[_ Old Earth _] Atheist or Evolutionist?

[BobRyan]

^ And so your argument reduces to a near-libellous accusation

Nice gloss over of all the details raised in the post (once again).

Though I am "surprised" to find that now nearly all of your retorts are of the form " it is illegal to differ with my point of view".

How sad.

And yet how "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Bob

 

[Orion]

And the C14 equilibrium factor means that earth is less than 30,000 years old in general. You are not following the point. The C14 concentration continues to build until earth finally reaches it's 30,000th "birth day" so to speak at which point C14 in our atmosphere will no longer continue to increase. (This has to do with the fact that the Beta decay rate of C14 to N14 is at about 16.1 atoms per gram today and the rate at which cosmic rays generate C14 from N14 in our upper atmosphere is at a rate of 18.8 atoms per gram).

Hint: Has nothing to do with "dating fossils" though that is a good answer from the play-book of darwinists whenever the subject of C14 comes up for fossils. But that is not what we are talking about.

Bob

Being that I'm not well versed as some of you in here, I am reviewing some links. However, I'm pretty sure that the whole carbon dating thing was adressed long ago when the use of radiometric dating, since carbon dating is unreliable past a certain age.

 

[Gabe]

Bob, if you must quote me, please have the moral decency to not cut off my words mid-sentence. I was not using Christ's words to defend the 'dumbing down' of the Bible in service to Darwinism. I was simply stating that the words and terms you use when referring to Christian 'evolutionists' and the manner in which you interact with other Christians and non-Christians alike is very unchristian and judgemental. You can call it 'generalised accusations with no substance' all you like but when you make comments like 'so-called Christian Darwinists following their Atheist Darwinist leaders' and 'unwittingly allowed themselves to be duped' your very unchristian attitude is on display for all of your 'unbiased objective readers'. When my words are read by these individuals in the context they were intended to be read, they will see that my quote of Christ's words are 'relevant'. By mis-quoting me and taking what I said out of context, you are doing what you accuse every Christian 'evolutionist' and Atheist of doing.

Regarding the interpretation of Scripture, I am not a Christian 'evolutionist' so I cannot get into any real debates with you using their points of view. I was merely trying to make a point that if inclined and armed with a decent understanding of your own views then a Christian 'creationist' and Christian 'evolutionist' could argue and counter-argue any given passage in the Bible while both will will maintain that they are right.

There was a misunderstanding regarding the Romans quote. I was commenting on the fact that Christian 'evolutionists' see the invisible workings of God in the evolutionary process.

One again I will repeat: Darwin was not an Atheist. He was an Agnostic. Disbelief in Christianity does not make you an Atheist. The fact that you will not budge an inch on such a simple and obviously incorrect point of view, I'm sure is very 'instructive' for your unbiased objective readers which you constantly refer to.

And finally a HINT for you (as if you are not already aware): I do not dislike your position, I am not an 'evolutionist.' I dislike your attitude towards others and your inability to debate without 'looking down your nose' at everyone. I dislike the fact that you have hijacked this thread which was not intended for debates regarding creationism or evolution. I dislike the fact that whenever anyone posts details about themselves (as requested in the OP) you criticize them or comment on something or another to do with creation. I dislike the fact that after trolling this thread for 3 pages you have yet to answer the OP. And I also dislike the way debates with you never seem to come to any conclusion

 

[lordkalvan]

^ And so your argument reduces to a near-libellous accusation

Nice gloss over of all the details raised in the post (once again).

Though I am "surprised" to find that now nearly all of your retorts are of the form " it is illegal to differ with my point of view".

How sad.

And yet how "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

Try responding to the entire post, Bob, rather than quote-mining those bits that suit your purposes. If your accusation that Christian scientists who find evolution (and other aspects of 'old' Earth science) entirely compatible with their faith are 'unwitting dupes' of 'atheist darwinism' is not on the edge of opinionated libel, then I don't know what is. In passing, I see that Gabriel Ali has also noticed your selective use of others' words and arguments to misrepresent them or ignore the substantial points they are making. Perhaps you should draw a conclusion from this.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, if you must quote me, please have the moral decency to not cut off my words mid-sentence. I was not using Christs words to defend the 'dumbing down' of the Bible in service to Darwanism. I was simply stating that the words and terms you use when refering to Christian 'evolutionists' and the manner in which you interact with other Christians and non-Christians alike is very unChristian and JUDGEMENTAL.

