Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…210211213215216…232

Comments

  • #6362
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    I know that the earth isn't billions of years old ... and I know this, since I stopped believing in (pondkind to mankind) Evolution ... which was before I began posting on the Boards.ie.

    Until recently you believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old, now you're saying you were wrong and it is in fact older.

    You change your position to suit your own agenda whereas I have never changed mine. I know the earth is billions of years old because the overwhelming evidence of this is there for all to see.


  • #6363
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Until recently you believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old, now you're saying you were wrong and it is in fact older.
    I haven't said anything about the age of the Earth ... I have just posted links to reserach on C14 in Dinosaur bones.
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You change your position to suit your own agenda whereas I have never changed mine. I know the earth is billions of years old because the overwhelming evidence of this is there for all to see.
    So you are a 'fundamentalist' evolutionist ... eh!!!:)


  • #6364
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    I haven't said anything about the age of the Earth ... I have just posted links to reserach on C14 in Dinosaur bones.

    So you are a 'fundamentalist' evolutionist ... eh!!!:)

    You have never said that you believe the earth to be less then 10,000 years old?


  • #6365
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You have never said that you believe the earth to be less then 10,000 years old?
    I was talking about my recent postings.


  • #6366
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    I was talking about my recent postings.

    So you agree that you have changed your position regarding the age of the earth? You now agree that the earth is older than 10,000 years?


  • Advertisement
  • #6367
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    ... because they don't believe that radiocarbon dating will work ... because the fossils are supposed to be millions of years old (and radio-carbon dating has an effective maximum age measuremeent range of 50,000 years).

    ... that's the problem for long ages evolution... there is Carbon in the proteins present inside fossilised Dinosaur bones ... and even more importantly, there is radio-carbon C14.

    ... all true scotsmen agree on many things ... what do you think of that?:)

    I like you, JC. I wish that science would support you but it can't. Radiocarbon dating won't work because...

    There. Is. No. Carbon. In. The. Fossils.

    That fact cannot change.


    All. Paleontologists. Agree. That. T Rex. Existed. 65. million. Years. Ago.

    What do you think of that?


  • #6368
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I like you, JC. I wish that science would support you but it can't. Radiocarbon dating won't work because...

    There. Is. No. Carbon. In. The. Fossils.

    That fact cannot change.
    That 'fact' has changed ... there is Carbon in the proteins present inside fossilised Dinosaur bones ... and even more importantly, there is radio-carbon C14.

    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    All. Paleontologists. Agree. That. T Rex. Existed. 65. million. Years. Ago.

    What do you think of that?
    I think you are using the 'all true scotsmen' logical fallacy !!!


  • #6369
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I think you are using the 'all true scotsmen' logical fallacy !!!
    Just wondering if you could explain what time in Earths history you think paleontology studies/documents?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #6370
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    That 'fact' has changed ... there is Carbon in the proteins present inside fossilised Dinosaur bones ... and even more importantly, there is radio-carbon C14.


    I think you are using the 'all true scotsmen' logical fallacy !!!

    Could you provide proof that carbon exists in fossils?

    All paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6371
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Just wondering if you could explain what time in Earths history you think paleontology studies/documents?
    A time/times when conditions prevailed across the whole world that killed billions of living creatures and buried them rapidly in massive volumes of sedimentary material that was generated by even more massive movements of water ... and rapidly set to form sedimentary rocks.


  • Advertisement
  • #6372
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Could you provide proof that carbon exists in fossils?
    Proteins have been found in dinosaur fossils ... here is one report:-
    http://www.sciencealert.com/195-million-year-old-dinosaur-bone-reveals-the-oldest-proteins-ever-found.
    ... and Carbon is a constituent element of proteins:-
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biochemistry/biochemistry/protein

    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    All paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?
    It has about as much validity as saying that all true scotsmen agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago.:)


  • #6373
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    A time/times when conditions prevailed across the whole world that killed billions of living creatures and buried them rapidly in massive volumes of sedimentary material that was generated by even more massive movements of water ... and rapidly set to form sedimentary rocks.

    When did this happen?


  • #6374
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    JC, I'm confused on your position. I had always taken you to be a creationist based primarily on the bible, on which you then believe the evidence backs up.

    But know you are saying in a recent post that the evidence shows 10000 years, and you are prepared to accept that, sure whats a few thousand here and there!

    Secondly, why are you prepared to accept this scientist work? Surely it is based on the same methods as the rest of the science you claim is false. How can you be sure that this one is right but all the others are false.


  • #6375
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    JC, I'm confused on your position. I had always taken you to be a creationist based primarily on the bible, on which you then believe the evidence backs up.

    But know you are saying in a recent post that the evidence shows 10000 years, and you are prepared to accept that, sure whats a few thousand here and there!
    I'm a Creationist based primarily on science ... I started off as an evolutionist scientist ... and now I'm a Creationist scientist.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Secondly, why are you prepared to accept this scientist work? Surely it is based on the same methods as the rest of the science you claim is false. How can you be sure that this one is right but all the others are false.
    There are issues with radiocarbon dating ... expecially with items of considerable antiquity ... however, once radiocarbon is found in an object the upper limit of its age is 50,000 years. This doesn't mean that it is 50,000 years old ... it certainly isn't greater than 50,000 years old ... but it could be considerably younger ... even less than 10,000 years.


