Celtic Heroes

Oh I wasn't talking about the bible when i said real scientific evidence. I was talking about how every geologic clock points to creation.

You are confusing two things. Creation and the geologic "clock" are not incompatible with each other. Many people who believe in creation also understand geology; some to a great extent. Since you continue on about C14, I assume you are talking about Young Earth Creationism (YEC). YECs unfortunately have a poor grasp of geology... that or they willfully create explanations to fit their young earth, because to them, a young earth belief and scientific geology are incompatible.

Old Earth Creationists (OEC) have a proper understanding of how the earth's geology was created, as well as a sufficient grasp of the order that life appeared. I say sufficient, because while they are in agreement with the general scientific community on the time frames and grand scheme order, they differ in the catalyst for such order.

Here's a great article from a former YEC who was thrown under the bus when he awoke to reality: http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

Oh and if u say "oh u moron what about carbon 14" carbon 14 is not accurate. It once dated a living mollusk at 2300 years old, a mortar known to be less than eight hundred years old as 7370 years old, and fresh seal skins at 1300. Oh I can tell that it is perfectly accurate.

No, I am not going to call you a moron. I do think, however, that you have bought into the words of some fraudulent morons. Your quotes tell me so.

First off, read a post I wrote some time ago: http://www.celtic-heroes.com/forum/view ... 00#p344400
I removed it for a while, but since C14 dating has come back into the thread, I have restored it. When you finish reading that, come back. I am not going to go through the info again, other than to recap or expand upon, so it is important you read that first.

...

Right, so I mentioned in that post some of the very things you are trying to use in your post as evidence against C14 dating. The examples are garbage, sorry to say. First off, something has to be dead for a time before C14 dating can work. A living organism will of course give a false reading, because C14 is still being replenished.

Your mollusks example has a double problem, because a) it is still alive, and b) shellfish don't get all of their carbon from the atmosphere; they pull a fair amount of "old carbon" from other sources.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a mortar." Are you talking about the weapon? The building product? A cooking preparation utensil? No matter which, it is going to have problems. 1) C14 can date things that were once alive. All mortars that I can think of are not related to living mater. 2.) C14 dating is not accurate for anything less than about 500 years because of man made problems. The only exception I can think of is dating some wood bits or straw used as an ingredient in the building material called mortar. In this case there is a third problem: how do you know that the ingredient was contemporary to the mortar?

[note] : Through some digging, I am fairly confident that I have tracked down your source (again, this is why references are so important... I shouldn't have to dig; I should be pointed to your source). It looks to be a classic case of quote mining, but I will deal with it in another post ... what I believe to be your source is also vague... intentionally, I suspect. [/note]

Many things could alter the decay of carbon 14 such as atmospheric pollution, solar activity, cosmic radiation, and meteors or large cosmic bodies falling to earth.

No. Many things can alter the production of C14, but not the decay. I mention that in the post I linked above; the half life of C14 is a proven "constant." I place that in quotations because half lives are averages... no single molecule can be said to have a half life.

Im also talking about evidence like the fossil record which goes against evolution. Do u realize that no transitionary form has ever been found? (I mean something that instead of having either scales or feathers had something between the two or something like that).

Since you are making a reference to bird evolution, let's consider that.

First and foremost, the biggest problem is that you are comparing modern birds with modern reptiles and asking for a link. Evolution doesn't work that way. We find several dead ends (creatures that could have gone somewhere, but didn't) as well as several blurs. Evolution also is about branches. Comparing a pelican to an iguana isn't very meaningful, because they have both gone through various changes on their path to modernity.

We need to look at when various lifeforms branched off.

I know that YEC proponents often say there are no transitions, but it simply isn't true. There are are several examples of what you say doesn't exist. I am sure you are aware of Archaeopteryx. It is considered an intermediate between theropods and birds. YECs dismiss its relevance, saying it is simply a bird, though I can't see how they justify that since it has several transitionary traits.

More that that creature, however, there is a plethora of evidence for several dinosaurs having feathers or protofeathers. This is where the branches are really interesting. It shows us that birds didn't develop feathers and thus become birds; it means that there were several feathered dinosaurs, and some of those developed into birds. Others died off.

The scale feather fiasco isn't an issue from a technical standpoint, because scales and feathers develop from the same cells (I admit that I don't fully remember at this point if it is a cell or otherwise); some lived on, some did not. Many early feathers were not used for flight, but rather for warmth (much like a penguin today).

We also see some dinosaur branches that have scale/feather duo exoskins (think of feather quills without the plume, like quills coming out of scales), such as Sinosauropteryx, that exhibit what you say does not exist. The question really shouldn't be how did birds get their feathers, but rather why did modern reptile branches lose theirs?

But it sounds like all this evidence is not enough. What are you looking for? ..... some sore of creature that exhibits both scales AND feathers? Would such a creature make you happy?


