The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

Status
Not open for further replies.
diablodelmar said:
All of those dates give inaccurate estimates.
Got evidence? Or are you goind to blindly dismiss nuclear physics?
diablodelmar said:
One part of a measured mammoth was several hundred thousand years older than the other (+- 250 years). Why did this happen? It just goes to prove the inaccuracy of the method.
Umm, You can't potassium-argon date a mammoth, so I don't see the relevence. Also you're alluding to that Im unfamiliar with. Provide a link with data and then we'll talk.
 
Erik Mesoy said:
As does accepting Jesus while rejecting creationism.

You've been answered now - you're using the wrong tool. What's the next question?
Your using the wrong tools. I think they are lodged in your eyes.
 
Perfection said:
Got evidence? Or are you goind to blindly dismiss nuclear physics?Umm, You can't potassium-argon date a mammoth, so I don't see the relevence. Also you're alluding to that Im unfamiliar with. Provide a link with data and then we'll talk.
Ok! The mammoths were measured using Carbon 14, not Pottasium Argon, which can only be used on volcanic substances.
 
diablodelmar said:
Oh I do. Why do you shrug off Kent Hovind's claims simply because they are Kent Hovind's claims? Listen to them, they make scientific sense.
They don't. His claims come in two flavours; unsubstantiated and plain false.

Remember the paragraph of his about Neanderthals you posted? It has in excess of one straight-out lie per sentence.
 
diablodelmar said:
Oh I do. Why do you shrug off Kent Hovind's claims simply because they are Kent Hovind's claims? Listen to them, they make scientific sense.
No, they appear to make scientific sense to uninformed little boys not to people who have more than a pancing fancy at the subjects or have thier heads covered it dogma.

diablodelmar said:
Btw, I get my information not only from him, but also other sources, like the Creation Ex Nihilo magazine.
Try sources that are good, like Nature, or respected mainstream scientific journals, or accredited research institutions.
 
Perfection said:
No, they appear to make scientific sense to uninformed little boys not to people who have more than a pancing fancy at the subjects or have thier heads covered it dogma.


Try sources that are good, like Nature, or respected mainstream scientific journals, or accredited research institutions.
:dubious: Mainstream my butt.
 
The Last Conformist said:
I can only describe my feelings on discovering that that page doesn't even contain the word "mammoth" as disappointment. :rolleyes:
awww hes upset. Ikkle TLC's upset! :mischief:
 
diablodelmar said:
Your using the wrong tools. I think they are lodged in your eyes.
While combative, I would not characterize Erik as blind. ;)

diablodelmar said:
Ok! The mammoths were measured using Carbon 14, not Pottasium Argon, which can only be used on volcanic substances.
Then how do you respond to the link I gave you?

diablodelmar said:
There's no mention of a mammoth anywhere in that link.
 
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths8.html

11. Other/Radiocarbon. According to the hydroplate theory, all frozen mammoths and rhinoceroses died simultaneously. However, the radiocarbon ages vary. [See Table 8 on page 179.] For an explanation of radiocarbon dating and its assumptions, see pages 287–289. Those pages explain why 40,000 radiocarbon years (RCY) is a typical radiocarbon age for most frozen remains, and why 40,000 radiocarbon years probably correspond to about 5,000 actual years. A slight amount of contamination of the remains, for example by ground water, would lower their radiocarbon age considerably, especially something living as the flood began. This probably explains why different parts of the first Vollosovitch mammoth had widely varying radiocarbon ages—29,500 and 44,000 RCY. One part of Dima was 40,000 RCY, another was 26,000 RCY, and “wood found immediately around the carcass” was 9,000–10,000 RCY. The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.150 The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 +/- 670 and 16,150 +/- 230 years. Because a bone fragment at one burial site fit precisely with a bone at the other site 30 feet away, and the soil had undergone considerable compression and movement, both mammoths probably died simultaneously.
 
Perfection said:
While combative, I would not characterize Erik as blind
Ok. Then I come to the conclusion that either
a) They are lodged in his brain
b) they are lodged in his bowel tract
c) they are shoved up his...er...nose

seriously though, his arguements are weak and are readily contradicted blatlantly.
 
diablodelmar said:
No mention of mammoths here
diablodelmar said:
:dubious: Mainstream my butt.
Well, you can't win respect for your side if you don't give sources that we trust.
diablodelmar said:
awww hes upset. Ikkle TLC's upset! :mischief:
I don't think he's upset, more bemused that you cannot seem to grasp that when one asks you to back up your statement with references your reference should talk about whatever your statement refered to.
 
(im)Perfection, that link I gave you disproved your earlier statment about Potassium argon that you wanted so badly.
 
diablodelmar said:
That site never mentions mammoths at all. (grep 'mam' 0 results)

I still merits some response, though. I'll start with the first section and someone else can continue.


Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
I'm not under that particular false impression, and I don't know of anyone who is. The second statement is correct, and we've been saying it repeatedly in the thread.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
Correct.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
"The bible says" is a preconceived notion too. Evolution has the presupposition of evidence here, it being a recognized scientific theory, and creationists are the most famous for ignoring evidence that does not fit their preconceived notions.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
No big surprise, abuse of dating methods gives poor results...

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
Well duh, if I pour flour into a bowl and it reads "-500 grams", I'm going to readjust the scale, not start a theory about flour with negative weight.

This is common practice.
Yes. So?
I happen to own a laptop computer. Today, the hard drive registers as having 231 MB free, while yesterday, it had 190 MB free. Since the free space increases by ca. 40 MB per day, the laptop must be five days old or less.
Throwing out those results and keeping the "preconceived notion" that I deleted some files, now that would be common practice.


They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
I have already shown why this is a better method of dating.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - howφs that for an "exact" science?
First, it's completely acceptable for an exact science that different dating methods work on different scales. Second, 150 million is precise if you're measuring billions of years, so this claim is both founded on ignorance and invalid.

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
Well duh, if my bathroom weight says I weigh 60 kg and the kitchen scale says I weigh 2kg (it doesn't go any higher), I'm going to pick the bathroom weight's result because I like it best and I have a preconceived notion of how much I weigh.

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.
Wrong. The results are not manipulated and it is in no way an "assumption" that dionsaurs lived that long ago.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
He must be talking about creationists.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
You mean like I change 2kg to 60kg in the example above?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.
This is completely correct. This is why we are asking Kent Hovind and his friends to stop changing facts to fit their twisted interpretation of the Bible.
 
diablodelmar said:
What is their source for this information on the Mammoths?

Why should I believe what they're saying?

diablo(dumb)ar said:
(im)Perfection,
Hoo boy! You're witty! I certainly haven't heard that a million times before!

diablodelmar said:
(that link I gave you disproved your earlier statment about Potassium argon that you wanted so badly.
What link, and how does it disprove me?
 
diablodelmar said:
So, Erik, it seems there is still something lodged in your nasal cavity.
his finger, but I fail to see the relevance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom