Quick creationists! Come up with something!

[RandomGuy]

Zosa, let's not play dumb. The first question is merely an opening so you can claim the supposed faultiness of carbon dating, the second and third are variations on the first, the fourth doesn't make a difference, and the fifth is easily explained by this wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilization

Remember that carbon-14 dating will only really get you so far.

Much other dating of older fossils and rocks is done by studying radioactive decay of other atoms with MUCH longer half-lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

One has to be aware that many people who describe themselves as "creationists" have odd concepts of what the theory of evolution actually is. Many creationist websites pretty much outright lie about what evolution actually says in rather obvious attempts at strawman arguments (i.e. distorting an idea to discredit it).

Others seem to lump many disparate disciplines, such as physics, astronomy, etc. as being "evolutionist", simply because these other discplines have data that show the universe as being older than the 10,000 years or so biblical literalists say it is.

[TFloss32]

I've realized that I have no clue what he could do to convince me. But I'm assuming he would know, since he is God.

How do you know He hasn't already done it? You can't find something if you don't know what you're looking for.

[ChumpDumper]

How many lives of animals and plants were lived and ended in some 3.5 billion years, Dump? Any estimate you'd like to make?

More than seven.

Now why aren't there more fossils showing this huge loss of life? Your friendly scientists already answered this for you, because its a major argument against evolution, so go ahead and google it Dump.

Actually, a lot of it goes into my car, the power plants that light my home, the plastic container that held today's sandwich. All made possible by ______ fuels -- I can't quite think of the first name yet. Maybe it starts with an F.

You know, conservatives are always saying that there are vast undiscovered reserves of this magic fuel, so perhaps there is a lot more evidence of this huge loss of life. Enough to fill several billion barrel-like containers.

[MB20]

I have a hard time believing a man built an ark big enough to carry millions of animals, including dinosaurs (if dinosaurs and humans coexisted as stated in - Job 40:15-19 -)

[SnakeBoy]

So from a creationist viewpoint, why do fossils fossilize?

They're not fossils, just throw aways from young Jesus' pottery classes.

[baseline bum]

Over 200 million murdered by their socialist government which originate from Karl Marx. But yeah I was going to add a Hitler quote about Darwin to show the type of people who used this to murder religious leaders, and cultures. I would love to show the link of these type of mad men but don't have the time to spend on finding the information. That is why all I did was paste the quote, I didn't add my opnion.

Hey jerkoff, so does that make Beethoven's 9th trash because it was used heavily for Nazi propaganda? If your stupid ing argument about Darwin's theory being invalidated because Marx was a follower is valid, then surely my point about Beethoven is also true, since it was admired and used by Hitler to advance the Nazi movement. Unless you want to argue that being directly responsible for murdering 6 million people is worse than writing a book.

[RandomGuy]

I

Distortion #1

"Circular reasoning forms the basis of dating things from fossil/rock strata".

Many believe that carbon dating is a primary method of dating the fossil record, but this is not the case. Scientists do not use it beyond 50,000 years ago, because the proportion of isotope left is too small for accurate measurement.

The main techniques for absolute dating of fossils is the dating of the geological strata in which, or between which the fossils are found. Generally, a fossil should be as old as the rocks within which it is found. However, scientists also check for factors such as geological upheavals and, for archaic humans, deliberate burials, which could change the record.

There are now many scientifically sound and verifiable techniques for dating a rock stratum. And because there are so many, they can be often used to cross-check each other to prove any conclusions reached.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the...ular_reasoning

The reason this is a distortion is that strata are NOT dated by fossils.
Fossils are ONLY dated by strata, and NOT the other way around.

[TFloss32]

I have a hard time believing a man built an ark big enough to carry millions of animals, including dinosaurs (if dinosaurs and humans coexisted as stated in - Job 40:15-19 -)

Almost every religion dating back to the ancient Sumerians has some kind of flood story. It probably originated due to the constant flooding of Mesopotamia being that it was located between the Tigris and Euphrates River(s). A form of this story (on a much, much smaller scale) probably happened in ancient times, but the world that they knew was only a fraction of what we know now (so it probably looked to them as if the whole world was flooded). It's basically just a bedtime story to show what will happen if you commit sin.

Job doesn't state anything about dinosaurs. The word "behemoth" is used, but that is all.

[101A]

How many lives of animals and plants were lived and ended in some 3.5 billion years, Dump? Any estimate you'd like to make? Now why aren't there more fossils showing this huge loss of life? Your friendly scientists already answered this for you, because its a major argument against evolution, so go ahead and google it Dump.

