Answers to Creationist Attacks on C-14 Dating

[_Maksutov]

"Hate" is a word in your mouth, Nipper, not mine.

But why do you hate your Christian brothers and sisters who accept science? What are you afraid of?

[_LittleNipper]

"Hate" is a word in your mouth, Nipper, not mine.

But why do you hate your Christian brothers and sisters who accept science? What are you afraid of?

I don't HATE anyone. You HATE GOD. I simply point out that scientific determinations must include all data and that means GOD. When one views scientific explanations without consideration of GOD one is missing half of reality. Put GOD back in schools ---- what are YOU afraid of?

[_Maksutov]

"Hate" is a word in your mouth, Nipper, not mine.

But why do you hate your Christian brothers and sisters who accept science? What are you afraid of?

I don't HATE anyone. You HATE GOD. I simply point out that scientific determinations must include all data and that means GOD. When one views scientific explanations without consideration of GOD one is missing half of reality. Put GOD back in schools ---- what are YOU afraid of?

Hate your little garden gnome? For one thing, he doesn't exist. For another, if he did, he would be laughable, not hateable. Okay, a little hateable for the monstrous stuff he supposedly did. But otherwise, he's inept, incompetent, petty, silly, unimaginative, perverted...really, a mess.

You still avoid the issue of your more educated religious brethren. That's really contemptible and small of you. Your own narcissism and insecurity won't allow you to acknowledge accomplishments of others. Small god, small believer.

So GOD is not in schools...why? He isn't omnipresent? Kids pray in public schools every day, just not led by teachers. As it should be. Anything else belongs in Saudi Arabia. You really need to put down that Chick stuff, it was stale 50 years ago and now it's just rabid.

[_LittleNipper]

Please read: http://www.johnstonfamilyministry.com/a ... -existence

[_spotlight]

Please read: http://www.johnstonfamilyministry.com/a ... -existence

The atheist looks at the fossil evidence and sees overwhelming evidence for the theory of macroevolution, whereas the Christian looks at the same data and finds evidence for the Genesis flood and considers macroevolutionary theory contradicted by the lack of intermediate species.

I posted this before.
https://ageofrocks.org/2014/08/23/chemo ... d-geology/
The flud cannot account for what we see in the geologic column. You have to account for ALL of the evidence. Your Christian buddy is only accepting into his sphere of consideration evidence that he can twist to support his preconceived worldview. If you would look for "the truth" you have to abandon ALL worldviews and follow the evidence where ever it leads us.

There are intermediate species. Especially is this apparent in the evolution of the mammalian ear.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_05
How on earth can these fossil transitions be explained by a world wide flood? They can't and are not. A flud is not the conclusion of looking at such evidence. It is apparent that the author started with the assumption that a flud occurred and is unwilling to relinquish that viewpoint no matter what evidence he comes across.

This is really a very egregiously bad article you have linked.

[_LittleNipper]

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm

[_Maksutov]

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm

Behold thy GOD:

[Guest]

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm

A few scientific facts and terms inter-dispersed with utter creationist nonsense.

Found at the bottom of the page was one redeeming concept, however - the question of whether Science is God's Undertaker.

This was kind of a nice sentiment. And the answer is, eventually, and it can't happen soon enough.

[_spotlight]

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm

What's the matter Little Nip? Are you out of ammo? You keep reposting stuff that has already been refuted.

"The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]). The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities." (Morris and Parker, 1982 - Emphasis in original). From The geological column: Does it exist? To top

The entire column exists in North Dakota and several other places around the globe. Since your link starts with an outright lie I'll leave you to yourself to wallow in your religion which must be the same, a lie.

[_Maksutov]

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm

What's the matter Little Nip? Are you out of ammo? You keep reposting stuff that has already been refuted.

"The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]). The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities." (Morris and Parker, 1982 - Emphasis in original). From The geological column: Does it exist? To top

The entire column exists in North Dakota and several other places around the globe. Since your link starts with an outright lie I'll leave you to yourself to wallow in your religion which must be the same, a lie.

I think that, like racists and other silly pseudoscience lovers, Creationists find lies empowering to a certain point. They get puffed up, thinking they can challenge those who are far more educated and experienced, until they actually engage and fail spectacularly. But because they have nothing really at stake--scientists will take care of even the most childish and perversely ungrateful people--they can spitball actual human achievements in search of their own petty and futile vindication. It's about their egos, after all. The childishness, absurdity and self-serving and petulant nature of their responses is obvious, but still protected speech. And so we have them serving as object lessons, reminders of the failures of faith and the challenges for our educational systems to produce citizens who take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.