Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
karl 12

Creationism and 6000 year old dinosaurs.

763 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

AlexG
I wish I had such a solid grasp on reality.

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
I know it is insufficient evidence. I'm not stupid Church, I just happen to believe in God. I don't cling to spiritual ideologys strictly nor do I completely trust science to explain everything.

Uh, neither do I, but I'm not foolish enough to let my spiritual sentiments interfere with things that I, myself, can empirically evaluate. Let me briefly explain my philosophy: I accept things based on whether or not the concept defies Occam's Razor, that being that one need not increase beyond necessity the number of entities required to explain anything. Given the evidence, I see no reason to conclude that God's hand directly interfered with the creation of the earth. Is there a God? I believe so. Did he specifically create us in his image? The evidence suggests otherwise, that evidence being: biblical criticism from a literary standpoint, modern cosmology, modern geology, modern biology, etc. etc. etc. Creationism defies Occam's Razor. Therefore, I do not accept it. Belief in God may or may not defy Occam's Razor, but seeing as how science says NOTHING on the existence or nonexistence of God, I see no problem with believing in a higher spiritual power. However, when things get too specific about God and about what said deity does... then you run into the same problems that creationists generally do.

I'm a fence rider, I am not going to apologize for it.

I can't fault you for holding an opinion.

Okay, I forgive you. (not everything can be tested, im just letting you know)

Thats why I'm a Deist.

When science can explain it, I don't see the necessity of bringing God into the picture.

I'm not compiling a list, I would get so very fired.

Ah well, financial security is more important than that list, so uh... yeah, keep stickin it to the man at work.

I guess that depends on what you call useless conjecture. I read a lot of books, I can't copy and paste books, and coming up with a bibliography for what i have read in the past year, could take a considerable amount of time, and even if I did..It would be pointless. you wouldn't read it.

I meant you were providing us with your opinion... without evidence. Hence the conjecture. Just giving us your opinion in a debate doesn't do much to advance your stance.

Wow, you aren't even a physicist? What say you about having to retest everything EVER discovered everytime there is an advance i radiometric technology?

No, I am not a physicist. As far as retesting things once advancements are made in radiometric dating, I'm all for it. The more accurate the picture we get the better.

No that isnt what I was inferring

I hope you weren't, because I took a lot of umbrage at that remark. It seems more selfish to me to say "give me a free education without a thought to how you're going to feed your family and pay your bills."

oh.

That says it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Wow! A couple of evolutionists criticize the "moral right" and call us liars and so it must be true! Now that's impressive thinking skills on your part. You guys are so smart. :)

I wish I had such a solid grasp on reality.

Yes, I am going to criticize institutions like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. Why? Because they spread fallacious lies and they try to circumnavigate the U.S. constitution and impose their inaccurate and false "sciences" on our children in our classrooms using sneaky, devious, and backhanded methods. Ever heard of the book "Of Pandas and People?" They specifically edited that book, removing the words "creationism" and "God", replacing them with "intelligent design" and "Designer". They were found out when someone found the word creationism enclosing the word intelligent design, indicating that someone had done a very sloppy editing job. Funny thing is the writers of the book swore under oath that the book was solely about ID and NOT creationism. Turns out they were LYING. Last I checked, Guyver, when you LIE you are being DISHONEST. LYING is not a CHRISTIAN ideal. Or is it? You'd never know given the devious nature of men like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.

I wish you did have a solid grasp on reality. I wish that you'd see that evolution and Christianity are wholly compatable. I wish you'd stop being such a sheep and following these buffoons. They're your prototypical false prophets (or is it profits?). They're LYING to you. They've LIED to everyone. They honestly want you to believe in foolish, archaic myths instead of UTILIZING THE MIND YOU ARE GIVEN.

Sheesh Guyver. In any case, instead of being sarcastic and facetious about us criticizing the "moral right" why don't you take the incentive to prove us wrong. Show me that Ken Ham and Kent Hovind aren't malicious liars. Show me that your theories are correct. I know that neither you nor they can so thats why you resort to ad hom. attacks on evolutionists. You can't prove us wrong, so you might as well soil sciences reputation. Why? Because you don't like it. Why? Because it contradicts your beliefs. Why? Because you are incapable of accepting reality. Why? Because you must be very insecure with your beliefs to be offended by the fact that I will, to my dying breath, call the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and other creation/ID organizations a scheming group of liars who are set on returning us to the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic
let me reiterate a couple things. Physics can be translated to a person that has had a basic education in physics. a full understanding cannot be ascertained without a formal education. The reason there is no error in radiometric testing shouldn't be that complicated.

