Evolution sparks high level debate in Catholicism!!!

Lawdog: MW, shouldnt you be making yourself some herbal tea?
*************
M*W: Why should I be making myself herbal tea? So you can get rid of me? So I won't further expose your gullible stupidity? So you can continue to tell lies to the forum? So you can further promote your rampant fascism? What is it, Lapdog? Fuck your "herbal tea." You should go make your own self some herbal tea and get fucked in the ass for your beliefs. Enjoy!
 
There is some anger, as it seems, from several individuals concerning my sceptical position on Carbon-14 dating and the debunct Evolution theory. Why should this be? Since Scientists and Modernist Rationalists say that they are devoteed to establisahing the truth, why do they allow emotions to cloud their vision?Do not they say that I should be sceptical? (or only in the area of Dogma and Scripture) That seems skewed.

The scientist must be questioning in all areas of his feild's endeavor, not just those that fit his own comfort zone or outlook.

Likewise, in as much that a scientist should discipline his mind in that questioning posture, to that same extent a spiritual person should not question the Religious Dogmas handed down from Tradition, not just adhere any doctrine which suit his fancy.
 
Last edited:
Lawdog,

Do you have any concept of the troubles that scientists go to to calibrate and confirm the dates yielded by carbon14 and isochron based dating methods? Any?
 
Do you have any idea of the trouble that philosophers and theologians have gone through in order to discover the truths of reality, and properly represent the power of God?
 
Yeah. Sitting around thinking about it while trying not to be branded a heretic or an infidel. Doesn't exactly help with creativity and doesn't exactly involve trying to gather proof.
 
Lawdog:

Do you have any idea of the trouble that philosophers and theologians have gone through in order to discover the truths of reality, and properly represent the power of God?
Click to expand...
Ha! Yes I certainly do. And I see evidence of the shambles of inconsistency, dissention and outright lying of religion all the time. What a waste of human effort. Fools.

Science is consistent across the board. It's not complete, but it's consistent.
 
Such a response as you have given display little knowledge of history or philosophy. I suggest you return to your studies.
 
Lets return to the matter at hand: the non-validity, or at least seriously doubtable nature of the Carbon-14 dating technique.The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the "half-life." So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years.

In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old. Thus we can legitimately question, and promote the final abandonment of the 4.5-6 Billion year estimate which had been designed only for the sake of supporting a theory now known, and attested by all serious scientists to be defunct.

But do not fear, a new era of scientific validity will soon arise.
 
Lawdog,

So, your precious religion is a consistent, logical, precise, description of the spiritual world of god?

I suggest you return to your fantasy world.
 
That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
Click to expand...
Lawdog,

Where did you ever get the idea that C14 dating could give dates much beyond 40 to 50 thousand years?

For dates in the millions of years, other radiometric methods are used on minerals.

I showed you many other dating methods that work for millions to billions of years. Why are you confused?
 
Radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

Other techniques are similarly flawed and unable to establish surity. There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These .techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentratons can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:


The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.

Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
 
Lawdog:

Thus we can legitimately question, and promote the final abandonment of the 4.5-6 Billion year estimate which had been designed only for the sake of supporting a theory now known, and attested by all serious scientists to be defunct.
Click to expand...

This is a blatant lie! You are going to hell.
 
Insults do not help your barely teneble position, but only serve to reveal a corruption of thought
 
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older "ages." Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
 
He is not a fraud, but a fraud exposer. You adhere to the works of frauds yourself, so one should think that you might have some ability to recognize them, but you do not, since you refuse to hear valid science. This is my criticism of you, but it need not be considered an insult.

Instead of offering any low-browed insults, I offer this article from a reputable science source concerning the validity of the SHROUD dating.
SHROUD


ABC article
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top