A federal judge has prohibited the Round Rock school district from allowing students to vote on whether to have prayers at graduation.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > General
Federal Judge Prohibits School Vote on Graduation Prayers
By
The Associated Press
Fri, Mar. 14 2008 05:21 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Comments
jar1961,
“you are right.. a theory is a theory until the hypothesis is porven and then the experiment re conducted so that the results of the 1 validate the findings of the other...”
Well, look at all the evidence for our other theories: Gravitational theory, Atomic theory, Quantum theory, Germ theory, Cell theory, Electromagnetic theory, evolutionary theory, etc. etc. All of those are theories in science b/c they are all supported by large amounts of empiracally backed factual observations that produced falsifiable and testable predictions. The only reason you doubt evolution relative to other comparable theories is b/c if conflicts with your religion.
”Evolution will always be a scientific theory.... Scopes, Lucy and the rest.. all failures....
Scopes is a failure? The Scopes trial was wehn evolution began to become taught in schools, how’s it a failure? If anything the over zealous religous folk are the ones who lost that battle.
How is ‘Lucy’ a failure exactly? You have no problem yammering how things are wrong, flawed, and so on, but provide no details as to why. Jar, we have more specimens than just ‘Lucy’. Lucy is old news, she was found over 30 years ago, we’ve found many others since then. Go back to the vids I provided earlier and take a look at some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
That’s a nice skull collection showing the clear transition over time and it will no doubt become more complete over time. The idea of a 'missing link' is a antiquated as thinking the earth is flat. How people like yourself can ignore actual physical evidence you can hold in your hand is perplexing.
‘Carbon dating radically flawed...”
It is? Good thing we have some 4 dozen other dating methods I guess.
“PUnctuated Equilibrium is the day a frog became an ape.... magic!!!”
That’s not what PE suggests either, do you even read anything you so openly critique? No where in PE does it state that a frog overnight becomes an ape. Here, read for a change. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
jar1961,
“It's real simple.... until you are able to explain where the matter came from every other scientific notion you have is a moot discussion….. matter can neither be created or destroyed”
Origins of matter huh? You mentioned the first law regarding matter/energy and how neither can be created or destroyed, which is accurate, but this brings the next logical question. ‘If something exists as matter does and requires no causation for to exist in the first place, as the first law demonstrates, why then does one inject ‘god made matter’ into the equation in the first place? Its an entirely illogical argument.
Something like matter that requires no causation for it’s existence is devoid of creation in the first place, so to ask what causesed (sic)it is a logical fallacy.
“and eventually you might even getting around to explaining who nutured (sic) the baby from the slime”
um, this is a strawman argument. For one, it doesn’t represent how evolution is suggested to work at all. No where in evolutionary biology is it stated that bacterium instantly transformed or out poofed a fully formed human child, this is a pure misunderstanding of the facts entirely. You’re strawman entirely ignores a key principle of evolution, which is DESCENT with modification. There is not instant ‘goo to you’ in evolution, rather the process is cumulative from species to species. Stating that bacteria could (somehow) give birth to a human demonstrates how inept and ill read you are with regards to biology, never mind evolution.
“how is it that the slime concurrently and contemporaneously created both the male and female at the same time”
Why don’t you read up on ‘Y Chromosome emergence’, it’s all there. You assume too much. The first cells were asexual and swapped genetic information via Horizontal Gene Transfer, just like bacteria do today.
“Im not going to debate with you”
Well you haven’t responded to any of the evidence I submitted earlier, so it’s hardly a shocker.
“(sic) Paschals Wager.... the believer always wins the wager, the atheist always looses it...”
No, the believer doesn’t win, as Pascal ignored the details involved. Pascal ignored all the other 3000+ possible gods one could worship and thus you could be believing the wrong one this whole time and in the end Ball or Amen Ra will still send you to hell. So, you better believe in Amen Ra and the feather of truth’ or you’re going to hell. Pascal also didn’t account for believing for beliefs sake and ignored that a god wouldn’t see through disingenuous ‘hedge betting belief’ in which case the god would still send the person so their hell anyway as their belief wasn’t sincere to being with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
ABout Evolution: Yes Topekan... you are right.. a theory is a theory until the hypothesis is porven and then the experiment re conducted so that the results of the 1 validate the findings of the other...
Evolution will always be a scientific theory.... Scopes, Lucy and the rest.. all failures....
Carbon dating radically flawed...
PUnctuated Equilibrium is the day a frog became an ape.... magic!!!
I admire the atheists..it takes more faith to believe in whatever it is they believe than for the Christian....
FOR AGENTORANGE: Give it a break will you? You've impressed us with your knowledge... right wrong or otherwise.....It's real simple.... until you are able to explain where the matter came from every other scientific notion you have is a moot discussion.... matter can neither be created or destroyed... .. and eventually you might even getting around to explaining who nutured the baby from the slime... and how is it that the slime concurrently and contemporaneously created both the male and female at the same time...
