|
|
#31
05-23-2007, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon? [/ QUOTE ] Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/ I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to: So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is. The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is. 
|
|
#32
05-23-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon? [/ QUOTE ] Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/ I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to: So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is. The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure he was mocking you not based on how radiocarbon dating is BS to him, but based on the fact that you can't carbon-date a 400 million year old object. Or even a 200,000 year old object.
|
|
#33
05-23-2007, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
No, he supports dino's and human's living together later in the thread, he was mocking the idea that saying dino bones test faith because of their age is wrong. I wasn't aware of the limitations of carbon dating when I made the quip. It's still a better quip, the truth of it not withstanding. Which is the same reasoning YECs use...
|
|
#34
05-23-2007, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon? [/ QUOTE ] Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/ I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to: So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is. The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure he was mocking you not based on how radiocarbon dating is BS to him, but based on the fact that you can't carbon-date a 400 million year old object. Or even a 200,000 year old object. [/ QUOTE ] Presumably you can use carbon dating to show that some things are >>6kyears old.
|
|
#35
05-23-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon? [/ QUOTE ] Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/ I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to: So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is. The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure he was mocking you not based on how radiocarbon dating is BS to him, but based on the fact that you can't carbon-date a 400 million year old object. Or even a 200,000 year old object. [/ QUOTE ] DING DING! We have a winner. You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments.
|
|
#36
05-23-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon? [/ QUOTE ] Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/ I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to: So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is. The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure he was mocking you not based on how radiocarbon dating is BS to him, but based on the fact that you can't carbon-date a 400 million year old object. Or even a 200,000 year old object. [/ QUOTE ] DING DING! We have a winner. You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments. [/ QUOTE ] How many is a 'few?' I'm interested in your "Science rules when its on my side" explanation for why the conventional 50,000 year upper limit (and thats conservative) is faulty.
|
|
#37
05-23-2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why wouldn't dinosaurs fit on the ark? [/ QUOTE ] I guess I'm wrong again. Obviously the ark was large enough to fit every species on Earth, including the dinosaurs. They must have sawed holes in the ceiling so that the Sauropods and Brachiosaurs could keep from bumping their heads. So what do you believe happened to the dinosaurs once they left the Ark? I'm genuinely curious. [/ QUOTE ] Now why would anyone take a fully grown animal when an adolescent would do just fine? They're smaller, they require SIGNIFICANTLY less food, and they are more resistant to any number of ailments that older animals are not. Let me ask you this, Mr. Evolutionist: Can you please explain to me how a 45 ton, 90 foot long, 45 foot high Brachiosaurus can take in enough oxygen through nostrils the size of a modern day horse? Have you ever tried breathing for any length of time out of a straw only 2 mm in diameter? Think about that, and you've got a much larger problem on your hands than fitting a dinosaur on a boat. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why can't you answer a relatively simple question without resorting to patronistic sarcasm? [/ QUOTE ] It's hard not to be patronizing when debating with bible literalists. The amount of self-delusion that is required to believe the things that you do is mind-boggling. To wilfully ignore multiple areas of scientific knowledge in order to believe what you do is a method of thinking that I cannot relate to. [/ QUOTE ] I fully respect your opinion. However, look at it from my point of view. You think I'm diluded to believe in a "God" who can create a universe by merely speaking it into existance. And yet the entire basis of your theory is that the first amino acids formed by accident in a puddle of runoff of some rocks that were rained on for a few billion years on a planet that materialized out of nothing. You have absolutely no proof for any of this, just as I have absolutely no proof that "God" exists. The difference between our two religions is that yours is government subsidized by my tax dollars for the indoctrination of unsuspecting school children.
|
|
#38
05-23-2007, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] DING DING! We have a winner. You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments. [/ QUOTE ] How many is a 'few?' I'm interested in your "Science rules when its on my side" explanation for why the conventional 50,000 year upper limit (and thats conservative) is faulty. [/ QUOTE ] Science is not the enemy. Scientific zealots hell-bent on discrediting the bible no matter how ridiculous their claims are the enemy. I rather enjoy science.
|
|
#39
05-23-2007, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] DING DING! We have a winner. You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments. [/ QUOTE ] How many is a 'few?' I'm interested in your "Science rules when its on my side" explanation for why the conventional 50,000 year upper limit (and thats conservative) is faulty. [/ QUOTE ] Science is not the enemy. Scientific zealots hell-bent on discrediting the bible no matter how ridiculous their claims are the enemy. I rather enjoy science. [/ QUOTE ] So...you agree that a 'few' is 50 and that the Biblical account of a 6-10k year Earth is entirely incompatible with science? Since science isn't the enemy, after all.
|
|
#40
05-23-2007, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dinosaurs on Mars?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Fine. Young Earth Creationists don't believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth to test our faith. In reality, they believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6000 years ago. Happy now? Sorry for misrepresenting your beliefs. [/ QUOTE ] Now explain to me why this is a problem without resorting to an MSpaint of people running in terror from a rampaging T-Rex. [/ QUOTE ] You've convinced me. Obviously all of the dinosaurs drowned in the great flood. I guess they didn't fit on the Ark. Makes perfect sense. I can't believe I didn't see it before. [/ QUOTE ] Actually I read an interpretation that Dino's were on Noah's Ark. [serious] I'd imagine it went down something like this... 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
