08 Oct 14
Originally posted by C HessThat or it is so far above you that you just lack the ability to see how it all
The problem with the watch analogy is that the universe is far too chaotic and random to be compared to a watch. Just look at planet orbits. They go here and there and all over the place. Now, if the planets orbited the sun in exact repeating paths, without deviations, you might have convinced me.
If there's an intelligence behind this universe I can only conclude that it must be a toddler of some kind.
works.
Kelly
08 Oct 14
Originally posted by C HessActual the orbits of the planets are very predictable .....they do not just fly around here or there ......The orbits even with any oddities are very predictable and we can know where the celestial objects were in the sky in 7 B.C. or 2100 AD so that is not truthful at all .....The ancients knew this and so did ones such as Johannes Kepler and Galileo and the heavens do act like a big clock in which man can keep time by
The problem with the watch analogy is that the universe is far too chaotic and random to be compared to a watch. Just look at planet orbits. They go here and there and all over the place. Now, if the planets orbited the sun in exact repeating paths, without deviations, you might have convinced me.
If there's an intelligence behind this universe I can only conclude that it must be a toddler of some kind.
Manny
08 Oct 14
Originally posted by sonshipThanks for that link. I watched the whole thing and discussed it with some people. With respect to the part about carbon 14 in coal, etc, one of them directed me to this brief article, which I hope you will take the time to read:
This former atheist joined the Creationist camp ( I think he is YEC). He's quite eloquent.
But he says he is not out to defeat atheists in any kind of personal sense.
It is rather the world view which he is out to expose as false.
His lecture here is called
[b]"Defeating Atheism With Science " - Spike Psarris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh1cXwhY1sE[/b]
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Oct 14
Originally posted by menace71Of course they're predictable using mathematics (you can predict the path of a cube shaped object when it hits the floor at a specific angle and speed too), but their orbits are far from the clockwork precisions you find in... well, clocks. A planets orbit, speed and spin are slightly changing all the time.
Actual the orbits of the planets are very predictable .....they do not just fly around here or there ......The orbits even with any oddities are very predictable and we can know where the celestial objects were in the sky in 7 B.C. or 2100 AD so that is not truthful at all .....The ancients knew this and so did ones such as Johannes Kepler and Galileo and the heavens do act like a big clock in which man can keep time by
Manny
Frankly, if I bought a clock that would require several years of mathematical studies to understand (only to realise the time units changes in length over time) I'd return it for a refund, with one or two comments on the intellectual proficiency of its maker.
08 Oct 14
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IICreationists answer to that: NYA NYA NYA, I'M COVERING MY EARS. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. NYA NYA NYA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Thanks for that link. I watched the whole thing and discussed it with some people. With respect to the part about carbon 14 in coal, etc, one of them directed me to this brief article, which I hope you will take the time to read:
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
08 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul Dirac III do not doubt that the C-14 dating method can be used to give a close estimate of the age of some things if all the assumptions are correct. However, if any of the assumptions are incorrect then the dating is going to be messed up. Therefore, present C-14 dating alone can not be considered an exact science in my opinion.
Thanks for that link. I watched the whole thing and discussed it with some people. With respect to the part about carbon 14 in coal, etc, one of them directed me to this brief article, which I hope you will take the time to read:
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
For example from your reference:
Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?
Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all...
"That's about all" is wishful thinking and has not been scientifically proven for everything that has been submerged under water for extended periods of time, such as would have occurred about 4500 years ago, if there really was a Noah's flood like the Holy Bible reports.
I am not going to bother going through all the replies, but I don't see that any of their reply answers proves they can accurately date anything going back many thousands or millions of years with C-14 or any other method.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
08 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, you're right that carbon dating can't be used to date objects that are millions of years old.
I don't see that any of thier reply answers proves they can accurately date anything going back many thousands or millions of years with C-14 or any other method.