This is an incorrect statement on your part, a belief that something can be simple to understand. Radiometric dating is a culmination of complex calculus, chemistry and physics. You are never going to understand it, even a little bit without the background in those fields.

Do you really think its likely that uneducated person in those fields would be the one to find the "errors" rather than an expert? You are dreaming. It's a pleasant little dream to think we are all equally capable of understanding everything and science "isn't that complicated".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The One Who Is
Yes, I am going to criticize institutions like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. Why? Because they spread fallacious lies and they try to circumnavigate the U.S. constitution and impose their inaccurate and false "sciences" on our children in our classrooms using sneaky, devious, and backhanded methods. Ever heard of the book "Of Pandas and People?" They specifically edited that book, removing the words "creationism" and "God", replacing them with "intelligent design" and "Designer". They were found out when someone found the word creationism enclosing the word intelligent design, indicating that someone had done a very sloppy editing job. Funny thing is the writers of the book swore under oath that the book was solely about ID and NOT creationism. Turns out they were LYING. Last I checked, Guyver, when you LIE you are being DISHONEST. LYING is not a CHRISTIAN ideal. Or is it? You'd never know given the devious nature of men like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.

I wish you did have a solid grasp on reality. I wish that you'd see that evolution and Christianity are wholly compatable. I wish you'd stop being such a sheep and following these buffoons. They're your prototypical false prophets (or is it profits?). They're LYING to you. They've LIED to everyone. They honestly want you to believe in foolish, archaic myths instead of UTILIZING THE MIND YOU ARE GIVEN.

Isn't intelligent design pretty much the same thing as creationism, only without religious connotations?

Kent Hovind I agree is a bit of a nut. Ken Ham seems to at least attempt to be fair, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic
Wow! A couple of evolutionists criticize the "moral right" and call us liars and so it must be true! Now that's impressive thinking skills on your part. You guys are so smart. :)

I wish I had such a solid grasp on reality.

It has nothing to do with being an evolutionist, you guys have been caught in more lies and scandals then Daryl Strawberry during his little trips down cocaine lane. Nor is it my fault you choose to associate yourself with those people who keep advancing these lies. They are anything but moral Christians.

Taking a dive off the reality tree and hitting a few branches on your way down would probably do you some good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Isn't intelligent design pretty much the same thing as creationism, only without religious connotations?

Its exactly the same thing, only worded differently:

Creationism: We believe that God created us in his image.

ID: We believe that an intelligent agent intelligently designed us.

Same thing.

How anyone can think that ID, which postulates that an unobservable entity made everything, is science is beyond me.

Kent Hovind I agree is a bit of a nut. Ken Ham seems to at least attempt to be fair, however.

Hovind is an ***, I agree. I don't like Ken Ham, but hes not nearly as bad as Hovind is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The One Who Is
Its exactly the same thing, only worded differently:

Creationism: We believe that God created us in his image.

ID: We believe that an intelligent agent intelligently designed us.

Same thing.

How anyone can think that ID, which postulates that an unobservable entity made everything, is science is beyond me.

Most of the not-completely-wacko creationists do say that ID isn't science just a frame of reference, because it's obviously non-observable. They just hold that the evidence fits that frame of reference better than the evolutionary one.

Ken Ham and AiG at least are decent and fairly graceful about changing their totally debunked theories. Hovind, I'm pretty sure, still argues that the Japanese incident involved a plesiosaur instead of a basking shark. :rolleyes:

Edited to correct a particularly misleading typo.

Edited by The One Who Is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
Uh, neither do I, but I'm not foolish enough to let my spiritual sentiments interfere with things that I, myself, can empirically evaluate. Let me briefly explain my philosophy: I accept things based on whether or not the concept defies Occam's Razor, that being that one need not increase beyond necessity the number of entities required to explain anything. Given the evidence, I see no reason to conclude that God's hand directly interfered with the creation of the earth. Is there a God? I believe so. Did he specifically create us in his image? The evidence suggests otherwise, that evidence being: biblical criticism from a literary standpoint, modern cosmology, modern geology, modern biology, etc. etc. etc. Creationism defies Occam's Razor. Therefore, I do not accept it. Belief in God may or may not defy Occam's Razor, but seeing as how science says NOTHING on the existence or nonexistence of God, I see no problem with believing in a higher spiritual power. However, when things get too specific about God and about what said deity does... then you run into the same problems that creationists generally do.

