1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is from the
The objection:
The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds.
But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out:
‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so ...[text shortened]... hown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating.
http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
link that is obviously just a creationist propaganda link and so almost inevitably just packed full of lies and misinformation.
It is obvious that this is probably just another of their lies.
Can you give us a link that says/implies the same thing but is actually a CREDIBLE scientific link i.e. NOT one of your usual creationist propaganda links?
If not, then that is evidence that this claim is just one of there many lies.
Originally posted by humyWell, you get your information from an atheist/evolution believing website.
This is from the
http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
link that is obviously just a creationist propaganda link and so almost inevitably just packed full of lies and misinformation.
It is obvious that this is probably just another of their lies.
Can you give us a link that says/implies the same thing but is actually a CREDIBLE scientifi ...[text shortened]... propaganda links?
If not, then that is evidence that this claim is just one of there many lies.
Originally posted by RJHindsIf their claim was the truth, many scientists would be rushing to get massive publicity ( and possibly even a Nobel prize ) for just pointing out the gigantic carbon-14 diamond proves several scientific hypotheses wrong and it would be all over the news by now and be already common knowledge; so why hasn't that already happened?
Well, you get your information from an atheist/evolution believing website.
Well, you get your information from an atheist/evolution believing website.
no, from valid scientific websites as opposed to stupid religious propaganda websites with no credibility whatsoever.
Of course, given the fact that evolution is a proven fact, the authors of these websites would usually accept the fact of evolution.
Originally posted by humyRecall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.
If their claim was the truth, many scientists would be rushing to get massive publicity ( and possibly even a Nobel prize ) for just pointing out the gigantic carbon-14 diamond proves several scientific hypotheses wrong and it would be all over the news by now and be already common knowledge; so why hasn't that already happened?
[quote]
Well, you get your ...[text shortened]... ion is a proven fact, the authors of these websites would usually accept the fact of evolution.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.
Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution.
that is true for ALL rationally obtained scientific theories so how can that be a "logical fallacy" of the theory as you claim? 😛 You appear to not understand how science works.
If those “assumptions” for a theory are qualified ones to the extent that they are proven facts and if the theory makes predictions of what could be observed that would disprove the theory if observed to be false ( i.e. it is falsifiable ) and those predictions are observed to be true ( i.e. there is conformation for the theory ) and there is no credible alternative explanation for those observations with many different different predictions by the theory being shown to consistently to be observed to be true and not one being show to be false ( i.e. the evidence for the theory is overwhelming ) then that is considered to be valid scientific proof of the theory.
Evolution has all those above properties thus it is proven.
Originally posted by humyRJ says, Don't confuse me with facts. GOD DID IT.Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution.
that is true for ALL rationally obtained scientific theories so how can that be a "logical fallacy" of the theory as you claim? 😛 You appear to not understand how science works.
...[text shortened]... scientific proof of the theory.
Evolution has all those above properties thus it is proven.
Originally posted by humyI know how many scientist work. However, good science should prove their initial assumption before making another assumption. Evolutionist don't do this. They use an assumption, wrong or right, in an attempt to prove something else or to interpret a result of an experiment. As you say, creationists start with the opposite assumption from the evolutionists. I think the assumption of the creationists have been proven with the discovery of an information system in the cell that would never have been predicted by evolution because it goes against one of its main assumptions of chance happenings. Darwin thought the cell was just a blob of amino acids at best.Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution.
that is true for ALL rationally obtained scientific theories so how can that be a "logical fallacy" of the theory as you claim? 😛 You appear to not understand how science works.
...[text shortened]... scientific proof of the theory.
Evolution has all those above properties thus it is proven.
Originally posted by RJHinds
I know how many scientist work. However, good science should prove their initial assumption before making another assumption. Evolutionist don't do this. They use an assumption, wrong or right, in an attempt to prove something else or to interpret a result of an experiment. As you say, creationists start with the opposite assumption from the evolutionis ...[text shortened]... umptions of chance happenings. Darwin thought the cell was just a blob of amino acids at best.
I know how many scientist work
you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of how science works and you wouldn't know how MOST scientists work.
However, good science should prove their initial assumption before making another assumption.
you are talking crap as usual. Just for starters, haven't you heard of “first principles” ?
I think the assumption of the creationists have been proven with the discovery of an information system in the cell that would never have been predicted by evolution because it goes against one of its main assumptions of chance happenings.
nothing about that above statement makes much sense:
1, WHICH assumption of the creationists have been proven with the discovery of an information system in the cell?
2, WHAT would “never have been predicted by evolution”? That creationist's assumption that you haven't stated or the “information system in the cell”?
-if “information system in the cell” then assuming you are talking about genetic information then evolution theory relies on inheritable characteristics being inherited into the next generation even for single-celled species so one could argue that evolution implicitly predicts some kind of “information system in the cell” for that to work which passes on inheritable information.
3, “because it goes against one of its main assumptions of chance happenings.”? “chance happenings” is, strictly speaking, not an assumption of evolution because the theory worked even before we knew about random mutations in DNA.
Darwin thought the cell was just a blob of amino acids at best.
even if this was true, it would make no difference to the fact that evolution is proven.
Originally posted by humyCreationists are a pathetic bunch, especially YEC's, in their desperate attempt to destroy evolution. They don't want to just win with creationism, they want to destroy evolution forever as a science so they can 'teach' creationism in a science class.I know how many scientist work
you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of how science works and you wouldn't know how MOST scientists work.However, good science should prove their initial assumption before making another assumption.
you are talking crap as usual. Just for starters, haven't you heard of “first prin ...[text shortened]... e]
even if this was true, it would make no difference to the fact that evolution is proven.
It is a religious war, pure and simple.
3 edits
Originally posted by humyThe theory of evolution has never worked except as shown in text books and those were only imaginary ideas. They are fairy tales for grownups as one scientist put it.I know how many scientist work
you have repeatedly demonstrated your ignorance of how science works and you wouldn't know how MOST scientists work.However, good science should prove their initial assumption before making another assumption.
you are talking crap as usual. Just for starters, haven't you heard of “first prin e]
even if this was true, it would make no difference to the fact that evolution is proven.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/
"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.
Something smells fishy.
"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)
Originally posted by RJHindsFlawed data -so what?
The theory of evolution has never worked except as shown in text books and those were only imaginary ideas. They are fairy tales for grownups as one scientist put it.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/
"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (Fro ...[text shortened]... found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)
what about the data that isn't flawed?
Originally posted by humyData that is not flawed will lead to the truth, if it is only interpreted correctly. That is the trouble with evolutionists, they have been indoctrinated with the lie of evolution so well that they have become to believe it and can not not interpret the data correctly.
Flawed data -so what?
what about the data that isn't flawed?
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
Data that is not flawed will lead to the truth, if it is only interpreted correctly. That is the trouble with evolutionists, they have been indoctrinated with the lie of evolution so well that they have become to believe it and can not not interpret the data correctly.
Data that is not flawed will lead to the truth, if it is only interpreted correctly.
-which doesn't change the fact that that data or that interpretation is obviously flawed.
If the data/interpetation implies an absurdity, esp one that is proven false by other data as in this case, then it is reasonable to assume that that data/interpetation is flawed.
Originally posted by humyLike I said:
Data that is not flawed will lead to the truth, if it is only interpreted correctly.
-which doesn't change the fact that that data or that interpretation is obviously flawed.
If the data/interpetation implies an absurdity, esp one that is proven false by other data as in this case, then it is reasonable to assume that that data/interpetation is flawed.
Something smells fishy.