@gregrutz "Evolution is not proven by a dating method" It's not PROVEN at all. What you are inferring though is still wrong. Fossils are dated by the isotopes found within the rocks. Those isotopes are dated by using the parent isotopes half-life and comparing the percentage of each isotope found in the rock sample.
Fossils are cited as evidence for evolution even though it proves it wrong.
WTF is an ''Evolutionary'' dating method? Geologists proved the earth is old and there was no global flood and did it before radiometric dating was invented.
@gregrutz "Geologists proved the earth is old and there was no global flood" No, geologists POSTULATED that there was no flood based on things like the grand canyon's construction. Other geologists have explained methods in which a very powerful flood COULD have caused its construction.
@NorthForkFisherman "the level of difference is many magnitudes smaller than what you YECers require."
Science has no way of knowing the magnitude photon attenuation a vapor cloud would give.
"..now you want to talk about a mythical flood? Priceless!"
Nice appeal to ridicule, I laughed therefore I win. Why would I believe in a young earth and not the flood? I don't just argue for the hell of it. Your "theory" is unscientific & is a direct attack on my religion.
@gregrutz "The rate of decay is a function of the Weak Nuclear Force. It does not change." (that's just a lie)
Decay can be alpha decay, proton emission (electromagnetic vs Strong nuclear force), neutron emission, fission, beta decay (two kinds), there are dozens more. Please, don't post anymore lies.
@ShawnSwander "(that's just a lie)" And a physics fail TOO! When you can't even identify the 4 basic forces at work, it's appropriate that you call for magic instead.
@NorthForkFisherman "When you can't even identify the 4 basic forces at work, it's appropriate that you call for magic instead." (logical fallacy: Ad hominem) God isn't magic. Only a fool would assume that something not of this universe would obey the rules of this universe. No one expects a computer programmer to follow his own computer code.
Science has to use magic to explain how matter got here both of the first two laws of thermodynamics form an impossible paradox for origins in nature.
@ShawnSwander Yes you might think that quantum mechanics is magic. It's certainly arcane when you start looking at H-bar and Planck Length reality, but it's just math. You might want to pick up some of Brian Green's works and read thru them for a bit before you start making claims that are based in prideful ignorance. Knowing how the universe really works and how small and insigificant you are before the reality of the cosmos is very humbling. You just keep showing hubris.
@NorthForkFisherman "Actually, since I'm not a particle physicst, I prefer to let subject matter experts cover that: " This is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. It says because this person is an expert my point is right.
I don't have sound here I'm in a classroom.
"Neutron bombardment from decay of radioactives."
C-12 doesn't absorb neutrons above trace levels, its stable.
@ShawnSwander And how about those daughter isotopes?......man, all the data just keeps rolling in, while the best you can do is try to change the subject.
@NorthForkFisherman "best you can do is try to change the subject." This is called poisoning the well. A logical fallacy that states (in this case) if I talk about anything else (which I did by answering your questions on multiple subjects) that my claims are false. Changing the subject doesn't make my claims false. It just means I'm on a computer and I can answer multiple questions at once if someone refers to what they are addressing. Please stop the logical fallacies.
@NorthForkFisherman To the 4 forces: The photon flux from the sun affects the rate of decay, the earth's magnetic flux affects it as well both of these are not constants. The Christian worldview which comes from the bible includes a vapor cloud that would change the photon flux by deflecting and absorbing some of the sun's radiation. This vapor cloud was one water source for the flood in the book of Genesis.
In short this would change the halflife of isotopes.
@gregrutz "Geologist knew the earth was old and evolution was accepted before radiometric dating"
Actually no they didn't know that. They thought that based on erosion speeds and the continental drift which also has been refuted by the biblical flood account.
@gregrutz How do plate tectonics prove the earth is millions of years old. Did you personally observe the continental drift over the past 4 billion years? I believe the deluge caused the state plates are in today and they continue to drift apart slowly. You can't prove that wrong either.
@gregrutz "that day all lthe fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the mwindows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11
First I never said all Christians believe this but water came from somewhere above them enough to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Please don't add your own dogma to the Christian faith.
@gregrutz LMAO there was no Hebrew word for sphere at the time.
Isaiah says above in the NIV TRANSLATION (which isn't even a very accurate translation its just a readable one)... The original Hebrew doesn't use the word above.
The original Hebrew manuscript uses the word yashab which just means to sit down.
sacrednamebible . com / kjvstrongs / STRHEB34 . htm
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).
@gregrutz What did they eat when they go off the boat? The world was dead and covered in mud. The dove brought an olive branch and they had seeds as well
Animals have peculiar reactions to natural phenomena which I find interesting...
@gregrutz "Everyone ate olives that grew underwater," straw man. The waters receded before they landed. Seeds had time to grow. The branch was evidence of this.
"creatard" (AD HOMINEM) for a guy who doesn't know anything about Radiometric and insists on asserting his ignorance, you sure throw insults around a lot.
@gregrutz@gregrutz If you keep up the logical fallacies I'm going to embarrass you again like I did when you lied and said decay rates are a constant proportional to the weak nuclear force. You are a waste of time to respond to because you don't do any actual research you just make things up.
"How the fuck do you know"(personal attack: language, begging appeal to authority)
You have never opened a science book."(appeal to authority) " You just puck up Hovind bull shit."(special pleading)
Geologists say the earth is old and there was no global flood. NOT evolution.
And geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was billions of years old, Before radeometric dating was invinted.
The earth is 4,545 million years old, + or - 2 million years. Nice try.
The rate of decay is the same, the forces of nature don't change to fit the bible.
@gregrutz How do you know the rate of decay is the same? How do you know that all factor's were the same as what can be observed now. Were you here 4,545 million years ago, so that you can tell us what the conditions were?
You missed the whole point of the video. Assumptions have to be made in order to date rocks.
@gregrutz To layers (circular logic). Layers are identified by the fossils they contain. Layers are found out of order all the time multiple times hammers and other tools have been found in Cretaceous layers (these layers are assumed to be up to 500 million years old).
@ShawnSwander No they haven't found any bunny fossils with the dinosaur fossils. Someone dropping a hammer does not prove evolution or the age of the earth wrong.
@ShawnSwander Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order, which is what we find in the real world. Not all sediments are from water either.
@gregrutz how about shell fossils on top of mt. Everest, polystrate fossils, preserved DNA in dinosaurs (with carbon-14 in them that decays to 0 in 30k years), C-14 in diamonds that are supposedly millions of years old, hydrological sorting, out of place artifacts, ... please do your own research if your really not biased.
@ShawnSwander There are not ''shell fossils on top of mt. Everest'' The whole top of the mountain is an old sea bed raised up by plate techtonic over millions of years.
Carbon 14 is in many rocks exposed to radiation underground.
Watch this watch?v=0cN8d7K_mVM
The dinosaur with the 'soft tissure' is still 70 million years, they didn't change the age.
@gregrutz Actually floods do make rock layers in various orders depending on the flood conditions so you are a liar. Rock layers aren't in random order they are in the order the currents put them in. We aren't talking about a a little flood were talking about comet storms that hit the earth so hard it wobbles on its axis and the mid Atlantic ridge opens up and plates open the crust of the earth. I said a biblical deluge not your kitchen sink overflowing.
@Mom31P Man, you really don't get it do you? If the rate of decay was somehow increased to the rate you require to fit into a 6000 timespan, the corresponding release of heat energy would mean this planet would be entirely molten.
@NorthForkFisherman This is a gross misunderstanding of radioisotope decay.
Its much like looking at a candle burning and trying to figure out how long it has been burning. We can test the rate it burns(rate of decay), but we have no way of knowing how long the candle was to begin with (don't know initial radioisotope levels). You didn't even watch the video.
