And diablo, either show us the reference to the supposed 5000 year old penguin or don't mention it again. We already explained why it is irrelevant, but at least stop mentioning something for which you have no cite. You really need evidence.
The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
ironduck
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 6,561
No, no he doesn't!
It's so obvious, don't you see it?
1) Evolution was introduced in 1963.
2) Since then bad things have happened. For instance, I'm pretty annoyed with my bank right now.
3) Therefore, evolution is dangerous.
Get it into your head, dumbnut!
It's so obvious, don't you see it?
1) Evolution was introduced in 1963.
2) Since then bad things have happened. For instance, I'm pretty annoyed with my bank right now.
3) Therefore, evolution is dangerous.
Get it into your head, dumbnut!
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Where on earth did he get the year AD(?) 1963 from, anyway?
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Good question! What exactly happened in '63?
The Last Conformist said:
At the risk of getting more TLC snideness - wouldn't the same factors that ruin dating a live animal also ruin dating of an ancient animal?
Or is it mostly a function of sig digs? That's what I'm pulling from Dr Tiny's blurb.
I think the '63 refers to when it started being taught in some high schools in the US? I learned about evolution as a theory in '83, but it was given equal weight to Creation due to the type of school I was in.
El_Machinae said:
Partly sig digs, but I think it is eating organic material (something that dead animals rarely, if ever, do) and other acts of metabolism that throws it off.
Markus6
Prince
1963 comes from Kent Hovind. Apparently America saw Russia was winning the space race and decided it was because they taught evolution. So with out any proof America started doing it too. BTW according to the same video evolution is responsible for increases in abortion and teenage pregnancy. The pill has nothing to do with it!
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
the ruining factor is, essentially, that they're not dead.El_Machinae said:
A living animal continually replenishes its C14 content: what you measure with radiocarbon is the time since something died. Obviously, measuring when a living animal died is not particularly meaningful. Moreover, the date diablodelmar is refering to is almost certainly an uncalibrated radiocarbon year, which is thrown out of whack by factors not considered in the model, such as the varying isotopic ratios in the atmosphere in recent times. Burning of fossil fuels (which depresses the C14/C12 ratio) and atmospheric nuclear tests (which increases it) are important reasons calibration is especially tricky for the last several decades.
Dr Tiny
Warlord
Eran of Arcadia said:
edit - delelted post as someone else beat me to it..instead
I had a search on wiki for 1963, here are some notable events
September - The X-men make their debut.
November 23 - Doctor Who airs for the first time in the United Kingdom.
November 24 - John F. Kennedy assassinated, Lyndon Johnson sworn in as President.
December 31 - The Central African Federation breaks apart, and eventually became Zambia, Malawi and Rhodesia.
The cassette tape invented.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963
Well, the X-men horribly mangle the idea of Evolution, but they certainly use it as a concept.
I think the breakup of the Central African Federation is directly traceable to the teaching of evilution!
Perfection
The Great Head.
Do you have evidence or are you just making baseless speculations?diablodelmar said:
In order to disprove the efficacy of radiometric dating you have to understand radiometric dating, something that by viewing you posts, I don't think you have a clue about.
diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
I have evidence though!
Ask any evolutionist! They dont use argon dating to find out the age of anything! They judge it by the geological column and then say "we carbon dated this to 500,000,000 years"! You refuse to believe it thats all. And do you know how we date know the geoligical column??? By the "index fossils" we find in it. And we date thpse "index fossils" by what geological column they came from! Circular reasoning, my children.
Potassium Argon dating doesn't work because (it only applies to lava flows you idiots) when you actually test it lava flows less than a year old will date 100s of thousands of years! As much as 80% of all the Pottassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours.
Ask any evolutionist! They dont use argon dating to find out the age of anything! They judge it by the geological column and then say "we carbon dated this to 500,000,000 years"! You refuse to believe it thats all. And do you know how we date know the geoligical column??? By the "index fossils" we find in it. And we date thpse "index fossils" by what geological column they came from! Circular reasoning, my children.
Potassium Argon dating doesn't work because (it only applies to lava flows you idiots) when you actually test it lava flows less than a year old will date 100s of thousands of years! As much as 80% of all the Pottassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours.
diablodelmar said:
What in Zeus's name are you talking about? One more time to be clear: THEY DON'T USE CARBON DATING FOR 500,000,000 YEARS AGO!!!!!! They use other half-lifes to date things, and your utter refusal to accept this simple fact does not change it. They use the half-life of other isotopes to date things! You are the one refusing to accept facts here. Stop listening to Kent Hovind and listen to some actual practicing geologists.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
You keep repeating this lie. God is keeping track.diablodelmar said:
Read Dr. Tiny's post on the last page.
diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
good! let him judge you.The Last Conformist said:
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I shall enjoy seeing you burn in Hell.diablodelmar said:
diablodelmar said:
I don't think He will be judging anyone negatively for accepting the validity of the Theory of Evolution, especially given how much evidence there is for it and the fact that those who argue against it clearly rely on lies and refusal to accept obvious facts to make their point.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Not really, you have a series of unsourced mostly false claims.diablodelmar said:
Sure they do!diablodelmar said:
Nah, it's pretty simple and linear. You find some sites where you can date some stuff radiometricaly. Then you note that on that site there are fossils of some species you can't date radiometrically above or below this layer of datable stuff. Looking at his you find that this species falls within a specefic date range. Once you've figured that out you can use it to date other things. So it's not circular, and it's all based on radiometry.diablodelmar said:
Did we say otherwise?diablodelmar said:
Argon dating is used to measure stuff millions and billions of years old. Being off by a tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years is to be expected for this kind of test. 367.6±.2 million years is pretty good dating IMHO. The fact that Potassium-Argon dating sucks at dating new stuff doesn't make it bad at dating old stuff. It kinda goes back to the whole measuring a paramecium with a meter-stick thing.diablodelmar said:
#1. Source?diablodelmar said:
#2. So?
- Status
