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

[diablodelmar]

What is their source for this information on the Mammoths?

Why should I believe what they're saying?

Dude, get a better arguement. That answer tells me your stance has weakened. How should I know you aren't a poo covered rabid ape with SARS?

Hoo boy! You're witty! I certainly haven't heard that a million times before!

Then you can hear it once more.

What link, and how does it disprove me?

The AiG one, and read it.

 

[diablodelmar]

his finger, but I fail to see the relevance.

You make me laugh, imperfection.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I am withdrawing from this thread for a while due to repeated discussion of my orifices, and I have reported five posts to the moderators.

Announcement

 

[Perfection]

Dude, get a better arguement. That answer tells me your stance has weakened. How should I know you aren't a poo covered rabid ape with SARS?

They tend not to post on internet forums, but really what is the relevance

Then you can hear it once more.

That's three times!

The AiG one, and read it.

I already argued about that one here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3387744&postcount=214

 

[diablodelmar]

I am withdrawing from this thread for a while due to repeated discussion of my orifices, and I have reported five posts to the moderators.

Announcement

Which five?

 

[diablodelmar]

They tend not to post on internet forums,

Thats what you think...

 

[Samson]

Right away chief. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Do you read your links yourself? I have just had a look at this, it SEEMED to have some interesting links to peer reviewed liturature. Then I tried to find them. From the top;

"The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)"

from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...0&volume=141&firstpage=634&resourcetype=HWCIT

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.

So it is specificly saying that these particular species may incorperate older Carbon, so you have to consider that when dating them. The fact that he did not mention anything about that seems to indicate that he is deliberatly missleading his readers, which is a bit of a no no in most circles.

"The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ("The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)"

Not peer reviewed.

What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)

A google for "Antarctic Journal" mostly brings up links for a film. The top link is "Antarctic Journal of the United States" a quite different name, and in the google description it says "And the Antarctic Journal was not peer reviewed; NSF's requests for contributions competed".

A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

Even worse referenceing than above.

Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)

Not found on the science search.

("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

Not peer reviewed.

Then 3 links from "Creation Ex Nihilo". Not peer reviewed. That was a bit of a let down. Any better sourced info?

 

[Samson]

I have just been listening to a Ken Hovid video about the age of the earth. He did not even start talking about it until 19 mins in, and I gave up at 33 minutes when he said (not the extact words, but close) "If the merry go round is spinning clockwise because of the conservation of angular momentum the kids will be spinning clockwise." He was talking about kids on a merry go round aproaching 100 mph and throwing the kids off. The kids would go in straight lines, would not be spinning at all.

There must be some better aguments for these theories, why does no one mention them? What about the flagella thing?

[EDIT] I did listen to a bit more, and he MAY actually be right (about the conservation of angulatr momentum and kids). Not quite sure though.

 

[diablodelmar]

Samson, keep watching. That DVD is #1, so it gives an introduction to the seminar. Also watch the last DVD. It answers a lot about dating and stuff.

What do you think of the conservation of angular momentum?

 

[Samson]

Samson, keep watching. That DVD is #1, so it gives an introduction to the seminar. Also watch the last DVD. It answers a lot about dating and stuff.

What do you think of the conservation of angular momentum?

I am still watching (mostly lestening while working actually). There is some rubbish. He has just said " the world is not overcrowded, just look at the west of the US". He may or may not be right about overcrowding, but that is not an argument.

I think he is right about the kids spinning off the merry go round, I am not sure about how galazies spin the other way [1], though I am sure someone here will come up with an explaination.

There is a lot in it that I do not like. Lots of agrument by assosiation, some blatantly false statments and very little hard evidence.

[1] I THINK what he is saying is that post big bang, pre inflation the universe was spinning one way (clockwise?). We now see some astrological bodies (including some galazies) spinning the other way, how does this happen? It is at about 31 mins if you want to hear it for yourself.

 

[diablodelmar]

No

Hes saying that if the big bang happened all the galaxies should be spinning the same way. They don't.

 

[Markus6]

Hes saying that if the big bang happened all the galaxies should be spinning the same way. They don't.

As far as I can tell only one galaxy is spinning in the wrong direction, NGC 4622 and even that has an inner arm spinning in the conventional sense which suggests that it probably consumed a smaller galaxy. It's probably not worth scrapping the whole of the big bang theory for.

 

[Samson]

No

Hes saying that if the big bang happened all the galaxies should be spinning the same way. They don't.