Oil, Coal, etc....is where they are; we're burning them now - because they existed in the past we have them to use now to better our lives. Convenient if you ask me. For many this is, again, happy coincidence. I choose to see that as evidence of a God. By denying the wonder and beauty of His creation, you are demeaning it, and making yourself VERY easy to dismiss.

[z0sa]

More than seven. Actually, a lot of it goes into my car, the power plants that light my home, the plastic container that held today's sandwich. All made possible by ______ fuels -- I can't quite think of the first name yet. Maybe it starts with an F.

You know, conservatives are always saying that there are vast undiscovered reserves of this magic fuel, so perhaps there is a lot more evidence of this huge loss of life. Enough to fill several billion barrel-like containers.

I'm not getting your point, Dumpy, or maybe you're trying to prove mine? I asked why the pterodactyls fossilized (as they did is unmentioned to its its obvious quality). Often this ties in with how it died. Answer the question, instead of deflect it, Dump.

[ChumpDumper]

Oil, Coal, etc....is where they are; we're burning them now - because they existed in the past we have them to use now to better our lives. Convenient if you ask me. For many this is, again, happy coincidence. I choose to see that as evidence of a God. By denying the wonder and beauty of His creation, you are demeaning it, and making yourself VERY easy to dismiss.

Yeah, I don't see how the fact that there was a load of life that got squeezed and heated into stinky blobs of goo is necessarily evidence against God.

I do want to hear zosa's creationist reasoning for fossilization. There really doesn't need to be a "why" from an evolutionist standpoint. happens and that was a record of what happened. If God made some life into stinky goo and some into fossils, he would be the one who needs a reason to do so.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not getting your point, Dumpy, or maybe you're trying to prove mine? I asked why the pterodactyls fossilized (as they did is unmentioned to its its obvious quality). Often this ties in with how it died. Answer the question, instead of deflect it, Dump.

Actually I answered a different question of yours -- where is all this evidence of life.

Some of it is in my car, which I am going to drive in a minute to probably by something made from stinky goo that used to be alive.

Some things die and get covered up. Those things could fossilize -- or they could turn into goo.

Other things die and don't get covered up. Those things don't fossilize.

I was under the impression that fossilization was not a typically common process. If God says it is, I'd like a link to his quote.

Thanks.

[z0sa]

Oil, Coal, etc....is where they are; we're burning them now - because they existed in the past we have them to use now to better our lives. Convenient if you ask me. For many this is, again, happy coincidence. I choose to see that as evidence of a God. By denying the wonder and beauty of His creation, you are demeaning it, and making yourself VERY easy to dismiss.

Fossil fuels or mineral fuels are fuels formed by natural resources such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.[1]

Bolded text by me. So, let's assume the oldest fossil fuels are 1 billion years old (which is likely a far stretch). Doesn't that leave 2 billion years of unaccounted-for fossil fuels, especially considering we have definitive evidence the Cambrian explosion occurred around our oldest known fossil fuels (basically, that incredibly varied biodiversity, and anatomically complex animals/plants appeared without previous transitional forms at this point, therefore one must conclude that many of these existed, in lesser forms, for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years previous)?

[ChumpDumper]

Bolded text by me. So, let's assume the oldest fossil fuels are 1 billion years old (which is likely a far stretch). Doesn't that leave 2 billion years of unaccounted-for fossil fuels, especially considering we have definitive evidence the Cambrian explosion occurred around our oldest known fossil fuels (basically, that incredibly varied biodiversity, and anatomically complex animals/plants appeared without previous transitional forms at this point, therefore one must conclude that many of these existed, in lesser forms, for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years previous)?

So your assumption is there is unaccounted-for fossil fuels. Are you saying it doesn't exist or that no fossil fuel that old has been dated?

Seems like a straw man to me.

[LnGrrrR]

How do you know He hasn't already done it? You can't find something if you don't know what you're looking for.

If God already did, then I should know. I have no idea how I could be convinced so how am I to look? If he wants me to look for him, then he'll give me that motivating, I suppose.

[z0sa]

So your assumption is there is unaccounted-for fossil fuels.

Wrong. That is your assumption, which you proved:

so perhaps there is a lot more evidence of this huge loss of life

Why do you make this assumption?

Are you saying it doesn't exist or that no fossil fuel that old has been dated?

It's a fact no fossil fuel that old has been dated. Why do you assume more exists? And what current evidence points to this fossil fuel being older?

You haven't yet touched on the fact that if fossil fuels are as young as science thinks, it is proof against gradual evolution's current timeline - basically, that it has not occurred for nearly as long as most advocate. Without the almighty Time, gradual evolution is essentially impossible.

[Alex Jones]

Distortion #1

"Circular reasoning forms the basis of dating things from fossil/rock strata".



