Celebrate Darwin's birthday Thursday

[GHook93]

Among Christians, only the Biblical literalists believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and they do believe in dinosaurs. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was a dinosaur, don't you know, that became a snake after God cursed it and made it eat the dust of the Earth, etc. That explains why there are no dinosaurs left, they all became snakes.

And you got this theory from where, exactly?

For the record, the young-Earth literalists usually believe that dinosaurs and humans overlapped in their existence, and point to the book of Job as evidence.

Because they ignore the science of carbon dating, for a untestable belief of the Christian folklore! Sorry, but I will take the much more believable carbon testing analysis over the folklore and myth of the Old and New Testament and the Koran!

 

[KittenKoder]

And you got this theory from where, exactly?

For the record, the young-Earth literalists usually believe that dinosaurs and humans overlapped in their existence, and point to the book of Job as evidence.

Because they ignore the science of carbon dating, for a untestable belief of the Christian folklore! Sorry, but I will take the much more believable carbon testing analysis over the folklore and myth of the Old and New Testament and the Koran!

Actually, I have seen real evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate. The "Noahs Ark" hoax was one such event, they took a piece of drift wood and boiled it, treated it, using processes common in nature. So many christians held to the belief that it was proof their myth was correct only to be red in the face when the hoaxers admitted it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because they ignore the science of carbon dating, for a untestable belief of the Christian folklore! Sorry, but I will take the much more believable carbon testing analysis over the folklore and myth of the Old and New Testament and the Koran!

Actually, I have seen real evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate. The "Noahs Ark" hoax was one such event, they took a piece of drift wood and boiled it, treated it, using processes common in nature. So many christians held to the belief that it was proof their myth was correct only to be red in the face when the hoaxers admitted it.

Kitten, if you know how the tests are done, and what they look for, then you can 'tilt' any test. That is why methodology of collection and testing is so important. When they were testing the Alverez Hypothesis concerning the K-T extinction, a lab technician happened to be wearing a platinum wedding ring, and they threw out the results and started all over again, because of the possibility of contamination. The Carbon 14 dating is as good as the collection and testing methods employed.

 

[Skeptik]

Among Christians, only the Biblical literalists believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and they do believe in dinosaurs. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was a dinosaur, don't you know, that became a snake after God cursed it and made it eat the dust of the Earth, etc. That explains why there are no dinosaurs left, they all became snakes.

And you got this theory from where, exactly?

For the record, the young-Earth literalists usually believe that dinosaurs and humans overlapped in their existence, and point to the book of Job as evidence.

I knew I had read something about a creationist theory that the serpent was really a dinosaur. I had to wade through a lot of nonsensical creationist sites, but here is one that suggests exactly that:

Logic also says that whatever the creature was, it isn’t around anymore; so how about one of the dinosaurs? This seems probable, in the sense that dinosaurs are extinct reptiles. We’re looking for an animal that’s long, tubular and svelte that also has a reputation for being both cunning and subtle: the serpent deceived Eve using questions and half-truths. In fact, the serpent would have been the classic mythological ‘great lizard’ – that is, a dragon. Look at Revelation 12, especially verse 9.

Of course, a creationist, at least one of the "young earth and humans coexisting with dinosaurs" school of thought, using logic to reach a conclusion is much like an atheist using prayer to find an answer.

 

[N4mddissent]

Because they ignore the science of carbon dating, for a untestable belief of the Christian folklore! Sorry, but I will take the much more believable carbon testing analysis over the folklore and myth of the Old and New Testament and the Koran!

Actually, I have seen real evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate. The "Noahs Ark" hoax was one such event, they took a piece of drift wood and boiled it, treated it, using processes common in nature. So many christians held to the belief that it was proof their myth was correct only to be red in the face when the hoaxers admitted it.

Carbon 14 dating, like most radiometric dating, is extremely accurate if it is done carefully and properly. One also must understand the limitations and possible influences which can render the results inaccurate. Also, it has parameters that restrict the length of time which it can accurately date. But generally any radiometric dating results are put through the peer review process where they are independently re-tested and often confirmed by an alternative method of dating-whether a different form of radiometric dating or a altogether different form of dating like dendrochronology. I would be suspicious of any results that were headliners, especially prior to peer review. Often hoaxers will go for the big headline. Scientists will submit their results to scrutiny first.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, I have seen real evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate. The "Noahs Ark" hoax was one such event, they took a piece of drift wood and boiled it, treated it, using processes common in nature. So many christians held to the belief that it was proof their myth was correct only to be red in the face when the hoaxers admitted it.

Carbon 14 dating, like most radiometric dating, is extremely accurate if it is done carefully and properly. One also must understand the limitations and possible influences which can render the results inaccurate. Also, it has parameters that restrict the length of time which it can accurately date. But generally any radiometric dating results are put through the peer review process where they are independently re-tested and often confirmed by an alternative method of dating-whether a different form of radiometric dating or a altogether different form of dating like dendrochronology. I would be suspicious of any results that were headliners, especially prior to peer review. Often hoaxers will go for the big headline. Scientists will submit their results to scrutiny first.

This is the problem, many of these influences occur frequently in nature. That is why they usually have to test the same fossil type from different locations to get an accurate timeline of when the creature existed. Even there is a large possibility of error, however the location and depth of where they are found does often tell more about the age than anything.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, I have seen real evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate. The "Noahs Ark" hoax was one such event, they took a piece of drift wood and boiled it, treated it, using processes common in nature. So many christians held to the belief that it was proof their myth was correct only to be red in the face when the hoaxers admitted it.

Carbon 14 dating, like most radiometric dating, is extremely accurate if it is done carefully and properly. One also must understand the limitations and possible influences which can render the results inaccurate. Also, it has parameters that restrict the length of time which it can accurately date. But generally any radiometric dating results are put through the peer review process where they are independently re-tested and often confirmed by an alternative method of dating-whether a different form of radiometric dating or a altogether different form of dating like dendrochronology. I would be suspicious of any results that were headliners, especially prior to peer review. Often hoaxers will go for the big headline. Scientists will submit their results to scrutiny first.

This is the problem, many of these influences occur frequently in nature. That is why they usually have to test the same fossil type from different locations to get an accurate timeline of when the creature existed. Even there is a large possibility of error, however the location and depth of where they are found does often tell more about the age than anything.

Kitten, very few fossils are dated with C14. It is only good for about 50,000 years, 100,000 at the max. There are many other isotopes used in dating strata, and, whenever possible, the scientists use as many as possible to zero in on the time period of the material in question.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KittenKoder]

Carbon 14 dating, like most radiometric dating, is extremely accurate if it is done carefully and properly. One also must understand the limitations and possible influences which can render the results inaccurate. Also, it has parameters that restrict the length of time which it can accurately date. But generally any radiometric dating results are put through the peer review process where they are independently re-tested and often confirmed by an alternative method of dating-whether a different form of radiometric dating or a altogether different form of dating like dendrochronology. I would be suspicious of any results that were headliners, especially prior to peer review. Often hoaxers will go for the big headline. Scientists will submit their results to scrutiny first.

This is the problem, many of these influences occur frequently in nature. That is why they usually have to test the same fossil type from different locations to get an accurate timeline of when the creature existed. Even there is a large possibility of error, however the location and depth of where they are found does often tell more about the age than anything.

Kitten, very few fossils are dated with C14. It is only good for about 50,000 years, 100,000 at the max. There are many other isotopes used in dating strata, and, whenever possible, the scientists use as many as possible to zero in on the time period of the material in question.
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not denying that fossil records are accurate, only that too many people place too much faith in the carbon dating system. Also, you know I don't trust wiki.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So do moderates my friend! I was and am a strong supporter of Mitt Romney. To tell you the truth I like huckabee's strong support of the fair tax!

But just because an intelligent person sees creationism for what it is, crap, arguing it has no place in science classes, does not make them a liberal!

I can't decide if you just don't read the posts you're putatively responding to, or if English isn't your first language and so you read them without having any clue what they said. Either way, if your responses aren't going to bear any actual relation to what was said, could you do me a favor and not waste my time?

