C-14 dating, but you've multiple times refused to describe it or admit what assumptions it makes. In this game you're suppose to return the serve after a bounce. More than that is your foul.

Prove to me that you understand what we are talking about and I will have a heart attack and die of surprise.

The assumptions have been listed, yet you ignored them. Why not tackle those?

 

[Jose Fly]

You don't even know the arguments that have already been presented

Then link to where they were posted or restate them.

nor have you shown a glimmer of good faith so far.

See, if you were operating in good faith you would just post whatever your argument is and let it stand or fall on its own merits.

You seem to pretend you respond to arguments, but you don't know the creationist argument.

If that's the case, then just say what "the creationist argument is". You're putting far more effort into avoiding saying what your argument is than it would take to just say it.

You say you read Genesis, but apparently you don't comprehend the first five chapters nor are able to pick out where its world was different from our modern world.

Nope. I don't see any mention of C-14 in Genesis.

You claim you stand on the science of C-14 dating, but you've multiple times refused to describe it or admit what assumptions it makes.

I've already posted material about different means of calibrating C-14 curves. And this was the extent of your response:

Blah, blah. Blah, blah. That is what I hear from you Jose. We have been over the details before, you just like to forget them. Circular reasoning is where you will stay. ​

So as we can see, when it comes time to actually step up to the plate and get into the details of the science, you suddenly start acting like a child and respond with things like "Blah, blah, blah".

Further, redfern put up a pretty good post on C-14 methods. And even though that post was directly to you and did exactly what you're claiming to want here, you ignored it completely.

Simply put Rosenritter, your behavior in this thread is once again dishonorable.

Prove to me that you understand what we are talking about and I will have a heart attack and die of surprise.

Again, why is you posting your own argument contingent on me explaining a subject you claim to already understand and one I've already posted about (and you responded "Blah, blah, blah")?

You're behaving like a child RR.

 

[gcthomas]

You're behaving like a child RR.

He's behaving more like Stripe as the days go by.

 

[Rosenritter]

Dear 6days & Rosenritter,

It looks like Creationists have won hands down, score 1-0. Evolutionists, 0-1. Finally!! See Post #20646 above. After all of this time! I'm not trying to rub it in. Just declaring it. The whole world was affected by the Great Flood from God!! What an awesome amount of water that would be. Hey Hedshaker and DavisBJ, what do you think of this? Come out of hiding for a bit! Hey gcthomas, take heart. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while.

Praise The Lord God,

Michael

What? Sorry, I don't understand you.

 

[Rosenritter]

...

 

[Rosenritter]

Phone app is bugged. Attempts to search posts instead.

 

[6days]

Of course there are assumptions. What was the ratio of C14 to C12, 5,000 years ago? Evolutionists assume the ratio was much the same as now.

No, they don't assume that, as I already explained in the post you quoted.

Then go ahead and believe the results, from labs showing dinosaurs existed 28,000 years ago. However, you would still be wrong because there are several assumptions involved in C14 dating. For example, we assume that all dead organisms died with the same amount of C14. Knowing that assumption is not entirely correct, (radiation in atmosphere varies depending on solar flares, earths decaying magnetic field volcanoes, global catastrophy / flood etc....<and that equilibrium has not been reached between amount of C14 produced and removed...another sssumption.>) we then try calibrate using other dating methods such as dendrochronology (tree rings) which also rely on certain assumptions. The date arrived at is a +/- date. The lab will say within a certain time period and correct a certain % of the time. Assumptions ARE involved in C14 dating. C14 is one of many methods that help confirm our young earth.

It was only the RATE team that refuses to compare with other methods. Why is that I wonder?

That might be a great argument if it was true. Would you care for articles from Biblical creationist scientists showing that ALL scientists compare with other methods and other known factors?

Likewise, to assume the sample is older than 50,000,000 years is an assumption.

No, they don't. No assumption is made, since measurements using multiple independent methods are used. Why would a sample that had its dating confirmed by several methods want to use a method that is, by design, incapable of making the measurement better?

??? WHAT??? Ha, of course evolutionists assume dinosaur bones are much older than 50,000,000 years. You could like quote Mary Schweitzer (and maybe I could too) when she found soft dino tissue. Why was she surprised? Because her common sense didn't match up with her evolutionary assumptions.