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the...ular_reasoning

The reason this is a distortion is that strata are NOT dated by fossils.
Fossils are ONLY dated by strata, and NOT the other way around.

Then why is it still in the text books?
That's my point when you ask the tour guide at the Dinosaur museum or a Evolutionist how old something is they use the chart I posted.

[ChumpDumper]

Wrong. That is your assumption, which you proved:



Why do you make this assumption?

I said that was the assumption of conservatives.

I personally think there are some reserves that haven't been discovered, but I don't know how vast they are.

Do you personally think there are undiscovered reserves of fossil fuel?

It's a fact no fossil fuel that old has been dated. Why do you assume more exists?

I didn't. I was asking you why you are constructing a straw man.

And what current evidence points to this fossil fuel being older?

I never said there was any evidence. You are really pushing this straw man.

You haven't yet touched on the fact that if fossil fuels are as young as science thinks, it is proof against gradual evolution's current timeline - basically, that it has not occurred for nearly as long as most advocate. Without the almighty Time, gradual evolution is essentially impossible.

Nah. The straw man you have constructed is this -- according to evolutionary theory, anything that lived and died in history must become either a fossil or fossil fuel or the entire theory falls apart.

It's simply not true. Both processes are pretty rare considering where most dead things end up -- above the ground, at air regular temperature in the presence of oxygen.

I suggest you bring a real argument to the table.

And tell me why God made fossils and measurable radioactive decay.

I don't have all the answers, and I think evolution and belief in a higher being are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to have all the answers, so give them to me.

[LnGrrrR]

By denying the wonder and beauty of His creation, you are demeaning it, and making yourself VERY easy to dismiss.

So you say. Your word, however, does not cons ute a proof alone, anymore so than you denying my Flying Spaghetti Monster* makes you easy to dismiss.

*Bless his noodly appendages

[z0sa]

I said that was the assumption of conservatives.

So if it has nothing to do with your position, and since we all know you're not a conservative, why did you bring it up? I

Do you personally think there are undiscovered reserves of fossil fuel?

Most likely. Not accounting for some 1 billion years of biodiversity before the cambrian age, though.

I didn't. I was asking you why you are constructing a straw man.I never said there was any evidence. You are really pushing this straw man.

Oh I love it when people assume they know what my point is.

Nah. The straw man you have constructed is this -- according to evolutionary theory, anything that lived and died in history must become either a fossil or fossil fuel or the entire theory falls apart.

False. I said it is major proof against evolution that no fossil fuels exist before the Cambrian explosion. Not that the theory somehow falls apart because of it.

Neither did I say everything that has lived or died in history must fossilize in some form. It is simply this point I make, and quite well thanks to you: 3.5 billion years is a VERY long time, with hundreds of trillions of individual, different lifeforms having lived and died (not species or kinds or types - one life for each individual).

It's simply not true. Both processes are pretty rare considering where most dead things end up -- above the ground, at air regular temperature in the presence of oxygen.

3.5 billion years makes mathemtically improbable things like evolution happen over millions of generations, why couldn't it leave more fossil evidence for us to see?

suggest you bring a real argument to the table.

You don't even understand my argument, Dump.

I don't have all the answers, and I think evolution and belief in a higher being are not mutually exclusive.

I'd reckon most western Creationists agree evolution occurs. In fact, I have found that many creationists accept all creatures evolved, excepting that man alone was special creation (IMO, this is your average bible-thumping creationist, not the "6000 years evolution never happened" ones)

give them to me.

I don't have the answers, just a different interpretation of the evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

So if it has nothing to do with your position, and since we all know you're not a conservative, why did you bring it up?

Because I figured you for a conservative, and thought it might get your goat. Looks like it did.

Most likely. Not accounting for some 1 billion years of biodiversity before the cambrian age, though.

You keep saying this like it's some kind of smoking gun. Again, the processes of fossilization and fossil fuel formation aren't exactly common.

Oh I love it when people assume they know what my point is.

You assumed my points also. Very wrongly.

False. I said it is major proof against evolution that no fossil fuels exist before the Cambrian explosion. Not that the theory somehow falls apart because of it.

Neither did I say everything that has lived or died in history must fossilize in some form. It is simply this point I make, and quite well thanks to you: 3.5 billion years is a VERY long time, with hundreds of trillions of individual, different lifeforms having lived and died (not species or kinds or types - one life for each individual).

And you insist that they have to fossilize or become fossil fuel.

3.5 billion years makes mathemtically improbable things like evolution happen over millions of generations, why couldn't it leave more fossil evidence for us to see?

Why couldn't it? Again you are trying to anthropomorphize a process. God needs a reason, not a process.

You don't even understand my argument, Dump.

