Skip to comments.$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
Posted on 03/26/2007 12:18:38 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
Darn it... another typo
>>>>And you didn't see the patterns in the chaos as the hand of God?<<
I do it that way. <<
Should have read "I do see it that way."
I believe in the day age theory in that the days of genesis are long periods of time and god created all animals but spanned it out over millions of years.
Look at the teachings of Hugh Ross to get an idea of what I believe.
I can't speak for gondramB, but the emergence of order out of chaos is exactly where I see the hand of God. I am more impressed by a God who can start with a few simple rules and have complexity emerge -- such as evolution is -- then one who plunks it down ready-made. It's a much more elegent creation -- one much more capable, IMO, of creating free-willed creatures.
It's BS like this that makes me hope that Jesus really is coming soon just so he can tell these idiots to knock it off.
Sorry, you have to define a light-year as a distance in meters and then ignore the time-element for this to have any meaning whatsoever.
In other words, a 'light-year' is defined as a certain number of meters. That number of meters obviously will not change regardless of the speed of light. It is the time required to transverse this number of meters that is critical. What proponents of this argument do is define light-years in terms of distance and then use this defined distance measure as though it holds some time element.
Nice little trick, but such is the lack of critical thinking among adherents of this argument.
You can believe what you want, but to refer to that museum's nonsense as science is an outright lie.
Your understanding of radiocarbon dating is sadly lacking. Here are some links which may help -- if you bother to read them:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)Tree Ring and C14 Dating
How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
You believe Jesus was unhinged? < /Literalist>
Try reading the post before replying.
Try thinking before posting someone else's nonsense.
You know you're busted.
That's why your response is content-free.
The good student of history knows that Torqemada drove a great many moslems out of Spain, moslems who were false converts, posing a "Christians" after having ruled over Spain for 400 years. But of course, in these times we live in the "historians" have lost all personal dignity and place their pride and prejudices ahead of the facts, so it's expected that most people today are clueless about the facts of the Span. Inquisition.
I won't go into detail, that'd probably be a waste of my time. Suffice to say, the Spanish Inquisition was called chiefly to purge the remnants of islamic scum from Spain, (false converts), and the Jews, (false converts), who fought right alongside them against Spaniards in Northern Africa. The truth about the Spanish Inquisition is that only a few thousand people actually died over a 400 year period, and most of them weren't "heretics", they were infiltrators.
Isn't he in jail for cheating Uncle Sam?
You are the one lacking critical thinking. Like js1138 said, re-read the article and apply that criteria to yourself. In the trigonometric calculations, units cancel out and you are left with ratios. And if there was a variation in the speed of light, it would have affected both observations in the same manner, hance cancelling out the effect upon trigonometric calculation. The observation is independent of light's speed.
Basically, this article proves you are full of BS.
See it and weep, Evo-chick. The only thing that's worrisome to y'all is the Truth.
...You'd think the NEA and its leftwing, secular-humanist minions would have successfully indoctrinated everybody into believing the "enlightened, progressive" Religion of Darwin! Dang it...
And ice cores, coral samples, annual lake deposits, cave deposits and sediment cores. Carbon dating has been matched against all of those, and the calibration modified according to the data.
Decades ago, scientists found that C-14 is a useful tool. Creationists have the pre-conceived notion that the tool must be wrong because it conflicts with their previously-held beliefs. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, could make the tool correct in their eyes because it simply MUST be wrong. No amount of data can change that belief. In the mean time, scientists were actually doing something useful on the subject, working on improving the precision of the tool and have wildly succeeded in that.
You do realize that there's carbon-14 in petroleum, right -- these deep-earth, "ancient" reserves which should have *zero*?
Extremely little, and any you get is likely sample contamination. Nobody claims carbon dating is useful that far out, and a person would have to be completely ignorant of carbon dating (or purposely disingenuous) to even propose that he'd get a meaningful result from a sample that old. 45,000 years is pushing it, 24,000 years is pretty reliable. Both are still way beyond the Christian creation.
Bingo! I think we have a winner here!
I'm glad to hear that you have all the answers.
Job 12:2 No doubt you are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.
...and yet you reject the most plausible explanation,...
Ken Ham has REALLY porked up!Ham, porked? ;')
I've got a degree and love astronomy and chemistry.
Thanks for the support EarthBound.
I have degrees in Electrical Engineering and Material Science and have been working on semiconductors for the past 30 years; but if believing that the Bible is the unvarnished Truth means being cast amongst the 'foolish' -- then I am more than happy to be cast amongst the 'foolish'... And I say that as someone who rejected the Bible as mythology for the greater part of his life.
You're not going to believe the Word of God unless the Spirit draws you; and if you don't believe the Word -- you'll go along with 'consensus science'. Its easier to go through the broad and wide gate...
At this point in time I'm fairly agnostic on getting into the exact details about how "God did it". It is interesting, though, that some evidence exists that indicates this to be so (TJ 2002):
Astronomers have long observed that light from distant galaxies is usually redshifted. That is, their light spectrum is 'redder' (i.e. a longer wavelength) than light from similar light sources near Earth. According to the law developed by astronomer Edwin Hubble (after whom the Hubble telescope is named), the redshifts are progressively larger for galaxies progressively further away.
Over the last few decades, astronomers have discovered that the redshifts of the galaxies are not evenly distributed but are 'quantized', i.e., they tend to fall into distinct groups. This means that the distances to the galaxies also fall into groups, with each group of galaxies forming a conceptual spherical shell. The shells turn out to be about a million light-years apart.
It is remarkable that the shells are all concentric and all centered on our home galaxy, the Milky Way. If they weren't, we would not see groups of redshifts. Russ Humphreys shows that groups would only be distinct from each other if our viewing location were less than a million light years (a trivial distance on the scale of the universe) from the center.
