BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:00 PM

Some of you have been asking for actual evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old:

The oldest known standing trees in the world are bristlecone pines in the western U.S. They go back as far as approximately 5,000 years.

It is alleged that one Norway Spruce in Sweden has been growing up repeatedly from the same root system for 9,000 years. That allegation, however, depends on the Satanic delusion that carbon dating of the root system is reliable.

So, you blind followers of evolutionist Darwinism: Where are all the over-6000-year-old trees ?????

GOTCHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:20 PM

.. the difference is, is that there is no reason to doubt it other than a desire to repudiate the biblical witness.......which of course atheists/evolutionists aim to do."

That is both nonsense and unfair!

Quite. There are dozens of creation stories world wide, not just the biblical one. So one perfectly good reason to question the biblical version would be to see which, if any, best fits with observations. That is reasonable. On the other to say that the story I like is true because I say it is lacks any sort of credibility and cannot be considered a reasonable way of deciding between them. And I would make exactly the same argument if by some discovery all science agreed the earth was 6000ish years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 02:14 PM

Jack - Pete thinks because soft tissue was found in T. rex bones (although there are those who don't agree with this finding). As usual, Pete uses the fact soft tissue can survive for tens of millions of years as being evidence for creationism because HE doesn't think it could happen.

So apparently his personal incredulity trumps modern palaeontology. Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:52 PM

It can only be calibrated back a few thousand years by tree rings.
For extreme dating, assumptions have to be made about the rate of radiocarbon production.

In any case, it can only date fossils, not rocks or planets.
There are other methods that are used.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:47 PM

"the perfection of adam would also make it highly likely that he would be able to record history, and also his descendants following."

I've been trying to decipher this one, just for fun. If you mean that Adam was created perfect, wasn't that perfection messed up by the fall? Supposedly the effect of his fall messed up his descendants ever since then, which might seem to interfere with their ability to record things infallibly. Or does "..able to record history, and also his descendants following." mean that, before the fall, while Adam's perfection wasn't messed up, he wrote the list of his descendants down to the time of Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 01:42 PM

By the way, Pete... that site posted by The Snail is Oxford University. If you ever have occasion to be near them, pop in and ask about radiocarbon dating. Otherwise, just follow the links in the page as they discuss the minor adjustments necessary to achieve the best accuracy possible. What it shows is NOT that it is a flawed method, but that it needs to be calibrated according to various factors. Once done, it is pretty good back to 'about' 50,000-70,000 years. And that is a bit more than 5-6000.

Dinosaurs can't BE dated by radiocarbon... they can only be dated by other form of radiometric dating using the rocks where the fossils are found( and the rocks above & below the fossils)

how they do it

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:32 PM

Understatement? Nah!

Don't you think it perfectly understandable to believe that a guy who couldn't follow the simple command "don't eat that fruit." could flawlessly pass down a perfect natural history, suitable as complete "scientific theory" of creation for hundreds of generations.

LOL LOL


"Perfection of Adam?" pete, Are we reading the same book?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:23 PM

Yeah shimrod...kinda..

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

" ... you USE the idea of "Adam's perfection", which is itself in doubt,"

Is that an example of ironic understatement, Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

" but your non negotiable position is deep time and naturalistic causes, whatever the evidence."

This is a total lie, and one creationists repeat ad nauseum. Find something that contradicts the current theory, write it up and present it using the same methods as scientists and if it's true, the theory would alter accordingly. Scientists are ordinary people working to establish objective truths and you can stuff your political and religious agendas.

Find a bony fish in the Burgess Shale and prove everyone wrong. It is that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

You could always try asking the people who know.

Radiocarbon Dating

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 12:05 PM

Pete.. Jack has answered you point by point. I can't add much to that part.

but this!:
"... the difference is, is that there is no reason to doubt it other than a desire to repudiate the biblical witness.......which of course atheists/evolutionists aim to do."

That is both nonsense and unfair! *I* doubt it, and you have seen fit to debate with me as if *I* was being fair & reasonable.
\
"the perfection of adam would also make it highly likely that he would be able to record history, and also his descendants following."

"the other difference is that the passing of oral and written history down generations is testable and observable in living memory"

And that is a paradigm example of a fallacy.... you USE the idea of "Adam's perfection", which is itself in doubt, to draw a conclusion about what such 'assumed' perfection might entail, then you base a 'belief' on TWO assumptions.
Pete.. I have done some genealogical research into my own family where things were written down in church records and in official marriage & death records kept by the bureaucracy, and there are still discrepancies where there were confusing names, multiple marriages, or just poor handwriting on documents. I 'think' I have some idea of who most of my ancestors were in the last 200 years, but some records are just not clear. You simply WANT to believe that Adam... or anyone back then... had the time, resources... and pure luck... to keep an accurate record for that many generations!

