Well, I guess I opened a can of worms bweheheh.
I ignored you about ad populum? You're not even reading my replies, nevermind thinking critically about them. I won't waste any more of my time.
No, you ignored my argument that it doesn't matter WHO says what, what matters is evidence. If I, a scientific amateur, conduct an experiment according to the scientific method, post my results and a video of what I did, and had other amateurs repeat the experiment, then that would be an empirical fact, unless someone disproves it. Now, if a scientific leader who is at the top of his field comes along and says that I and the amateurs are wrong, without giving evidence as to why and showing how the experiment is wrong, plenty of people would believe him and not me. But I would still be correct, regardless of WHO says I'm wrong.
So you believe at some point, C14, everywhere, at once, decayed at a different universal standard rate? And that at some point, it had to change to the constant rate that we see today? I feel like I stated this fairly.
If yes, then how exactly could C14 change its decay rate?
If I follow correctly, then it seems god does not mind changing the laws that govern every single particle in the universe to accomplish a goal. So if god ever decides to do this again, then we might have some proof of a god. "Hey Bill, this Carbon 14 atom I'm studying just changed its half life to 700 years.... that's never happened before right?"
I really really doubt that's ever going to happen though, and until then it looks like you're wrong.
Yes. Maybe not everywhere at once. I don't know how it would change. I don't see any reason for it to NOT change. And I expect it would be a fairly gradual change.
What I meant is, if there are factors that change the decay rate of the C14 on the fossils, then scientists must have found said factors, and either conclude that they cannot read the age of the fossils yet, or did calculations to modify the estimated age to fit with the decay rate where the fossils are found. And the factors can only be the chemicals that form the earth formation where the fossil is found. Since the fossil is burried soon after the organism died, the atmosphere differences between the period when the organism lived and the present is irrelevant.
Arguments against Jack's lastest long post, continued:
Diatoms can't die that much in 6000 years =_= And remember, they formed lotsa sand deposits in every ocean in the world =_=
If the first humans were homo sapiens, then how do you explain their differences from today's people, good sir?
Oh, and that quote was from The Infancy Gospel of Matthew, a part of the New Testament, and is pretty much the same as the bible, except for that censored dragon encounter. Oh, and need I show you the parts in Thomas' version of the Infancy Gospel that described how Jesus the Kid killed/cursed/withered lotsa people?
EDIT: If the bible was true, please kindly explain how dinosaurs and tons of other species still died after being rescued by Noah's boat. In the brief time of 6000 years. Please. Oh and dragons too.
You're still not quite getting it. If there used to be a different universal rate (maybe not even universal, just relatively localized (think planet-localized), then there would be no factors to show the scientists that there was a different decay rate.
I think diatoms CAN die that much in 6000 years. Prove me wrong, good sir.
There's no difference between modern homo sapiens and old homo sapiens.
I don't know anything about this Infancy Gospel. It certainly isn't considered to be the true Bible. I'll have to research it some.
As for species becoming extinct. Well. Ever heard of humans? They have this habit of killing off anything that's a threat to them, and often things that aren't a threat. I'd say a huge animal with big fangs is a threat. Guess what? Dinosaurs fit that idea of a threat. I'd say we killed em off, same as we still do today with other species.
Not to mention how big the ark had to be to house 2 of every creature on the planet.
This had been mentioned earlier in the discussion, and was faced with total inability to explain from the bible belivers
Sigh. I thought I explained this. The Ark is EXTREMELY LARGE. It would have easily fit in all the animals. Maybe fitting a full size brontosaurus would have been a bit of a squeeze, but guess what? If you're trying to save a species, you take the young of the species, so that there is more time in their lives for them to reproduce. A small brontosaurus is, well, not large.
By the way, Jesus was an Arab.
@this and following The people who make pictures of Jesus are generally catholics. They have no clue what Jesus looked like. No one does. I daresay He was a Jew, with tan skin. He may or may not have had long hair, it might have been black or brown, doubtfully blonde or ginger though
That's about all we can surmise.
According to this, and any eighth grader's science textbook, continents drift very slowly, no more than a few centimeters per year. So, in order for all the continents to be "close together," they must have drifted apart over the previous TWO HUNDRED MILLION YEARS. And even if they were "close together," that doesn't make their areas any smaller. Noah's family had to cover billions of square miles, leading/hauling their animals and other supplies to a single site. And another thing: what happened to the fish? Freshwater fish cannot survive in saltwater and vice versa. Heavy rains should have diluted the world's oceans, leading to a salt concentration too low for saltwater fish to handle.
Again, appeal to uniformitarianism. How do you know that the continents didn't drift apart quicker in the past? Oh, that's right, you don't. I doubt Noah had time to personally lead animals around the globe. They would have spread by themselves. I don't know how freshwater fish and saltwater fish made it out, but they're here, so it musta been fine for them. Most/all cultures and old myths have details of a flood; are you saying that the flood never happened?
and yet do very little to argue for personal willpower and abstinence from alcohol?
I'd say plenty of Christians argue against those things. Problem is they're worldwide problems, which have existed for all of time and will continue to exist for a long time more. Evolution is more recent, more specific, and more deceptive from our point of view.
a) You're already thinking of counter-arguments to every point I made.
Correct
Or more like, thinking WRONGWRONGAHAHHA.
Incidentally, as everyone seems to think that I'm parroting words I've been taught in Bible study or school or something; for the most part, what I've learned about evolution and my stand on it is from what I've seen on the internet and read in the Bible.
@FaZ again, it doesn't matter one hoot how many credidentials a person has, how high up they are on the scientific ladder. What matters is evidence.
@cardinal I gtg but I'll find some stuff about what you were saying later on.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."