Posts by James Brown

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

James Brown

FFS - Have you done ANY research. Moab or "Malachite" man has been completely rebutted, only total idiots still give it any credence.

Bring it on lets see it. You got a lot of sizzle but you never show the steak.

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

James Brown

And now we come to the inevitable juncture of tossing in a strawman /red herring in this thread. A kindly reminder, if I may.

Atheism is not an religion.

Atheism is not based, according to your perceived, misinformed (intentional or otherwise) understanding, on pseudo science.

Atheism never requires a leap of faith.

Totaly wrong.

Fail

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

James Brown

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/DinosaurWorld/human_and_dinosaur_bones_in_the_same_rock_strata.html

I dont think its pseudo science.

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

James Brown

So if I dont share your psuedo religious beliefs, I cant share your psuedo science.

It doesnt take any faith to practice chemistry, to engineer electricity, to build a computer,

etc.

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

James Brown

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.

Yep. I am well aware of that. The lab the samples were sent it to was specifically and only designed to test the ages of things 2+ million years old. Anything not at least that old and their results would be in error, unless, of course, you have another example you want to cite?

As an analogy, you might as well say weighing things doesn't work because the scale at the gym didn't move when you put a feather on it. You would be wrong in both your choice of tool as well as the analysis

The above is the problem with radiometric dating and carbon dating.

You have to assume that something is 2+ millions of years old for it to work. That is why is it psuedo science.

There are many people and scientist in this world who dont think there is anything on earth over 10,000 years old.

That is a leap of faith that one must make to believe in that form of psuedo science.

It doesnt take any faith to believe in the internet, computers, electricity, technology, etc.

The whole atheistic movement is a pseudo religion wrapped up in faith.

And it doesnt matter how many times you say its not, or how loud you scream it,

millions of people can see that it is.

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

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.

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

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.

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

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.

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

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.

273

greatest show on earth

by unstopableravens in

i wanted to start this thread two weeks ago,however i have had alot going on with wifey and the elders,that is another thread.

to be honest my mind has been on my family.

i will be able to discuss the book tommorow morning.

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)