And about radiocarbon... your explanation of its flaws is that of someone who just does not understand the science involved... and clearly, you are, as you suggest about others, "predisposed to slight it".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 10:32 AM

Pete does have a point about the historic proportion of radio carbon.
It is created by radiation acting on nitrogen in the atmosphere, and the radiation flux may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 09:53 AM

Unless you got your undergraduate degree from Benny Hill's school for wayward comedians, or worse, Liberty University, you must have learned that the rate of radioactive decay of an element doesn't change unless God tells it to.

Which gives me an idea. To prove pete's theory about The Flood. changing the carbon dating results by a factor of ten, couldn't Ham's "scientists" just go out onto the museum grounds, pick up a stick from under a tree, cut it in half and stick one half in a bucket of water for 40 days and a year, leave the other next to it on a shelf for the same amount of time then compare the carbon 14 tests for the two sticks.

Obviously, if pete is right, the age of the stick in the water will appear to be somewhere between 6,000 and 68,000 years old, the other a few weeks old and Ken Ham will win a Nobel prize which he can use to build a full sized replica of the ark which he can fill with 7,000 pairs of sheep, and float to Arabia to sell as halal meat and firewood thus winning a second Nobel science prize and a peace prize to boot.

Think of all the school board skeptics he could win over by getting just one of his pseudo-scientific claims correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:53 AM

Reading some of the contributors here waffling on about carbon dating, evolution, astrophysics....

I am no judge on any of these concepts, but can just about bullshit together a sentence or two in order to get my tuppence worth in a pub discussion.

Same with tennis. I know two things about tennis. Nowt and bugger all. Except during Wimbledon. Then I discuss the backhand technique of a player and how it affects his game on grass rather than any other substance, (as I only watch Wimbledon, I doubt I have seen professional tennis on anything but grass) and give confident predictions on who will win. I can even distinguish between a British player (winning) and a Scottish player (losing.)

I see parallels in this discussion with bar room barristers and our resident monk. No wonder they are easy pickings for Co messiah S.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 08:40 PM

Twat and whacko are rude terms. I would not use them even to describe myself.


You claim to have the ability to read complex sentences, yet you have never demonstrated that you can. This explains your inability to understand and follow the forum rules.

Why don't you get someone to translate the rules for you into terms you can understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 07:10 PM

I don't know. I try to not read his garbage any more. I just pick up the odd buzz-word here and there. Stuff such as "Darwinist", "creationist scientist", "presupposes", "posits", "I haven't had time to check this but.." and "correct me if I'm wrong". If he's saying that radiocarbon dating is good for thousands of years, but not for millions of years, he's dead right. But you were calling that a "claim" for some reason. God I'm bored, Wacko. You know what you mean, I know you know what you mean and you know I know you know what you mean, but you have this quaint way of not checking what you've just typed and thinking to yourself "only a twat would type that and not edit it..."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:56 PM

OK Steve. You an pete are right? Are you happy now?

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:52 PM

You are claiming that Carbon 14 is an accurate dating system for things thousands of year old, but not to date things millions of years old?

You're at it again. There isn't a lot wrong with this claim, if that is indeed what he's claiming. No "while" joining things this time either, just a flippin' great big gap before your next sentence. Puzzling.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:46 PM

Perhaps Steve, If you had noted the punctuation and read the whole sentence you might have some small clue about the thought communicated therein.

The word "while" joins two phrases into a compound sentence.

But Wackers, 'tis not I who needs to check the grammar books. What the word "while" joins in your puzzling sentence are not two "phrases" at all. Not only that, there's more than a hint of the non sequitur about the thing as well. And I certainly did note the punctuation: it's awful. Here it is again, presented purely for the sake of amusement. You'd surely give any proof-reader a headache, old bean. Go to the back of the class. Smackie botty!

He argues that carbon dating is not sufficient to prove a 14 billion year old universe while strongly implying that he is aware that it disproves a 6,000 year old "creation."

Have you lost the hyphen key on your computer?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:51 PM

I do not believe that you understand my argument.

You are claiming that Carbon 14 is an accurate dating system for things thousands of year old, but not to date things millions of years old?

The scientists who use carbon dating say that it is accurate to about 68,000 years. 68,000 is more than 6,000. Its not that complex.