@ShawnSwander Daughter Isotope Understanding FAIL: The zircons provide a sealed environment in which the decay products are trapped. After that it's run it through a mass spectrometer and they do the math - the daughter isotopes exist in ratios directly relative to the amount of the parent. If you trapped all the products coming from a burning candle you could also do the same. It's simply another YECer showing that they don't do critical thinking.
@gregrutz "Geologists say ..." "And geologists knew..." (appeal to authority) how about you discuss How they knew instead of appealing to their expertise.
"The earth is 4,545 million years old..." (unsupported claim)
"The rate of decay is the same" (unsupported claim, even by science)
"the forces of nature don't change " (unsupported claim, rate of decay isn't a natural force)
@ShawnSwander The ‘Super Group’ of rocks in the Grand Canyon is below the level layers at the east end. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains , worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over the basement layers. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally water flowing down hill cut the canyon. How long do you think this took?
@gregrutz You are quite correct that the center of the plateau through which the Grand Canyon has been cut is higher in elevation than the rims at either end of the canyon. Of course, this means if the plateau was there before the Colorado River, then the Colorado River would have had to flow uphill to carve out the Grand Canyon!
The best explanation is a catastrophic cause (deluge) and therefore its impossible to know exactly how long it took it would depend on the magnitude of the catastrophe.
I can see with the hourglass analogy how it is believed scientists make assumptions about the age of rocks, but why is it that they come up with billions of years instead of thousands? The analogy would make more sense if they were coming up with 50,000 years instead of 6,000 years, but they're coming up with not even that, or 1 million, but 4 and a half BILLION. And analyses from space rocks, which couldn't have been altered by the flood, gave a similar number. It's very frustrating.
@mooney137 According to God's word, God created Adam and Eve, fully grown. If you were to test their body right after they were created, would they test as being 20 or 30....or would they test as a newborn? (I don't know the answer...but that's not the point). My point is that God created some things with age already built in them. If we don't know the historical science, how can we know what factor's may have occurred to give rocks the appearance of more age?
@Mom31P According to God's word, God created Adam and Eve"
According to a CREATION MYTH, just like the ones in every primitive civilization in the past and they are ALL different, one no better than another and all just about valid as Hans Andersons fairy tales. Yours isn't the only one.
The rest of your argument is nonsense. You are presupposing that "some things" had age built in them. There is absolutely no evidence or sense to that.
@Matthew1944 examining all possible origin myths such as the oscillating universe & abiogenesis, etc.) we can see that they violate laws of physics & thermodynamics) the origins can be organized into a dilemma (matter either always existed or it didn't) there is no natural cause that can explain the universe or life as we see it today given an infinite time preceding this moment. Therefore, we can responsibly begin to delve a supernatural cause.
@ShawnSwander No natural cause has been found - Doesn't mean there isn't/ wasn't one or that it won't be found in time. And no, it isn't responsible to think that assuming a supernatural cause is the default.
@Matthew1944 "Doesn't mean there isn't/ wasn't one or that it won't be found in time." That fallacy is called Appeal to belief in spite of evidence contrary to the belief. I'll cite abiogenesis, and pre-plank big bang specifically.
Upon observation natural causes are a self-defeating dilemma because the first law of thermo dynamics prevents creation of matter/energy and the second prevents an infinite time scale. Therefore no natural cause is possible.
@gregrutz Take my quote out of context, that will prove your point. You seem to not understand that a natural cause would be something that follows the laws of nature. The first two laws of thermodynamics prohibit creating matter and prohibit infinite time. These two possibilities represent a dichotomy. The only explanation is that the laws of nature didn't always exist.
@ShawnSwander Your line of argument sounds like something from the pseudo-scientific Discovery Institute. In the book"The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age," historian Randall Stephens looks at the widespread and disturbing inability of American evangelicals to distinguish between real knowledge claims, rooted in serious research and endorsed by credible knowledge communities, and pseudo-claims made by unqualified groups and leaders that offer "faith-friendly" alternatives.
@ShawnSwander OK. Your statement was "Supernatural causes are not an assumption, they are an obvious conclusion"
The supernatural/ superstitious belief does not enter in the realm of the scientific world.. Your statement about the supernatural being an obvious conclusion isn't science - it's the kind of spinnery that comes from the pseudoscience of the Christian think tanks. In short, it's nonsense.
@Matthew1944 Quote right out of Conservapedia: "Another example is that the first and second laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe, and creation scientists claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created".
If you want to understand real science, go to the real scientists - not the quacks.
@Matthew1944 "supernatural being an obvious conclusion isn't science" (logical fallacy: appeal to common practice)...
This means that because science chooses not to associate with the supernatural that the supernatural doesn't exist. Its a logical fallacy.
By your logic I could say that all theories that violate the laws of science are supernatural by definition and therefore should be rejected by science... Bye abiogenesis...
If its nonsense explain why its an inevitable conclusion
@Matthew1944 "If you want to understand real science, go to the real scientists - not the quacks." (Ad hominem) If you want to understand real science you wouldn't stoop to personal attacks and appeals to ridicule.
I thought you'd be too dense to understand how to remove all the punctuation it takes for youtube to allow you to post a website. Anyways, all of your arguments have been refuted, you just refuse to look for the refutations and seem content with battling "evotards" online instead of talking to qualified individuals.
But as far as I can tell, every one of your comments seems to be well constructed and put forth in a mature manner. Bravo.
something has computer code, grammar, possesses linguistic functions, syntax, punctuation, functions like software, but is not information??? LOL!!!
here's a definition of information from merriam webster:
"the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects"
@todocambiara2 part 5: dna possesses linguistic functions: springerlink(.)com/content/u401447kp2555852/ nature(.)com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/abs/nature09352.html dna has syntax: sy.lespi.free.fr/recherche/publies/ECCB03Poster.pdf bioinformatics.oxfordjournals(.)org/content/17/3/226.abstract dna has punctuation: symposium.cshlp.org/content/31/251.extract dna has grammar: bioinformatics.oxfordjournals(.)org/content/17/3/226.abstract cont...
@leviMichealathan Yeah, see. All of this giberish running together makes me think you don't even know how to do it properly. Heh, wow, I can get to the host site, but the web pages appeared to have 404'd. Lol, I'm sorry you're so sad... jesus, how many comment do you have on this page, more than 50? If there is a god, he has forsaken you, or at least your brain.
@todocambiara2 part 2: i have a reason for posting. what's ur reason? u need help; if i believed that there was no God and this life is the ONLY life that i had, i wouldn't spend even a sec talking about a God that doesn't exist; but here u are, spending hours, talking about a God who doesn't exist. me thinks, God pwnd u!!!!
@leviMichealathan I think... and this is a rough estimate... I think I've spent 15 minutes or so total here. I won't stoop to a level so low as to say you need help, but I do feel bad for you.
"the difference between life and non-life is a matter not of substance, but of information. living things contain prodigous amounts of information. most of the information is digitally coded in DNA."-dawkins
"i replaced only the DNA software and in a short while all the characteristic of the
first species was replaced by a new species...we didn't know how really dynamic a cell was until simply replacing the software"-craig venter
"genes are information. they are coded information. it even looks like computer information. a chromosome is a great long computer tape...digital code is not binary, it's quaternary; apart from that,it is just the same as computer tape. biology has turned into computer science."-dawkins
"DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome’s capacity in bits too, if we wish. DNA doesn’t use a binary code, but a quaternary one. Whereas the unit of information in the computer is a 1 or a 0, the unit in DNA can be T, A, C or G."-dawkins
"I suggest sticking to pathetic arguments on the noble and intellectual videos you troll on youtube" thx for admittting that Christian videos are "noble and intellectual"; and, in case you forgot, this is a CHRISTIAN VIDEO, TROLL!!! LOL!!!!