Im not going to debate with you.. and I couldn't care less about your countervailing arguements ..... I've ministered to the atheistic community for almost 10 years..... your arguements are stale.... and when one doesnt fly you go to ludicrous theories like punctuated equilibrium.. .
Last note... NOte to atheist.... your intellectualizing and your rationalizing seems applicable save for one point.... Paschals Wager.... the believer always wins the wager, the atheist always looses it...
I
agentorange
Re:What I expected was a little more critical thinking and open mindedness, but apparently I was wrong. Virtually no one here is interested in the evidence, nor are they interested in having to critcally think about what they all collectively mean. Instead, many would rather cover their ears, shut their eys and yammer 'I'm not listening, na na na' like a little petulant kid.
All these things can be said about you.
star2,
What I expected was a little more critical thinking and open mindedness, but apparently I was wrong. Virtually no one here is interested in the evidence, nor are they interested in having to critcally think about what they all collectively mean. Instead, many would rather cover their ears, shut their eys and yammer 'I'm not listening, na na na' like a little petulant kid.
agentorange
Re:My questions would have an end if people would quit dodging them over over and retorting to tired biblical verses as a defense.
This is a Christian site. What do you expect to get from Christians who know their God?
"I am not much into throwing my pearls before swine,"
Ahhhh, how cute....almost poetic.
"what do you do for a living? "
You assume too much, what makes you think only one person is using this account? Dun dun dun!!
My questions would have an end if people would quit dodging them over over and retorting to tired biblical verses as a defense.
With no love, I say spare me the indignant routine. If you're too lazy, limp and ill read to repond to intellectual enquiry then you're not much of a thinker in the first place.
Agent Orange,
I am not much into throwing my pearls before swine, but I got to ask you, what do you do for a living? I have dealt with many intense athiests and believers in other religions, but I must admit, your pointless energy into a battle that has no end but in death is quite entertaining.
With all love I say, GET A LIFE!!!
Topekan,
Here, I'll leave you a link so you can read it for yourself why only natural explanations are deemd Science. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Topekan,
I wasn't refering only to radiometric dating, but more so towards all the science questions which are in scuh IQ tests and require basic understanding of them to answer. but it's quite hard to answer them and do well if you reject them. Ever more hilarious is how she claims she got a 120 IQ at age 10!! Riiiight.
"Evolution has never been, and can't be, tested using the scientific method. "
How do you figure? It makes falsifiable predictions, it thus falls within the confines of the scientific method. using the evolution as a theory we make predictions like about chromosome 2 fusion and locatios of fossils based on past finds and what do you know, they reafrim the theory. If evolution is wrong, then there were a lot of hominids wandering around 2+ million years ago for it to be wrong as well.
"Merely asserting that: 1) there must be a 'naturalistic' explanation'"
Oh boy, sorry pal but ONLY NATURALISTIC explanations cane be used as Science, look it up according to the scientific method. Secondly, we don't have to wait for anything, we have the fossils, we have the DNA which conforms to them. We have the fossils, we win.
“When I was 10 yrs old I was administered the Stanford Benit Test by a PhD Clinical
Psychologist. My IQ determination was from that test not from some website.”
Oh, so now you’re telling us that your boasting of a ‘120 IQ’ was from when you were 10 years old then, do I have you right? Star, you’re digging yourself an ever deeper hole, get a clue. Can you even back this claim up, or is it more empty rhetoric?
“Such things are not asked on IQ test Mr. agentorange, you know that.”
Oh I agree star, however many of the things tested in standard IQ tests require basic understanding in biology, and other such Sciences that you overwhelmingly deny. It’s quite hard to claim you did so well on an IQ test when some of the testing is related to things that you deny on face value.
“My faith in God and His Word is my shield against the foolish thoughts of ignorant men.”
More like your faith is your only refuge and sanctuary against the wave of reality that would otherwise come crashing down on your empty rhetoric. The wave is the evidence and with your faith you hold it all back, not very logical star. There is a reason apologetics exist, think about it.
“You are probably also frustrated and somewhat mad because you are losing this battle.”
Losing what battle Star? Here I am presenting evidence upon evidence and your only retort is, 'I got faith’. Mmmmkaaay. Go ahead, refute how light speed is a constant and the universe is 13.7 billion years old as a result, try me.
I have taken IQ tests, and have never seen a question on radiometric dating. As far as denying evolution being tantamount to rejecting science, that's malarkey (a fine scientific term). Evolution has never been, and can't be, tested using the scientific method. Until that can be done it remains an untested hypothesis. Merely asserting that: 1) there must be a 'naturalistic' explanation' and 2) it takes millions of years so it can't be tested is not science, it's dogmatic assertion, which makes it not science, but religion.
agentorange
You are probably also frustrated and somewhat mad because you are losing this battle.
agentorange
Re:Oh ok. star and my IQ is 121... are you serious? 120, from where, some website?
