Answers to Creationist Attacks on C-14 Dating

[_Maksutov]

I know lots of scientists who are Christian. I don't know any that buy into the ravings of convicted felon Kent Hovind.

You need to talk to Nipper. He'll set you straight.

[_The CCC]

When LittleNipper says something even remotely based on science I'll give him some credit. Until then not so much.

[_Maksutov]

When LittleNipper says something even remotely based on science I'll give him some credit. Until then not so much.

I think it comes down to how big your God really is. Nipper and Hovind are happy with the garden gnome model.

[_The CCC]

More like the "Doby" type gnome.
SEE http://stuffpoint.com/harry-potter/imag ... r-doby.jpg

[Guest]

When LittleNipper says something even remotely based on science I'll give him some credit. Until then not so much.

I think it comes down to how big your God really is. Nipper and Hovind are happy with the garden gnome model.

My God can create an entire Universe to His glory and represent His eternal existence, and He can easily create it in 6 days (or less), and confound even learned scientists who believe they have it all figured out. What can your god do? Oh, that's right ---- YOU don't believe that God exists!

[_Maksutov]

I think it comes down to how big your God really is. Nipper and Hovind are happy with the garden gnome model.

My God can create an entire Universe to His glory and represent His eternal existence, and He can easily create it in 6 days (or less), and confound even learned scientists who believe they have it all figured out. What can you're god do? Oh, that's right ---- YOU don't believe that God exists!

No, Nipper, I've never said that. Remember, facts matter. I'm an agnostic. I don't know if God exists. The evidence isn't conclusive either way. Just coming up with a definition of "God" that can be discussed in any coherent way is very difficult. Or haven't you noticed the lack of consensus among religious believers?

The reason you have a tiny God is that he has to remain locked up in your book. Outside of your book he disappears, one among many human social inventions over millenia. If we want to know the greater universe we have to put down your book and pick up a telescope. It's been that way for 407 years now. Don't you think it's time for you to catch up?

[_LittleNipper]

[

No, Nipper, I've never said that. Remember, facts matter. I'm an agnostic. I don't know if God exists. The evidence isn't conclusive either way. Just coming up with a definition of "God" that can be discussed in any coherent way is very difficult. Or haven't you noticed the lack of consensus among religious believers?

The reason you have a tiny God is that he has to remain locked up in your book. Outside of your book he disappears, one among many human social inventions over millennia. If we want to know the greater universe we have to put down your book and pick up a telescope. It's been that way for 407 years now. Don't you think it's time for you to catch up?

Well then, as an agnostic you are of the opinion that God is incapable of representing Himself to you or you're simply too thick to perceive Him knocking on the top of your wooden head. My God is not locked in a book, He is revealed in part through His Word. My God reveals the Flood in the nature of fossilization (among other things) and the Word, and the creation through design such as the Fibonacci spiral (among other things) and the Word. No one is suggesting that Christians don't use microscopes and telescopes. But you do seem to be of the opinion that scientific study must exclude GOD. So while the creation scientist is more than willing to use various inventions of man (though he realizes where the inspiration had its origin), the secular scientist thinks it is totally wrong to incorporate God.

[_Maksutov]

Well then, as an agnostic you are of the opinion that God is incapable of representing Himself to you or you're simply too thick to perceive Him knocking on the top of your wooden head. My God is not locked in a book, He is revealed in part through His Word. My God reveals the Flood in the nature of fossilization (among other things) and the Word, and the creation through design such as the Fibonacci spiral (among other things) and the Word. No one is suggesting that Christians don't use microscopes and telescopes. But you do seem to be of the opinion that scientific study must exclude GOD. So while the creation scientist is more than willing to use various inventions of man (though he realizes where the inspiration had its origin), the secular scientist thinks it is totally wrong to incorporate God.

Your God doesn't reveal the Flood, silly. All you have for your "flood" is the nonsense of Ken Hovind and people like him. Creation scientists are pseudoscientists. They repeat refuted canards over and over again.

You don't even understand what an agnostic is. Where did I say God is incapable of representing himself to me? How many lies do you have to come up with, Nipper? That's twice, now. You seem to have a pattern. I have said that I have no convincing evidence for "God" and no coherent definition. Do you read for comprehension or just cut and paste?

You dance around all of these issues and capitalize words that are supposed to be special but communicate nothing. Creationism is not accepted by scientists, Nipper. The Young Earth is not. The Global Flood is not. You can make up all the stories you want but you don't have the evidence, just the desperate need to believe.

And what underlies that, exactly? I don't know if you have a "wooden head" but I suspect you have deep-seated feelings of inferiority over your lack of education that fuels your attacks on education and science. That's unfortunate but correctable. We live in a country where those resources are abundant and freely available. Most Christians have availed themselves of it. A few stubborn and childish individuals who lack the humility and ambition to learn continue to fight against it. I don't find your determined ignorance virtuous or representative of religious people. Most religious people I know have outgrown that kind of silly literalism, dogmatism and dependence on ignorant antiscience. Their God is bigger than yours.

[_spotlight]

the creation through design such as the Fibonacci spiral

A search of the internet, or your local library, will convince you that the Fibonacci series has attracted a lunatic fringe of Fibonacci fanatics who look for mysticism in numbers and in nature.
...
One can hardly escape the observation that the Fibonacci fanatics display an almost religious conviction that all of nature is somhow based on or guided by the numbers of the Fibonacci sequence and the golden mean. They reinforce this belief by seeking examples that "fit" their conviction, and ignoring all that don't.

Here's an example of a flim-flam artist at work. Fred Wilson, Extension Specialist in Science Education at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), wrote a paper titled "Shapes, Numbers, Patterns, and the Divine Proportion in God's Creation." (Impact #354, December 2002). It's full of specious religious drivel, which we will spare you. [2]

His first blunder is... etc
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

[_Maksutov]

the creation through design such as the Fibonacci spiral

A search of the internet, or your local library, will convince you that the Fibonacci series has attracted a lunatic fringe of Fibonacci fanatics who look for mysticism in numbers and in nature.
...
One can hardly escape the observation that the Fibonacci fanatics display an almost religious conviction that all of nature is somhow based on or guided by the numbers of the Fibonacci sequence and the golden mean. They reinforce this belief by seeking examples that "fit" their conviction, and ignoring all that don't.

Here's an example of a flim-flam artist at work. Fred Wilson, Extension Specialist in Science Education at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), wrote a paper titled "Shapes, Numbers, Patterns, and the Divine Proportion in God's Creation." (Impact #354, December 2002). It's full of specious religious drivel, which we will spare you. [2]

His first blunder is... etc
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

Looks like they needed a gimmick fresher than the Bible Codes. Reminds me of John Pratt's meditations on Uranus. Numerology in the 21st century. Oy.

I thought Nipper would have moved on to the Discovery Institute by now. I want to hear him channel Dembski.