LOL!!!!!! u give me a link to a discussion forum??? LOL!!! let me pwn u, u anti-science genius u:
@todocambiara2,@staum607 "Forget that my argument is valid" no genius, i pwnd ur "argument", which is ONLY valid to you. every1 can see what a genius u r!
ur prophet, dawkins, taught u well; too bad ad hominems only work in never, never land.
now, crawl under a rock and pray to ur god, time, that he turns u into more of a genius so that we can have more laughs.
"Every micro evolutionary change is evidence of Macro changes with enough time." plus, genius, this is unfalsifiable; and if it is unfalsifiable, it's not science but a fairytale.
so the BEST evidence for evotardism is, it happens given enough time.
thanks for giving us a good laugh. be careful when u copy from sites that claim increase in information has been observed.
@leviMichealathan Sounds like you've done this before. I knew you already knew the answer. Done masturbating to yourself in the mirror?
Let me just address this, "but keep up with the ad hominems". Oh... I called you a fool. Forget that my argument is valid and not copied from any websites (at least I've not read them), but just ad. hom. and strawman the shit out of me and take no responsibility for it.
Great scott... he complains about a 50 million year discrepancy? Has this man no sense of scale? This is lierally equivalent to less than 1.1% error. It's as if he said that if a yardstick measures your chair's height to be 1 meter plus or minor 1 centimeter, then obviously the yardstick is a bad measuring method, and it could very well be that the chair is only one-thousandth of a millimeter high (read 'earth could be only 6,000 years old'). Riiiiiiight....
Where did this idea that scientists always "assume" the age of the material before dating it come from? Physicists often have to date material of unknown age.
@jwissick Nice bumper sticker slogan you are repeating to me. Let me say I used to believe in Evolution until I was saved dramatically, not by my choice but by the risen Lord revealing himself to me. Only then did I rethink my position. Nonetheless there is no hard evidence for Evolution. 1)Life can never come from none life. EVER. 2) It's impossible for an animal to completely and gradually change to a new species. 3) Irreducible Complexity
@dmzle 1) Wrong. 2) It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. 3) Irreducible Complexity holds no water and has been shot down dozens of times.
@jwissick LOL at your explanation for #1. Watching Evolutionists vs. YEC threads are like banana time at the monkey cage. It's just sad to watch. *shakes head*
If the law of Biogenesis is true then life must beget life into an infinite regression. Infinite regressions cannot exist therefore the law of Biogenesis must be false. We both believe that life came from non-life we just differ on whether or not the cause was natural or supernatural.
"It's impossible for an animal to change to a new species"
As jwissick said we have observed specization.
As for IC, it has been dispelled and is fallacious.
like jimmy boy, this genius has also been pwnd badly....
"If the law of Biogenesis is true then life must beget life into an infinite regression. Infinite regressions cannot exist therefore the law of Biogenesis must be false. We both believe that life came from non-life we just differ on whether or not the cause was natural or supernatural" LOL!!!! genius, God created life! God is life; abiogenesis has been proven false; biogenesis is a scientific law.
here's some definitions of life from ur own source MW: "spiritual existence transcending physical death", "SPIRIT"; here's the definition of spirit: "a supernatural being or essence" and here's an example: "He believes that God gives life to all creatures"
plus, science has shown that life can only come from intelligence; intelligence comes from a mind; God has a mind.
there's no infinite regress; u offered a false dichotomy.
@jwissick "As jwissick said we have observed specization." LOL!!!! using jimmy boy has ur source. LOL!!! he has been pwn badly just like you about all his claims.
the speciation that u are talking about is micro evolution, i.e. a loss of information in the genome; not evotardism.
AGAIN, here's my challenge: STATE the BEST evidence that HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME FROM DARWIN'S DAYS; evotardism has been around for a long time; when darwim made his claims, what was the best evidence he used? after all, real scientific hypotheses are based on real evidence and not fairytale evidence.
u have already been pwnd about DNA being the best evidence for evotardism.
@dmzle i will compile a complete list to show ppl what geniuses max and jimmy boy are
@jwissick do you have evidence of the initial conditions, the evidence needed to accurately make measurements? Isn't it actually circular reasoning in evolution? We think x (initial conditions) was happening, and then use our assumption of x to find the value of y (how much time has elapsed). Besides trying to solve for 2 unknown variables, evolution also fails to account for any change in conditions that occurred between x and today. Sounds real solid to me...
@staum607 Do I have evidence? No. But science does. We get then from air samples trapped in rock, ice, amber, etc. This isn't circular reasoning at all. This is a puzzle that fits and works.
Creationism, on the other hand, is a 1000 piece puzzle that has 1000 pieces from 1000 different puzzles in which none of the pieces actually fit unless you force them together and lie about what the picture is.
@jwissick, @dmzle "Evolution is belief in the EVIDENCE. Christianity is belief without or in spite of the evidence" LOL!!! all ur claims about evotardism, among other things, have been pwnd, including the fossil record, DNA, embryology, etc, etc.
evotardism is a fairytale.
@dmzle i recommend u look at previous wretched videos to see how smart jimmy boy is.
the title alone alerted me that this was a sad attempt at a straw man argument.
evolution and radiometric dating methods(or any other form of dating) a separate fields.
Also radiometric dating has been checked against other dating methods to ensure accuracy. Scientists know the degrees of error and everything about radiometric dating.
I'm not even going to watch the video because i've heard this argument too many times.
@MoonKittenJD However i'd like to point out something funny. Theists are always like "omg fine tuned universe you can't change any constants" but they also think "the rate of radioactive decay changed" which is hilarious because RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATES ARE DEPENDENT ON THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE. you know? 1 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature that "can't be changed or omg life couldn't happen" according to creationists.
@MoonKittenJD if the earth was proven to be less then 10,000 years old could evolution have occurred? Yes, these fields are separate, but they do impact each other. Therefore if, hypothetically, it could be proven that isometric dating was unreliable (try dating rocks formed at the mt. st. helens eruption, or try dating rocks without telling the lab how old you first think they are) evolution wouldn't have the amount of time it supposedly needs.
@SerJahPhoto thats why we dont try to argue people into becoming Christian. We present them with the law to show them their sin and then with the Gospel to show them God's mercy. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. He can change anyone's heart. Once genuine conversion has happened, people become much more reasonable in their understanding of Genesis.
Sooo, 50 million years is a lot when dealing with BILLIONS of years, yet YOU PEOPLE are dealing with thousands of years (6 to 10 grand) and the discrepancy in your belief is 4000 years?
Still don't see why the 50 mil is significant when dating with these methods, but your belief uses lineage and the room for error is much greater percentage-wise.
@todocambiara2 the only reason is that we dont know how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden before the fall...the rest the Bible is clear on...besides, why exactly would God need to tell us the day of the week , month and year of Adam's creation...the point of the passage is Jesus and the rest of us decended from Adam, and Adam was created by God in his image. Therefore, worship and be grateful to your creator....you are not here on accident. God desires the same relationship with you as Adam.
@todocambiara2 I hear you %-wise, but you have to admit actual number wise 50m is huge. According to evolution humans have only existed for about .5m years. To me 50m additional or fewer years could have huge implications of the evolution of various animal species.
@staum607 No no, you're absolutely right. 50 million IS huge, but finding out why there is that much room for error may be better than just picking at it like an annoying little kid who thinks he has one over on you.
There are reasons the discrepancy is that big, and I think a lot of it has to do with using about twelve different dating methods... not just one, like this video suggests.