You argue in the same dishonest manner that Ken Ham does. You do not put forward a coherent theory consistent with the evidence. You put forward the assertion that it must be because the one small part of the Old Testament, you choose to take literally, in the way you choose to interpret it is the one true way things were until new evidence comes up and you have to reinterpret again. Mr. Ham takes it on faith that "the flood happened" (presumably as described in his "museum") But stated also that he is open to new data.

Here is a rebuttal point by point

1,theres a lot more time between your deep time and earliest possible radiocarbon dating, than between creation and earliest possible carbon14 detection.

There is about 60,000 years between the earliest possible radiocarbon dating and your latest possible age of the universe based on your estimate of the universe's age.

2,we don't know the amount of c14 at the beginning

We do know with some degree of accuracy the ratio of C14 to C12. and the rate at which it changes. That is all that we need to know.

3,we do not know if the exchange rate has been constant through time. in fact ,I think variation has been noted

You mean change in the rate of radioactive decay? That is not observed to have ever happened.

4, and related to the foregoing, creationists can posit major change at the destruction of the global flood, to that exchange rate.

Creationist can posit whatever they wish, radioactive decay does not slow down because things get rained on for forty days.

Are you asserting that at the time of the flood when, by your theory, the world was 2000 years old, that the flood waters some how artificially added age to all of the bone fragments and wood we now think are 6,000 to 68,000 years old, on some sort of sliding, proportional scale, to line them up with other archeological evidence in such a way that the basic timeline is consistent?

Amusing theory if you have thought it through that far. You are talking about magic, not science.

5,you have offered nothing to explain your problem.

I don't have a problem. " creationists can posit" is not an argument. It is not even conjecture. It is a conjecture about the possibility of a conjecture. Evidence please!

6,unless you can overcome this, it is in fact you who is arguing against science!

No. Sorry, It is still you.

Please apologize for wasting our time.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:49 PM

So, pete, to repeat my earlier question, which you STILL refuse to answer:

Why do you think that so many scientists, from so many countries, have got it so wrong. Are they ALL deluded, or are they ALL involved in some sort of giant conspiracy (to discredit the Bible, perhaps)? I think that we would all be VERY interested in your answer to this question.

I don't suppose that you've read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' yet, have you? There's lots and lots of evidence for evolution in it! That's what you asked for - evidence for evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM

Lovely story here. Wish I had thought of it. Maybe we can give it a go? I claim my first line purely on the strength of Pete's last post :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:16 PM

Good gracious. I have admitted talking bollocks on more than one occasion but I can see I have been bested by a master. I am not even going to attempt to point out what is wrong with those arguments. It is altogether too difficult to disprove complete nonsense. It is like trying to reason with a 3 year old!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 04:22 PM

I know I have said this before, but I am not in the least bothered what you'll think of me. you can upset each other by trading insults, but to me its the proverbial water.....
and beside, should anyone impartial be looking in, they can see what lengths you go to, rather than present evidence.

now jack, about that radio carbon. your argument is pretty weak imo.
here's why
1,theres a lot more time between your deep time and earliest possible radiocarbon dating, than between creation and earliest possible carbon14 detection.
2,we don't know the amount of c14 at the beginning
3,we do not know if the exchange rate has been constant through time. in fact ,I think variation has been noted
4, and related to the foregoing, creationists can posit major change at the destruction of the global flood, to that exchange rate.
5,you have offered nothing to explain your problem.
6,unless you can overcome this, it is in fact you who is arguing against science!

well yes bill. because something is possible, does not make it ,in and of itself factual. the difference is, is that there is no reason to doubt it other than a desire to repudiate the biblical witness.......which of course atheists/evolutionists aim to do.
in addition, there are other lists in scripture also going back to adam. also that other information on some of those names is presented.
the perfection of adam would also make it highly likely that he would be able to record history, and also his descendants following.
all this is internal consistency...not proof but reasonable to anyone not already predisposed to slight the bible.
the other difference is that the passing of oral and written history down generations is testable and observable in living memory.
evolutionism on the other hand does not, and in fact posits what is impossible, from what is known from the scientific method.
and do you still think radiocarbon is evidence for deep time ?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 04:03 PM

That's as may be, but in this instance, at least, he's spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:54 PM

I have recent evidence that Steve is probably not the best judge of what is rational. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 01:47 PM

That's just irrational.

BINGO! Pete in a nutshell. Hence the difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 12:23 PM

Perhaps Steve, If you had noted the punctuation and read the whole sentence you might have some small clue about the thought communicated therein.

The word "while" joins two phrases into a compound sentence.

Perhaps there is a website where you can brush up on your punctuation and conjunctions?