Thats fine. But don't fault me for asking science to support my beliefs instead of simply believing things because 200 years of research say so. If the earth really is 4.5 billion years old that is hardly a sufficent amount of evidence.

I can't fault you for holding an opinion.

no you can't. glad we agree

Thats why I'm a Deist.

When science can explain it, I don't see the necessity of bringing God into the picture.

i don't do that, obviously, since 'timeline' has a scientific explaination

Ah well, financial security is more important than that list, so uh... yeah, keep stickin it to the man at work.

yeah, well works sucks today they keep taking my loads away.

I meant you were providing us with your opinion... without evidence. Hence the conjecture. Just giving us your opinion in a debate doesn't do much to advance your stance.

I didn't state it as fact. it isn't fact, it is just a sensible conclusion to certain beliefs.

No, I am not a physicist. As far as retesting things once advancements are made in radiometric dating, I'm all for it. The more accurate the picture we get the better.

I was asking if they have gone back and retested all of the older discoveries that are already in museums since advances in radiometric technology has been applied.

I hope you weren't, because I took a lot of umbrage at that remark. It seems more selfish to me to say "give me a free education without a thought to how you're going to feed your family and pay your bills."

unless of course you would, and then I would totally let you.

That says it all.

not if you could hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic
Isn't intelligent design pretty much the same thing as creationism, only without religious connotations?

Kent Hovind I agree is a bit of a nut. Ken Ham seems to at least attempt to be fair, however.

Oh yeah Ken Ham, he is real fair.

Here is me and Ken hanging out at his creationist museum.

linked-image

Here is a little girl playing with carnivourous dinosaurs in the garden, because there was no sin yet and all. They were nice.

linked-image

Here is a velociraptor, what did he do with those big teeth you ask? Why he ate dead dinosaurs and plants of course (never mind his teeth, claws and body are not built for scavenging).

linked-image

All dinosaurs ate plants dammit, stop listening to those evil scientists!

linked-image

Ahhh, and here we have the rare and elusive "Creationist paleontologist". Notice no hat because, God has mandated that no creationist paleontologist shall get sunburned on their bald, white heads in the badlands sun! Score one for God having your back!

linked-image

As a quick aside the guy off on the right side of the picture is supposed to be one of dumb "real" paleontologists. He was all dirty, confused looking with disheveled hair. And hes Asian!

That Ken ham guy sure is an honest one....(Did I mention it was something like 30 bucks? And let's not forget the gift shop you have to walk through to exit, all containing lots of "christian science" stuff for you to purchase. Prophet or profit, that is the question Church).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Max.L
Here is a velociraptor, what did he do with those big teeth you ask? Why he ate dead dinosaurs and plants of course (never mind his teeth, claws and body are not built for scavenging).

Fruit bats , go google their skull images. They have sharp teeth. So what's your point.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

By the way, they made Ken Ham a giant in that cut-out. I am 6 foot 215 lbs and he towered over me! I think it was meant to intimidate all the biologists with his fiery righteousness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Thats fine. But don't fault me for asking science to support my beliefs instead of simply believing things because 200 years of research say so. If the earth really is 4.5 billion years old that is hardly a sufficent amount of evidence.

What are you talking about? Science isn't about supporting your beliefs, science is about the EVIDENCE. And unfortunately for you, the evidence suggest that what you believe is incorrect. Meteors and other space matter has been dated to about 4.5 billion years. This leaves scientists with the conclusion, since all the meteors they've tested are about 4.5 billion years old, that the solar system was created about 4.5 billion years ago.

The oldest rocks we've found have been dated to about that time as well. So there you go.

Science is not a democracy. Its not a poll. Its not about proving what you believe. Its about examining the evidence and inferring what happened through what the evidence suggests. The evidence suggests that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, whether you believe it or not. The universe isn't asking for your opinion, it is what it is. Expecting science to back up what you believe is illogical because one does not start with the conclusion and then try to find the evidence to prove that conclusion. When you are dealing with science, you gather what evidence you can and THEN draw conclusions. Asking science to support your beliefs is illogical. Thats not how it works.

I didn't state it as fact. it isn't fact, it is just a sensible conclusion to certain beliefs.

Explain to me again how its sensible to believe something when there is empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.

