Noah's Ark Encounter Opens In Kentucky

#678
#678
Roustabout said:
You are appealing to statistical improbabilities (magic) with simpleton analogies.
Life is information, not just material. There is nothing logical here. In fact, it's fallacious reasoning and an Odds of the gaps argument.
Click to expand...

where does the information come from? if you support evolution, then the information had to have randomly form from nothing. that information had to be perfect enough to keep the organism living and if one piece of information is wrong or mutated then the organism could die or not evolve.
 
#679
#679
joevol320 said:
considering that you must have faith that petrified fish bone is 6 billion years old, then yes i would say it's a religion.
Click to expand...

Roustabout said:
How do you know the fish is that old?
-Because the rock is that old.
How do you know the rock is that old?
-Duh, becausebecause the fish is that old.
Click to expand...

Roust, for a poster who really strives to think critically, you really need to take a long look at the intellectual skidmark you're agreeing with here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#681
#681
joevol320 said:
well dinkin, you're quite the arrogant A-hole aren't you son. yet you can't dispute what i or he said.
Click to expand...

Can't deny the first part, but you're throwing rocks in a glass house.

As for the second: carbon dating, various mediums of empirical evidence stacked against you, the vast majority of a scientific community more educated than anyone involved in this discussion... should I keep going or have I exceeded your attention span's syllable count?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#682
#682
Roustabout said:
How do you know the fish is that old?
-Because the rock is that old.
How do you know the rock is that old?
-Duh, becausebecause the fish is that old.
Click to expand...

Steve-Carell-Facepalm.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#683
#683
DinkinFlicka said:
Can't deny the first part, but you're throwing rocks in a glass house.

As for the second: carbon dating, various mediums of empirical evidence stacked against you, the vast majority of a scientific community more educated than anyone involved in this discussion... should I keep going or have I exceeded your attention span's syllable count?
Click to expand...

Carbon dating: Depends on the belief that the levels of Carbon 12 in the atmosphere, and the level of cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere, have been constant throughout the history of the earth. So, what is a scientist to do? Use archaeological records (that were dated using carbon dating) to validate the assumption that the carbon 12 and cosmic radiation have been constant.

Carbon exists in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, a gas. It can either be present as stable carbon 12 or unstable carbon 14. Carbon 14 is formed from carbon 12 in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays. A steady state results in which the rate of decomposition of carbon 14 is matched by the rate of formation of new C-14 by cosmic rays. The result is that carbon 14 is present as a constant percentage of the total carbon in the atmosphere, although it does change slightly depending upon the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the atmosphere. However, a correction can be made on the basis of carbon 14 readings on items whose age is known from archeological records.

Trees and plants that get their carbon from the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere will, while they are living have a percentage of carbon 14 equal to that in the atmosphere. The same is true of animals that eat plant material. When these organisms die, they no longer ingest C-14 (directly or indirectly) from an atmospheric source. Carbon 14 decays at a particular rate and is not replaced. Thus, measuring the degree to which the carbon 14 level is less than that in the atmosphere provides a measure of time since death.

Carbon 14 Dating
Click to expand...

What was it roust said, that you chided him for? lol

How do you know the fish is that old?
-Because the rock is that old.
How do you know the rock is that old?
-Duh, becausebecause the fish is that old.
Click to expand...

Various mediums of empirical evidence? Like carbon and rocks that lay inert, waiting to be 'stacked'?

Scientific consensus? You pull out a bald appeal to authority and chide others for "intellectual skidmarks"?

Carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#684
#684
joevol320 said:
well dinkin, you're quite the arrogant A-hole aren't you son. yet you can't dispute what i or he said.
Click to expand...

Dink might not be able to specifically, but I'm pretty sure he can point you to the people that can and have. Now whether you choose to accept the findings or you don't comprehend them, that's a completely different story. If you're going to claim they are wrong, then you better be able to back it up with some solid evidence that's verifiable and not the babbling assertions you keep screaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#685
#685
Orange_Crush said:
Carbon dating: Depends on the belief that the levels of Carbon 12 in the atmosphere, and the level of cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere, have been constant throughout the history of the earth. So, what is a scientist to do? Use archaeological records (that were dated using carbon dating) to validate the assumption that the carbon 12 and cosmic radiation have been constant.



What was it roust said, that you chided him for? lol



Various mediums of empirical evidence? Like carbon and rocks that lay inert, waiting to be 'stacked'?