@todocambiara2 to be fair, this is just a short video making a single point. AIG has other, full length videos that address the many different methods. To me though, the way the multiple methods are used doesn't assuage my doubts. Since the assumed age of the material is used to determine which method to use. To me this seems circular. Some methods point to a much younger age of the material and others point to a much older age. With no way to know for sure they have to assume the approx age 1st
@staum607 Well, whatever you believe, I think you're crazy.
Are you able to take an objective view about all this? Can you imagine living isolated without being indoctrinated, like I'm sure you were, and then, from that perspective of how you've come to know the earth, judge what these people are saying? You would see the same thing as me, and to me, taking the word of people 1700 years ago over what I can see and test myself is ignorant, plain and simple.
@todocambiara2 Actually I grew up believing evolution was true - I was a dino freak. Fell for the whole 65m year thing and everything. I was agnostic. I didn't become a religious until 2004 and then didn't become a christian until 2007. So my "indoctrination" was: big bang, evolution, billions of years, etc. However when I objectively looked at the claims of the 'young-earthers' I acknowledged the various problems with evolution/old-earth hypothesis. Check out my testimony for more if you want
@staum607 I tried to watch your testimony, and from what I saw it was just a bunch of, "Jesus said..." I don't want to know how guilty you felt because you were not up to par with the religion you follow, I want to know why you follow it? What convinces you that it's true?
Let me save you the time and just assume that it's through feeling and prayer. I can guarantee you that whatever "proofs" you feel you have, they have been debunked. (1/2)
@todocambiara2 I understand your desire to not continue, but just want to clarify about my video. My "feelings" of guilt were and are irrelevant. In fact the existence of God is irrelevant to my guilt. My guilt is an objective fact. God says, "Don't lie", I have lied. Even if I dont believe in God, I have still broken that rule. Admittedly consequences (heaven and hell require God to exist) are a different matter, but guilt is both a feeling and a reality - like it or not.
@staum607 Not when you realize that every emotion is chemical at the molecular level. But you don't accept evolution, so you're going to think god did that. Consequences are not so trivial as heaven and hell. They are way more real than that, and most of them lead to death, within our social landscape and on our planet. You don't need god to feel guilty, just a couple million years or so of getting killed for fibbing, or being deceitful, or greedy-- nearly all the same on a base level.
@todocambiara2 again my guilt is not based on my feelings. It is based on whether or not I failed a specific standard. We can talk about the validity of the standard (Bible, Koran, society, etc), but that is a different issue. For example, I know the Koran to be false and Allah is either a fictional character or a demon; however I am still guilty of breaking the rules of the Koran. The standard's validity has nothing to to with my guilt; only the consequences resulting from my guilt
@todocambiara2 "Not when you realize that every emotion is chemical at the molecular level. " hmmm....the chemical reactions are a result of something other than chemicals; just bcos u can see brain waves doesn't mean u know that they are result of chemicals; what u see is the result but not the cause. the fact is, we have FREEWILL; no good judge will let a murderer go free bcos his chemicals behaved differently; u are confusing a book, which is made from chemicals with the author.
Evolution is not proven by a dating method, what an IDiot.
The earth is 4,545 million years old + or - 2 million years, why do christians lie?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "Evolution is not proven by a dating method" It's not PROVEN at all. What you are inferring though is still wrong. Fossils are dated by the isotopes found within the rocks. Those isotopes are dated by using the parent isotopes half-life and comparing the percentage of each isotope found in the rock sample.
Fossils are cited as evidence for evolution even though it proves it wrong.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
WTF is an ''Evolutionary'' dating method? Geologists proved the earth is old and there was no global flood and did it before radiometric dating was invented.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz this video actually proves these methods don't work.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "Geologists proved the earth is old and there was no global flood" No, geologists POSTULATED that there was no flood based on things like the grand canyon's construction. Other geologists have explained methods in which a very powerful flood COULD have caused its construction.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman provide a source for the Earth's magnetic flux as well if you are going to cite it wouldn't be enough magnitude.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorthForkFisherman "the level of difference is many magnitudes smaller than what you YECers require."
Science has no way of knowing the magnitude photon attenuation a vapor cloud would give.
"..now you want to talk about a mythical flood? Priceless!"
Nice appeal to ridicule, I laughed therefore I win. Why would I believe in a young earth and not the flood? I don't just argue for the hell of it. Your "theory" is unscientific & is a direct attack on my religion.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
The rate of decay is a function of the Weak Nuclear Force. It does not change.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "The rate of decay is a function of the Weak Nuclear Force. It does not change." (that's just a lie)
Decay can be alpha decay, proton emission (electromagnetic vs Strong nuclear force), neutron emission, fission, beta decay (two kinds), there are dozens more. Please, don't post anymore lies.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander "(that's just a lie)" And a physics fail TOO! When you can't even identify the 4 basic forces at work, it's appropriate that you call for magic instead.
NorthForkFisherman 3 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman "When you can't even identify the 4 basic forces at work, it's appropriate that you call for magic instead." (logical fallacy: Ad hominem) God isn't magic. Only a fool would assume that something not of this universe would obey the rules of this universe. No one expects a computer programmer to follow his own computer code.
Science has to use magic to explain how matter got here both of the first two laws of thermodynamics form an impossible paradox for origins in nature.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Yes you might think that quantum mechanics is magic. It's certainly arcane when you start looking at H-bar and Planck Length reality, but it's just math. You might want to pick up some of Brian Green's works and read thru them for a bit before you start making claims that are based in prideful ignorance. Knowing how the universe really works and how small and insigificant you are before the reality of the cosmos is very humbling. You just keep showing hubris.
NorthForkFisherman 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Actually, since I'm not a particle physicst, I prefer to let subject matter experts cover that: /watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Enjoy.
BTW, C-14 in diamonds? Ever hear of smoky quartz? Same thing. Neutron bombardment from decay of radioactives.
NorthForkFisherman 3 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman "Actually, since I'm not a particle physicst, I prefer to let subject matter experts cover that: " This is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. It says because this person is an expert my point is right.
I don't have sound here I'm in a classroom.
"Neutron bombardment from decay of radioactives."
C-12 doesn't absorb neutrons above trace levels, its stable.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorthForkFisherman How about you attack my claim and not me. Ad hominem isn't a good strategy for convincing people you're right.
If its just math explain how matter came into existence from a singularity without violating the laws of nature.
Explain how the singularity came into existance.
Explain how time came into existance.
Explain how gravity came into existance.
Explain how space came into existance.
Choose any one of those.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander And how about those daughter isotopes?......man, all the data just keeps rolling in, while the best you can do is try to change the subject.
NorthForkFisherman 3 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman be more specific because I don't even know what question you're answering.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman "best you can do is try to change the subject." This is called poisoning the well. A logical fallacy that states (in this case) if I talk about anything else (which I did by answering your questions on multiple subjects) that my claims are false. Changing the subject doesn't make my claims false. It just means I'm on a computer and I can answer multiple questions at once if someone refers to what they are addressing. Please stop the logical fallacies.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman To the 4 forces: The photon flux from the sun affects the rate of decay, the earth's magnetic flux affects it as well both of these are not constants. The Christian worldview which comes from the bible includes a vapor cloud that would change the photon flux by deflecting and absorbing some of the sun's radiation. This vapor cloud was one water source for the flood in the book of Genesis.
In short this would change the halflife of isotopes.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander The Christian worldview which comes from the bible ... is a 2000 year old story. You have no evidence for a 'canopy of water''
WTF is a ''proton flux''
Light, the carrier of the Electromagnetic Force, does not affect the Weak Nuclear Force which controls radioactive decay.