Christ said (speaking of the OT) that the Word of God "can not be broken" --

But our atheist friends argue that it is nothing more than an untrustworthy text of Aesop's fables conveying good morals.

Christ said that the Word of God is reliable in detail right down to the creation of Adam and Eve and the institution of Marriage. Atheist darwinists and those that follow them argue that nothing of the kind is true in fact.

Christ argues at the end of the book of revelation that there is a curse on those who would take away from the Word of God -- the atheist darwinists and those who unwittingly join them argue that the word of God needs to be downsized rather than accepted.

Peter argues that they are "Willingly ignorant" of the fact that the world was created out of water and that the world that then was -- was destroyed by water. (Hint that is the same world that was created according to the text of 2Peter 3).

Christ argues that the smallest detail in letter and dotted "I" can not be changed in that reliable text -- but the link that I provide SHOWS that atheist darwinists take no such approach to the Word of God.

Ex 20:8-11 says "FOR in SIX DAYs the Lord CREATED the heavens and the earth the sea and all that are in them".

The atheist darwinist position is "oh no he did not!".

So also the position of those who unwittingly follow them.

There is nothing at all confusing about it.

The atheist darwinist argument is that there is no compromise between their position and what the Bible says -- and Darwin HIMSELF admits to this fact freely !

Again -- nothing at all confusing about that.

Regarding the interpretation of Scripture, i am not a Christian 'evolutionist' so i cannot get into any real debates with you using their points of view. I was merely trying to make a point that if inclined and armed with a decent understanding of your own views then a Christian 'creationist' and Christian 'evolutionist' could argue and counter-argue any given passage in the Bible while both will will maintain that they are right.

Clearly both sides can debate their views.

And clearly both sides will argue that their own view is correct.

But as 2Thess 2 points - there are those who will be "sincerely wrong" because their first argument is that the Bible is not truth - that it is not to be trusted -- they reject "a love of the truth".

More importantly Romans 1 points out that even Barbarians are convicted by God in seeing "IN NATURE" (the THINGS that have been MADE) the fingerprints of the designer.

These so-called Christians argue that God can NOT be seen to have designed anything at all -- that everything we see is merely undirected random events without any hint of a designer to be detected by the "Barbarian" who has no access at all to the Bible.

Basically they argue the atheist's doctrine when it comes to ID and when it comes to the degree to which the OT text can be "trusted".


So far you argue nothing in support of any other view - except to complain that I keep pointing this fact out.

One again i will repeat: Darwin was not an Atheist! He was an Agnostic. Disbelief in Christianity does not make you an Atheist.

A distinction without a difference in the case of the argument of those Darwinists who simply point out the obvious fact that once you dumb-down the Bible to the level of "factless Aesop's fables" you have no more BASIS for Christianity. As Darwin himself discovered.

The point remains.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And the C14 equilibrium factor means that earth is less than 30,000 years old in general. You are not following the point. The C14 concentration continues to build until earth finally reaches it's 30,000th "birth day" so to speak at which point C14 in our atmosphere will no longer continue to increase. (This has to do with the fact that the Beta decay rate of C14 to N14 is at about 16.1 atoms per gram today and the rate at which cosmic rays generate C14 from N14 in our upper atmosphere is at a rate of 18.8 atoms per gram).

Hint: Has nothing to do with "dating fossils" though that is a good answer from the play-book of darwinists whenever the subject of C14 comes up for fossils. But that is not what we are talking about.

Bob

Being that I'm not well versed as some of you in here, I am reviewing some links. However, I'm pretty sure that the whole carbon dating thing was adressed long ago when the use of radiometric dating, since carbon dating is unreliable past a certain age.

1. you argued that if the Word of God turned out be true when it says "FOR in Six days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that in them is" Ex 20:8-11 then you would have to re-think your position.

2. I point out that the age of the earth (not a fossil discussion) can not be older than 30,000 years given the rate of production of new C14 vs the backlog of existing C14 having not reached equilibrium via beta decay of C14 into N14. That means that the earth itself (not to mention LIFE on earth) can not be older than 30,000 years.

Your response is to treat anything that is in support of the Bible as a "problem to be solved". You appear to "hope" that some one some place at some other time on this board -- came up with a solution that would favor a believer in Darwinism.

I question how that is at all different from the expected response we should get from our atheist darwinist friends.

Bob

 

[Orion]

No, the problem is that C14 is not the accepted dating method, based upon its errors. I can't see that as definitive evidence, Bob. I'm sorry, but when radiometric dating methods show dates far older, and the mainstream scientific community agrees with the findings, and based upon the unreliability of C14, then I hope you can see why I didn't reconvert on the spot for you.