  • #6376
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    When did this happen?
    Difficult to be scientifically definitive about when it happened ... but whenever it happened it was worldwide and catastrophic ... and the rocks were formed very rapidly.


  • #6377
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Proteins have been found in dinosaur fossils ... here is one report:-
    http://www.sciencealert.com/195-million-year-old-dinosaur-bone-reveals-the-oldest-proteins-ever-found.
    ... and Carbon is a constituent element of proteins:-
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biochemistry/biochemistry/protein


    It has about as much validity as saying that all true scotsmen agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago.:)

    Neither of your links prove that carbon exists in fossils. Again, do you have any proof that carbon exists in fossils? (Helpful hint: Stop trying to prove that carbon exists in fossils).

    Scotsmen are not necessarily informed about paleontology. Paleontologists, by definition, are so informed. Again, all paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?


  • #6378
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Difficult to be scientifically definitive about when it happened ... but whenever it happened it was worldwide and catastrophic ... and the rocks were formed very rapidly.

    Any evidence that it happened?

    Also i see you're now saying something could even be 50,000 years old, have you cast aside your "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" stance?


  • #6379
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Neither of your links prove that carbon exists in fossils. Again, do you have any proof that carbon exists in fossils? (Helpful hint: Stop trying to prove that carbon exists in fossils).
    OK ... do you accept that proteins have been found in Dinosaur fossils?
    ... and do you accept that proteins contain Carbon?
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Scotsmen are not necessarily informed about paleontology. Paleontologists, by definition, are so informed. Again, all paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago. What do you think of that?
    The logical fallacy that you are presenting is that all (Evolutionist) paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago ... whilst ignoring the fact that all Creationist paleontologists don't agree with this age.


  • #6380
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Any evidence that it happened?
    Worldwide distribution of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks ... i.e billions of dead things perfectly preserved in rocks laid down by water all over the Earth.
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Also i see you're now saying something could even be 50,000 years old, have you cast aside your "the earth is less than 10,000 years old" stance?
    I have not cast aside my previous position. I have said the following:-
    There are issues with radiocarbon dating ... expecially with items of considerable antiquity ... however, once radiocarbon is found in an object the upper limit of its age is 50,000 years. This doesn't mean that it is 50,000 years old ... it certainly isn't greater than 50,000 years old ... but it could be considerably younger ... even less than 10,000 years.


  • #6381
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    OK ... do you accept that proteins have been found in Dinosaur fossils?
    ... and do you accept that proteins contain Carbon?

    The logical fallacy that you are presenting is that all (Evolutionist) paleontologists agree that T Rex existed 65 million years ago ... whilst ignoring the fact that all Creationist paleontologists don't agree with this age.

    Nope. Let it go, JC. Carbon14's half life is about 5,000 years and the oldest dates that can be reliably measured is usually about 50,000 years. Something 1400 times older isn't going to lend itself to carbon dating.

    Creationist paleontologists? This is fabulous news. Any research worth reading by them?


  • Advertisement
  • #6382
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Nope. Let it go, JC. Carbon14's half life is about 5,000 years and the oldest dates that can be reliably measured is usually about 50,000 years. Something 1400 times older isn't going to lend itself to carbon dating.
    Quite true ... if it is actually ... 1400 times older ... and that is the nub of the issue.
    ... and when we do carbon dating (as distinct from saying that it shouldn't be present, like evolutionists do) ...then we find C14 in all kinds of supposed multiple millions of years old items ... ranging from fossils to coal to diamonds even!!!


  • #6383
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Quite true ... if it is actually ... 1400 times older.
    ... and when we do carbon dating (as distinct from saying that it shouldn't be present, like evolutionists do) ...then we find C14 in all kinds of supposed multiple millions of years old items ... ranging from fossils to coal to diamonds even!!!

    The rocks surrounding the fossils are reliably dated using radiometrics. So they can reliably date the fossils. That's how fossils are dated as carbon 14 doesn't exist in the fossils. That's just a fact, JC.

    Any reliable research from the creationist paleontologists yet?


  • #6384
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    The rocks surrounding the fossils are reliably dated using radiometrics. So they can reliably date the fossils.
    Unfortunately, radiometric dating of rocks is impossible. We don't know the starting ratios or whether leaching or contamination occurred.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    That's how fossils are dated as carbon 14 doesn't exist in the fossils. That's just a fact, JC.
    ... a 'fact' like the 'fact' that soft tissue and proteins didn't exist in fossils either ... until it was grudgingly accepted that it wasn't a 'fact' after all!!!!:)
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Any reliable research from the creationist paleontologists yet?
    None that you would accept, no doubt !!!:)


  • #6385
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Unfortunately, radiometric dating of rocks is impossible. We don't know the starting ratios or whether leaching or contamination occurred.