I have dyslexia! But I usually have very little time at work to write posts, many times I start a post and a call comes in, then I come back to the same post minutes, even hours, later. The break in thought sometimes come out as gibberish.

However, I read my post and I didn't see anything too wrong with the grammar!

I didn't say anything about your grammar, or make any reference to dyslexia. I referred rather specifically to the fact that your responses don't relate in any way to the posts you're allegedly responding to. It's as if I made a statement regarding the dangers of space travel, and you came back with, "Yes, but if you don't scoop the kitty litter, the cat will pee in your shoes." You might be right, but it had nothing to do with anything I said.

 

[YWN666]

I can't decide if you just don't read the posts you're putatively responding to, or if English isn't your first language and so you read them without having any clue what they said. Either way, if your responses aren't going to bear any actual relation to what was said, could you do me a favor and not waste my time?

I have dyslexia! But I usually have very little time at work to write posts, many times I start a post and a call comes in, then I come back to the same post minutes, even hours, later. The break in thought sometimes come out as gibberish.

However, I read my post and I didn't see anything too wrong with the grammar!

I didn't say anything about your grammar, or make any reference to dyslexia. I referred rather specifically to the fact that your responses don't relate in any way to the posts you're allegedly responding to. It's as if I made a statement regarding the dangers of space travel, and you came back with, "Yes, but if you don't scoop the kitty litter, the cat will pee in your shoes." You might be right, but it had nothing to do with anything I said.

Maybe you'd prefer he adopt your style and post nothing but personal insults.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And you got this theory from where, exactly?

For the record, the young-Earth literalists usually believe that dinosaurs and humans overlapped in their existence, and point to the book of Job as evidence.

Because they ignore the science of carbon dating, for a untestable belief of the Christian folklore! Sorry, but I will take the much more believable carbon testing analysis over the folklore and myth of the Old and New Testament and the Koran!

Just as Skeptik had no really clear idea of what these people believe, and didn't for a second let that stop him from making definitive statements as to their beliefs and how "silly" they are, you also don't have clue one but don't consider that any barrier to presenting yourself as an expert.

May I propose the outrageous notion that you make the effort to investigate people's beliefs and what they are based on before triumphantly pronouncing yours as the One Great Truth?

 

[Agnapostate]

Just as Skeptik had no really clear idea of what these people believe, and didn't for a second let that stop him from making definitive statements as to their beliefs and how "silly" they are, you also don't have clue one but don't consider that any barrier to presenting yourself as an expert.

May I propose the outrageous notion that you make the effort to investigate people's beliefs and what they are based on before triumphantly pronouncing yours as the One Great Truth?

You suffer from a severe lack of knowledge yourself, considering your inaccurate references to the book of Job.

 

[Skeptik]

Because they ignore the science of carbon dating, for a untestable belief of the Christian folklore! Sorry, but I will take the much more believable carbon testing analysis over the folklore and myth of the Old and New Testament and the Koran!

Just as Skeptik had no really clear idea of what these people believe, and didn't for a second let that stop him from making definitive statements as to their beliefs and how "silly" they are, you also don't have clue one but don't consider that any barrier to presenting yourself as an expert.

May I propose the outrageous notion that you make the effort to investigate people's beliefs and what they are based on before triumphantly pronouncing yours as the One Great Truth?

I provided links to the beliefs of creationists. If you didn't read them/ don't understand them/ want to deny their existence anyway or whatever, that doesn't mean that I have no clear idea what these people believe. It is set out very clearly just what nonsense is being promulgated in the vain attempt to substitute religion for science.

Moreover, evolution is not my One Great Truth. It is a scientific theory that has stood the test of time and been vetted by peer review over and over.

 

[hansom]

Can you list those links again? I can't find them in the thread history, and I'd like to see what you find outrageous

 

[N4mddissent]

Actually, I have seen real evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate. The "Noahs Ark" hoax was one such event, they took a piece of drift wood and boiled it, treated it, using processes common in nature. So many christians held to the belief that it was proof their myth was correct only to be red in the face when the hoaxers admitted it.

Carbon 14 dating, like most radiometric dating, is extremely accurate if it is done carefully and properly. One also must understand the limitations and possible influences which can render the results inaccurate. Also, it has parameters that restrict the length of time which it can accurately date. But generally any radiometric dating results are put through the peer review process where they are independently re-tested and often confirmed by an alternative method of dating-whether a different form of radiometric dating or a altogether different form of dating like dendrochronology. I would be suspicious of any results that were headliners, especially prior to peer review. Often hoaxers will go for the big headline. Scientists will submit their results to scrutiny first.

This is the problem, many of these influences occur frequently in nature. That is why they usually have to test the same fossil type from different locations to get an accurate timeline of when the creature existed. Even there is a large possibility of error, however the location and depth of where they are found does often tell more about the age than anything.

I wouldn't necessarily say that those influences occur frequently. I do think that sometimes people lump all radiometric dating together and call it "carbon" dating and then assume they all have the same limitations. There are many types of radiometric dating and the decay of isotopes is a very reliable method based on the laws of physics. And being aware of limitations can help one recognize and adjust for them. Furthermore, as I said, it is rare that radiometric dating is considered firm unless it is confirmed through multiple tests, often including completely different forms of radiometric dating, among other methods. If a carbon date or other radiometric date reaches the general public through normal channels (vetting by the peer review process) then it has a high probability of being accurate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just as Skeptik had no really clear idea of what these people believe, and didn't for a second let that stop him from making definitive statements as to their beliefs and how "silly" they are, you also don't have clue one but don't consider that any barrier to presenting yourself as an expert.

May I propose the outrageous notion that you make the effort to investigate people's beliefs and what they are based on before triumphantly pronouncing yours as the One Great Truth?

I provided links to the beliefs of creationists. If you didn't read them/ don't understand them/ want to deny their existence anyway or whatever, that doesn't mean that I have no clear idea what these people believe. It is set out very clearly just what nonsense is being promulgated in the vain attempt to substitute religion for science.

Moreover, evolution is not my One Great Truth. It is a scientific theory that has stood the test of time and been vetted by peer review over and over.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we already dealt with your "sterling" proof that this is the universal belief of Young-Earthers by way of presenting one extremist and informing us that that meant they all believe that.

And I don't doubt that you can find people who have posted on the Internet to that effect. Of course, I can find YOU on the Internet, and I thank God every day that that doesn't mean you're actually representative of anything other than yourself.

 

[Skeptik]

I provided links to the beliefs of creationists. If you didn't read them/ don't understand them/ want to deny their existence anyway or whatever, that doesn't mean that I have no clear idea what these people believe. It is set out very clearly just what nonsense is being promulgated in the vain attempt to substitute religion for science.

Moreover, evolution is not my One Great Truth. It is a scientific theory that has stood the test of time and been vetted by peer review over and over.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we already dealt with your "sterling" proof that this is the universal belief of Young-Earthers by way of presenting one extremist and informing us that that meant they all believe that.

And I don't doubt that you can find people who have posted on the Internet to that effect. Of course, I can find YOU on the Internet, and I thank God every day that that doesn't mean you're actually representative of anything other than yourself.

That this is the universal belief of Young Earthers.

This refers to???

The universal belief of young earthers is that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, correct? Isn't that why they're called that? That is the belief I've been saying is hokum.

But, that's only because it's hokum.

Of course, they can't believe in evolution over millions of years, since the Earth is only a few thousand years old, right?

Just what belief have I misrepresented? Your post is unclear.

 

[Agnapostate]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we already dealt with your "sterling" proof that this is the universal belief of Young-Earthers by way of presenting one extremist and informing us that that meant they all believe that.

And I don't doubt that you can find people who have posted on the Internet to that effect. Of course, I can find YOU on the Internet, and I thank God every day that that doesn't mean you're actually representative of anything other than yourself.

Another day, another pathetic lack of a response from you.

 

[KittenKoder]

Another thread about science gone to bickering ...

 

[N4mddissent]

Another thread about science gone to bickering ...

But that's the way it is, right? What a great example of the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm of our society. It's like the mandelbrot set of social debate.