Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
Lexington Herald-Leader ^ | March 26, 2007 | Andy Mead

Posted on 03/26/2007 12:18:38 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-272 next last
To: gondramB

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."


101 posted on 03/26/2007 3:03:05 PM PDT by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

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.


102 posted on 03/26/2007 3:32:49 PM PDT by LukeL (Never let the enemy pick the battle site. (Gen. George S. Patton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1; gondramB
And you didn't see the patterns in the chaos as the hand of God?

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.

103 posted on 03/26/2007 3:59:19 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

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.


104 posted on 03/26/2007 4:03:12 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel ("...Mindless pack of trained Maoist circus seals."-www.iowahwk.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

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.

http://www.setterfield.org/AstronomicalDiscussion.htm#1987A

Nice little trick, but such is the lack of critical thinking among adherents of this argument.


105 posted on 03/26/2007 4:37:13 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Sorry! People like this are completely rational human beings. What a bummer that the enemies of evolution aren't easier to defeat, huh?

You can believe what you want, but to refer to that museum's nonsense as science is an outright lie.

106 posted on 03/26/2007 4:42:12 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1
Look at carbon dating, for example: there's an arbitarary fudge factor to account for the "changing rate of carbon entering the atmosphere from space". How do they get this? They get it from artifacts that they're trying to date! There's also dendrochronology, which means you've got half a million old logs, and because this one has a dent in this one side and this other one does too, we're going to say that those dents were from the same year, and "voila!" -- we've got a single line of trees going back for millenia.

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

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.


107 posted on 03/26/2007 4:46:51 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
I believe Jesus said, "I am the door" but I don't believe He had hinges.

You believe Jesus was unhinged? < /Literalist>

108 posted on 03/26/2007 5:22:29 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Since you didn't ask: I'm a conservative libertarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Nice little trick, but such is the lack of critical thinking among adherents of this argument.

Try reading the post before replying.

109 posted on 03/26/2007 5:27:54 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Try thinking before posting someone else's nonsense.

You know you're busted.

That's why your response is content-free.


110 posted on 03/26/2007 6:23:13 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: 49th
""Where is Torqemada when you need him?" He used to be living in Afghanistan; now it's probably somewhere along the Pakistani border. I hear he's looking for help, you sound like his kind of guy."

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.

111 posted on 03/26/2007 6:27:54 PM PDT by Cooking101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
They'll probably pull in $20-25 million a year. That's what Dr. Hovind said he was making.

Isn't he in jail for cheating Uncle Sam?

112 posted on 03/26/2007 7:17:45 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Nice little trick, but such is the lack of critical thinking among adherents of this argument.

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.

113 posted on 03/26/2007 7:24:22 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

Comment #114 Removed by Moderator

Comment #115 Removed by Moderator

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: OldGuard1
They calibrate it, for the most part, based on deindrochronology

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.

117 posted on 03/26/2007 7:59:39 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
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.

Bingo! I think we have a winner here!

Good post.

118 posted on 03/26/2007 8:04:08 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83
Re: 44

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.

119 posted on 03/26/2007 9:25:40 PM PDT by El Cid (Seek ye the LORD while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Re: 45

...and yet you reject the most plausible explanation,...

Which is...?

120 posted on 03/26/2007 9:28:31 PM PDT by El Cid (Seek ye the LORD while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Ken Ham has REALLY porked up!
Ham, porked? ;')
121 posted on 03/26/2007 9:46:13 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Saturday, March 24, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound
Re 49

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...

122 posted on 03/26/2007 9:47:31 PM PDT by El Cid (Seek ye the LORD while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: HaveHadEnough
Do you really believe that the Earth is at or near the center of the universe?

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 accident—by 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.

123 posted on 03/26/2007 10:03:22 PM PDT by El Cid (Seek ye the LORD while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I wasn't going to post any more on this thread, because I've seen how evolutionists usually twist things (I shouldn't have spoken up in the first place, but my conscience compelled me to). However, I'd have trouble just letting this one go: 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.

The fact is that there are no samples of tested oil, coal, and natural gas that have no carbon-14 in them. I dare you. Yet these are *incredibly* isolated deposits. Chemicals from space are not getting into a pocket of natural gas. If the ground is stopping this high pressure gas from escaping, new carbon certainly isn't *entering*. Oil and natural gas are covered by a "cap rock" -- an impermeable layer. That's why they're trapped there: things can't flow out or in.

And no, it's not measurement errors. The background "age" is indeed several iterations of the presumed unchanging carbon-14 half life, giving a background age of 40-50k years, but it's not an artifact of the data. It's always there, no matter what insturmentation is used to do the isotope counts. AMS should be able to get ages up to 100k years. C-14 is also found in diamonds.

Now, it doesn't matter if the broken numbers from carbon dating lie outside the Genesis timeline. If carbon dating is broken (and given that it doesn't match up with the darwinist timeline for oil/coal/natural gas), it's broken, end of story. If I presented an elaborate proof on how Phlogiston theory shows that Evolution is false, would you pay it any heed? Of course not; Phlogiston is pseudoscience. So is carbon dating. Why should I care about an argument based on a "science" that doesn't even match with *your* theory of the world's history?
124 posted on 03/26/2007 10:34:10 PM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Muttering Mike
"Makes one wonder if people ........ pine for the good ol' days when non-believers could be tortured or killed as heretics.