I understand it perfectly. It's a crappy argument. They haven't found four billion year old oil so the earth can't possibly be four billion years old. Simplistic.

I'd reckon most western Creationists agree evolution occurs.

Do you agree evolution occurs?

I don't have the answers, just a different interpretation of the evidence.

And what is that interpretation?

Spell it out.

Tell us your theory of the origins of lfe.

[RandomGuy]

Then why is it still in the text books?
That's my point when you ask the tour guide at the Dinosaur museum or a Evolutionist how old something is they use the chart I posted.

No,they don't.

Observation: Car A has large fins.
Observation: Car A has VIN # X
Research: A search of company records regarding VIN #X shows that it was manufactured in the period 1950-1969

Observation: Car B, C, D, E, F, ... etc have large fins.
Further research on the vin numbers of the specified cars all show that they were manufactured in the period, 1950-1969, without exception.

Logical conclusion: If one observes a car with large fins, it was very very likely to have been manufactured in the period 1950-1969.

--------------------------------------------------
Observation: Fossil A is in rock layer X
Observation: Rock layer X was dated to be Y years old.
Research: Further rocks from layer X were sampled, all yielding radiometric dating to a certain age, 500,000,000 years with a high degree of probability.

Observation: Fossils of same species as A are found in rock layers Y, Z, Q, R, S scattered globally on all continents.
Research: Rocks from all the specific layers were sampled, almost all yielding radiometric dating within a narrow range of age from 470M years to 520M years ago.

What is the logical conclusion from this compilation of data and observations?

[RandomGuy]

Observation:

Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.

Half life of this sample is then given as one year.

If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...

How much time has elapsed?

[z0sa]

Because I figured you for a conservative, and thought it might get your goat. Looks like it did.

I couldn't give a less about conservatives or liberals or any political party. Hence why I don't spend much time in here.

Second, what's getting my goat?

... are you hitting on me?

You keep saying this like it's some kind of smoking gun.

No, I don't. First lie. It's simply a good challenge against the theory. Sorry that you consider it a smoking gun.

Again, the processes of fossilization and fossil fuel formation aren't exactly common.

But they would have occurred at some degree before the Cambrian era, yes?

You assumed my points also.

At least you admit you assumed my points.

And you insist that they have to fossilize or become fossil fuel.

Second lie. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I know - because you have none of your own to say so you must make what I am saying inherently wrong in order to respond.

Why couldn't it?

So you have no answer?

Again you are trying to anthropomorphize a process. God needs a reason, not a process.

Who brought God into this? I'm talking rational, naturalistic terms only here.

I understand it perfectly.

You do? Really? What argument have I made concerning the pterodactyls?

They haven't found four billion year old oil so the earth can't possibly be four billion years old. Simplistic.

You know what's simplistic? Correlating the age of the earth by the leftovers of its inhabitants. Why'd you do that for, Dumpy?

And what is that interpretation?

Spell it out.

Tell us your theory of the origins of lfe.

You're a troll, Dump, and the only reason you want my views is to ridicule them. Thanks for asking though.

[ChumpDumper]

I couldn't give a less about conservatives or liberals or any political party. Hence why I don't spend much time in here.

Second, what's getting my goat?

... are you hitting on me?

You think your goat is your genitalia or something?

Don't flatter yourself.

No, I don't. First lie. It's simply a good challenge against the theory. Sorry that you consider it a smoking gun.

Not that great a challenge for the reasons stated.

But they would have occurred at some degree before the Cambrian era, yes?

Not that I know of. Can you say with any certainty all the conditions necessary existed in these times and occurred in large enough quan ies that it could be easily found, isolated and measured billions of years later?

At least you admit you assumed my points.

You still haven't admitted you assumed mine.

Second lie. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I know - because you have none of your own to say so you must make what I am saying inherently wrong in order to respond.

Nah, I know what you are trying to do. It's not my fault I'm ahead of you.

So you have no answer?

I just gave you the reasons.

Who brought God into this? I'm talking rational, naturalistic terms only here.

As am I. Give me all your evidence that widespread fossil fuel processes should have taken place four billion years ago.

You do? Really? What argument have I made concerning the pterodactyls?

Have I mentioned anything about pterodactlys specifically? I don't really care about one fossil, we're taking big picture here.

You know what's simplistic? Correlating the age of the earth by the leftovers of its inhabitants. Why'd you do that for, Dumpy?

And the decay of radioactive elements, etc. What do you have to determine the age of the earth?

You're a troll, Dump

You're a coward l0sa

and the only reason you want my views is to ridicule them. Thanks for asking though.

Are they they so ridiculous that you are ashamed and frightened to post them?

We can only conclude the answer is yes.

Good talk.