Re your comment about multiple measurements...you of course are ignoring the mesaurements that don't give you the desired results. You ignore the flip flops.... or is it backflips evolutionists do trying to make their stories fit together.
EX.
Richarad Leakey discovered modern looking skull KNM-ER1470 in 1972. He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

Geologist (paleocologist) Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon) However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct.


Because Leaky found the skull after the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5442/abs/247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories. In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given
on the strata. The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234329548_Age_of_the_KBS_Tuff_in_the_Koobi_Fora_Formation_East_Rudolf_Kenya

Notice the evolutionists getting low scores from the Olympic judges in synchronized dating methods?

One thing in common was the various studies was mentioning the difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that provides a date consistent with evolutionary expectations. IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Numerous other examples can be given where dates are adjusted up or down to fit the story. J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".

And..... Its sort of sad...sort of funny, that evolutionists can read a statement like that and not burst out laughing.

However C14 dating can be used to help prove younger dates - a true younger date from C14 dating does help confirm the truth of God's Word.

Not without verification using other methods — to ignore that standard practice is to undermine the credibility of the result.

There are likely 100 other verification methods..... You are unwilling to follow evidence that points to divine creation.

 

[gcthomas]

Given all that, 6days, why do you think that the RATE team refuse to use the multiple methods that would verify or refute their own C14 dates? As you have shown, real scientists cross check and retest and use a variety of methods before they reach an agreement.

RATE are not doing real science. That is the only lesson we can take from your Leakey story.

 

[Stripe]

RATE are not doing real science.

Which translates from evo-babble into English as: "I don't want to even entertain the possibility of a challenge to my precious religion."

 

[MichaelCadry]

??????? Most of these creationist arguments are decades old (some at least 50 years old, from Morris and Witcomb's The Genesis Flood), and not one of them has had any impact at all on science. Every one of the arguments are 100% scientifically irrelevant.

Given that, by what measure can you assert that the arguments "are not concluded"?

Dear Jose,

Ah, but creationists like me have added something new. That the Great Flood was factually global, over the whole Earth. See Post #20646, Page 1377 on this Thread. Go back and read it. My Bible is my history book and that's what it tells me. The Flood was over the Whole Earth. So, I've added something new. Now what are you going to do to weasel out of this?

Best Wishes,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Then link to where they were posted or restate them.[/qu0te]


Dear Jose,

Oh, so you want Ross to go back and try to find his relevant post, so he gets to do all of that work or just ignore your taunts. Everything Ross says about you is true. That's why you're frustrating him. You evade every issue you don't know the answer to and just post vague things as your reply. Listen, I've noticed this about you from way back when. That's why I don't like to post to you. Because you are an evasive, sneaky person. And no, don't ask me to explain anything or go and look back for examples. I don't need to. The assessment that I am making is true and is as if writing on the wall.

Michael




See, if you were operating in good faith you would just post whatever your argument is and let it stand or fall on its own merits.



If that's the case, then just say what "the creationist argument is". You're putting far more effort into avoiding saying what your argument is than it would take to just say it.



Nope. I don't see any mention of C-14 in Genesis.



I've already posted material about different means of calibrating C-14 curves. And this was the extent of your response:

Blah, blah. Blah, blah. That is what I hear from you Jose. We have been over the details before, you just like to forget them. Circular reasoning is where you will stay. ​

So as we can see, when it comes time to actually step up to the plate and get into the details of the science, you suddenly start acting like a child and respond with things like "Blah, blah, blah".

Further, redfern put up a pretty good post on C-14 methods. And even though that post was directly to you and did exactly what you're claiming to want here, you ignored it completely.

Simply put Rosenritter, your behavior in this thread is once again dishonorable.



Again, why is you posting your own argument contingent on me explaining a subject you claim to already understand and one I've already posted about (and you responded "Blah, blah, blah")?

You're behaving like a child RR.

 

[MichaelCadry]

What? Sorry, I don't understand you.

Dear Rosenritter,

You evidently missed my Post #20646, Page #1377. It says there in the Bible that the WHOLE EARTH was victim of the Great Flood. It was not just a local flood after all, like the evolutionists or atheists say. And if they do not want to believe what is in our Bible, our history book, then we don't have to believe in their science history book.

Praise God!!

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Dear Rosenritter,

You evidently missed my Post #20646, Page #1377. It says there in the Bible that the WHOLE EARTH was victim of the Great Flood. It was not just a local flood after all, like the evolutionists or atheists say. And if they do not want to believe what is in our Bible, our history book, then we don't have to believe in their science history book.