OTOH! Steve! Did you know that this thread is about a cartoon? On the first post, there is a cartoon! Why don't you read it and tell us what you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 12:05 PM

He argues that carbon dating is not sufficient to prove a 14 billion year old universe

Aside from the fact that this is a rather silly sentence, if pete were indeed arguing this he would be correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 12:00 PM

You are also not rational because you can't seem to get it into your head that people don't want to read the books of people who insult them. In fact, insulting people destroys your credibility. and Mr Dawkins' credibility.

That's just irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 10:41 AM

pete is not a true believer, pete, like Ham, is arguing against science and not for any coherent theory of creation.

He argues that carbon dating is not sufficient to prove a 14 billion year old universe while strongly implying that he is aware that it disproves a 6,000 year old "creation."

pete is arguing for his own sport and hoping to to convert someone through his efforts. He thinks it is rational to sink a small part of his resources on what is probably a 1 in 14,000,000 chance of success, but thinks that if he were to overcome those odds, it would be a glorious success. Some people think such quests are rational.

I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 06:02 AM

I agree. Put in a labelled box with French gastronomy delight?

Where's the bloody garlic....?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 05:55 AM

Stim
of course such likes as Musket, Steve Shaw, The Snail, and even lovable JtS

Um.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM

There was a young vicar from Tring
Who thought about girlies and things
But his secret desire
Was a boy in the choir
With a bottom like jelly on springs

Sorry, wrong thread.

There again.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Feb 14 - 02:49 AM

I think that Dawkins has said things which needed to be said. Nothing should be exempt from criticism - not even religion!

I too believe that the people behind pete's preposterous websites are far from harmless!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 11:38 PM

Pete's not silly, he's what Eric Hoffer called a "True Believer"-he believes that he has a special unerring truth that you do not. You can't reach him because he believes that he and his cohorts are absolutely right, and you and I, and Steve and everyone that doesn't agree with him 100% is wrong.

He isn't different from the old hardline Communists or the BNP, or the old American John Birchers or the new Tea Baggers, or a hundred other groups of political and religious extremists--he is far from the most eloquent spokesman for his cause, but he is unbending, unyielding, unreasoned, and unreasonable.

People like him seem silly and naive in present circumstances, but when circumstances change, they can be a lot less harmless.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 08:28 PM

Mr. Shaw, you are not rational, you buy lottery tickets.

You are also not rational because you can't seem to get it into your head that people don't want to read the books of people who insult them. In fact, insulting people destroys your credibility. and Mr Dawkins' credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 07:56 PM

but there are plenty of sources of information about evolution you can suggest whose author hasn't called all religious people delusional.

So are you saying that a person who says that believers are delusional (which, as all rational people know, they are) couldn't be a reliable source of information about evolution? Good heavens, Wacko, darling, you are not only delusional, you are also irrational. Do entertain us by trying to defend the above statement. No rush.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:40 PM

Stim, I think that we all say silly things. pete is just more consistently silly. I don't think there is any danger of him converting any member of this forum.

pete is relatively polite and as Douglas Adams might say, mostly harmless.

I'm not what Dawkins knows about religion or religious people, but there are plenty of sources of information about evolution you can suggest whose author hasn't called all religious people delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

correct me if I,m wrong

No problem-o, pete babe. So here's the correcting. You are wrong about everything. About religion, about science, about where you get your information. Even your grammar and punctuation are insultingly wrong. Everything we know about you is wrong. Of course, we don't see you face-to-face, so there is a possibility that you have one or two redeeming attributes. But there is always the possibility that we'll find out that you have one or two redeeming attributes - only to then discover that, to compound all your other faults, you also drive a Volvo estate.

Joke: what's the difference between a hedgehog and a Volvo estate?

The hedgehog has pricks on the outside...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:51 PM

Personally, I believe Pete needs to be taken more seriously than most of you are.

As annoying,tedious, and specious as Dawkins can be, he understands something critical, and that is that Pete and his sort have the intent of destroying all of the scientific discoveries and intellectual advances that we have made in order to impose their own religious ideas of the rest of us.

Pete is no scientist, and yet he purports to offer "scientific" refutations--of course such likes as Musket, Steve Shaw, The Snail, and even lovable JtS recognize that he juggles half-truths, misrepresentations, over-generalizations, and such things to advance his case, and that he has no credibility.

The thing is that a lot of people didn't really "get" science, and Pete, who really makes no logical sense, resonates with them, and the fact that he pounds on the Bible gives him credibility.

By carrying on with this discussion, you're giving Pete a forum to attack science, reason, the pursuit of knowledge, and, by extension, yourselves.