I would be more than happy if you came up with information that the scientific community agreed with, not information that the scientific community has squashed long ago.

Here's a bunch of information for you:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

 

[BobRyan]

No, the problem is that C14 is not the accepted dating method, based upon its errors. I can't see that as definitive evidence, Bob. I'm sorry, but when radiometric dating methods show dates far older, and the mainstream scientific community agrees with the findings, and based upon the unreliability of C14, then I hope you can see why I didn't reconvert on the spot for you.

1. C14 IS used for dating artifacts back to 50,000 years. Your "Scientific community" argument makes no sense there. C14 is used IN FACT as recently as 2006 it was used to debunk the fraudulent practices for claims being made about Neanderthals!

hint: Potassium Argon tests for example have a margin of error of 250,000 years. Way too gross for dating things like Neanderthals.

2. We are NOT talking about dating artifacts or dating fossils in this C14 - N14 equilibrium argument regarding earth's atmosphere.

But -- "since you bring the subject up"I will add this evidence for C14 still being used in the 21st century!

Neanderthal Hoax Exposed

A sensational archaeological hoax has been exposed in Germany. It's been revealed that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a professor at a University in Frankfurt, has been systematically lying about the ages of skulls he found, claiming that they were far older than they actually were. In one instance he said that a skull was 21,300-years-old, although it was only 1300-years-old. As the Guardian reports:

[quote:3ino6yz6]
"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

Apparently Prof. Protsch began his career as a forger when he returned from studying in America decades ago and discovered that he was unable to work a carbon-dating machine. So he just started making up the ages of things.

Neanderthal
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/webl ... x_exposed/
[/quote:3ino6yz6]


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

More on this 21st century use of C14 dating methods to debunk fraudulent darwinist claims.

Protsch (the von Zieten honorific title appears to be bogus (Harding 2005)) dated the skull fragment at 36,000 years. He claimed it was found in a peat bog and was a vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

The fragment is actually about 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University's radiocarbon dating unit. (Harding) Several fossils had been sent to Oxford in 2001 for testing of dates and it was then that the "dating disaster" was discovered. Protsch identified a female skeleton as a Neanderthal who died near the south-west German town of Speyer about 19,300 B.C. (the "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton). The lady actually lived around 1,300 B.C. Protsch also dated a skull discovered near Paderborn in 1976 at 27,400 years old and was considered the oldest human remain ever found in the region. The skull is now believed to date from the mid-18th century.

http://skepdic.com/protsch.html

Notice the argument that Protsch then attempted to hide his fraudulent practices?

And in that argument he admits they are still (in the 21st century ) using C14 dating for artifacts in the less-than 60,000 year old range.

He also wants to make wild claims about the result being in error to hide his own fraud.

"The new data from Oxford is all wrong," Protsch told Der Spiegel (August 18, 2004). The Oxford scientists didn't remove shellac preservative from the specimens, he said. That's why the fossils dated as much younger. "Unfortunately, archaeologists and most anthropologists do not study physics or chemistry and therefore they cannot make judgments on carbon dating," he said. "Wrong measurements are made in all laboratories" (Paterson 2004). Apparently, Protsch didn't get the irony in his claim.


http://skepdic.com/protsch.html

[/quote]

 

[Orion]

Yet the scientific community, at large, agrees that this planet is billions of years old, and they do not agree with what you have to say on the subject. Are they all wrong, Bob? :-?

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting ad populum argument.

As I said these YEC geochronometers are "a problem to be solved" for the determined believers in Darwinist dogma. Since I believe the Bible - I have no problem at all with the C14 Equilibrium "science fact" that shows our Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old.

I leave it to our atheist friends to try and "solve that problem" and then for all who follow after them to simply go with whatever story they come up with. While you are waiting for that to happen (waiting for one of them to come up with a story in favor of atheist darwinism) I "suppose" you can try to claim that you would accept Bible evidence if you had some when what you appear to mean is that you will accept science fact in favor of the Bible only if Atheists agree not to come up with some kind of counter story to what science is showing us..



BTW back to your C14 work not being done anymore -- this is from your own link.

You might want to check it out.

Tucson Arizona –

The NSF - Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Laboratory is used primarily to provide radiocarbon measurements. We have operated an AMS laboratory at the University of Arizona since 1981, as a shared facility between the Departments of Physics and Geosciences

http://www.physics.arizona.edu/ams/

De-convert from traditional atheist darwinist dogma.