I was asking if they have gone back and retested all of the older discoveries that are already in museums since advances in radiometric technology has been applied.

I have no idea, I'm the wrong guy to ask.

unless of course you would, and then I would totally let you.

I'll see what strings I can pull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic
Fruit bats , go google their skull images. They have sharp teeth. So what's your point.......

Fruit bats have very conical teeth with strong roots. For piercing tough plant rinds. They have strong roots and a wide base to support the point. The sides of their teeth are dull. Raptors teeth are entirely different. They are recurved to hold squirming prey items and sharp all over for cutting meat like a steak knife.

My point is, if anyone knows the slightest bit about biology this is obviously a pretty silly notion. Clearly that sailed over someone's head :o

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karl 12
Here is a little girl playing with carnivourous dinosaurs in the garden, because there was no sin yet and all. They were nice.

linked-image

Man is it me or is that Linda Blair from the Exorcist ?!

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl

What are you talking about? Science isn't about supporting your beliefs, science is about the EVIDENCE. And unfortunately for you, the evidence suggest that what you believe is incorrect. Meteors and other space matter has been dated to about 4.5 billion years. This leaves scientists with the conclusion, since all the meteors they've tested are about 4.5 billion years old, that the solar system was created about 4.5 billion years ago.

OMG OMG. Meteors. We are dating a meteors half life to find out....*puts head in hands* please please explain how OUR isotope decay standards apply when dealing with rocks from space?? I'm serious. it makes no sense to me, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexG
OMG OMG. Meteors. We are dating a meteors half life to find out....*puts head in hands* please please explain how OUR isotope decay standards apply when dealing with rocks from space?? I'm serious. it makes no sense to me, at least.

Isotopes decay at the same rate wherever they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic
Man is it me or is that Linda Blair from the Exorcist ?!

:)

She was very creepy looking!

Replace that carrot in her hand with a knife and tell me that wouldn't make for a great horror movie!

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Fruit bats , go google their skull images. They have sharp teeth. So what's your point.......

First of all, meat eating dinosaurs have been found with bones of other animals in where there stomachs would be.

Second of all, there is a difference between this:

linked-image

And this:

linked-image

The fruit bat has teeth for grinding up its fruit (the flatter ones). The Velociraptor is all business with those sharp teeth.

Edited by churchanddestroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic
OMG OMG. Meteors. We are dating a meteors half life to find out....*puts head in hands* please please explain how OUR isotope decay standards apply when dealing with rocks from space?? I'm serious. it makes no sense to me, at least.

Because as Alex said, radioactive decay is the same all over. Where the object is makes no difference, its the properties of the individual atom that dictate the decay.

Meteors give us an upper bound to the age of the Earth, because certain types are leftovers from the planetoid accretion disks. So by dating them you can see when the Earth was actually forming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Fruit bats have very conical teeth with strong roots. For piercing tough plant rinds. They have strong roots and a wide base to support the point. The sides of their teeth are dull. Raptors teeth are entirely different. They are recurved to hold squirming prey items and sharp all over for cutting meat like a steak knife.

My point is, if anyone knows the slightest bit about biology this is obviously a pretty silly notion. Clearly that sailed over someone's head :o

Mr Max also claims that his friend the historian was at palaeontological digs looking at human bones inside a dinosaur stomach however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
Because as Alex said, radioactive decay is the same all over. Where the object is makes no difference, its the properties of the individual atom that dictate the decay.

Meteors give us an upper bound to the age of the Earth, because certain types are leftovers from the planetoid accretion disks. So by dating them you can see when the Earth was actually forming.

so things decay on earth the exact same as they decay on venus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
OMG OMG. Meteors. We are dating a meteors half life to find out....*puts head in hands* please please explain how OUR isotope decay standards apply when dealing with rocks from space?? I'm serious. it makes no sense to me, at least.

Are you daft? Seriously? Isotope decay on meteors is exactly the same as it is on earth. 235-U has a half life of 704 million years no matter where you are. Its all the same. Please explain to me why isotope decay would be different? Your objections make no sense. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
so things decay on earth the exact same as they decay on venus?

YES. Why wouldn't it be? Do you even understand what decay implies? Do you know what it means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karl 12
She was very creepy looking!

Replace that carrot in her hand with a knife and tell me that wouldn't make for a great horror movie!

linked-image

A Creationist carrot weilding Linda Blair!

I think thats just scarred me for life.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.