When I was 10 yrs old I was administered the Stanford Benit Test by a PhD Clinical Psychologist. My IQ determination was from that test not from some website.
Re:On an IQ test, how could you explain in detail or understand a principle like radionmetric dating
Such things are not asked on IQ test Mr. agentorange, you know that.
You make such foolish statements because you are the very least frustrated because you cannot control me in what I believe. My faith in God and His Word is my shield against the foolish thoughts of ignorant men.
God is the one who created this universe and everything that is in it. I would be pretty foolish to look else where for understanding on how He did things. No, the Bible is not a science textbook but it does give us clues about how things were done. If you want to know or understand how something was designed or works then go to the one who designed it. God is quite able to help man understand the data we have and to develop models based on His Word that describes what we see. To look for other explanations for observed phenomen will only result in foolish theories.
Re:it's like arguing you're a whiz in science
I never said that I was. All I said was that I had a MS in Applied Math from the Fla Inst of Tech and I was enrolled in but dropped out of the PhD program in Applied Math at Rice Univ here in Houston, Tx. My skills in math have greatly lessened over the 30 yrs since I have been in school and have not used any of it to speak of since I left school.
I flagged myself below to make some corrections/additions.
It's pretty hard to have an IQ of 120 when you reject virutally all the recent advances in science which the tests would be based on! On an IQ test, how could you explain in detail or understand a principle like radionmetric dating when you rejct it off hand, it's entirely illogical.
it's like arguing you're a whiz in science, but reject virtually all of it. That is entirely confounding logic star.
"No, my brain isn't all that great. I only have a 120 IQ"
Oh ok. star and my IQ is 121... are you serious? 120, from where, some website?
TerryH,
“It is very odd that scientist seem to think they can determine age by appearance.”
Yah, well we Sciency types don’t determine the age by mere ‘appearance’ but rather analyze the age itself by numerous methods. Just like your example of the person who looks 40, but in reality after more testing and deeper analysis reveals they are in fact olde, same goes for our earth. We at first didn't suspect it to be that old b/c the human lifetime is quite short compared to geological changes and as a result no one would have argued earth being more than some 20 million years old, which is abot the age Lord Kelvin gave for Earth. However being creationist, Kelvin didn't know about radioactive decay elements that would provide additional heat/energy to the earth and result in it being far older.
Our earth’s appearance changes over time as tectonic plates move (africa and south america are obvious examples) and mile wide asteroids collide with earth and other events that show the very surface has been reshaped countless times as a result.
I’ve asked Star and others to try to explain why light speed (which is a constant) and other testing methods reveals that our Universe isn’t some 6000 years old, but it’s over 13.7 billion years old. Even the distance to our closest galaxy, Andromeda is more than 6000 light years away and yet, you want us to think folks from NASA and other global cosmologists and astronomers are off by that much of a margin?
How can Star explain, or dare I say rationalize, that the universe isn’t actually 13.7 billion years old? I'd love to see you try this one star.
agentorange
No, my brain isn't all that great. I only have a 120 IQ. Nothing to write home about for sure.
I place my faith in God and in His Word. If man says something that goes counter to His Word then I reject what man says.
"I am sorry but I will not listen to anyone tell me that mankind and all life for that matter has been on this planet longer than approximately 6000 yrs. The Word of God is my authority not the opinions of man"
Hello, earth to star...who do you exactly think WRTOE the bible? Yes....men. in the end, inspired by god or not, men, faliable men penned it. so the very logic that you use to suggest that other works are 'mere opinon' is a logical fallacy.
Why do you even bother researching anything at all (radiometric dating) if in the end you will come to the conclussion you just did? You state that certain things are flawed before even looking into them and then when you do research them you find them to do quite accurate and in response you simply ignore them and close your eyes, cover your ears in defiance. That isn't logical at all star. You argue god gave you a great brain, well then use it. It's entirely illogical to argue god gave you such a tool to use only not to use it as you do. you don't worship a god, you worship your book and you're an idoltar of it, can't you see that?
With your attitude you'd be better of not researching anything else at all, why even bother star. Like I said, talking to you, is like talking to a brick wall. (flagged myself)
angelluv47, Was your high school band praying to God, or were they showing off how holy they were? There is something in the Bible about praying in the closet.
