What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Science Of The Bible - My Original Work

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
277
Points
80
Radiometric dating is the main evidence for a hard date. Fossils and geology give relative dates but they all generally agree.

Unfortunately for you, the radiometric method giving results with millions of years of age has not been VERIFIED using another certified method of age measure.

In other words, those results can't be trusted and are invalid to be used as accurate proof.

First verify those results of yours as required by the scientific method, and later come back with your verified evidence... don't even try reply my request before you did the verification of the radiometric dating.

No excuses are accepted.
 

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
31,382
Reaction score
9,568
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
The Laws of Thermodynamics say you have no clue what you are talking about.

Sure it did. Where you there to see that?

And did you realize with each Extinction on Earth via an Asteroid Strike that massive amounts of radiation is absorbed in to the crust, making any dating method using radioactive materials completely useless?

And if you want proof of that, go do C-14 testing of how old Chernobyl or Hiroshima are.

And can you explain to me why a Galaxy 400 light years away looks the same age as one 13 Billion light years away?

And then can you explain to me why we can only see 5% of The Universe, and why 95% of it is invisible?

Can you explain to me why there are passages in The Bible that says The Universe is flat a few thousand years before we just discovered it was flat on our modern age?

Like I said to another person.

It is written, You have Moses and The Prophets so even if One were resurrected from the dead, you would still not believe.

Seek Moses and The Prophets, and maybe you will escape Judgment Day.

Even the simplest organism are more complex than ole outdated Darwin could ever imagine.

One strand of DNA contains more information than all the libraries in The World. The complexity of DNA Refutes the still unproven Theory of Evolution.

Scientists are right now trying to come up with a different and more modern Theory. Darwin is Dead and in Hell, and so is his theory.


DNA sure made Darwin look like a Dummy.
How did it do that?
Have to disagree. The first life was way simpler than a modern cell, maybe just simple, self-replicating molecules. The cell likely took a billion years to get to where it is today.
.
And can you explain to me why a Galaxy 400 light years away looks the same age as one 13 Billion light years away?

what isn"t the same age is a more likely question - the Everlasting.

they are traveling at a different trajectory ... in the end they will all re-emerge from whence they came at the same time to begin a new cyclical BB, big bang.
 

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
31,382
Reaction score
9,568
Points
1,410
Location
OHIO
It releases the radiation locked in the rock strata. All kinds of tectonic and volcanic activity occur with a meteor strike and early in Earth’s history we were regularly bombarded and each time we were it reset the clock.

This is why you cannot use radiometric dating.
And did you realize with each Extinction on Earth via an Asteroid Strike that massive amounts of radiation is absorbed in to the crust, making any dating method using radioactive materials completely useless?

nd if you want proof of that, go do C-14 testing of how old Chernobyl or Hiroshima are.
I really doubt that, what's your source. Even a large meteorite is miniscule in proportion to the Earth. None of the comets or asteroids we've studied are particularly radioactive. Neither Chernobyl nor Hiroshima had any relation to meteorites.


And can you explain to me why a Galaxy 400 light years away looks the same age as one 13 Billion light years away?

And then can you explain to me why we can only see 5% of The Universe, and why 95% of it is invisible?
Actually they don't look the same.

I can't explain it. Can you?
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,896
Reaction score
643
Points
85
The Laws of Thermodynamics say you have no clue what you are talking about.

Sure it did. Where you there to see that?

And did you realize with each Extinction on Earth via an Asteroid Strike that massive amounts of radiation is absorbed in to the crust, making any dating method using radioactive materials completely useless?

And if you want proof of that, go do C-14 testing of how old Chernobyl or Hiroshima are.

And can you explain to me why a Galaxy 400 light years away looks the same age as one 13 Billion light years away?

And then can you explain to me why we can only see 5% of The Universe, and why 95% of it is invisible?

Can you explain to me why there are passages in The Bible that says The Universe is flat a few thousand years before we just discovered it was flat on our modern age?

Like I said to another person.

It is written, You have Moses and The Prophets so even if One were resurrected from the dead, you would still not believe.

Seek Moses and The Prophets, and maybe you will escape Judgment Day.

Even the simplest organism are more complex than ole outdated Darwin could ever imagine.

One strand of DNA contains more information than all the libraries in The World. The complexity of DNA Refutes the still unproven Theory of Evolution.

Scientists are right now trying to come up with a different and more modern Theory. Darwin is Dead and in Hell, and so is his theory.


How did it do that?
Have to disagree. The first life was way simpler than a modern cell, maybe just simple, self-replicating molecules. The cell likely took a billion years to get to where it is today.
.
And can you explain to me why a Galaxy 400 light years away looks the same age as one 13 Billion light years away?

what isn"t the same age is a more likely question - the Everlasting.

they are traveling at a different trajectory ... in the end they will all re-emerge from whence they came at the same time to begin a new cyclical BB, big bang.
.
The Laws of Thermodynamics say you have no clue what you are talking about.

johny come lately ...
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,140
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Radiometric dating is the main evidence for a hard date. Fossils and geology give relative dates but they all generally agree.

Unfortunately for you, the radiometric method giving results with millions of years of age has not been VERIFIED using another certified method of age measure.