Scientific consensus? You pull out a bald appeal to authority and chide others for "intellectual skidmarks"?

Carry on.
Click to expand...

I'd stack his "scientific consensus" up against the "intellectual skidmark" he referred to every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#686
#686
VolsSportsFan said:
I'd stack his "scientific consensus" up against the "intellectual skidmark" he referred to every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Click to expand...

Obviously. And you're more than welcome to. It doesn't, in and of itself, make it a logically coherent argument, but you're more than welcome to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#688
#688
Orange_Crush said:
Carbon dating: Depends on the belief that the levels of Carbon 12 in the atmosphere, and the level of cosmic radiation entering the atmosphere, have been constant throughout the history of the earth. So, what is a scientist to do? Use archaeological records (that were dated using carbon dating) to validate the assumption that the carbon 12 and cosmic radiation have been constant.



What was it roust said, that you chided him for? lol



Various mediums of empirical evidence? Like carbon and rocks that lay inert, waiting to be 'stacked'?

Scientific consensus? You pull out a bald appeal to authority and chide others for "intellectual skidmarks"?

Carry on.
Click to expand...

Regarding carbon dating, look up the wiggle curve.

Regarding dating things older than 89,000 years old, other radio-isotope dating methods are used. It works on the same principles as nuclear physics. Just fyi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#690
#690
there are many very brilliant scientist that have debunked carbon dating and this "empirical evidence" he claim. this "empirical evidence" is being confused with empirical assumptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#694
#694
I have no problem with people spending money on whatever they f*** they want but that money could've been used in such a better way. Kentucky ranks 4th highest in the nation for poverty, 17th in household food insecurity and 28th in child food insecurity. About 1 out 4 kids in Kentucky aren't getting enough food for a healthy active lifestyle. If Christians really wanted to make a difference in their community, put that money towards feeding kids and helping those who could truly use there help. I'd be willing to bet 99% of people going to that are Christians already and if they're really worried about reaching nonbelievers, there's much better ways of doing so.
Click to expand...

Stoked said:
/thread
Click to expand...

poorly educated folks will do poorly educated things... :zeitung_lesen:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#697
#697
Mtntrout said:
Regarding carbon dating, look up the wiggle curve.

Regarding dating things older than 89,000 years old, other radio-isotope dating methods are used. It works on the same principles as nuclear physics. Just fyi.
Click to expand...

I will definitely check deeper into the wiggle curve. What I've seen of it doesn't negate the effect of variable environmental C-content. But I'll read up on it some more.

Radiometric dating. I still don't think it's a slam dunk as, since the 90s, tests have been showing that the radiometric decay rates aren't constant. Things like earth rotation, atmospheric conditions, and distance between the earth and sun effect the decay rate of various radio-isotope decay.

Personally, I've said all along that I'm not firmly in any camp on the age of the earth. I'm a "dunno-earther". I just take issue when the old-earthers mock the young-earthers as though they have a rock solid, proven case. They generally have that argument by holding creationists to a higher standard than they hold themselves, as shown in the closing comments of the article I quoted earlier.

After posting his own circular reasoning that still left a big ? about the age of the earth, he said:

Creationists assume, usually on the basis of a "flood" argument, that there have been large changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the past several thousand years. There probably have been small fluctuations, leading to an uncertainty of plus or minus ten percent, confirmed by dating objects of a known age. However, the evidence does not support the creationist claim of large changes in the amount of carbon dioxide.

The creationist argument that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is not constant is actually based on the assumption of a young earth with an age of 10,000 years, and sudden changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the assumed catastrophic events of the Genesis flood. This is the motivation behind the 30,000 year figure quoted in the creationist position.
Click to expand...

So, after listing the reasons for his own assumptions per the C-content of earth's atmosphere, he negates the creationists because their beliefs are based on assumptions about the C-content of the atmosphere. High hypocrisy.

Personally, I believe both camps are making assumptions, so refuse to make objective claims either way.

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#700
#700
joevol320 said:
anything that i post from any scientist that is pro-creation, you're not going to bother to read.
Click to expand...

The "peer reviewed" part is a subtle appeal to authority and true-Scotsman's fallacy. Generally, the scientific community refuses to publish creationist articles, and then castigate creation scientists for not being peer reviewed.

It is what it is.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top