You can take all public authorization of the acknowledgement of God away, but you can not stop people from praying! What would happen if the entire student body all stood up together and recited the "Lord's Prayer" together at the graduation? They couldn't arrest everyone or refuse to give them their diplomas! Our high school band did this in what was Madeline O'Hare's hometown before a football game in 2000, along with a majority of the people in the football stadium. We all took the time to go out onto the field and hold hands while we prayed. Believers need to strike back at rampant atheism by public affirmation of the Christian priniples that our country was founded upon! In the next life if you have denied Jesus He will deny you!
It is very odd that scientist seem to think they can determine age by appearance. I have seen twenty five year olds with grey hair. Doctor's have said that a person has the body of a sixty year old to a person that is only forty. Appearances can be deceptive.
Word of the day:
airhead: a flighty scatterbrained simpleton
agentorange
I am sorry but I will not listen to anyone tell me that mankind and all life for that matter has been on this planet longer than approximately 6000 yrs. The Word of God is my authority not the opinions of man.
Good night agentorange. Rest well. God bless you with the truth of His Word.
“Yes, I get it but do you? You have no idea how old anything is before you test it.”
Actually we do, I told you already we use multiple dating techniques, it’s not just radiometric.
“What if your lava flow or your rock, or whatever isn't as old as you think it is?”
Well star if we just saw the lava come out of the volcano we already know it’s age, however as soon as it hardens it’s taken back to the lab for dating, so I think we can know the dates pretty accurately based on that. Additionally we use numerous dating techniques to establish accuracy. IE, we use Dendrochronology (tree rings) and those go back over 10,00 years and ice cores go back over 700,000 years.
“The ages would be off by a large anount wouldn't they be? Millions of yrs, wouldn't they be?”
Please read up on it on Wiki, I am going to bed. Please read it and get back to me, you should find answers from the Wiki page and the related links attached to it. Go ahead, be skeptical, read into it and objectively look at what that creationist site tries to pawn off as being poor dating and you'll see they are ignoring the details.
star2,
Do some research on the miniumum dating ranges for Ak-r, it's around 100,000 years, so obviously it would result in an error for anything recent. Different particles decay after different rates and this decay rate is used to establish a 1/2 life for it and that's how we establish the dates.
agentorange
Yes, I get it but do you? You have no idea how old anything is before you test it. What if your lava flow or your rock, or whatever isn't as old as you think it is? The ages would be off by a large anount wouldn't they be? Millions of yrs, wouldn't they be?
What if the earth was only about 6000 yrs olds and the different stratas were created by the flood, then all the non-carbon 14 dating methods wouldn't be applicable nor realiable would they be?
You don't know how old the earth is.
The methods used are correct for each sample type in the examples given.
“If you don't make that assumption then you tell me big boy what was the parent to daughter ratio in the beginning?”
Star, when the isotopes are analyzed we can know what the ratios are for parent to daughter elements and know based on continued observation how fast certain isotopes in the same sample will decay at. Read up on it on Wiki. All you stated were old creationist regurgitation that fails to mention WHY the K-Ar method revealed such hig dates for recent material. It’s b/c it’s not used to date recent material in the first place. DUH! If one uses the wrong measuring device, of course it’s going to result in an error. It tries to give the impression that they are flawed, but ignores to metioned the DETAILS that not all isotopes decay at the same rates and thus dating recent material with an slowly decaing isotope obviously results in an error. You're getting lied to star, get a clue.
star,
You still didn't show me anywhere when we must know that no daughter elements are present, so again I afraid I have caught you in a lie.
“lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in 1986”
Star, you can’t use the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method do date recent material b/c it’s ½ life is very looooong. Learn to read about dating methods. If the K-Ar dating method has a Looooooong ½ life, then obviously it can’t be used to date recent material as it decays too sloow, now can it?
Same thing goes for number 2 and 3. C-14 has a SHORTER ½ life than the K-Ar method and therefore b/c it decays faster it’s used for dating recent material which K-AR can’t do. Get it?
agentorange
Oh yea, big boy, tell me how you know? Where is your evidence?
agentorange
Re:No offense star, but you’re pretty thick. Show me anywhere in here where it says it relies on no daughter elements being present. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
If you don't make that assumption then you tell me big boy what was the parent to daughter ratio in the beginning?
Re: Unreliability of dating methods.
Part 1
Re: Radiometric dating of the earth and fossils: Are they trustworthy?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth:
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.
Can we be so sure?
Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html
Anomalies of Radiometric Dating
1. Rock from a dactite lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in 1986 during the eruption there was dated (using the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method) at 0.35 ±0.05 million years. (S.A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dactite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," CEN Technical Journal, 10(3):335-343, 1986)
2. A British Engineer, Sidney P. Clementson, studied a variety of modern volcanic rock. Knowing their ages as 200-300 years old, he carefully compared them to Soviet uranium tests of the same volcanic rocks. What he found was surprising. In every instance the dates were found to be hugely incorrect with a 14 billion year (the dates varied from 50 million years to 14.5 billion) discrepancy. ("Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1970.)