In other words, those results can't be trusted and are invalid to be used as accurate proof.

First verify those results of yours as required by the scientific method, and later come back with your verified evidence... don't even try reply my request before you did the verification of the radiometric dating.

No excuses are accepted.
There are numerous overlapping isotope dating systems and they all generally support each other. If you don't like Radiometric dating what other certified method of age measure do you prefer?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,140
Points
245
Location
Virginia
It releases the radiation locked in the rock strata. All kinds of tectonic and volcanic activity occur with a meteor strike and early in Earth’s history we were regularly bombarded and each time we were it reset the clock.

This is why you cannot use radiometric dating.
Wow, it is so obvious now that you've mentioned it. I'm sure no geologist has ever considered natural processes that might affect the dating.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,140
Points
245
Location
Virginia
DNA sure made Darwin look like a Dummy.
How did it do that?

The statistics of naturalistic protein synthesis are insuperable (impossible).

There are 20 possible amino acids to choose from for each successive link under construction. WHICH amino acid will the random chance select? 1 chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible and the probability of selecting all the amino acids correctly in a protein of just 400 residues in length is 1/20 to the 400th power.

Of course multiply this impossibility by many thousands as there are at least 5,000 proteins in our bodies and titin in our muscles is 33,450 links long. So what's 1/20 to the 33,450th? How does that compare to 1 chance in 10 to the 50th?

(Note: 10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Choose ONE grain of sand from these 15 spheres full of sand on your first and ONLY try. That's "1 chance in 10^50". You don't get an infinite number of tries in 1 chance, so defined.)
I'm sure your numbers are accurate, unfortunately your assumption that the process is random, is not. Natural selection has been known since Darwin.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,140
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Of course not. Strauss presented his interpretation. He may or may not be correct, that will probably never be known.

I am confused why you would use David Strauss as a bible scholar (?) if he may or may not be correct. I immediately dismissed him as a false prophet because of his views.

Generally speaking, a person who presents his interpretation of the Bible would quote verses to back their view up. One can then validate their interpretation or at least understand when they are coming from if they do not agree.

From what I read, people in ancient times did this, too. They only had the OT from Moses. One of the things I had a difficult time believing was people's longevity. Moses states that God shortened their lives, i.e. Noah's descendants to 120 years. However, there were other historical documents to back it up what Moses wrote about the people before him. Furthermore, there was -- http://amendez.com/NAES/Noahs_Ark_Articles_files/NAS The Scientific Evidence for Biblical Longevity.pdf.
Until we have proof, everything said of the Bible may or may not be correct. You may consider your interpretation must be correct because it is based on the Bible. That is very naive and may or may not be correct.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,140
Points
245
Location
Virginia
diometric dating is the main evidence for a hard date. Fossils and geology give relative dates but they all generally agree.

It's not millions of years, but billions of years. This isn't really an answer from you. It's an answer from an anti-Christian and biased source. Furthermore, fossils and geology do not agree. The results of ones that didn't agree were tossed out.
Science if neither pro- or anti- religion, unless you consider truth to be anti-religion.

Got any examples where fossils and geology do not agree?
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
2,418
Points
1,940
I'm sure your numbers are accurate, unfortunately your assumption that the process is random, is not. Natural selection has been known since Darwin.

Natural selection is a simplistic tautology and even so, you don't understand it. Two steps:

1. RANDOM mutation, followed by
2. The Magic Wand of *Selection*

Mutations are random and that is the starting point for all Magic Selection, notwithstanding the screams of protest from Richard Dawkins and everybody else like him. NOTHING can be "selected" until a mutation error takes place. An ERROR, not a direction towards something you wish to see.

YOU are invited to explain precisely how each successive amino acid was selected in the assembly of human hemoglobin, so that the end product could be "selected." Bear in mind that Douglas Axe has done experiments showing that for proteins of only 150 residues in length, only 1 in 10 to the 77th power is functional. All the rest of them are useless. AND there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
 

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
277
Points
80
There are numerous overlapping isotope dating systems and they all generally support each other. If you don't like Radiometric dating what other certified method of age measure do you prefer?
Ill teach you a little about the procedure of the scientific method.

You can't, by any means, use a similar method of measurement in order to validate the method in question.

Like the Carbon 14 data from a tree was compared by counting the internal rings of the same tree trunk.

You see two different methods of measure one against the another.

From here, if the data of those have a coincidence (with a comprehensible tolerance) this will indicate that the Carbon 14 radiometric method have been verified.

Surely science is full of entertainment, it is great studying science.

However, as far as it is known, there is not a single verification of those millions of years data from the radiometric method on inorganic matter.

Sadly for you, the no verification of those results carry the bad news that such a data is nothing but conjectures. And you can't validate any theory or scientific discovery using "conjectures".

Good thing is having science so easy to understand.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
2,418
Points
1,940
Good thing is having science so easy to understand.

Not so much. Take climate change "science" please.
Experts argue loudly from both sides of the aisle. Both insist they are right.
I know, the climate fanatics who want to control everyone's lives lie, but still....
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,140
Points
245
Location
Virginia
There are numerous overlapping isotope dating systems and they all generally support each other. If you don't like Radiometric dating what other certified method of age measure do you prefer?
Ill teach you a little about the procedure of the scientific method.