It doesn't pay to fool around with these people--when they get control of things, "Love thy neighbor" goes right out the window.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 04:07 PM

pete, to repeat my question from earlier today, which you have studiously avoided answering:

Why do you think that so many scientists, from so many countries, have got it so wrong. Are they ALL deluded, or are they ALL involved in some sort of giant conspiracy (to discredit the Bible, perhaps)? I think that we would all be VERY interested in your answer to this question.

" ... shimrod thinks it ok to dismiss the evidence in dino bones."

I think no such thing! Don't put words into my mouth!

You wanted evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution - you can find lots and lots of evidence in Richard Dawkins' book, 'The Greatest Show on Earth' - go and read it. If, after reading the book, you have any questions, please address them to Prof. Dawkins (I dare you!).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:03 PM

"correct me if I,m wrong but isn't radio carbon only supposed to go back so far....and that so far is a long ways short on some of the supposed dates of evolutionism. "

There you go pete. You have done it once more. You have disproved Bishop Usser's dating of the age of the universe once again.

It appears that radiocarbon dating "goes back" to about 68,000 years

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

Since 68,000 is more than ten times the age of the universe that you and Mr. Ham say it is please tell us how you can stick to Mr. Ham's interpretation of Genesis while you, yourself while trying vainly to refute other arguments, keep contradicting Mr. Ham's theory.

Would you please show us any small sliver of data where carbon dating proves that the universe is less than 10,000 years old (please note that I have allowed you a generous margin of error) or apologize for wasting our time with half the baked theories of charlatans and liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 02:32 PM

"..what is not impossible, is oral and written records from adam to moses"

It doesn't have to just be 'possible'... it is a CLAIM. And a claim requires something that shows concrete evidence! ANYONE can make up a list of names! And even if 'some' names were genuine nearer to Moses, it isa real stretch to believe that anyone DID preserve such a long list. If I told you that 500 people in your area had signed a petition to ban your church, wouldn't you want some proof that such a list was real?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 02:18 PM

funny you should mention radio carbon, bill. I think shimrod followed too with dating. correct me if I,m wrong but isn't radio carbon only supposed to go back so far....and that so far is a long ways short on some of the supposed dates of evolutionism.
and as shimrod thinks it ok to dismiss the evidence in dino bones...diamonds have radiocarbon in them too.
unless you can cite anything other than circular reasoning, I think observable ,repeatable, testable science demonstrates a lot shorter shelf life.
what is not impossible, is oral and written records from adam to moses.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:51 AM

It's a good job we co Messiahs have big willies. It prepares us for dealing with some of the pricks we have to put up with here....

I can't see what the problem is to be honest. If God botherers are right, God makes me point and laugh, so rather than have a pop back, perhaps they should avert their gaze and worship me? Just a thought....

I see The Archbishop of Canterbury lost his plea to the synod not to be nasty bigots. Back to the grind eh? No credibility whatsoever with decent people. Fingers crossed he gets the right for women to get the top jobs. When I was in business, perhaps I should have registered it as a religion so I don't promote people who make irrational decisions one week per month and bugger off to have babies when you need them most eh? No difference between that pathetic stance and the awful stance of religions.

Perhaps we need Darwin's witnesses after all. The rise in superstition amongst the masses is rather worrying. Is it just me, or should we entertain organisations that brain wash vulnerable people into their bollocks, abuse children and promote misogyny and bigotry? Even the best of them have the sort of smug satisfaction that gets on your tits.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 03:21 AM

pete, as Bill D points out, modern evolutionary biology does not involve "faith" but, rather, 150 years worth of evidence, gathered by thousands of talented scientists, over millions of man-hours. And these days a scientific field, like evolutionary biology, is informed by many other scientific fields as well - for example dating methods are based on physics (i.e. the radioactive decay of various elements) and genetics is based on chemistry. So, if you attack evolutionary biology, you are attacking the entire edifice of modern science. For a start, such a stance strikes me as stupendously, mind-boggingly arrogant and foolish!

I would also be interested to know why you think that so many scientists, from so many countries, have got it so wrong. Are they ALL deluded, or are they ALL involved in some sort of giant conspiracy (to discredit the Bible, perhaps)? I think that we would all be VERY interested in your answer to this question.

Finally, if you were really interested in the evidence for evolution, you would read something other than creationist websites. Something like 'The Greatest Show on Earth', for example. But then, I forgot, you haven't got time to read books, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 17 Feb 14 - 12:08 AM

Why have a single, semi-permanent thread when the current debacle permeates every thread? Those who believe in an afterlife have every reason to fear that the debacle will be carried over...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 14 - 08:44 PM

Could we have a semipermanent thread for example to argue the scientific viability of creationism with pete?

No.