3. Five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. They were Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. The only problem was that one was laid down 1949, three were laid down 1954 and one in 1975. (A.A. Snelling, "The Cause Of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, pg. 503-525.)
Re: Unreliability of dating methods.
Part 2
4. A single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine had a radiometric error spread of 700 million years. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
5. Swedish kolm from Scandinavia was (using the uranium method) dated with an error spread of 420 million years. (G.A. Kerkut Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
6. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years. (L. Ferrell, "Dating Methods", Evolution Disproved, 2001)
7. In 1800-1801, lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalei formed volcanic rock. It was dated using K-Ar (Potassium-Argon). The K-Ar dating gave dates ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years. (Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968; Science, October 11, 1968)
8. Doctor Read, in a presentation before a special meeting of the California State Board of Education, presented his research into the radiometric dating of lunar (moon) rocks. Many lunar samples were brought back from the missions and carefully dated usingthorium dating, uranium dating, potassium-argon dating, and agglutinate dating. Yet the dates vary from 2 million to 28 billion. ("Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17)
9. Oxford Castle in England was built 725 years ago, and yet its mortar has been radiocarbon dated at 7,370 years old. (E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.)
10. Wood only a few days cut out of living, growing trees was dated, using radiocarbon, to have existed for 10,000 years. (B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)
Re: Unreliability of dating methods.
Part 3
11. Here is a quote which further demonstrates the accuracy problems of radiometric dating, and the carbon-14 method in particular:
"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years], while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen inch peat layer.
"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.
"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.
"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat." --Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
Re: Unreliability of dating methods.
Part 4
12. Basalt from Mt. Etna, in Sicily (122 BC) was tested using the K-Ar method and found to be 250,000 years old. (G.B. Dalyrmple, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55; also see Impact, #307, Jan. 1999)
13. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (T.L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. printing office, 1975) pg. 30)
14. "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (H.E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, pg. 300)
15. "The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (R.M. Thorson and R.D. Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska," Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No 2, March 1992, pg. 214-228)
Conclusion:
Every one of these anomalies are on the dating of objects of known age. Why then should we trust radiometric dating to be accurate about objects and rocks for which we do not know the ages for?
These examples show that radiometric dating is totally useless for age determining.
"There was water underneath the earth. A mist came up from the ground to water everything.
(Genesis 2:5-6)'
So you're telling me a single 'mist' of rain was enough to allow for life to live all tha time till your no-way flood? Ok...get real star.
"Your assumption is that there were no daughter elements in the beginning. It is only an assumption. You have no evidence to back that up.”
No offense star, but you’re pretty thick. Show me anywhere in here where it says it relies on no daughter elements being present. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
agentorange
Re:Ya, and how exactly did people live back then wise guy? You need water to grow things, all living things on earth require water to live. Get a clue. Oh, let me guess…another miracle to explain it away!
There was water underneath the earth. A mist came up from the ground to water everything.
(Genesis 2:5-6)
Re:Fail again star. We don’t use that assumption for dating radiometric techniques star, we rely on the ratio of parent to daughter elements which results in decaying isotopes decaying into others, by knowing the ratio we can measure it as it decays and establish how old it is.
Your assumption is that there were no daughter elements in the beginning. It is only an assumption. You have no evidence to back that up.
"God's Word also plainly states that the human was a unique creation of God. The human, unlike all the other forms of animal life, was created in the image of God and "
Hello NEWSflash Star, who exactly do you think wrote the bible? yes MEN ! think about it. obvously they are giong to coin themselves as the pinnacle creation. try to think a little more critically.
“The Word of God implies that there was no rain prior to the great flood (deduced from Genesis 9:13).”
Ya, and how exactly did people live back then wise guy? You need water to grow things, all living things on earth require water to live. Get a clue. Oh, let me guess…another miracle to explain it away!
“These dating methods start out with the premise that all the radioactive substances started out in it pure form. I reject that assumption.”
Fail again star. We don’t use that assumption for dating radiometric techniques star, we rely on the ratio of parent to daughter elements which results in decaying isotopes decaying into others, by knowing the ratio we can measure it as it decays and establish how old it is.
“If all that was on the earth was subjected to the continual breaking up of the ground, and the gushing waters then it is logical to conclude that all life forms were buried under all the mud and at differnt levels.”
Sorry Star, but we find quite an orderly arrangement of types of life depending on the strata. In a real deluge like your flood you’d have all animals all mixed on all levels, but we don’t find that at all.
“Sometime back I gave you many articles that were written showing the unreliabilty of many of the different dating methods”
Ya star, you mentioned what are known as anomalies, which is why they were are from like the 1950 and prior to how our understanding of processes like the ‘reservoir affect’ which results in inflated dating.
