greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens 273 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  James, I think Adam and Eve are literal people (but very much to do with the spiritual)... and... I can accept evolution of the species. I am not sure how each of these connect. But I have no doubt that they do. The only "seeming" conflict comes from us not having all the specifics/details of the physical world (in this case evolution), and the spiritual world.

  You are describing someting that isn't human and therefore cannot be the Biblical A&E and then presuming you will somehow be right. Bad science, bad reasoning and weak attempt to redefine words to suit your agenda.
• 

  still thinking

  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens2002.pdf

  Thanks for that link cofty...I know you posted it for James...but I found it very helpful
• 

  James Brown

  Cofty regarding your reading assignment to me I got to page 2

  Page 2 of radiometric dating pp2&3

  Also unlike the hourglass, there is no way to change the rate at which radioactive atoms decay in rocks . If you shake the hourglass, twirl it, or put it in a rapidly accelerating vehicle, the time it takes the sand to fall will change . But the radioactive atoms used in dating techniques have been subjected to heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions to the extent that would be experienced by rocks or magma in the mantle, crust, or surface of the Earth or other planets without any significant change in their decay rate. In only a couple of special cases have any decay rates been observed to vary, and none of these special cases apply to the dating of rocks as discussed here . These exceptions are discussed later.

  My response:

  There saying here that it is very accurate, despite extreme conditions.

  But when Mt St Helens errupted in 1980 they used radiometric dating on the rocks dating them up to 2.8 million years old.

  Mt. Etna erupted 2100 years ago but the rocks came back dated 25 million years old.

  Sunset crater, Northern Arizon erupted in 1065Ad the rocks came back dated 200,000 years old

  Lava flows at Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zealand erupted in 1949, 1954 but the rocks came back dated 274,000

  years old.

  Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily erupted in 1971 the rocks were dated 140,000 to 350,000 years old.

  All of the samples from volcanic eruptions of known times and dates were carefully collected and sent to labs.

  They always come back dated hundreds of thousands of years to million years old.

  They never come back with a note "too young to measure."

  When man know the dates of rocks, the dating techniques dont work.

  But we are supposed to trust them when we dont know the dates.

  Thats Psuedo science.

  References:

  Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin (Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA., and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO., 2000)
• 

  James Brown

  QC - why is it so hard for you and other creationists to understand that abiogenesis is not the same as evolution?

  The common ancestry of every living thing is a fact. Everything from humans to apples evolved over millions of years from a last universal common ancestor LUCA.

  This is a fact. It has nothing to do with appeals to authority or opinion. It is the bedrock or biology.

  As for abiognesis the details are still not certain but the current state of research is really fascinating.

  As for your childish insults - grow up.

  A person could just as easily say its a fact that God created everything from humans to apples.

  And he would have just as much evidence as you do.
• 

  jgnat

  More about the Institute for Creation Research.
• 

  James Brown

  jgnat so are you saying that the institute for creation research is like the Amazing Randy?

  They keep the charlatans honest.

  How can you misshandle a rock before you test the date? Cofty's article on radiometric dating states that

  you can subject the atoms to heat, chemicals reactions, pressure etc with out any change in the decay

  rate. If the atoms are decaying how can you misshandle them and make them decay faster?

  Page 2 of radiometric dating pp2&3

  Also unlike the hourglass, there is no way to change the rate at which radioactive atoms decay in rocks . If you shake the hourglass, twirl it, or put it in a rapidly accelerating vehicle, the time it takes the sand to fall will change . But the radioactive atoms used in dating techniques have been subjected to heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions to the extent that would be experienced by rocks or magma in the mantle, crust, or surface of the Earth or other planets without any significant change in their decay rate.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  You say it's “still a work in progress” that means it’s now speculation, not proven.

  That is incorrect. I can know for a fact that something happened based on evidence but still be working out the details of HOW exactly it happened.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  A person could just as easily say its a fact that God created everything from humans to apples.

  Not as easily, but they could say it and many do, so I'll give you a "true" on this on.

  And he would have just as much evidence as you do.

  Oh, heavens so. So not true as to be laughably untrue. Again, why do you say such things without bothering to educate yourself and understand the very science you decry, the very science that allows you to send data over the internet or use a GPS?

  If the atoms are decaying how can you misshandle them and make them decay faster?

  The paragraph you quote says you can't. Did you somehow misunderstand what you quoted?
• 

  James Brown

  If the atoms are decaying how can you misshandle them and make them decay faster?

  The paragraph you quote says you can't. Did you somehow misunderstand what you quoted?

  No I think regarding all the erroneous dates that carbon dating produces that in

  defense of carbon dating it is said by the defenders of carbon dating

  that the rocks were misshandeled and therefore

  the erroneous dates.

  One example is Mt. St Helens we know it errupted in 1980 and that is the date of the lava

  but when sent to be dated at the labratory it comes back dated 2.8 million years old.
• 

  James Brown

  Oh, heavens so. So not true as to be laughably untrue. Again, why do you say such things without bothering to educate yourself and understand the very science you decry, the very science that allows you to send data over the internet or use a GPS?

  The science that allows me to send data over the internet and use a gps is real science.

  The science that says the earth is 4.5 billion years old is psuedoscience.