    ... a 'fact' like the 'fact' that soft tissue and proteins didn't exist in fossils ... until it was grudgingly accepted that it wasn't a 'fact' !!!:)

    None that you would accept, no doubt !!!:)

    JC, what you are saying is simply untrue. We're entering Flat Earth territory. You're dismissing geologists as well as paleontologists now.

    I'm very happy to have my mind changed by any reliable research by creationist paleontologists. You brought them up yet you won't post any of their research. Why?


  • #6386
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    A time/times when conditions prevailed across the whole world that killed billions of living creatures and buried them rapidly in massive volumes of sedimentary material that was generated by even more massive movements of water ... and rapidly set to form sedimentary rocks.

    so a hundred years ago, a thousand? when?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #6387
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    I'm a Creationist based primarily on science ... I started off as an evolutionist scientist ... and now I'm a Creationist scientist.

    Excuse me, but what part of science shows that a god created the heavens and earth in 7 days, that Man was created out of dust and woman from a rib, that there was a garden of eden etc. Even if you don't accept evolution, you have provided nothing to show what, if anything, was involved in the creation of life that was another other than something. There is simply no evidence that whatever was involved in the first stage of life had any design in mind, much less a plan for us.
    J C wrote: »
    There are issues with radiocarbon dating ... expecially with items of considerable antiquity ... however, once radiocarbon is found in an object the upper limit of its age is 50,000 years. This doesn't mean that it is 50,000 years old ... it certainly isn't greater than 50,000 years old ... but it could be considerably younger ... even less than 10,000 years.

    So, you accept that the world could be 50,000 years old? And of course that doesn't limit it to 50000 years, only that according to you that is all we can prove.

    Surely that calls into question the very essence of creationism. If the age of the earth based on the bible is incorrect then how can you place any faith in the rest of it.


    I struggle to see how you can have such faith in a book, and so easily change your stance and such a position


  • #6388
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    JC, what you are saying is simply untrue. We're entering Flat Earth territory. You're dismissing geologists as well as paleontologists now.

    I'm very happy to have my mind changed by any reliable research by creationist paleontologists. You brought them up yet you won't post any of their research. Why?

    You are waiting for research, I am still waiting for him to give me example of cave paintings with dinosaurs. Where are the cave paintings JC?

    MrP


  • #6389
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    You are waiting for research, I am still waiting for him to give me example of cave paintings with dinosaurs. Where are the cave paintings JC?

    MrP
    There are some reputed paintings of dinosaurs on rocks but they are disputed by Evolutionists. Equally, the many stories about 'dragons' are likely accounts of encounters with Dinosaurs.
    In any event, it would have no effect on Evolutionists if a Dinosaur were to be found tomorrow alive and kicking ... Evolutionists already believe that Crocodiles, for example, and other so-called 'living fossils' pre-date Dinosaurs ... and they are living today with people ... so I don't understand why there is so much fuss amongst Evolutionists over whether Dinosaurs lived with people ... or not.


  • #6390
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Excuse me, but what part of science shows that a god created the heavens and earth in 7 days, that Man was created out of dust and woman from a rib, that there was a garden of eden etc. Even if you don't accept evolution, you have provided nothing to show what, if anything, was involved in the creation of life that was another other than something. There is simply no evidence that whatever was involved in the first stage of life had any design in mind, much less a plan for us.
    There is neither evidential nor logical support for the idea that the Universe and life created themselves. The only plausible candidate for the creation is an omnipotent intelligence who is transcendent of time and space. I choose to call this entity God.

    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So, you accept that the world could be 50,000 years old? And of course that doesn't limit it to 50000 years, only that according to you that is all we can prove.
    The upper limit of the tests would be 50,000 years ... the lower limits are less than 10,000 years.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Surely that calls into question the very essence of creationism. If the age of the earth based on the bible is incorrect then how can you place any faith in the rest of it.
    It would, if what you say was true ... but the age of the Earth, based on the Bible is correct.

    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I struggle to see how you can have such faith in a book, and so easily change your stance and such a position
    I haven't changed my stance.


  • Advertisement
  • #6391
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    There are some reputed paintings of dinosaurs on rocks but they are disputed by Evolutionists. Equally, the many stories about 'dragons' are likely accounts of encounters with Dinosaurs.
    In any event, it would have no effect on Evolutionists if a Dinosaur were to be found tomorrow alive and kicking ... Evolutionists already believe that Crocodiles, for example, and other so-called 'living fossils' pre-date Dinosaurs ... and they are living today with people ... so I don't understand why there is so much fuss amongst Evolutionists over whether Dinosaurs lived with people ... or not.

    There are some reputed paintings of dinosaurs animals on rocks but they are disputed by Evolutionists. archeologists. Equally, the many stories about 'dragons' are likely imagined accounts of encounters with Dinosaurs mythical animals known as dragons.
    In any event, it would have no effect on Evolutionists paleontologists if a Dinosaur were to be found tomorrow alive and kicking because it couldn't happen ... Evolutionists Scientists already believe know that Crocodiles, for example, and other so-called 'living fossils' pre-date Dinosaurs ... and they are living today with people ... so I don't understand why there is so much zero fuss amongst Evolutionists scientists over whether Dinosaurs lived with people ... or not.


Advertisement