Yes, there actually are a few atheist Stalinists still around. But, Dawkins, not too many of them.

125 posted on 03/26/2007 10:34:50 PM PDT by cookcounty (Subpoena Schumer's emails in the criminal DSCC fraud case! We need to know how high it went.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

Why not believe it the way it's written?


126 posted on 03/27/2007 4:53:04 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

You're welcome to come...


127 posted on 03/27/2007 5:33:49 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: misterrob

This may come as a shock, but the evidence is actually against evolution, and for creation.


128 posted on 03/27/2007 5:35:41 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

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.


129 posted on 03/27/2007 5:36:56 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Don't you ever get tired of this dance?


130 posted on 03/27/2007 5:37:18 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: dmz

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.


131 posted on 03/27/2007 5:40:34 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1; Coyoteman
The fact is that there are no samples of tested oil, coal, and natural gas that have no carbon-14 in them. I dare you. Yet these are *incredibly* isolated deposits. Chemicals from space are not getting into a pocket of natural gas. If the ground is stopping this high pressure gas from escaping, new carbon certainly isn't *entering*. Oil and natural gas are covered by a "cap rock" -- an impermeable layer. That's why they're trapped there: things can't flow out or in.

OldGuard1, your credibility rests with citing reliabe references for your statement here.

132 posted on 03/27/2007 6:00:01 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
That's why your response is content-free.

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.

133 posted on 03/27/2007 6:10:08 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

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.


134 posted on 03/27/2007 6:28:52 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1

"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.


135 posted on 03/27/2007 6:33:19 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RexTheRunt

"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.


136 posted on 03/27/2007 6:39:25 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1
Now, it doesn't matter if the broken numbers from carbon dating lie outside the Genesis timeline. If carbon dating is broken (and given that it doesn't match up with the darwinist timeline for oil/coal/natural gas), it's broken, end of story.

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.

137 posted on 03/27/2007 6:48:12 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
This may come as a shock, but the evidence is actually against evolution, and for creation.

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.

138 posted on 03/27/2007 7:09:51 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; js1138

Gads! What inane drivel. I tried to correct your misconceptions on a different thread, but now I know for a fact it is hopeless.


139 posted on 03/27/2007 7:36:17 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Coyoteman
Don't you ever get tired of this dance?

Don't you ever get tired of supporting pure BS?

140 posted on 03/27/2007 7:38:30 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: El Cid
It is remarkable that the shells are all concentric and all centered on our home galaxy, the Milky Way.

Think of a balloon, and that you are one dot among many on it. As the balloon expands, it looks as though all of the other dots are moving away from you and that you are in the center of the expansion. Of course, all of the other dots see exactly the same thing from their point of view, so everyone thinks that they are in the center. Needless to say, when you are on the surface of a balloon, there is no center.
141 posted on 03/27/2007 7:41:53 AM PDT by HaveHadEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Oliver Optic
It probably is amazing to someone in the liberal arts community that a museum could actually make money. I'm sure that their paradigm is that without (natural) government assistance any museum would fail. From the picture given with the post, I would be very interested in seeing how it was put together, were I in the area.
142 posted on 03/27/2007 7:58:36 AM PDT by DanielLongo (Don't tread on me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: doc30

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.


143 posted on 03/27/2007 8:07:03 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DanielLongo
It probably is amazing to someone in the liberal arts community that a museum could actually make money. I'm sure that their paradigm is that without (natural) government assistance any museum would fail. From the picture given with the post, I would be very interested in seeing how it was put together, were I in the area.

Jim and Tammy Fae come to mind.

Come back in five years and ask how it's doing.

144 posted on 03/27/2007 8:10:40 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: camle

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.


145 posted on 03/27/2007 8:14:37 AM PDT by Hostage (I'm a Fredhead and I vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1
Phlogiston is pseudoscience. So is carbon dating.

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.

146 posted on 03/27/2007 8:17:14 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Don't you ever get tired of this dance?

You are the one who posted the nonsense and then pinged the creation list. Don't you ever get tired?

147 posted on 03/27/2007 8:19:15 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: doc30
There are tons of them out there. Examples: Lowe 1989; Grootes et al 1975. Aerts-Bijma et al. 1997. Arnold et al . 1987. Jull et al 1986, Schmidt et al. 1987, Gulliksen & Thomsen 1992, Middleton et al. 1989, Gillespie & Hedges 1984, Schleicher et al. 1998, Snelling 1997, Beukins et al. 1992, Terrasi et al. 1990, McNichol et al. 1995, Donahue et al. 1997, Van der Borg et al. 1997, Nelson et al. 1986, Kirner et al. 1997, Vogel et al. 1987, Gurfinkel 1987, Kitagawa et al. 1993, Kretschmer et al. 1998, Nakai et al. 1984, McNichol et al. 1995, Wild et al. 1998, Farwell et al. 1984, Bonani et al. 1986, Pearson et al. 1998

Now, where are your counterexamples?
148 posted on 03/27/2007 9:46:21 AM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
The physics are that C14 decays at a specific rate. That is a fact.

Uniformitarianism fallacy.

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.

There is no such thing as C-12 mutating into C-14. Not alpha nor beta nor gamma nor neutrons of any energy can cause such a transmutation.
149 posted on 03/27/2007 9:52:16 AM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1
Now, where are your counterexamples?

Here is a simple one for you.

150 posted on 03/27/2007 9:57:08 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-272 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson