"something to refute the Biblical proof that the world is only 6,000 years old." There is nothing to refute if there is really no evidence for it being 6,000 years old in the first place.

"The dating methods are seriously flawed. The most reliable method, Carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 years. If ANY carbon 14 is found in a material it CANNOT be more than a few tens of thousands of years old. " FAIL, epically. First, with dendrochronology, (tree ring dating) I am not sure why you'd call C-14 the most accurate dating method. For one, dendrochronology is accurate to a smaller m...more

"The dating methods are seriously flawed. The most reliable method, Carbon 14 has a half life of 5700 years. If ANY carbon 14 is found in a material it CANNOT be more than a few tens of thousands of years old. "

FAIL, epically. First, with dendrochronology, (tree ring dating) I am not sure why you'd call C-14 the most accurate dating method. For one, dendrochronology is accurate to a smaller margin of error. Jeffy, that's not how isotopes decay pal! The 1/2 half is the rate of decay by which Time (T) measured equals to 1/2 of the elements are still around in the sample, this decay rate IS a constant, & thus at 1/2 half life (5730 years) 1/2 of the original sample is present, after the next 5730 years, only 1/2 of the 1/2 (1/4 of the original) is present in the sample. After the next 5730 years (1790 years) now 1/2 of the 1/4 that was previously present (1/8 the original amount) is present in the sample. This constant rate of decay continues, & it allows C-14 dating to be used for dating objects to ~65,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

"We find carbon 14 in diamonds, which are ASSUMED to be billions of years old. We find carbon 14 in deep coal beds that are assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old."

Another creationist canard.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

"The coal is made from the swirling organic material deposited after the flood,"

Sorry but no. The production of coal, & oil, is very slow, & only from the result of huge amounts of flora & fauna dying & decaying over many millions of years.less

jeffy, "The scientist who needs an artifact dated starts with an expected date from the geologic column." IF the layers have already been dating use radiometric dating, then yes. They certainty don't just dig up stuff from any old layer and declare its age by fiat, they perform isotopes decay analysis to determine how old the layer is, THEN they affix a date to the objects/fossils. "He se...more

jeffy,

"The scientist who needs an artifact dated starts with an expected date from the geologic column."

IF the layers have already been dating use radiometric dating, then yes. They certainty don't just dig up stuff from any old layer and declare its age by fiat, they perform isotopes decay analysis to determine how old the layer is, THEN they affix a date to the objects/fossils.

"He sends samples to many labs requesting different types of tests."

This is sound testing methodology in order to ensure independent labs using the same dating methods arrive at the same ages. Nothing wrong there...

"He will receive dates that vary significantly even to a power of magnitude."

Baloney. The only times ages can be off is when for example they're analyzing something like xenolyths which are much older than the recently morphic rock they're encased in. xenolyths though are quite well understood, as is the reservoir processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenolithless

'The geologic column is not found anywhere except text books." I don't know if it's found in its entirely from start to end for each layer in a single location, however that doesn't mean we cannot identify the same layer(s) in separate locations and deduce which came prior or later based on other sites. But then again, I am not the one saying uniformitarianism is wrong, you are. http://en.wi...more

'The geologic column is not found anywhere except text books."

I don't know if it's found in its entirely from start to end for each layer in a single location, however that doesn't mean we cannot identify the same layer(s) in separate locations and deduce which came prior or later based on other sites. But then again, I am not the one saying uniformitarianism is wrong, you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Your argument that's it's not found completely in one location is like saying b/c we don't find a every single fossilized bone in a dead species makes it null & we cannot learn from it from *other* specimens at *other locations*.less

"No one supposes that if it is on the internet that it makes it valid." Sure they do, just look at wingbats who know nothing of science nor its methodology like Christine O'Donnell, or Elizabeth Hasselbeck.