The odds for the Earth having such a unique position in the cosmos by accident are less than one in a trillion. The problem for big bang theorists is that they suppose the cosmos was not created but happened by accidentby chance, natural processes. Such naturalistic processes could not have put us at a unique center, so atheistic cosmologists have sought other explanations, without notable success so far.
Yes, there actually are a few atheist Stalinists still around. But, Dawkins, not too many of them.
Why not believe it the way it's written?
You're welcome to come...
This may come as a shock, but the evidence is actually against evolution, and for creation.
You seem to be implying Jesus didn't believe in creation. Yet in the gospels, He mentions that from the beginning of creation, God made male and female. He also endorses the writings of Moses, who wrote that whole "Genesis" thing.
Don't you ever get tired of this dance?
If we all do so (and I agree) then my definition of rational is, a reasonable human being. As opposed to the bloodthirsty brutes that certain people wish creationists were.
OldGuard1, your credibility rests with citing reliabe references for your statement here.
What I posted is simple trigonometry, independent of the speed of light or rate of radioactive decay. You can define the speed of light any way you want, even assume it is wildly variable, and you get the same answer.
If the speed of light varies, the absolute distance varies, but the time required to traverse the distance remains the same.
This is a positive development: now ALL the stupidity of young-earth creationists will be available in one convenient location to be mocked. YEC is so stupid that it makes my brain hurt to imagine how anyone can believe in it. And no, I will not be making any substantive arguments or comments - it's all been said before and won't change anyone's mind, anyway.
"Apparently it's "Bash People Who Actually Believe That The Bible Is The Word Of God Day"."
If by that you mean people who believe that every word of the bible is the literal, inerrant truth, you're darn right. And it's well deserved, too.
"To a creationist, the near-infinity of planets, stars, and galaxies out there are sterile spheres, existing for no other purpose than to provide pretty twinkling lights in Earth's sky."
To be sure, he might well be right. We have no way of judging, since we have no real knowledge about how common life is in the universe, only that it appeared at least once, here. Everything else is pure speculation at this point.
Simply wrong. The physics are that C14 decays at a specific rate. That is a fact. However, there are other factors affecting present C14 so there is a confidence level when calculating age. For relatively young samples, <10,000 years, the confidence is high. The margin of error goes up for around 40,000 years. But for oil, it is found with either no or very little C14. Where C14 is found, it has been correlated to the oil being in radioactive rock formations. Very few samples of anything organic ever show infinite age (no C14). There is such a thing as background radiation.
What you fail to understand is that there is no grand conspiracy. Science is self-correcting in the long term. Carbon dating was hailed as perfectly accurate in the beginning. Then the scientists themselves attacked it. But unlike YECs who would just throw the baby out with the bath water because it doesn't fit their beliefs, their work improved it, refined it. We know the weaknesses and honest scientists will work within those bounds. Some of the best C14 work being done now is not even about dating things -- would you throw that out too, even though it also helps those who are dating things?
The worst part is that scientists doing honest work on C14, showing the errors and trying to correct them, get their work twisted by creationists to throw out all of carbon dating (or anything that will interfere with the creation date).
If I presented an elaborate proof on how Phlogiston theory shows that Evolution is false, would you pay it any heed?
No, because a better explanation has come along.
Of course not; Phlogiston is pseudoscience.
Wrong. Phlogiston was the state of science at the time, trying to explain oxygenation. It was supported by the available research and evidence until new evidence disproved it (mainly, the weight of burning materials). It was replaced by caloric theory (also supported by the evidence), which was in turn slowly replaced by the theory of heat, which is the basis for modern thermodynamics.
This is actually funny coming from someone who didn't know that shooting stars were meteors.
Of course, evolution doesn't deny creation, unless you try to to define creation as something that happened 6000 years ago.
Gads! What inane drivel. I tried to correct your misconceptions on a different thread, but now I know for a fact it is hopeless.
Don't you ever get tired of supporting pure BS?
The last I heard he got 10 years for tax evasion.
His wife was found guilty too.
I haven't heard if they plan an appeal.
Jim and Tammy Fae come to mind.
Come back in five years and ask how it's doing.
I think you are right. They have to be very careful here not to espouse nonsensical claims or claims that can be easily ridiculed without injecting an equal amount of doubt into competing claims.
That the world is 6000 or 10000 years old is I believe based on an analysis of the ages of offspring from Adam and Eve including the ages of the first two. However, it is not known how long Adam and Eve were in Eden in their immortal state. One could make the argument that their ages at death were from the first day of banishment from immortality. For all we know they may have been in an immortal state for billions of years, if time has any meaning in that state.
The world, the heavens and all life were created in six days seems inplausible, yet what is the measure of time when traveling near the speed of light? And how much matter would be condensed from light slowing down?
These are 'eternal mysteries' and cannot ever be proven one way or another. The Christian Bible remains a work that requires 'faith' to accept, you either believe or you do not. You will never prove 'scientifically' that the Bible's explanation of creation is true or false.
It would be better for such a museum to pose questions as I have above and let young and old wrestle with the uncertainty until they accept that nothing in our science or our biblical history can be 'proven by science' with respect to creation; one must either believe or not believe.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
If you would bother to google radiocarbon dating, or to read the links I post periodically, you would learn where you are going wrong. One of the links is to almost all issues of Radiocarbon, the primary journal in the field. You might try looking at some of the issues. You could learn more there than on those creationist websites.
C14 is created in the atmosphere by radiation. It can also be created on earth by sources of radiation, of which there are many. That, along with sample contamination and equipment limitations, are the sources of the C14 which you and other creationists are using to try to demolish an entire field of science.
You are the one who posted the nonsense and then pinged the creation list. Don't you ever get tired?