Carbon Dating (page 8)

freeman

What evidence?

Jesus Pomegranate,

Read a book, take a class, go to college, but for Gods sake take you head out of your ass and open your eyes!

Freeman (shakes head)

You are trapped. You cite a text book to me and say - "there I'm right the text says fact!" You refuse to come out of the box. If you did you would have discounted the group you cited to rem because they have already concluded something and will not switch off that conclusion before they start their work. You would have also discounted the comment in the text book and realized that they should have used the word "model" or "conclusion"!

I just told you what a "conclusion" is. A "fact" is a piece of evidence. For example a "bone" found in a piece of solid rock is a "fact". You take all those facts and come to a conclusion. Then you test those conclusions (or model) with other evidence. Over time the evidence builds until the answer becomes overwhelming.

I just told you how it is done and what you should be looking at - ie journals, research papers and texts. Not just text books for background information. You, yourself, if you want to learn about it have to do the field work yourself after you have understood the background information in the texts, journals etc.

Do it and explore and again, quit closing the mind.

hawk

hooberus

So hawkaw should I also discount the works of athiests like Dawkins (and many more), because they have already concluded that evolution is a "fact" and will not swith off that conclusion before they start their work? Also since my textbook assumes that evolution is a "fact" then proceeds to interpret history through this "fact" shouldn't I discount not only the incorrect statement about evolution being a "fact" but also the entire book and all its contents. This is the standard you want me to use with regard to the CRS.

Instead of automatically discounting the views of scientists who have come to a certain conclusion, I like to look at views from both sides and make my own determination. Please answer my above question.

hooberus

There seems to be a double standard. We are to automatically discount the views of creationists because they come to the evidence with a bias that creation is right. Yet we are not to do the same with regard to textbooks, research papers, etc. of evolutionists even though they approach the evidence with the pre-conception that macro-evolution is right.

rem

Hooberus,

The double standard is only in your head. Naturalists started out as Creationists and then after literally digging up the facts over the years, creationism was proven false and Evolution was shown to be an accurate model. That is not a bias, that's just the way it is. It's not a bias to have a science text book that assumes the earth is round - that's just what the evidence shows. The work has already been done. Just because you are still in the dark ages doesn't mean we all have to explain everything to you so you can catch up. Do some honest research on your own.

If Evolution were somehow proved wrong tomorrow, scientists would change their position, just as if it were proved that the earth were flat. Creationists, on the other hand, would never change their position no matter what the evidence. By definition they can not even consider evidence that goes against the Bible. That, my friend, is bias.

rem

pomegranate

Naturalists started out as Creationists

Hogwash. Most naturalists were always atheists.

rem

Pomegranate,

Hogwash. Most naturalists were always atheists.

What a preposterous, uninformed statement. Even Darwin was a Christian before his studies led him to the conclusion that species were not static. Almost all naturalists believed in God in the 19th century before and after Darwin's publication. It took time for Darwin's theory to be accepted because of the very fact that there were so many god-fearing naturalists at the time.

Here are some facts for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs4.html

In 1802, William Paley published his Natural Theology, which was an extended argument for the existence and activity of God from the evidence of design in the natural world, and similar views were argued in the Bridgewater Treatises (1833-1836) by a series of theologians and scientists

Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, wrote an extensive book outlining a transmutation view, and it is known that Darwin had read this as a teenager 6 . However, when he started on his naturalist research, Darwin was a firm believer in the static nature of species, and Erasmus had little influence on the biological researches that followed.

Darwin's views were directly informed by Lyell (Darwin took a copy of volume 1 of Lyell's Principles of Geology with him on the Beagle voyage, and received volume 2 en route), although Lyell at the time was, in Mayr's words 8 , "an essentialist, a creationist, and his whole conceptual framework was adamantly opposed to Darwin's"

rem

pomegranate

Ooooh. Talkorigens. What a surprise!!!

Sheesh...why don't you believe anything? Are you ALWAYS right? Everyone else is STOOOPID? At least, that's what y'all keep saying.

Want me to list a bunch of always atheist pals of yours?

rem

Ooooh. Talkorigens. What a surprise!!!

Talk Origins is just a good compilation of scientifc study in the area of human origins (and Evolution in general). I have several books that I could quote from as well, but there is no point when the information is so easily available through a single source on the Internet. If you would like sources from printed books, then I can provide them. But I doubt you would read them anyway.

Sheesh...why don't you believe anything? Are you ALWAYS right? Everyone else is STOOOPID? At least, that's what y'all keep saying.

Huh? I believe things that are backed with evidence. I'm not always right. In fact, I used to be a Creationist too until I took a good look at the facts. It took a lot of research and intellectual honesty to finally come to the conclusion that Creationism is wishful thinking. I don't really think you or other Creationists are stupid, but you are most certainly ignorant of modern scientifc findings. Unfortunately your ignorance is self-inflicted since you have been provided with many sources to educate yourself many times and you refuse to make the effort.

Pomegranate, believe what you want, but when you post inaccurate information on a public forum, expect to be called out on it. You definitely have strong feelings about the origins of man, but unfortunately you do not have much education in the subject. You would do well to educate yourself before engaging in debates on the topic. Otherwise you lose much credibility.

rem

Carbon Dating

Share this