"Google 'soft tissue dinosaur'. I get 64000 answers " Yeah, so what? Google 'moon landing hoax' and you'll likely get all kinds of hits too. The fallacy that if it's on the Internet, thus it must be true, isn't correct. But I digress, there is no need to dispute 'soft tissue' from a dinosaur as they didn't recover it that way, it only occurred after being treated with a desalination products. ...more

"Google 'soft tissue dinosaur'. I get 64000 answers "

Yeah, so what? Google 'moon landing hoax' and you'll likely get all kinds of hits too. The fallacy that if it's on the Internet, thus it must be true, isn't correct. But I digress, there is no need to dispute 'soft tissue' from a dinosaur as they didn't recover it that way, it only occurred after being treated with a desalination products.

"The problem with dating methods is that they start with the geologic column"

Ha, uh, not. No, the dating isn't arrived by virtue of which layer is being examined, rather the isotopes from the layer in question are dated using radiometric dating.less

"Nowhere is there any such concensus that H.neanderthalensis is a diseased" I know, but I wasn't the one saying that is was a diseases malformed anything. i think you have me confused for a creationist on that one.

“evolution apologetics” The methods they’re using are based on science, so it’s not apologetic. That IS the big distinction. AIG, ICR, DI on the other hand aren’t operating under those methodologies of science, hence it’s not science, & since its religious based falls into the category of apologetics. This is more or less what the Judge found in Dover as the DI attempted to sell...more

“evolution apologetics”

The methods they’re using are based on science, so it’s not apologetic. That IS the big distinction.

AIG, ICR, DI on the other hand aren’t operating under those methodologies of science, hence it’s not science, & since its religious based falls into the category of apologetics. This is more or less what the Judge found in Dover as the DI attempted to sell ID off as science when it took lacked the methodological & evidence goods. Call it philosophy of metaphysics if you like, but not science.

If they were able to show fruits, that is their methodology was able to both explain reality *more accurately* & increase our knowledge & while allowing humans to improve living standards via new technology, then it would at least have something. Having no fruits is indicative that the methodology they use isn’t science.

It’s a matter of which side is following methodological naturalism and which isn’t. That’s how you know who’s practicing science & who’s not.

“With all due respect it is apparent you have your mind made up on this”

I don’t, the more I learn the more I find out the less I really know or knew. I welcome any evidence, even from ICR, AIG, or others for the purposes of this specific point which shows rocks and or isotopes age faster as a result of water/floods.

What I wont do is take a back seat to those who assert something without testable evidence, or for more practical purposes use logical fallacies to assert they’re in right.less

believer, “in our past discussions I have cited several websites, videos, and books” Creationist apollogetics as I recall, nothing on the sorts of, non-already (YEC) religious motivated people cheery picking data to fit their views. As I recall you’ve cited places like AIG, ICR, but I stress that what they’re doing cannot be honestly called science as they’re not even adhering to t...more

believer,

“in our past discussions I have cited several websites, videos, and books”

Creationist apollogetics as I recall, nothing on the sorts of, non-already (YEC) religious motivated people cheery picking data to fit their views. As I recall you’ve cited places like AIG, ICR, but I stress that what they’re doing cannot be honestly called science as they’re not even adhering to the basic principles of the methodology. Part of which is testability, falsifiability, & not using circular reasoning. Saying 'god did it', while theologically comforting, isn't science. If what they were doing is accurate & followed the methodology, it ought to yield fruits in reality, but it doesn’t.

“Dr. Jonathan Safati, so what's the point in even providing these sources to you”

I don’t recall you mentioning that this guy describing evidence for water aging rocks, or the isotopes, that was the original assertion you’d made & the one I hoped to find some conclusion to. If you have evidence, cool. If not, cool, just say so & we can move on.

“in his book he does speak to the isotopes issue.”

And? What does he say, that water makes the isotopes decay faster, or more importantly what is his data for it? Has it undergone peer review?

There is a methodology behind science, it’s not this type whatever you want out and get it published without any testing and peer review of your works.less

“the evidence can be found on the AIG and ICR websites” Then site the parts where it talks about water causing rocks to age, or the isotopes to decay faster. Does it really need to be stated, again, for like the 30th time, that AIG & ICR do NOT practice science? They don’t ever adhere to the most basic principles of methodological naturalism so there no way they’re practicing science. ...more

“the evidence can be found on the AIG and ICR websites”

Then site the parts where it talks about water causing rocks to age, or the isotopes to decay faster. Does it really need to be stated, again, for like the 30th time, that AIG & ICR do NOT practice science? They don’t ever adhere to the most basic principles of methodological naturalism so there no way they’re practicing science.