And for the 10th time, Geologist knew the earth was old and evolution was accepted before radiometric dating was invented. Bark at a different tree.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz (cont) "Light, the carrier of the Electromagnetic Force, does not affect the Weak Nuclear Force which controls radioactive decay."
FACE-PALM!!!
THE WEAK FORCE ALONE DOES NOT CONTROL ALL FORMS OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY!!! ALL FUNDAMENTAL FORCES AFFECT DECAY RATES!
Light (which is a small part of the spectrum of energy levels of a photon) is not THE carrier of the EMF
You really don't know much about this subject, that's why I was talking to you privately...
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz "Geologist knew the earth was old and evolution was accepted before radiometric dating"
Actually no they didn't know that. They thought that based on erosion speeds and the continental drift which also has been refuted by the biblical flood account.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander You are dilutional. Plate tectonics proves the earth is millions of years old. How old are you, 8?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz How do plate tectonics prove the earth is millions of years old. Did you personally observe the continental drift over the past 4 billion years? I believe the deluge caused the state plates are in today and they continue to drift apart slowly. You can't prove that wrong either.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Christians don't believe in a vapor cloud, Kent Hovind made that up to justify the flood story.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz "that day all lthe fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the mwindows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11
First I never said all Christians believe this but water came from somewhere above them enough to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Please don't add your own dogma to the Christian faith.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Don't quote a book to me unless you prove it is fact.
Isaiah 40 : 22-24
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.”
I can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper, they are 2 Dimensional. FLAT.
And you can’t sit above a sphere.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz LMAO there was no Hebrew word for sphere at the time.
Isaiah says above in the NIV TRANSLATION (which isn't even a very accurate translation its just a readable one)... The original Hebrew doesn't use the word above.
The original Hebrew manuscript uses the word yashab which just means to sit down.
sacrednamebible . com / kjvstrongs / STRHEB34 . htm
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander ''He spreads out the northern over empty space''
Well that explains it all ! Why does God have a penis?
And the earth is not suspended dummy.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander ''the fountains of the great deep were broken up''
How do you break up a fountain? Where is the great deep?
Do you ever listen to what you say?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz The flood story is justified without a vapor cloud
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander What did they eat when they go off the boat? The world was dead and covered in mud.
How did the kangaroos get to Australia?
Why did all the marsupials go to Australia and nowhere else?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz What did they eat when they go off the boat? The world was dead and covered in mud. The dove brought an olive branch and they had seeds as well
Animals have peculiar reactions to natural phenomena which I find interesting...
Kangaroos to australia
christiananswers . net / q-aig / aig-c006 . html
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Everyone ate olives that grew underwater, good answer creatard.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz "Everyone ate olives that grew underwater," straw man. The waters receded before they landed. Seeds had time to grow. The branch was evidence of this.
"creatard" (AD HOMINEM) for a guy who doesn't know anything about Radiometric and insists on asserting his ignorance, you sure throw insults around a lot.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander ''The waters receded before they landed''
I will convert to your religion is you can tell me where the waters receded to.
So make up a good story.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz
"I will convert to your religion is you can tell me where the waters receded to."
I doubt it, scoffer.
Read psalm 104. The mountains rose, the valley's sank. What the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the earth's topography. (Isaiah 54:9)
christiananswers . net / q-aig / aig-floodwater.html
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "I will convert to your religion is you can tell me where the waters receded to." Guess you are a liar. Big surprise.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
The music at the end there from the flash game "Gold Strike" jumped out at me... lol.
stallion4life 1 month ago in playlist More videos from WretchedNetwork
Isotope dating isn't the only form of dating, derp....
DSD1v57BG32 2 months ago
@DSD1v57BG32 Its used to calibrate many other kinds of dating. Furthermore, many other forms of dating yield an Earth younger than 4.5 billion years.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander How the fuck do you know, You have never opened a science book. You just puck up Hovind bull shit.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz @gregrutz If you keep up the logical fallacies I'm going to embarrass you again like I did when you lied and said decay rates are a constant proportional to the weak nuclear force. You are a waste of time to respond to because you don't do any actual research you just make things up.
"How the fuck do you know"(personal attack: language, begging appeal to authority)
You have never opened a science book."(appeal to authority) " You just puck up Hovind bull shit."(special pleading)
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
Geologists say the earth is old and there was no global flood. NOT evolution.
And geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was billions of years old, Before radeometric dating was invinted.
The earth is 4,545 million years old, + or - 2 million years. Nice try.
The rate of decay is the same, the forces of nature don't change to fit the bible.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz How do you know the rate of decay is the same? How do you know that all factor's were the same as what can be observed now. Were you here 4,545 million years ago, so that you can tell us what the conditions were?
You missed the whole point of the video. Assumptions have to be made in order to date rocks.
Mom31P 2 months ago in playlist More videos from WretchedNetwork
@Mom31P You missed the point. The fossils are layered like this:
In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils
and dinosaur fossils.
No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers.
No dating method used
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz To layers (circular logic). Layers are identified by the fossils they contain. Layers are found out of order all the time multiple times hammers and other tools have been found in Cretaceous layers (these layers are assumed to be up to 500 million years old).
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander No they haven't found any bunny fossils with the dinosaur fossils. Someone dropping a hammer does not prove evolution or the age of the earth wrong.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz flood sorting.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order, which is what we find in the real world. Not all sediments are from water either.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz the biblical deluge not a normal flood. Its a much higher magnitude and has more than just rising waters.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Where is your evidence?
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz how about shell fossils on top of mt. Everest, polystrate fossils, preserved DNA in dinosaurs (with carbon-14 in them that decays to 0 in 30k years), C-14 in diamonds that are supposedly millions of years old, hydrological sorting, out of place artifacts, ... please do your own research if your really not biased.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander There are not ''shell fossils on top of mt. Everest'' The whole top of the mountain is an old sea bed raised up by plate techtonic over millions of years.
Carbon 14 is in many rocks exposed to radiation underground.
Watch this watch?v=0cN8d7K_mVM
The dinosaur with the 'soft tissure' is still 70 million years, they didn't change the age.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz
"Carbon 14 is in many rocks exposed to radiation underground."
c-14 doesn't come from radiated carbon-12
There are not ''shell fossils on top of mt. Everest''
Its a fact check it.
the mountain is an old sea bed raised up
If that were true it would have raised before fish evolved 200 million years ago. It had 4.3 BILLION years according to your worldview.
" they didn't change the age."
You can't get 70 million years with C-14 dating it reaches background levels after 50k it had c-14
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz Actually floods do make rock layers in various orders depending on the flood conditions so you are a liar. Rock layers aren't in random order they are in the order the currents put them in. We aren't talking about a a little flood were talking about comet storms that hit the earth so hard it wobbles on its axis and the mid Atlantic ridge opens up and plates open the crust of the earth. I said a biblical deluge not your kitchen sink overflowing.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
@Mom31P Man, you really don't get it do you? If the rate of decay was somehow increased to the rate you require to fit into a 6000 timespan, the corresponding release of heat energy would mean this planet would be entirely molten.
NorthForkFisherman 2 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman This is a gross misunderstanding of radioisotope decay.
Its much like looking at a candle burning and trying to figure out how long it has been burning. We can test the rate it burns(rate of decay), but we have no way of knowing how long the candle was to begin with (don't know initial radioisotope levels). You didn't even watch the video.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Why do dating methods all work then?
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "Why do dating methods all work then?" Actually, different methods nearly ALWAYS give different dates.
A freshly killed seal, dated using Carbon-14, showed it had died 1300 years ago. Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2300 years old.