 

[platos_cave]

1) what is your faith/belief?
Eg: Christian, Atheist, Hindu, Jew (Please include your denomination if you have one and anything else you think is relevent in describing your beliefs more clearly)

I don't have a "faith/belief", I follow what I view are the reasonable philosophical viewpoints of Ayn Rand. I don't follow these on the basis of faith or belief, but reasoned thought.

I am also an atheist, although that isn't a belief.

2) what are your beliefs regarding the origins of the natural world and of the Human race?
Eg: Created by God in a literal seven days or Created by God who in turn is responsible for evolution or The Big bang theory followed by Evolution etc

I accept the majority of scientific consensus regarding the universe and am open to new ideas when the areas get fuzzy in our knowledge. As for human evolution, I accept the concept that humans originated from other lifeforms.

3) are you willing to switch to the opposite sides viewpoint if it could be proven or do you see no point in even cosidering that as it could (in your view) never be proven? (honesty needed here )

If anything in regards to theism could be proven, I wouldn't hesitate to accept it as true. As for Creationism and ID, I don't accept those for the same reasons I don't accept Greek Mythology as fact.

4) what are your views of the people who have opposite views to you? (extreme honesty needed here)
Eg: Christian on Atheists, Atheist on Christians, Christian Creationist on Christian Evolutionist etc

Just because they hold a different viewpoint does not mean they aren't decent people who deserve respect.

I find it hard to discuss with people who consistently use distortions, quote-mines and fabrications to support their ill-founded opinions on science and other philosophies.

 

[BobRyan]

1. I never argue that "atheists aren't decent people".
2. I have just argued here that atheists like Dawkins, Meyers, Provine and others make an excellent point when they observe that dumbing down the Bible to nothing more than Aesop's fables giving good morals but lousy facts (in a slash-and-burn solution for the text of the bible on behalf of darwinism) is good atheism but terrible Christianity.

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

It is not surprising that Darwin himself agreed with that view.

Bob

 

[platos_cave]

Interesting ad populum argument.

As I said these YEC geochronometers are "a problem to be solved" for the determined believers in Darwinist dogma. Since I believe the Bible - I have no problem at all with the C14 Equilibrium "science fact" that shows our Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old.

Given that you haven't provided a source from that information, are you talking about this:

"Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old."

 

[Orion]

You mean, Hovind is his "source"? That explains a lot.

 

[platos_cave]

You mean, Hovind is his "source"? That explains a lot.

Actually the original source is Henry Morris, circa 1974.

 

[Gabe]

Bob, i give up. There is no reasoning with you. Mis-quote, be rude and ignore away as much as you like. I'm out.

God bless

 

[lordkalvan]

You mean, Hovind is his "source"? That explains a lot.

Actually the original source is Henry Morris, circa 1974.

I believe the basic thesis is that the present is the key to the past, an idea that creationism vehemently opposes when it is used to infer that certain observed geological processes take tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years to take place. Morris's argument is supposedly supported by a 1963 paper by Richard Lingenfelter, written before the C14 cycle's variation rate had been adequately examined and documented. Put simply, sometimes the C14 production rate exceeds the decay rate and sometimes it doesn't. The equilibrium argument quoted above takes no account of this later research and understanding.

 

[lordkalvan]

Of particular interest when considering the reliability of C14 dating is its consilience with other dating methods. One of the best-known illustrations of this consilience is demonstrated by the graph below:

Source: http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l55/phoenix702/carbon1450000years2.jpg (I am afraid that the right-hand part of this chart appears to have been chopped - it extends to about 50,000 years BP - but the full chart can be viewed here.)

This graph illustrates clearly the way in which a number of independent dating metrics using different methodologies to analyse data co-ordinate closely with one another, providing a high degree of confidence that each metric is in fact returning a valid result in terms of the ages that it indicates for the data being analysed. It is possible to postulate conditions so that each metric could be in error if considered independently of the others, but that they could all be in error in such a way that they also co-ordinate as closely as they do seems so unlikely as to be almost impossible: not only would each metric have to be wrong, but it would have to be wrong in exactly the way required to match closely with other metrics measuring entirely different data-sets in entirely different ways.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, i give up. There is no reasoning with you. Mis-quote, be rude and ignore away as much as you like. I'm out.

God bless

I have no idea what this is in reference to since you quote nothing in your post --

In any case - -have a nice day. ;-)

Bob