If that is the case, look out your window. The majority of modern birds have both: feathers on the body and wings, and scales on the legs and feet. The bigger the bird, the more pronounced the scales. Here is an ostrich foot for you to look at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... h_Foot.jpg Again, scales and feathers follow the same development and make up. These scales are a left over trait of their past, and I don't think it would be hard to defend that birds represent a living intermediary.

Another thing i noticed is that evolution teaches that as things got older they evolved into something better.

Where did you "notice" this? Evolution does not state that at all. Evolution does not say that things get better. What it does say is that natural selection comes about from certain forms being better suited to their particular environments... but that does not equate to better itself. Given a different environment, the lifeform might not be well suited at all.

Well, I've noticed something. Usually over time things get worse not better. If you take a shiny new office building and just leave it to sit, it will eventually fall down.

What a foolish example. You are trying to compare the slow decline of one building against the evolution of species through successive generations and millions of years!?

If you are going to use one building, then you should compare it against the life of one lifeform. Take a building and a kitten, for example. Erect the building the same year as the kitten is born, and tell me how they each look in 30 years. I'll tell you. The building will be a bit beaten up, and the kitten will have downgraded to death and decomposition.

Oddly enough, while your particular example is rubbish, it isn't too far from a good example. If you want to understand evolution, you can think about the evolution of building design since the dawn of man. As we learn more about construction and architecture, we are able to build better and better buildings.

This is also why your Henry Morris numbers are garbage. The odds he comes up with are probably accurate, numerically speaking... but they are akin to the odds of an Iron Age man in a round house being able to build a skyscraper. Impossible. Evolution, like technology, is cumulative. I'm sure you would agree that it isn't impossible to build a skyscraper today.

This is called the law of entropy(aka the 2nd law of thermodynamics which if u dnt know is one of the laws of science that is least disputed. So if this law of science, emphasis on science says that evolution is not possible because things, left to themselves, in natural conditions, get worse then how can evolution be true?). Also the most important laws of science, the laws of thermodynamics, are actually predicted in scripture. If u want me to tell u chapter and verse i can. If u dnt know what the laws if thermodynamics is, then u can ask me that too.

I'll let one of your own talk about the above. This is from a YEC article entitled "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use." You should look it up... A lot of your "arguments" are things YEC organizations tell its people to avoid.

This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

U ask me where God came from. He has always existed. To be honest that is all i can tell u. But before u get all giddy with victory. U still have not answered my question; where did the atom come from? If the laws of thermodynamics are true and have always been true( which isn't that what evolution teaches?; the law of uniformity and all that) then if the atom has always existed then why hasn't the universe burned out? I can give u much more evidence. All i know is what I have found in my studies. Math proves evolution wrong. It is mathematically impossible. I will be posting the actual figures in the paper that i am writing at this time for the purpose that whenever i see a post like this i can respond.

Like I said, half your points are things that even creationist debaters stay clear from. (Another recommendation in the article is to avoid saying there are no transitional forms, because there are candidates) and the others are simply incorrect. It may very well be a mathematical impossibility for a dog-like animal to give birth to a whale, but evolution doesn't say that. Given 50 million years, that is exactly what happened through cumulative changes.

Because i like to have all my thoughts in one place. I am a better debater if i take my time so that is what I am doing. I do not think evolutionists themselves are retarded, i just think that they are a little blinded. I am a proud christian.

Good! I am quite glad that you are proud of your faith. I wish you nothing but the best.

Oh and if u say "oh u moron what about carbon 14" carbon 14 is not accurate. It once dated a living mollusk at 2300 years old, a mortar known to be less than eight hundred years old as 7370 years old, and fresh seal skins at 1300. Oh I can tell that it is perfectly accurate.

Right, so I said the above is problematic for a number of reasons... basically because all three of the examples would not be good examples of C14 dating.

But I think I've found your source. It looks to come from a "sermon" by a chap named Jerry Shirley.

Here is his quote:

CARBON 14
• Carbon 14 dates things that used to be alive. You see, when you die, you stop taking in Carbon 14, so the more you have in your system the younger you are, and the less you have in your system the older you are, supposedly.
• According to Science, vol. 130, “living mollusks were dated at 2,300 years old using Carbon 14.
• According to Nature Magazine, vol.22, March 7, 1970, “Organic material from a castle mortar dated 7,370 years old even though the castle was known to be 787 years old.
• According to The Antarctic Journal Of The United States, Vol. 6, 1971, “Freshly killed seals dated 1,300 years old. And mummified seals that were known to have been dead for 30 years were dated at 4,600 years.

First off, he admits in the opening that it something needs to be dead... why reference live animals? lol

Anyway, the rest sounds to be quote mining to me. In other words, I think he is taking quotes out of context. Let's look.