About 50% of the test results are thrown out when using radiometric dating.
They don't work they FAIL.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Daughter Isotope Understanding FAIL: The zircons provide a sealed environment in which the decay products are trapped. After that it's run it through a mass spectrometer and they do the math - the daughter isotopes exist in ratios directly relative to the amount of the parent. If you trapped all the products coming from a burning candle you could also do the same. It's simply another YECer showing that they don't do critical thinking.
NorthForkFisherman 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz "Geologists say ..." "And geologists knew..." (appeal to authority) how about you discuss How they knew instead of appealing to their expertise.
"The earth is 4,545 million years old..." (unsupported claim)
"The rate of decay is the same" (unsupported claim, even by science)
"the forces of nature don't change " (unsupported claim, rate of decay isn't a natural force)
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander The ‘Super Group’ of rocks in the Grand Canyon is below the level layers at the east end. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains , worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over the basement layers. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally water flowing down hill cut the canyon. How long do you think this took?
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz You are quite correct that the center of the plateau through which the Grand Canyon has been cut is higher in elevation than the rims at either end of the canyon. Of course, this means if the plateau was there before the Colorado River, then the Colorado River would have had to flow uphill to carve out the Grand Canyon!
The best explanation is a catastrophic cause (deluge) and therefore its impossible to know exactly how long it took it would depend on the magnitude of the catastrophe.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander And how did a flood cause the layers in the Grand Canyon. Why is there only one Grand Canyon?
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
i kind of hate that i have to watch the announcer guy before i watch the flash vid -_-' good stuff though
Zinferbuddy 4 months ago
I can see with the hourglass analogy how it is believed scientists make assumptions about the age of rocks, but why is it that they come up with billions of years instead of thousands? The analogy would make more sense if they were coming up with 50,000 years instead of 6,000 years, but they're coming up with not even that, or 1 million, but 4 and a half BILLION. And analyses from space rocks, which couldn't have been altered by the flood, gave a similar number. It's very frustrating.
mooney137 4 months ago
@mooney137 According to God's word, God created Adam and Eve, fully grown. If you were to test their body right after they were created, would they test as being 20 or 30....or would they test as a newborn? (I don't know the answer...but that's not the point). My point is that God created some things with age already built in them. If we don't know the historical science, how can we know what factor's may have occurred to give rocks the appearance of more age?
Mom31P 2 months ago in playlist More videos from WretchedNetwork
@Mom31P Do you mean 'According to the Bible, the assumed word of God?
gregrutz 2 months ago
@Mom31P According to God's word, God created Adam and Eve"
According to a CREATION MYTH, just like the ones in every primitive civilization in the past and they are ALL different, one no better than another and all just about valid as Hans Andersons fairy tales. Yours isn't the only one.
The rest of your argument is nonsense. You are presupposing that "some things" had age built in them. There is absolutely no evidence or sense to that.
Matthew1944 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Matthew1944
Logical fallacy much?
According to a CREATION MYTH (ad hominem) just like the ones in every primitive civilization in the past (composition fallacy)
... Hans Andersons fairy tales(Straw man)
The rest of your argument is nonsense.(straw man, false claim, appeal to ridicule)
You are presupposing that "some things" had age built in them. (special pleading) There is absolutely no evidence or sense to that. (special pleading)
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@Matthew1944 examining all possible origin myths such as the oscillating universe & abiogenesis, etc.) we can see that they violate laws of physics & thermodynamics) the origins can be organized into a dilemma (matter either always existed or it didn't) there is no natural cause that can explain the universe or life as we see it today given an infinite time preceding this moment. Therefore, we can responsibly begin to delve a supernatural cause.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander No natural cause has been found - Doesn't mean there isn't/ wasn't one or that it won't be found in time. And no, it isn't responsible to think that assuming a supernatural cause is the default.
Matthew1944 3 weeks ago
@Matthew1944 "Doesn't mean there isn't/ wasn't one or that it won't be found in time." That fallacy is called Appeal to belief in spite of evidence contrary to the belief. I'll cite abiogenesis, and pre-plank big bang specifically.
Upon observation natural causes are a self-defeating dilemma because the first law of thermo dynamics prevents creation of matter/energy and the second prevents an infinite time scale. Therefore no natural cause is possible.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander '' Therefore no natural cause is possible'' Then is is not possible.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz Take my quote out of context, that will prove your point. You seem to not understand that a natural cause would be something that follows the laws of nature. The first two laws of thermodynamics prohibit creating matter and prohibit infinite time. These two possibilities represent a dichotomy. The only explanation is that the laws of nature didn't always exist.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Show us where the laws of nature don't exist.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@Matthew1944 Supernatural causes are not an assumption, they are an obvious conclusion based on the inhibiting characteristics of thermodynamics.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander Your line of argument sounds like something from the pseudo-scientific Discovery Institute. In the book"The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age," historian Randall Stephens looks at the widespread and disturbing inability of American evangelicals to distinguish between real knowledge claims, rooted in serious research and endorsed by credible knowledge communities, and pseudo-claims made by unqualified groups and leaders that offer "faith-friendly" alternatives.
Matthew1944 3 weeks ago
@Matthew1944
"Your line of argument sounds like..." (straw man) Address my comments or concede and stop the logical fallacies.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
@ShawnSwander OK. Your statement was "Supernatural causes are not an assumption, they are an obvious conclusion"
The supernatural/ superstitious belief does not enter in the realm of the scientific world.. Your statement about the supernatural being an obvious conclusion isn't science - it's the kind of spinnery that comes from the pseudoscience of the Christian think tanks. In short, it's nonsense.
Matthew1944 3 weeks ago
@Matthew1944 Quote right out of Conservapedia: "Another example is that the first and second laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe, and creation scientists claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created".
If you want to understand real science, go to the real scientists - not the quacks.
Matthew1944 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Matthew1944 "supernatural being an obvious conclusion isn't science" (logical fallacy: appeal to common practice)...
This means that because science chooses not to associate with the supernatural that the supernatural doesn't exist. Its a logical fallacy.
By your logic I could say that all theories that violate the laws of science are supernatural by definition and therefore should be rejected by science... Bye abiogenesis...
If its nonsense explain why its an inevitable conclusion
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Matthew1944 "If you want to understand real science, go to the real scientists - not the quacks." (Ad hominem) If you want to understand real science you wouldn't stoop to personal attacks and appeals to ridicule.
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Young Earth Creationist are the dumbest people on the planet.
odinata 5 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 7:
next time don't send me a pm; post here so that every1 can see what a genius u are.
and, next time, be careful to know what a troll is; a troll is not someone who pwns u badly.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan Can't post websites... genius.
I thought you'd be too dense to understand how to remove all the punctuation it takes for youtube to allow you to post a website. Anyways, all of your arguments have been refuted, you just refuse to look for the refutations and seem content with battling "evotards" online instead of talking to qualified individuals.
But as far as I can tell, every one of your comments seems to be well constructed and put forth in a mature manner. Bravo.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 6:
something has computer code, grammar, possesses linguistic functions, syntax, punctuation, functions like software, but is not information??? LOL!!!
here's a definition of information from merriam webster:
"the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects"
PWND!!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan Yeah, see. All of this giberish running together makes me think you don't even know how to do it properly. Heh, wow, I can get to the host site, but the web pages appeared to have 404'd. Lol, I'm sorry you're so sad... jesus, how many comment do you have on this page, more than 50? If there is a god, he has forsaken you, or at least your brain.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 1:
"Can't post websites... genius" yes u can, genius; u need to edit it.
"Anyways, all of your arguments have been refuted" LOL!!! what happened??? can't stand the pwnage??? ur own prophet, dawkins, pwnd u. LOL!!!