“the most important evidence of all God's testimony as found in His Word!!”

Back to your logical fallacy of circular reasoning again. And we know what the bible claims is true how? Oh, B/C IT SAYS IT”S TRUE! Logical fail, dun, dun, dun….less

""All the winged insects that WALK on all fours are detestable to you."" OK, so which ones only walk on 4 legs? The odd thing, if you're correct, is that it would seem to suggest those winged/non winged insects that walk on 6 legs aren't detestable.

“better to try to prevent abortions then to be pro-murder” However I highly doubt you’d accept that people use condoms, or birth control like Plan B, which reduces the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy & thus reduces the odds of them seeking out to have an abortion. I am wrong?

“God is timeless. Therefore, His morality is timeless.” I doubt the first premise, & the second premise I reject. Even the OT concepts on morality aren’t the same as those in the NT. Human morality has grown in the developed secularized world to where we no longer perform ‘honor killings’ or as the OT would say, killing a non-virgin woman who marries. The OT, & even the NT aren’t re...more

“God is timeless. Therefore, His morality is timeless.”

I doubt the first premise, & the second premise I reject. Even the OT concepts on morality aren’t the same as those in the NT. Human morality has grown in the developed secularized world to where we no longer perform ‘honor killings’ or as the OT would say, killing a non-virgin woman who marries. The OT, & even the NT aren’t really at odds against the principle act of slavery, indeed one can find in the OT many passages regarding laws on how one ought to treat their slave, how much they’re worth & so forth.

We no longer kill those who work on the Sabbath, we don’t indiscriminately kill ‘witches’ or gays, and our concepts of law are beyond those in the OT times where people were assumed guilty first & had to prove their innocence.

“It is an abomination "to you" to eat shrimp”

There is nothing moral or not about eating shrimp, or other birds that it says are an abomination. These were laws for practicality of cleanliness in the wake of their utter ignorance of the actual causes for the diseases associated with them The same goes for pigs.less

"debating how gays should be allowed to live. " If the religious didn't have gay's to rail against, they would would have to address more universal, systemic issues, like poverty & education. The 'gay themed' articles on CP seems to get a lot of play.

“Are you comparing slavery to gay marriage?” I don’t think he was, that would be a case of equivocation. Rather, it looks like ginas intent was to suggest the racial persecution & disenfranchisement of basic civil rights for blacks & other minorities were subjected to, not merely just the act of slavery itself, were wrong. Even after slavery became abolished by law, numerous states in ...more

“Are you comparing slavery to gay marriage?”

I don’t think he was, that would be a case of equivocation. Rather, it looks like ginas intent was to suggest the racial persecution & disenfranchisement of basic civil rights for blacks & other minorities were subjected to, not merely just the act of slavery itself, were wrong.

Even after slavery became abolished by law, numerous states in the south setup jim crow segregation laws, laws to prevent interracial marriage & black owned businesses & land. Such a ‘you’re free now shut it’ view to the blacks didn’t quite resonate with generations of blacks who still had less than equal rights.

The issue isn’t slavery per see, but the inequality of basic civil rights under the law, that states ‘we’re all created equally’ & further that the majority doesn’t have the right to oppress the minority.

“You want special rights.”

The rights to marry & adopt & to have loved ones allowed to be next to you as you pass away are special now?less

Science cannot disprove god, & it’s really not its purpose. Its purpose is to increase the knowledge & understanding of mankind about reality & hopefully improve the living conditions as a result. When someone makes a metaphysical claim about some supernatural god, science can’t really tell us any credibility to those sorts of unfalsifiable claims. It’s the same reason science cannot tel...more

Science cannot disprove god, & it’s really not its purpose. Its purpose is to increase the knowledge & understanding of mankind about reality & hopefully improve the living conditions as a result.