He was talking to some profesor at 28.50 (I went back a few minutes and in that time he did not quote his source). This Prof. said "Billions of years ago all the dirt in the universe was in this 1 bitty tiny dot, and it was spinning real fast". This sounds to me like the theory where the universe came into being and then at some time after this there was a period of rapid expansion. This is what I understand by the inflasion model. It is really a theory made to make the maths work, and there are many others that do not involve this period of rapid expansion. It is the popular theory ATM, though I did not know it invloved the early universe spinning. If it does then I expect there is a theory to explain galazies that are rotating anticlockwise (if indeed any are).

BTW, I cannot read the links he shows (the video quality is too poor). Are any of them to peer reviewed liturature? If so, fancy referenceing them here so I can check them out?

 

[Samson]

I have finished watching that video now. At about 1.41.35 he talks about how fresh water fish survived the fllod, he says the sea was fresh water (he says mostly, there may have been a "tangled mess a bit with the flood going on" (?)). He uses the example of fresh and salt water crocodiles, and says that they developed from a fresh water crocodile, and that is not evolution because they are all crocodiles (the same "kind" I guess he means). However he does not mention fish. Salt water fish and fresh water fish are very different, I would suspect that they are more genetically divergent from each other than we are from crocodiles (though I could be wrong). They need to solve very different homeostatic problems. Fresh water fish must be able to excrete lots of dilute wtaer solution to prevent themselves becoming too dilute, while salt water fish must excrete very concentrated urine to prevent themselves becoming to concentrated. I would like to here a thoery that demonstrates how these could have "adapted" (his word) from fresh water fish in 4400 years.

I will not be listening to any more of his videos unless you can link to one which is aimed at a more scientific audience where he references his statements. I do feel this is similar to the debate he, where assertions are made out to be facts with no justification.

The reason I dislike it so much is because many people will think like he does, that (1.52.39) if the bible is right about the begining, perhaps it is right about the end, that if you do not have Jesus in your heart then you are going to hell (a bit of a miss quote IIRC). So if someone has been convinced by this sort of thing that the bible is incompatable with a belif in an old earth, and then from their own reaserch finds that the evidence is incompatable with a young earth, they may come to belive that if the bible is wong about the beginning then it can be wrong abou the end and so give up their christianity.

 

[Che Guava]

I have finished watching that video now. At about 1.41.35 he talks about how fresh water fish survived the fllod, he says the sea was fresh water (he says mostly, there may have been a "tangled mess a bit with the flood going on" (?)). He uses the example of fresh and salt water crocodiles, and says that they developed from a fresh water crocodile, and that is not evolution because they are all crocodiles (the same "kind" I guess he means). However he does not mention fish. Salt water fish and fresh water fish are very different, I would suspect that they are more genetically divergent from each other than we are from crocodiles (though I could be wrong). They need to solve very different homeostatic problems. Fresh water fish must be able to excrete lots of dilute wtaer solution to prevent themselves becoming too dilute, while salt water fish must excrete very concentrated urine to prevent themselves becoming to concentrated. I would like to here a thoery that demonstrates how these could have "adapted" (his word) from fresh water fish in 4400 years.

There are more than a few fish species that are andromodous, meaning that they spend part of thier life-cycle in freshwater, and part in salt (salmon comes to mind), but these are hardly the norm. You are abosolutely correct that the amount of homeostatic problems that 90% of the fish in the world would have to solve very quickly (40 days and 40 nights, right?), not to mention other problems with water pressure, the terrible amount of soil and other particulate that would get dumped into the water collumn, and the complete disappearance of prey that certain fish require. I would expect that if we did have a global flooding event ~4000 years ago, we would only have the most hardy bottom-feeders around today.

 

[diablodelmar]

Watch one of his debates. I am right now, and in this particlaur one he demolishes the evolutionist. He is so much more convincing.

 

[Che Guava]

Watch one of his debates. I am right now, and in this particlaur one he demolishes the evolutionist. He is so much more convincing.

And where would we find such a debate..?

 

[Samson]

Watch one of his debates. I am right now, and in this particlaur one he demolishes the evolutionist. He is so much more convincing.

If it is in some way backed up (peer reviewed references are the best way, but I suppose there are other forms of proof I could accept) then post a link. It would have to be today, my boss is out of the office so I can listen to this stuff while I am working.

 

[Phlegmak]

I think you guys are wasting your time. diablodelmar shows the same behavior as a host of other people: he simply refuses to believe evidence which contradicts his already steadfast worldview.

 

[Rad Chris]

This news just in. Scientific American supports creationism

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F