Another

Ummmm, God doesn't exist. I know because he told me and my faith is stronger than foolish perception, facts or scientific analysis.

Initial argument regarding canabalism disproving evolution demonstrated such painful logic that I am going to knaw off my left arm for sustenance.

Magus55

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-104b.htm

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm

RufusAtticus

Back up your assertion that Zeus doesn't exist or quit making it...

We are all "atheists" of one stripe or another, some of us just more so than others.

caravelair

"First of all, radioactive dating isn't accurate into millions or billions of years."

this sounds to me like someone has mistaken carbon 14 dating for all radiometric dating techniques. it is correct to say that carbon 14 dating of fossils is only good for about 50,000 years, but older fossils are dated by the age of the rock they are in, which is dated using other radiometric techniques, which are known to be accurate up to billions of years.

"if the cDK (light speed decay) hypothesis is proved correct,"

it never will be proven correct, because we know that the speed of light is constant. if light has been slowing down, then when we look at things that are farther away, they would appear to be moving in slow motion. yet there are things such as pulsars and cephied variable stars which pulsate at well known frequencies, and we see the same frequencies no matter how far away we look. therefore the speed of light must be a constant.

"The net result would be a much higher age indicated in the analysis of rocks and fossils, than would be indicated using dynamic time -- measured by the orbit of the earth around the sun -- which has not changed."

which is impossible. i refer you to this article, as it's too long to get into on this board:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct01.html

"The cDK hypothesis may not be correct. But it happens to make better sense than any other theory regarding the vast discrepancy in time between the scientific view and the theological view."

that's completely absurd. no scientific theory has any requirement of agreeing with the bible. scientific theories are based on and tested by FACTS.

"Obviously this is only a theory right now, but it still opens the door to a possible explanation for the apparent age of things compared to their actual age"

even if this theory were true, which is most definately is not, creationists would still have to account for other age dating techniques which place a lower bound on the age of the earth. for example, have you ever heard of varves? they are alternating layers of fine/coarse sediment found at the bottom of glacial lakes. we can observe this process, so we know that it happens at a rate of about 2-4 layers per year. there are formations which are 4 million layers thick, over an area of square kilometers, so these formations must have taken over 1 million years to form, at the very least. it couldn't possibly have formed in 6,000 years, because that would mean 56 layers forming every MONTH, and we know that does not happen, and furthermore, we know it's completely impossible, because the layers take at least a month to settle.

Ojuice5001

Look who's talking. You make that assertion just as strongly as the Christians. A second reign of Jupiter will be known, sooner or later.

I finally know how you guys must feel when responding to creationists' arguments. It's the same way I feel just now; I was just told by a certain mutual acquaintance of ours that getting rid of Stalin's policies was a major cause of the decline of the USSR, and the Roman Empire's demise was hastened by the fact that it allowed a lot of freedom.:banghead: I had the idea that I would like posting on his board, but I didn't. I really don't know why he likes Stalinism better than Lockean liberalism.

Coragyps

Magus, have you ever read where I have posted that assertion?

Coragyps

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-104b.htm

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm

Magus, did you bother to read that dreck before you linked to it? I can scarcly imagine that the Morris boys are so pig-ignorant as to actually believe that the stuff they write is accurate, or has any relevance to an "old Earth" - I really hve to think that they are deliberately trying to mislead their scientifically illiterate sheep. And it's their book that says one shouldn't "bear false witness."

The Lone Ranger

Hmm, let's take a look at these studies which debunk radioactive dating. The first is called CAN RADIOISOTOPE DATING BE TRUSTED?:

The paper consists entirely of outrageous and completely unsupported assertions, distortions, non sequiturs, and outright lies. Number of references cited: 0.

Gee, I thought good Christians weren't supposed to lie.

The second is called DOESN'T CARBON DATING PROVE THE EARTH IS OLD?.

This is true, more or less. That brings us to an important question: Who is it that has been spreading false information about the relevance of carbon dating and about how it is done?

Hint: it's not the "evolutionists"!

Beyond that promising beginning, we have yet more outrageous and completely unsupported assertions, distortions, and outright lies. Number of references cited: 0.

Morris should be ashamed of himself.

caravelair

"Morris should be ashamed of himself."

damn fucking straight. he lies all the time, and he totally knows it.

VonEvilstein

Wow, those articles were terrible! As TLR pointed out: no references whatsoever. Not even anything to show the data presented came from anywhere other than the author's imagination. Furthermore, the whole attitude of "we don't (yet) know what makes this happen, so let's assume it was X, not Y, and disregard all other evidence that points to Y" is anything but scientific. Even if every fact in the first article is accurate, all that proves is that there are certain cases we dn't yet understand. This does not prove that so much other science (cosmology, geology to name are couple) is bunk. It is a bold, nay indefensible position for the author to take to make this assertation.

As for the second article, well that's disproving a totally false premise - easy and meaningless.

Magus, you may believe this, but don't present it as science, when it isn't - it does your cause no good.