Praise God!!

Michael

*sigh* no one has tried to argue that the bible didn't refer to a global flood. Some have suggested that the stories origins were a local flood but not that the bible has said this. Everyone knows the bible claimed a global flood.

The problem is that science suggests the bible is wrong about this.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

*sigh* no one has tried to argue that the bible didn't refer to a global flood. Some have suggested that the stories origins were a local flood but not that the bible has said this. Everyone knows the bible claimed a global flood.

The problem is that science suggests the bible is wrong about this.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Ty, what "science" would that be? You can't just take humanist denial and call that "science."

There are global evidences of mass extinction, mass fossil graveyards, marine organisms on mountains, etc. Then there are the worldwide flood legends from cultures around the globe, having common elements.

 

[Rosenritter]

Then go ahead and believe the results, from labs showing dinosaurs existed 28,000 years ago. However, you would still be wrong because there are several assumptions involved in C14 dating. For example, we assume that all dead organisms died with the same amount of C14. Knowing that assumption is not entirely correct, (radiation in atmosphere varies depending on solar flares, earths decaying magnetic field volcanoes, global catastrophy / flood etc....<and that equilibrium has not been reached between amount of C14 produced and removed...another sssumption.>) we then try calibrate using other dating methods such as dendrochronology (tree rings) which also rely on certain assumptions. The date arrived at is a +/- date. The lab will say within a certain time period and correct a certain % of the time. Assumptions ARE involved in C14 dating. C14 is one of many methods that help confirm our young earth.


That might be a great argument if it was true. Would you care for articles from Biblical creationist scientists showing that ALL scientists compare with other methods and other known factors?

??? WHAT??? Ha, of course evolutionists assume dinosaur bones are much older than 50,000,000 years. You could like quote Mary Schweitzer (and maybe I could too) when she found soft dino tissue. Why was she surprised? Because her common sense didn't match up with her evolutionary assumptions.

Re your comment about multiple measurements...you of course are ignoring the mesaurements that don't give you the desired results. You ignore the flip flops.... or is it backflips evolutionists do trying to make their stories fit together.
EX.
Richarad Leakey discovered modern looking skull KNM-ER1470 in 1972. He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

Geologist (paleocologist) Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon) However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct.


Because Leaky found the skull after the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5442/abs/247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories. In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given
on the strata. The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234329548_Age_of_the_KBS_Tuff_in_the_Koobi_Fora_Formation_East_Rudolf_Kenya

Notice the evolutionists getting low scores from the Olympic judges in synchronized dating methods?

One thing in common was the various studies was mentioning the difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that provides a date consistent with evolutionary expectations. IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Numerous other examples can be given where dates are adjusted up or down to fit the story. J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".

And..... Its sort of sad...sort of funny, that evolutionists can read a statement like that and not burst out laughing.


There are likely 100 other verification methods..... You are unwilling to follow evidence that points to divine creation.

Clowns, clowns, and more clowns!

 

[Rosenritter]

Then link to where they were posted or restate them.



See, if you were operating in good faith you would just post whatever your argument is and let it stand or fall on its own merits.



If that's the case, then just say what "the creationist argument is". You're putting far more effort into avoiding saying what your argument is than it would take to just say it.



Nope. I don't see any mention of C-14 in Genesis.



I've already posted material about different means of calibrating C-14 curves. And this was the extent of your response:

Blah, blah. Blah, blah. That is what I hear from you Jose. We have been over the details before, you just like to forget them. Circular reasoning is where you will stay. ​

So as we can see, when it comes time to actually step up to the plate and get into the details of the science, you suddenly start acting like a child and respond with things like "Blah, blah, blah".

Further, redfern put up a pretty good post on C-14 methods. And even though that post was directly to you and did exactly what you're claiming to want here, you ignored it completely.

Simply put Rosenritter, your behavior in this thread is once again dishonorable.



Again, why is you posting your own argument contingent on me explaining a subject you claim to already understand and one I've already posted about (and you responded "Blah, blah, blah")?

You're behaving like a child RR.

Lets start with something really basic Jose, since you persist in this charade of ignorance. Genesis mentions the SUN. Where do you assume Carbon 14 comes from?

Oh that's right, you really don't know or haven't thought about it, so you wouldn't recognize scientific significance of any of this. That's why you wouldn't give a brief statement of how you thought Carbon dating works. Why you would spend days arguing rather than give a simple statement...