I'd rather not even have you address my questions anymore star, talking to you is like talking to a wall. Even a wall can think more critically.
agentorange
The Word of God stands for ever.
The thoughts and opinions of man last but a short while; what is true today will be wrong tomorrow. Oh, the sinking sand of those who place their trust in it.
star2,
Fine star, you say earth dating methods are flawed....explain why when we use light speed which is a constant to measure the universe it's not 6000 years ofd. heck, even the andromeda galazy isn't 6000 years old, get a freaking clue already.
star2,
star, I am talking about evidence here. not rhetoric in your tired 3000 year old book. please try think outside of that box and address the evidence I presented outside of that, that is what I am saying.
Comments on agentorange's fossil videos part 1 &2
Originally posted on "Homeschooling Families Threatened...."
Part 1
I place my faith in the God of the Bible who has changed my life. He has been faithful to His Word in my life in many areas. I accept by faith that His Word is truth even if I don't understand it all that much or if at all in many parts.
God has revealed to mankind through His Word how He did things when He created the heavens and the earth. I accept what He says as truth and try to interpret the evidence that man has from it as best as I can.
From Genesis 1 we can see that creation took place in a very short period of time and that it was a process. God has revealed to mankind that He created fish, birds, and animal life all after their own kind in their mature state and plant life after their own kind in different stages of maturity. This implies that when He created each kind of animal life or birds, or fish He created both the male and his counterpart, the female, with the capablility of reproducing offspring like themselves. Thus, fish give birth to fish, hawks give birth to hawks, cows give birth to cows, and humans give birth to humans, and etc. There is no crossing over of the different kind of spicies and there is no transition of one kind of animal life to an entirely different kind of animal life.
The Word of God also makes it very plain that God gives to each species their nature; what their instincts are, their behavior, and etc.(see Job 39 for examples)
God's Word also plainly states that the human was a unique creation of God. The human, unlike all the other forms of animal life, was created in the image of God and was given life by God breathing into him the breath of life. God commanded the man to have dominion over all creation. The Word of God also shows that the humans, Adam and Eve, were created in their mature state with the ability to walk, talk, reason, think creatively, to reproduce, and to have communion with their Creator.
Comments on agentorange's fossil videos part 1 &2
Originally posted on "Homeschooling Families Threatened...."
Part 2
Last night I watched your videos again, both in their entirety. I understand more better now what you were trying to show and your last post to me today confirms to me that my conclusions were correct.
I do not see it the way you do. If one starts out with the premise that all life evolved from some common ancient life form, then it would be natural and logical that one would conclude that humans eventually evolved from an ancient ape based on the evidence.
But, I reject that premise. I accept by faith that God created everything like He has revealed in His Word. So, I start out with the premise that God created everything like He described in His Word.
For whatever reason God made different kinds of animals in simialr ways and they show similar but different designs. Thus, the different kinds of apes will have many characteristics that are similar but will be uniquely different in other areas. These apes will have some similar designs as the human. However, the human is totally unique. He is vastly superior to the ape, and was made to have a relationship with the Creator. The ape and all other life forms were not not made to have one.
I do not accept the dates given for the fossils. The dating methods are unreliable. Many articles written in reputable scientific journals like Science have shown that. Sometime back I gave you many articles that were written showing the unreliabilty of many of the different dating methods.
These dating methods start out with the premise that all the radioactive substances started out in it pure form. I reject that assumption. I believe that God created the earth at various levels of maturity. This would render any dating of the earth or anything else connected with the earth impossible.
Comments on agentorange's fossil videos part 1 &2
Originally posted on "Homeschooling Families Threatened...."
Part 3
I believe God's account of the world-wide flood. God's Word says in Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were open." From this we see that God broke up the ground allowing the water underneath to come gushing out. It probably came out with great force washing the people away and burying them in the mud. Now, some how, the rains came down from the sky and every form of life was killed except, of course, those that were in the ark.
The Word of God implies that there was no rain prior to the great flood (deduced from Genesis 9:13). So, some how when the waters came gushing out from beneath the crust of the earth that that precipitated the rains.
The Word of God says in Genesis 8:2, "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped:..." The waters from the earth and the rains continued together for forty days and forty nights (Genesis 7:12), and then God stopped both of them at the same time.
If all that was on the earth was subjected to the continual breaking up of the ground, and the gushing waters then it is logical to conclude that all life forms were buried under all the mud and at differnt levels.
If this is the case then it is not unreasonable to expect to find different remains of plant life, and animal and human fossils to be observed at different strata.
I believe that the animal and human fossils that have been found were all contemporary. So, what your videos have shown are merely the different animials and humans that were alive at the time of the flood.
“The most frustrating aspect of these discussions is what I believe Nietzche called unyielding despair that”
Most Atheists don’t even prescribed to Nietzsche’s views on life and that ‘nothing matters’ and Nihilism, what have you been reading? Or do you read?