• According to Science, vol. 130, “living mollusks were dated at 2,300 years old using Carbon 14.

The first problem I have with this is that vol. 130 of Science is from 1959!!! Talk about an old reference. Carbon dating was only 10 years old at the time, and even the creator of C14 dating knew that it needed refinement. Quite a meaningless quote to talk about C14 dating today when there have been such amazing advancements over the past 50 years.

I'm a bit pissed at Jerry... because he hasn't given us an issue number or author.

What a jerk... it wasn't even in that year!!.... the reference is from an article in vol. 141, in 1963.... Thanks, Jerry!

And yup... the purpose of the article was in proving that mollusks get their carbon from other sources which give inaccurate numbers, NOT for the purpose of dating a shellfish.
The abstract:

Evidence is presented to show that modern mollusk shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages, owing mainly to incorporation of inactive (carbon-14-deficient) carbon from humus, probably through the food web, as well as by the pathway of carbon dioxide from humus decay. The resultant effect, in addition to the variable contributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fermentative carbon dioxide from bottom muds, and, locally, of carbonate carbon from dissolving limestones, makes the initial carbon-14-activity of ancient fresh-water shell indeterminate, but within limits. Consequent errors of shell radiocarbon dates may be as large as several thousand years for river shells.

• According to Nature Magazine, vol.22, March 7, 1970, “Organic material from a castle mortar dated 7,370 years old even though the castle was known to be 787 years old.

At least the source is more specific... would be nice to have an author, though...

Indeed, this is also a mined quote. The article is talking about how to calibrate and successfully date building mortars, because you cannot simply date the material. They offer the inaccurate dates as examples, and then show that a modified test is accurate. Their whole point is that you can't simply C14 date it, because the material is not necessarily contemporary with the structure.

Much radiocarbon dating relies upon the analysis of charred wood. This technique, however, is subject to a serious drawback. The date obtained from the charcoal gives the time when that fragment of wood was still a living tree, not when it was built into the building. For example, let us say that a 150 year old tree was cut down in 300 A.C. and used the in construction of a building. After the building was destroyed, the beams were re-used to build a house in 600 A.C. and the house subsequently burned.

If that charred wood is re-used again in a mortar, the date of the wood is not related to the date of construction. They go on to give a way to accurately date the mortar itself, rather than the organic bits found in it. It could be built in 2010, but the wood is from 1800 years ago.

• According to The Antarctic Journal Of The United States, Vol. 6, 1971, “Freshly killed seals dated 1,300 years old. And mummified seals that were known to have been dead for 30 years were dated at 4,600 years.

Again, reading the whole article paints a different picture, as the writer is specifically talking about the problem with the area, and how calibration needs to be accounted for in that area, as false dates will be given BECAUSE of the C14 in the atmosphere there.

However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity that that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than the true ages.

Again, a good piece of science that illustrates why calibration is so important. With a lower amount of C14 in the antarctic, scientists need to be aware when testing in that area, and calibrate accordingly. The other issue is, once again, C14 dating is pointless for things less than 500 years or so. This Dort article is advancing that, specifically in relation to the antarctic.

So all three of Jerry's (and subsequently your) examples are garbage. The quotes are taken out of context, and their purpose has been removed. In all three examples, the tests and numbers were being used to advance the ability and usefulness of carbon dating. All examples were done intentionally to show a problem, and then went on to show how to solve it.

That's how science works. It tests things, and finds ways to answer problems. How does YEC "science" work? They tell you to put some dirt and pebbles in a jar of water and spin it around as proof that the geologic column was created by a flood.

This sort of real testing goes on all the time. It is the same process at work when car manufactures use crash test dummies to test the various positions of seat-belts, for example. Mining half the data to say that Toyota sea-belts are dangerous while ignoring the whole test, and neglecting to state that those tests brought about higher safety in seat-belts is just plain low.

It is the same as our buddy Jerry Shirley. What a goof.

Dersu dont bother, he is a 10-12 year old, he won't understand, no offence solo but some things just come with age, the brain is of fully developed at age 25, when you are that age you will be able to make a more informed choice based on evidence, hope to see you with us atheists in 15 years time

Also solo, are you that ignorent, you can't explain your deity, but you expect us to explain ours? To back to elementary school. I mean come on "where did the atom come from" where did god come from? Ohh wait, you don't know! Stop being a hypocrite. Thanks.

Also, just gonna throw this out there, good people dont need to have people call them good, in the bible we are told many times that god is good, if we removed those chapters, and had someone read the bible, what would god look like? He would look like a dictator, he would look like adolf hittlers role model, he kills mass amounts of gays, he hates people of other religions and "condemns them to hell" he hates blacks, the guy is a dictator, plain and simple.