"Heh, wow, I can get to the host site, but the web pages appeared to have 404'd" LOL!!! genius, when u copy the url u need to format it. LOL!!!!
"how many comment do you have on this page, more than 50?" 100? 1000? 100000? does it matter, genius?
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 2: i have a reason for posting. what's ur reason? u need help; if i believed that there was no God and this life is the ONLY life that i had, i wouldn't spend even a sec talking about a God that doesn't exist; but here u are, spending hours, talking about a God who doesn't exist. me thinks, God pwnd u!!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan I think... and this is a rough estimate... I think I've spent 15 minutes or so total here. I won't stoop to a level so low as to say you need help, but I do feel bad for you.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 " I do feel bad for you" hmmmm.....means nothing coming from someone who was pwnd by a, according to u, a fool. LOL!!!!
15 min??? even, if u are correct, God still pwnd you! 15 mins too long!
go away!!!
jgriffin26 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 3:
given the fact that you've seen how many times i've posted, u must be aware of how ur kind gets pwnd.
the only arguments ur kind have are ad hominems and "that has been refuted" without providing any evidence.
now crawl under ur rock and chant, "God doesn't exist" until you enter never, never land-the land.
bye, bye, genius!
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan You are so sad.
A rock eh? Chanting? are you 80 or 10. You seem so afraid of the truth.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 Sadder still! Now you're using sock account?
Ask me how I know... go on. Ah, I just tell you, you're last comment on that account was 9 months ago, and your demeanor is the same.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@todocambiara2 Yeah, see. All of this giberish running together makes me think you don't even know how to do it properly. (Ad Hominem)
web pages appeared to have 404'd (logical fallacy: composition) I found the websites with a google search.
"If there is a god, he has forsaken you, or at least your brain." (ad hominem)
Can you speak without logical fallacies please?
ShawnSwander 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 4:
"the difference between life and non-life is a matter not of substance, but of information. living things contain prodigous amounts of information. most of the information is digitally coded in DNA."-dawkins
"i replaced only the DNA software and in a short while all the characteristic of the
first species was replaced by a new species...we didn't know how really dynamic a cell was until simply replacing the software"-craig venter
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 3:
"genes are information. they are coded information. it even looks like computer information. a chromosome is a great long computer tape...digital code is not binary, it's quaternary; apart from that,it is just the same as computer tape. biology has turned into computer science."-dawkins
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 2:
"DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome’s capacity in bits too, if we wish. DNA doesn’t use a binary code, but a quaternary one. Whereas the unit of information in the computer is a 1 or a 0, the unit in DNA can be T, A, C or G."-dawkins
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 1:
"I suggest sticking to pathetic arguments on the noble and intellectual videos you troll on youtube" thx for admittting that Christian videos are "noble and intellectual"; and, in case you forgot, this is a CHRISTIAN VIDEO, TROLL!!! LOL!!!!
LOL!!!!!! u give me a link to a discussion forum??? LOL!!! let me pwn u, u anti-science genius u:
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@todocambiara2,@staum607 "Forget that my argument is valid" no genius, i pwnd ur "argument", which is ONLY valid to you. every1 can see what a genius u r!
ur prophet, dawkins, taught u well; too bad ad hominems only work in never, never land.
now, crawl under a rock and pray to ur god, time, that he turns u into more of a genius so that we can have more laughs.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 5:
"Every micro evolutionary change is evidence of Macro changes with enough time." plus, genius, this is unfalsifiable; and if it is unfalsifiable, it's not science but a fairytale.
so the BEST evidence for evotardism is, it happens given enough time.
thanks for giving us a good laugh. be careful when u copy from sites that claim increase in information has been observed.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan Sounds like you've done this before. I knew you already knew the answer. Done masturbating to yourself in the mirror?
Let me just address this, "but keep up with the ad hominems". Oh... I called you a fool. Forget that my argument is valid and not copied from any websites (at least I've not read them), but just ad. hom. and strawman the shit out of me and take no responsibility for it.
And you call me entertaining? lol.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 part 4:
*is
*use
genius.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
Great scott... he complains about a 50 million year discrepancy? Has this man no sense of scale? This is lierally equivalent to less than 1.1% error. It's as if he said that if a yardstick measures your chair's height to be 1 meter plus or minor 1 centimeter, then obviously the yardstick is a bad measuring method, and it could very well be that the chair is only one-thousandth of a millimeter high (read 'earth could be only 6,000 years old'). Riiiiiiight....
FiverBeyond 7 months ago
Comment removed
todocambiara2 7 months ago
Where did this idea that scientists always "assume" the age of the material before dating it come from? Physicists often have to date material of unknown age.
ddrninjette 7 months ago
Both world views are based on evidence. The difference is the interpretation of the present data.
kdtdragon 7 months ago
It's important to realize is that people make assumptions based on their worldview when they come to the end of facts.
Evolution = belief in the word of man. Christianity = belief in the word of God.
dmzle 7 months ago
@dmzle No..
Evolution is belief in the EVIDENCE.
Christianity is belief without or in spite of the evidence.
jwissick 7 months ago
@jwissick Nice bumper sticker slogan you are repeating to me. Let me say I used to believe in Evolution until I was saved dramatically, not by my choice but by the risen Lord revealing himself to me. Only then did I rethink my position. Nonetheless there is no hard evidence for Evolution. 1)Life can never come from none life. EVER. 2) It's impossible for an animal to completely and gradually change to a new species. 3) Irreducible Complexity
dmzle 7 months ago
@dmzle 1) Wrong. 2) It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. 3) Irreducible Complexity holds no water and has been shot down dozens of times.
jwissick 7 months ago
@jwissick LOL at your explanation for #1. Watching Evolutionists vs. YEC threads are like banana time at the monkey cage. It's just sad to watch. *shakes head*
mgundy 7 months ago
@dmzle
"Life can never come from none life. EVER."
If the law of Biogenesis is true then life must beget life into an infinite regression. Infinite regressions cannot exist therefore the law of Biogenesis must be false. We both believe that life came from non-life we just differ on whether or not the cause was natural or supernatural.
"It's impossible for an animal to change to a new species"
As jwissick said we have observed specization.
As for IC, it has been dispelled and is fallacious.
MaximumAxiom 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @dmzle part 1:
like jimmy boy, this genius has also been pwnd badly....
"If the law of Biogenesis is true then life must beget life into an infinite regression. Infinite regressions cannot exist therefore the law of Biogenesis must be false. We both believe that life came from non-life we just differ on whether or not the cause was natural or supernatural" LOL!!!! genius, God created life! God is life; abiogenesis has been proven false; biogenesis is a scientific law.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @dmzle part 2:
here's some definitions of life from ur own source MW: "spiritual existence transcending physical death", "SPIRIT"; here's the definition of spirit: "a supernatural being or essence" and here's an example: "He believes that God gives life to all creatures"
plus, science has shown that life can only come from intelligence; intelligence comes from a mind; God has a mind.
there's no infinite regress; u offered a false dichotomy.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @dmzle part 3:
@jwissick "As jwissick said we have observed specization." LOL!!!! using jimmy boy has ur source. LOL!!! he has been pwn badly just like you about all his claims.
the speciation that u are talking about is micro evolution, i.e. a loss of information in the genome; not evotardism.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @dmzle part 4:
AGAIN, here's my challenge: STATE the BEST evidence that HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME FROM DARWIN'S DAYS; evotardism has been around for a long time; when darwim made his claims, what was the best evidence he used? after all, real scientific hypotheses are based on real evidence and not fairytale evidence.
u have already been pwnd about DNA being the best evidence for evotardism.