“your bias is so firmly rooted it can not nor will not allow you to examine anything without the filter of your atheism.... and that is sad”
Yea, and like this can’t be said for the other way around for Theism right? Get real kid. Sorry but the door swings both ways in this regard.
I would just appreciate it if you or someone else would review the links to vids I posted earlier and then get back to me.
“Don't confuse atheism for belief in God.. at the end of the day, Flew accepted God as the grand creater...”
Oh trust me I am not. But don’t confuse Flew as a Deist who thinks god goes around poofing things into action as religions prescribed. A deistic or pantheistic god, as I mentioned with Star, is like natures god and one I can almost envision, however I have some questions and doubts on it, but not as many as the ones put forth by religions.
“As far as Behe.... the Denver debate did nothing to damage Behe's research or findings”
Excuse me but all of Behe’s examples of IC systems were shown in court to have evolutionary origins. One would think that would certainly kill his findings. Arguing that something is irreducible complex is an argument from person incredulity, it’s pathetic. The scientific community isn’t atheistic, most are theists! Besides, in Science that’s how ideas are vindicated by PEER REVIEW. It’s the normal science critiquing process, get a clue. All published works are open for review and that’s how science knowledge advances.
“Darwin was made a fool of in the Scopes trial..”
What! Darwin wasn’t even at the Scopes trial! Evolution is taught b/c of the scopes trial, so how exactly did it make Darwin a fool? If anything it vindicated his ideas!
“not to mention the more recent "Lucy" findings which were also shown as false..”
‘Lucy’ (Australopithecus Afarensis) isn’ t hoax, false or fraud, we have numerous specimens of these species get a clue.
“It is amazing how every step along the way, every discovery made by atheistic scientist is shortly thereafter refuted by more objective followup research...”
Such as…… you can't even name one, heck you can't even reply to my vids either.
The liars for Jesus never stop lying. They are proud of their dishonesty. They make no attempt to hide it. Anything is justified if it's for Jesus.
For the Christians, nothing is more terrifying than reality. The idea they developed from other animals, instead of being magically created to be separate from nature, scares the heck out of the Christians. They are like little children who are afraid of the dark.
agentorange, and anyone else that might wish to know,
Remember how someone went through and flagged out just about all of the articles on the CP home page? Well, he's back. it's oldguy, alias first/danny2/danny/bob.
Doesn't matter how you characterize his belief conversion... it is rooted in the fact that certain aspects of the cohesiveness and uniformity of the universe around him could only be explained through an intelligent design.... Don't confuse atheism for belief in God.. at the end of the day, Flew accepted God as the grand creater...
As far as Behe.... the Denver debate did nothing to damage Behe's research or findings.... the fact that the scientifc-atheistic community has launched an offensive against Behe since he came out with Darwin's Black Box speaks volumes.....
To try and refute Behe without acknowledging how Darwin was made a fool of in the Scopes trial.. not to mention the more recent "Lucy" findings which were also shown as false...
It is amazing how every step along the way, every discovery made by atheistic scientist is shortly thereafter refuted by more objective followup research...
The most frustrating aspect of these discussions is what I believe Nietzche called unyielding despair that an atheist must adhere to in order to make his arguements for his atheism credible in his own mind..... or put another way, your bias is so firmly rooted it can not nor will not allow you to examine anything without the filter of your atheism.... and that is sad.
oldguy,
Seriously. the guy is paramount, but I think age is perhaps creeping up on him, he's 85 now. Sorry folks, but it's a fact the mental ability and cognitive ability does taper off a bit after you get up in those years.
Regarding Flew, " In a December 2004 interview he said: I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins"
Hope that clears it up. and you should note, a Deistic god, wouldn't be out and about poofing things into existance either. A Deistic god would devise natural laws that the universe would have to abide by upon inception and result in what we see, in otherwords, evolution exists in Flews minds eye as a way of god bringing using a process (evolution) to result in diversity in life. As opposed to this poofing beings from clay into action.
One senile person invokes magic and the Christians think that's proof for the invisible man.
jar1961,
Yes, Flew a once avid Atheist is now a DEIST, not a Christian. Try not to get the 2 mixed up. He came to conclude this based on, get this, the notions put forth by the proponets of Intelligent Design or certain confines in universe.
Well, theres just a few problems there, much, if not all of Behe's instances of Ireducible Complexity were thrown in his face in Dover 2005 and shown to have evoluionary origins, so Flew is likely holding his Deistic views not on biological, but on cosmological systems. Flew isn't arguing for the same benevolent god you guys invision, he's arguing for a Deistic, or Pantheistic god which is largely indifferent to us and our livelyhood.
NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and he says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting that belief is a mistake, the professor, Antony Flew, has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
wilderness,
Unfortunately, that does happen, good or bad parenting or not, it sorta just comes with the territory of the doctrine. However, other times they equally crouch in fear of such damnation as this thought of burning in some imagined not yet realized place overwhelms the logic and reason based mind. Is it any wonder even doubting the holly spirit is considered THE unfogiveable sin.
"Fear of Hell - what a horrible belief! The insane people who believe it love to abuse their children with this disgusting nonsense. They love to threaten people with torture in hell when they don't agree with their stupidity. Most of these nuts think only their religion can save them from the wrath of their loving god. It's pure insanity and hell believers should be locked up before they harm somebody." (BobC http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/34_unconvincing_arguments_for.php
Unfortunately, some children have been raised the wrong way concerning God, and it drove them far from really knowing God. Though children must be taught the consequences of a sinful life, it must be tempered with the knowledge of God’s love.
Ps 86:15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
I would just appreciate one of your to veiw the vids and comment on them, but it seems to never happen. It's always back to some unrelated topic that wasn't even asked.
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
Any takers?
wilderness,
Your're quoting from a Blog (rolls eyes)...mmmm mkay..... Do you understnad why invoking 'god dun it' to explain something isn't falsifiable and thus isn't Science? Show me a single time when 'god done it' or it was "an intellgently designer did it" has answered something that resulted in actual greater knowledge for mankind.
For the Believers: Please, it only damages your soul to attack someone who can't accept Truth. Christ couldn't save the world, only those whom He came for.... the more the loved the greater the persecution. The one thing we all have in common, both believer and non-believer is that one day every knee shall bow... the difference being..some will bow before the throne of God in heaven and others will bow as they have wrought damnation upon themselves..
They may well make a good arguement of the science which they erroneously construe, but at the end of the day, Paschal's Wager will always be resolved in favor of the believer.
SC,
“Now let's move onto the fact that there are huge jumps in the fossil records that have yet to be filled.”
Define 'huge jump' please. I gave you some vids on transitional fossils which do fills in some gaps, please explain what ‘huge jumps’ you’re eluding to.
“http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol26/3442_ifatal_flaws_what_evolution_12_30_1899.asp”
Did you even READ that link? It’s a rebuttal against Hank Hanegraaff and how his paper is wrong. You're amazing.
“http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences30.html”
You call that ‘hard evidence’ ? Evidence for what? Java man and Peking man are specimens a of a species known as Homo Erectus, they weren’t hoaxes.
“What about the fossils of similar humans back before these so-called evolutionary stages?”
Which ones? You mean like the Australopithecines Genus? Australopithecines weren't humans, only those in the Genus Homo qualify as hominid or human.
“Now I think I'm done explaining myself.”
Well, thanks for not even bothering to address any of the evidence I presented in vids earlier, thanks a lot for wasting all of our time on waiting for you dead reply.
oldguy
Re:"I got the answer. God did it!" The other scientists would laugh at the nitwit. You don't want to be laughed at, do you?
Did people laugh at you when you said you believed in God or was a Catholic when you were a young boy? Is that why you rejected the religious beliefs you were raised on? Were you embrassed? Was your spirited wounded when you were laughed at? Is this really the source of your attitudes and rejection of God?
"Invoking intelligent design is no different from invoking magic. It’s childish and it’s stupid. It certainly isn’t science." (BobC http://www.pbs.org/nights/blog/2007/11/nova_judgment_day_intelligent.html#comment-28030)
I would have to disagree with the above quote. A relationship with God and a knowledge of God has nothing to do with magic. Every child should be taught the ways of God.
By the way, ShuckCreations, more than a century has passed since Darwin dropped dead. Do you think scientists have done nothing since then?
ShuckCreations: "Obviously a higher power was at work there."
Obviously? Magic is obvious? I suggest you should not be so quick to invoke magic. It makes you look lazy. Another reason to not invoke magic is because it makes you look childish. Imagine a group of scientists trying to solve a problem, and one of the scientists says "I got the answer. God did it!" The other scientists would laugh at the nitwit. You don't want to be laughed at, do you?
Also, ShuckCreations, when you quote a scientist you should provide the whole thing and you should provide a source for the quote. When you select one sentence out of a paragraph, you look extremely dishonest. Creationists do this kind of quote mining all the time. They select a sentence out of context to completely distort what the scientist meant. This tactic always backfires because everyone knows how dishonest it is.
"Piltdown man was a hoax."
So what? Is this your excuse to insult all scientists?
Your Piltdown man is a bad sign. It makes me think you are a total waste of time. Only a creationist would make a big deal out of one dishonest scientist who died many decades ago. It's difficult for me to respect somebody who would insult thousands of scientists because a small number of dead scientists were not honest.
oldguy aka first/danny2/danny/bob
Re:This explains why creationists are a waste of time.