You can't, by any means, use a similar method of measurement in order to validate the method in question.

Like the Carbon 14 data from a tree was compared by counting the internal rings of the same tree trunk.

You see two different methods of measure one against the another.

From here, if the data of those have a coincidence (with a comprehensible tolerance) this will indicate that the Carbon 14 radiometric method have been verified.

Surely science is full of entertainment, it is great studying science.

However, as far as it is known, there is not a single verification of those millions of years data from the radiometric method on inorganic matter.

Sadly for you, the no verification of those results carry the bad news that such a data is nothing but conjectures. And you can't validate any theory or scientific discovery using "conjectures".

Good thing is having science so easy to understand.
Thanks for the lesson on how not to understand science. As you yourself wrote, counting tree rings and comparing them to C-14 validated the C-14. Therefore the C-14 can reasonably be used to validate other radiometric dates. Or are you saying that only C-14 is a valid method?

If none of the isotope dates contradict the geology, archeology, or biology of a site, I'd say it is valid.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
13,901
Reaction score
2,140
Points
245
Location
Virginia
I'm sure your numbers are accurate, unfortunately your assumption that the process is random, is not. Natural selection has been known since Darwin.

Natural selection is a simplistic tautology and even so, you don't understand it. Two steps:

1. RANDOM mutation, followed by
2. The Magic Wand of *Selection*

Mutations are random and that is the starting point for all Magic Selection, notwithstanding the screams of protest from Richard Dawkins and everybody else like him. NOTHING can be "selected" until a mutation error takes place. An ERROR, not a direction towards something you wish to see.

YOU are invited to explain precisely how each successive amino acid was selected in the assembly of human hemoglobin, so that the end product could be "selected." Bear in mind that Douglas Axe has done experiments showing that for proteins of only 150 residues in length, only 1 in 10 to the 77th power is functional. All the rest of them are useless. AND there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
You'd be correct if we all shared the exact same DNA, we don't. All living populations vary so natural selection can act on populations in the absence of any mutations.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
2,418
Points
1,940
You'd be correct if we all shared the exact same DNA, we don't. All living populations vary so natural selection can act on populations in the absence of any mutations.

You talk nonsense without understanding.

"Natural Selection. As you saw in the previous section, mutations are a random and constant process. As mutations occur, natural selection decides which mutations will live on and which ones will die out. If the mutation is harmful, the mutated organism has a much decreased chance of surviving and reproducing." (www.HowStuffWorks.com/life/evolution)

ciao brutto

My Ignore List just grew by you.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,271
Reaction score
5,309
Points
1,830
I'm sure your numbers are accurate, unfortunately your assumption that the process is random, is not. Natural selection has been known since Darwin.

Natural selection is a simplistic tautology and even so, you don't understand it. Two steps:

1. RANDOM mutation, followed by
2. The Magic Wand of *Selection*

Mutations are random and that is the starting point for all Magic Selection, notwithstanding the screams of protest from Richard Dawkins and everybody else like him. NOTHING can be "selected" until a mutation error takes place. An ERROR, not a direction towards something you wish to see.

YOU are invited to explain precisely how each successive amino acid was selected in the assembly of human hemoglobin, so that the end product could be "selected." Bear in mind that Douglas Axe has done experiments showing that for proteins of only 150 residues in length, only 1 in 10 to the 77th power is functional. All the rest of them are useless. AND there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

Cut and paste “quotes” from charlatans at the Disco’tute do nothing to support biblical literalism.

I’m not aware of any college or university abandoning their science curriculum because of Douglas Axe. Because you don’t know, Axe a shill for the Disco ' tute who admits there is no verifiable data to support ID.




Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,271
Reaction score
5,309
Points
1,830
You'd be correct if we all shared the exact same DNA, we don't. All living populations vary so natural selection can act on populations in the absence of any mutations.

You talk nonsense without understanding.

"Natural Selection. As you saw in the previous section, mutations are a random and constant process. As mutations occur, natural selection decides which mutations will live on and which ones will die out. If the mutation is harmful, the mutated organism has a much decreased chance of surviving and reproducing." (www.HowStuffWorks.com/life/evolution)

ciao brutto

My Ignore List just grew by you.

In what context is a mutation harmful?

Secondarily, you seem to acknowledge the process of biological evolution and thus you seem to acknowledge that either the gods were incompetent designers (which would account for harmful mutations), or that the process of biological evolution requires no gods.
 

luchitociencia

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
277
Points
80
Thanks for the lesson on how not to understand science. As you yourself wrote, counting tree rings and comparing them to C-14 validated the C-14. Therefore the C-14 can reasonably be used to validate other radiometric dates. Or are you saying that only C-14 is a valid method?

If none of the isotope dates contradict the geology, archeology, or biology of a site, I'd say it is valid.

And who cares about your opinion? Your opinion won't validate any method of measurement but solely the confrontation between two different methods of measurements obtained from the same phenomenon.

This is how science is applied.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top