@dmzle i will compile a complete list to show ppl what geniuses max and jimmy boy are
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@jwissick do you have evidence of the initial conditions, the evidence needed to accurately make measurements? Isn't it actually circular reasoning in evolution? We think x (initial conditions) was happening, and then use our assumption of x to find the value of y (how much time has elapsed). Besides trying to solve for 2 unknown variables, evolution also fails to account for any change in conditions that occurred between x and today. Sounds real solid to me...
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 Do I have evidence? No. But science does. We get then from air samples trapped in rock, ice, amber, etc. This isn't circular reasoning at all. This is a puzzle that fits and works.
Creationism, on the other hand, is a 1000 piece puzzle that has 1000 pieces from 1000 different puzzles in which none of the pieces actually fit unless you force them together and lie about what the picture is.
jwissick 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jwissick, @dmzle "Evolution is belief in the EVIDENCE. Christianity is belief without or in spite of the evidence" LOL!!! all ur claims about evotardism, among other things, have been pwnd, including the fossil record, DNA, embryology, etc, etc.
evotardism is a fairytale.
@dmzle i recommend u look at previous wretched videos to see how smart jimmy boy is.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
"evolutionary dating methods"
the title alone alerted me that this was a sad attempt at a straw man argument.
evolution and radiometric dating methods(or any other form of dating) a separate fields.
Also radiometric dating has been checked against other dating methods to ensure accuracy. Scientists know the degrees of error and everything about radiometric dating.
I'm not even going to watch the video because i've heard this argument too many times.
MoonKittenJD 7 months ago
@MoonKittenJD However i'd like to point out something funny. Theists are always like "omg fine tuned universe you can't change any constants" but they also think "the rate of radioactive decay changed" which is hilarious because RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATES ARE DEPENDENT ON THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE. you know? 1 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature that "can't be changed or omg life couldn't happen" according to creationists.
MoonKittenJD 7 months ago
@MoonKittenJD if the earth was proven to be less then 10,000 years old could evolution have occurred? Yes, these fields are separate, but they do impact each other. Therefore if, hypothetically, it could be proven that isometric dating was unreliable (try dating rocks formed at the mt. st. helens eruption, or try dating rocks without telling the lab how old you first think they are) evolution wouldn't have the amount of time it supposedly needs.
staum607 7 months ago
Why even try to convince evolutionists that they are wrong?
It's USELESS.
Only time will prove it. Though it'll be too late for them.
SerJahPhoto 7 months ago
@SerJahPhoto cause I was once an evolutionist and I am glad others didnt stop arguing with me...
banahdecristoROB 7 months ago
@SerJahPhoto Yawn. Lame BS
jwissick 7 months ago
@SerJahPhoto thats why we dont try to argue people into becoming Christian. We present them with the law to show them their sin and then with the Gospel to show them God's mercy. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. He can change anyone's heart. Once genuine conversion has happened, people become much more reasonable in their understanding of Genesis.
staum607 7 months ago
Sooo, 50 million years is a lot when dealing with BILLIONS of years, yet YOU PEOPLE are dealing with thousands of years (6 to 10 grand) and the discrepancy in your belief is 4000 years?
Still don't see why the 50 mil is significant when dating with these methods, but your belief uses lineage and the room for error is much greater percentage-wise.
just sayin'
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 lol seriously. 50million years is between 1 and 5% margin of error.
MoonKittenJD 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 the only reason is that we dont know how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden before the fall...the rest the Bible is clear on...besides, why exactly would God need to tell us the day of the week , month and year of Adam's creation...the point of the passage is Jesus and the rest of us decended from Adam, and Adam was created by God in his image. Therefore, worship and be grateful to your creator....you are not here on accident. God desires the same relationship with you as Adam.
banahdecristoROB 7 months ago
@banahdecristoROB But if evolution is true (and it is) then adam never existed and there is no reason for jesus...
Creationism is dead and has been for 150+ years. The only remnants is its brainless twitching tail.
jwissick 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 I hear you %-wise, but you have to admit actual number wise 50m is huge. According to evolution humans have only existed for about .5m years. To me 50m additional or fewer years could have huge implications of the evolution of various animal species.
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 No no, you're absolutely right. 50 million IS huge, but finding out why there is that much room for error may be better than just picking at it like an annoying little kid who thinks he has one over on you.
There are reasons the discrepancy is that big, and I think a lot of it has to do with using about twelve different dating methods... not just one, like this video suggests.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 to be fair, this is just a short video making a single point. AIG has other, full length videos that address the many different methods. To me though, the way the multiple methods are used doesn't assuage my doubts. Since the assumed age of the material is used to determine which method to use. To me this seems circular. Some methods point to a much younger age of the material and others point to a much older age. With no way to know for sure they have to assume the approx age 1st
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 Well, whatever you believe, I think you're crazy.
Are you able to take an objective view about all this? Can you imagine living isolated without being indoctrinated, like I'm sure you were, and then, from that perspective of how you've come to know the earth, judge what these people are saying? You would see the same thing as me, and to me, taking the word of people 1700 years ago over what I can see and test myself is ignorant, plain and simple.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 Actually I grew up believing evolution was true - I was a dino freak. Fell for the whole 65m year thing and everything. I was agnostic. I didn't become a religious until 2004 and then didn't become a christian until 2007. So my "indoctrination" was: big bang, evolution, billions of years, etc. However when I objectively looked at the claims of the 'young-earthers' I acknowledged the various problems with evolution/old-earth hypothesis. Check out my testimony for more if you want
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 I tried to watch your testimony, and from what I saw it was just a bunch of, "Jesus said..." I don't want to know how guilty you felt because you were not up to par with the religion you follow, I want to know why you follow it? What convinces you that it's true?
Let me save you the time and just assume that it's through feeling and prayer. I can guarantee you that whatever "proofs" you feel you have, they have been debunked. (1/2)
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 I understand your desire to not continue, but just want to clarify about my video. My "feelings" of guilt were and are irrelevant. In fact the existence of God is irrelevant to my guilt. My guilt is an objective fact. God says, "Don't lie", I have lied. Even if I dont believe in God, I have still broken that rule. Admittedly consequences (heaven and hell require God to exist) are a different matter, but guilt is both a feeling and a reality - like it or not.
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 Not when you realize that every emotion is chemical at the molecular level. But you don't accept evolution, so you're going to think god did that. Consequences are not so trivial as heaven and hell. They are way more real than that, and most of them lead to death, within our social landscape and on our planet. You don't need god to feel guilty, just a couple million years or so of getting killed for fibbing, or being deceitful, or greedy-- nearly all the same on a base level.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 again my guilt is not based on my feelings. It is based on whether or not I failed a specific standard. We can talk about the validity of the standard (Bible, Koran, society, etc), but that is a different issue. For example, I know the Koran to be false and Allah is either a fictional character or a demon; however I am still guilty of breaking the rules of the Koran. The standard's validity has nothing to to with my guilt; only the consequences resulting from my guilt
staum607 7 months ago
@staum607 Ah, I gotcha.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 "Not when you realize that every emotion is chemical at the molecular level. " hmmm....the chemical reactions are a result of something other than chemicals; just bcos u can see brain waves doesn't mean u know that they are result of chemicals; what u see is the result but not the cause. the fact is, we have FREEWILL; no good judge will let a murderer go free bcos his chemicals behaved differently; u are confusing a book, which is made from chemicals with the author.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan *categorize.
apologies. fool.
todocambiara2 7 months ago
@todocambiara2 "But you don't accept evolution, so you're going to think god did that." hmmm...NAME the BEST evidence for macro evo.
not a link or rhetoric, just state it. thx!
leviMichealathan 7 months ago