When someone makes a metaphysical claim about some supernatural god, science can’t really tell us any credibility to those sorts of unfalsifiable claims. It’s the same reason science cannot tell us how many angels can fit on the head a pin, but then again, really neither can theologians.

When however someone makes a claim about nature & reality, as believer did with regards to rocks ‘looking older’ & that water from a flood ages them, & that it was created over 6 days, & so on, well then he’s stepped into the domain of science & support his claims with evidence. Using logical fallacies like circular reasoning have no place in empirical studies, if one is going to assume already what they’re trying to prove (the bible is true b/c it says its true) then there is no point in any such research.

When believer asks to ‘teach both’ in science class what he’s asking for is special pleading for his creation (myth) above all others. We don’t teach a literal 6 day creation, or that the earth is a few thousand years old, or that water makes rocks look older, or that the earth rests on a turtles back, or that neurological disorders can be exorcised b/c there is zero evidence for it.less

“it's taught as such in many schools..” Darwinism is no more taught any more than Newtonism or Einstienism. This is a canard.

"The Age of Reason". I have read it, numerous times, but not in the past year or so. I found it a refreshing read, really something I would highly recommend to all who’re interested in religion & gov & how such an influential character like Paine had on the US’s founding. “how ancient man created Puma Punku the stones used at this site are not just any sandstone but diorite. “ I ...more

"The Age of Reason".

I have read it, numerous times, but not in the past year or so. I found it a refreshing read, really something I would highly recommend to all who’re interested in religion & gov & how such an influential character like Paine had on the US’s founding.

“how ancient man created Puma Punku the stones used at this site are not just any sandstone but diorite. “

I really don’t know. I’ve seen recent series on the History Channel on it. It is quite an epic scale of masonry that challenges some of our conventional thoughts on what tools & technology some of those in that area must have had access to. I don’t think it necessarily or logically follows that in the absence of finding evidence for the tools or technology for them to have built it, that therefore aliens built it.

“You also realize that our planet one of the youngest ones right?”

What do you mean by this?

“The Pope has just recently said that "life exist outside this world"”

I think he’s stated that the Catholic church is not opposed to alien life existing & really with respect to their errors in trying to stop science progress I think they’re hedging their bets so that if life is found then believers aren’t going to fall into doubt & reject the faithless

"Why don't you?" Those are humanities evils prophet. But asking why doesn’t an all powerful god prevent human suffering & evil & instead assert it’s not gods job, or it’s on humanity is to suggest god doesn’t have the power to do anything, doesn’t care, or doesn’t exist to stop it. If the effects are your supposed god isn't going to help with natural or human evils, then it's up to ...more

"Why don't you?"

Those are humanities evils prophet. But asking why doesn’t an all powerful god prevent human suffering & evil & instead assert it’s not gods job, or it’s on humanity is to suggest god doesn’t have the power to do anything, doesn’t care, or doesn’t exist to stop it. If the effects are your supposed god isn't going to help with natural or human evils, then it's up to us to prevent suffering anyway. It goes back to the Epicurean riddle on evil.

“man is naturally evil.”

Man has a propensity for evil, just as he has a propensity for good. It’s like the ‘tale of two wolves’ story, it’s a matter of which wolf gets fed. It’s not the same to say we’re all evil by design or inherently.

“Even atheism can't bring peace.”

And why would it necessarily entail it would? It’s a set of beliefs regarding god(s) existence, not on morality & ethics.less

“Focus of the Family brings a positive message with practical solutions to life's problems” The practicality of ‘abstinence only’ as a means of education on sex is very dubious. In theory it sounds like it could work, however in practice it does not as to totally abstain from sex, especially at such an age when the hormones are raging is biologically virtually impossible. Asking the ent...more

“Focus of the Family brings a positive message with practical solutions to life's problems”

The practicality of ‘abstinence only’ as a means of education on sex is very dubious. In theory it sounds like it could work, however in practice it does not as to totally abstain from sex, especially at such an age when the hormones are raging is biologically virtually impossible. Asking the entire young adult population to ignore quite literally the strongest biological urge, that of procreation, is ridiculous.less