Dersu dont bother, he is a 10-12 year old, he won't understand, no offence solo but some things just come with age, the brain is of fully developed at age 25, when you are that age you will be able to make a more informed choice based on evidence, hope to see you with us atheists in 15 years time

Magixal, aren't you 14? If the debater's age is relevant to this discussion you shouldn't be the one calling him out.

Also, do you really expect anyone to listen to you the way you talk to people? You act like some teenage brat who thinks he knows everything and considers everyone else an idiot. There is something called tact that you are severely lacking.

Also, just gonna throw this out there, good people dont need to have people call them good, in the bible we are told many times that god is good, if we removed those chapters, and had someone read the bible, what would god look like? He would look like a dictator, he would look like adolf hittlers role model, he kills mass amounts of gays, he hates people of other religions and "condemns them to hell" he hates blacks, the guy is a dictator, plain and simple.

Where in the Bible does it say God hates blacks? It looks like you are just trying to be as offensive as possible. You are making the same stupid stabs that people have been correcting over and over, are you a troll?

Also, why do the Christian's god's actions matter to you? You don't believe in him so you should not be bringing it up, it is irrelevant to whether or not he exists. You are making a logical fallacy by changing the subject from the discussion to hating on the christian god, and your facts aren't even straight.

Also, just gonna throw this out there, good people dont need to have people call them good, in the bible we are told many times that god is good, if we removed those chapters, and had someone read the bible, what would god look like? He would look like a dictator, he would look like adolf hittlers role model, he kills mass amounts of gays, he hates people of other religions and "condemns them to hell" he hates blacks, the guy is a dictator, plain and simple.

Where in the Bible does it say God hates blacks? It looks like you are just trying to be as offensive as possible. You are making the same stupid stabs that people have been correcting over and over, are you a troll?

Also, why do the Christian's god's actions matter to you? You don't believe in him so you should not be bringing it up, it is irrelevant to whether or not he exists. You are making a logical fallacy by changing the subject from the discussion to hating on the christian god, and your facts aren't even straight.

Funny that among the mentioned things - gay Killing, hatered for others and inflicting eternal torture, being a dictator - and the only objection is hating blacks.

The gods actions matter to me as a non-believer because so many people in my country mindlessly follow those examples 'in spirit' that it is seriously messing up the entire country. People can't seem to keep completely unfounded belief like religion to themselves. It ruins it for everyone.

Also, just gonna throw this out there, good people dont need to have people call them good, in the bible we are told many times that god is good, if we removed those chapters, and had someone read the bible, what would god look like? He would look like a dictator, he would look like adolf hittlers role model, he kills mass amounts of gays, he hates people of other religions and "condemns them to hell" he hates blacks, the guy is a dictator, plain and simple.

Where in the Bible does it say God hates blacks? It looks like you are just trying to be as offensive as possible. You are making the same stupid stabs that people have been correcting over and over, are you a troll?

Also, why do the Christian's god's actions matter to you? You don't believe in him so you should not be bringing it up, it is irrelevant to whether or not he exists. You are making a logical fallacy by changing the subject from the discussion to hating on the christian god, and your facts aren't even straight.

Funny that gay Killing, hatered for others and inflicting eternal torture, being a dictator - and the only objection is hating blacks.

The gods actions matter to me as a non-believer because so many people in my country mindlessly follow those examples 'in spirit' that it is seriously messing up the entire country. People can't seem to keep completely unfounded belief religion to themselves. It ruins it for everyone.

Well God did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah in the old testament and it was full of homosexuals, so I won't deny that he killed gays. Just a side note though, he didn't destroy them just for being gay, he destroyed them because they whole city was a slough of sin, they went around at night doing some very bad things that they didn't explain in children's church.

And the dictator ship thing? Don't make me laugh! Earlier you were whining about how God doesn't fix all the problems in the world, the next moment you are calling him a dictator for being in control, look at your own arguments, do you actually know what you are talking about? You are just making up things that look like they support your side.

I have grown up around Christians, and I guarantee, I have never seen one trying to be a dictator, kill a gay, beat their slave, or hate on blacks. Your stupid trolling stabs are irrelevant.
Dersu brought it up before, Christians are responsible for a huge number of charities and self help programs, they have done a massive amount for the good of this world and yet are among the most persecuted for what they believe.

What are you doing for others? I dare you to answer.

Dersu dont bother, he is a 10-12 year old, he won't understand, no offence solo but some things just come with age, the brain is of fully developed at age 25, when you are that age you will be able to make a more informed choice based on evidence, hope to see you with us atheists in 15 years time

Many people, if not most, decide things based on social pressure and feelings - facts never enter in. And sadly it only is worse past 25 - many can't face up to themselves that they have been lying to themselves and others their entire life and those around them they are close to are wrong or have also been living a lie. If they haven't been able to see plain reason before that it's probably too late.