Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2013, 09:59 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
I see some bad assumptions in this piece but I also see some logic to it re: radiometric dating. What are your thoughts?

http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is...ric-dating
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 07:26 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(01-10-2013 09:59 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I see some bad assumptions in this piece but I also see some logic to it re: radiometric dating. What are your thoughts?

http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is...ric-dating

That article shows a very poor level of scientific thought or understanding.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 07:43 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
The author has no clue what he's talking about. He says he is writing about "radiometric dating", and in fact the entire piece of junk is about what he *says* are the problems with the way geologists date rocks from their field relationships, and NEVER once, in fact actually addresses any "problem" with radiometric dating. He implies dates obtained by radiometric dating are changed or "re-interpreted". It's all crap.

He wrote :
"are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them."

Wrong.
Radiometric dates are obtained, and reported.
Period.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 12:59 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  Trying to shift the burden of proof already? Well no, as a matter of fact I can't figure out how kangaroos could swim that long. Besides, of course, explaining the current distribution of the species or why there's no evidence of the migration from Ararat to Australia.
And that's just one species and not even the one with the biggest handicaps. Imagine the problems flavobacterium sp. K172 had ahead of it once out Noah's jolly boat.

As for the sorting by density, no, it would make dinosaur bones always show on the lowest layer which they don't. Find something consistant with observation.

You couldn't imagine a world where once it's shaken, there are several rounds of cataclysm that follow or where receding waters would fill in trenches over time...? You've looked at the maps of the Pacific basin and etc. underwater and cannot imagine land bridges that recede over time? You couldn't imagine how if there were two kangaroos, than a few hundred as Pangea pulls apart that only the Australian ones survive? You can't find fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos? You don't see how animals larger than red kangaroos could have devolved to the present day animals? You can't visualize how secular scientists met aborigines in Australia and declared they were lower animals on the scale than homo sapiens sapiens?

I do know that bacteria can evolve over time, and also that animals were called to the ark, what we'd think of as bigger than one-celled creatures.

I have a very vivid imagination.
I can imagine kangaroos beamed by a vulcan starship.
I can imagine kangaroos being sophonts and building planes out of the ark and flying to Australia.
I can imagine Noah shepherding all animals and using a gentle guiding hand to direct them exactly where we find them today.
I can imagine apostates sacrificing dodo birds to Satan so the Dark Lord would open a wormhole from Ararat to Australia.

The thing is, because I can imagine something doesn't mean it's what is true or even remotely possible.

So no, I can't imagine a couple of kangaroos not leaving offsprings all the way to Australia and us finding the remains. I can't imagine the original couple being the specific members of the species to reach Australia in your scenario.

I'll need you to specify exactly how evolution of bacterias or animals larger than red kangaroos devolving to the present day animals is consistant with the Bible and not with Darwin. If we're only haggling about timeframe and you believe stuff changes over time due to preesure of their environment, whatever you call it, you agree with the evidence that confirms the process of darwinian evolution.

So you're either contradicting yourself, or contradicting scientific evidence, or you are blaspheming. In any case, cherry picking just the bits of science that confirm your bias isn't how it works.
Whether it's nice or cool is smething else entirely. Again, because you'd prefer something to be happening a specific way doesn't make it true. Or I'd imagine myself driving a Ferrari.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Radiometric dating is one of the best established and well understood systems of measurement. These creationists (as always) have deliberately misunderstood the way it works.

Radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate, so constant and predictable that atomic clocks are more accurate than anything mechanical or digital. Scientists have several methods of radiometric dating, involving various isotopes to test different minerals.

While some methods are more accurate than others, all methods corroborate each other.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 01:08 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(02-10-2013 09:24 AM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 02:24 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You couldn't imagine a world where once it's shaken, there are several rounds of cataclysm that follow or where receding waters would fill in trenches over time...? You've looked at the maps of the Pacific basin and etc. underwater and cannot imagine land bridges that recede over time? You couldn't imagine how if there were two kangaroos, than a few hundred as Pangea pulls apart that only the Australian ones survive? You can't find fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos? You don't see how animals larger than red kangaroos could have devolved to the present day animals? You can't visualize how secular scientists met aborigines in Australia and declared they were lower animals on the scale than homo sapiens sapiens?

I do know that bacteria can evolve over time, and also that animals were called to the ark, what we'd think of as bigger than one-celled creatures.

I have a very vivid imagination.
I can imagine kangaroos beamed by a vulcan starship.
I can imagine kangaroos being sophonts and building planes out of the ark and flying to Australia.
I can imagine Noah shepherding all animals and using a gentle guiding hand to direct them exactly where we find them today.
I can imagine apostates sacrificing dodo birds to Satan so the Dark Lord would open a wormhole from Ararat to Australia.

The thing is, because I can imagine something doesn't mean it's what is true or even remotely possible.

So no, I can't imagine a couple of kangaroos not leaving offsprings all the way to Australia and us finding the remains. I can't imagine the original couple being the specific members of the species to reach Australia in your scenario.

I'll need you to specify exactly how evolution of bacterias or animals larger than red kangaroos devolving to the present day animals is consistant with the Bible and not with Darwin. If we're only haggling about timeframe and you believe stuff changes over time due to preesure of their environment, whatever you call it, you agree with the evidence that confirms the process of darwinian evolution.

So you're either contradicting yourself, or contradicting scientific evidence, or you are blaspheming. In any case, cherry picking just the bits of science that confirm your bias isn't how it works.
Whether it's nice or cool is smething else entirely. Again, because you'd prefer something to be happening a specific way doesn't make it true. Or I'd imagine myself driving a Ferrari.

Hmm...

Quote:So no, I can't imagine a couple of kangaroos not leaving offsprings all the way to Australia and us finding the remains.

But that's so typical. Isn't that the usual answer for other subjects? We haven't found the fossils... yet...

And I do believe in Evolution. It's a proven fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(02-10-2013 09:54 AM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  Radiometric dating is one of the best established and well understood systems of measurement. These creationists (as always) have deliberately misunderstood the way it works.

Radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate, so constant and predictable that atomic clocks are more accurate than anything mechanical or digital. Scientists have several methods of radiometric dating, involving various isotopes to test different minerals.

While some methods are more accurate than others, all methods corroborate each other.

There remain, then, two root issues:

*Of course the methods would corroborate each other if the dating is accurate, or if there is a bias/using a uniformitarian timeline

*The assumptions are that rates are constant and not affected by catastrophic upheavals

Having said that, perhaps I should soften my stance. I think I'm going too say I believe in an old earth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: