+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 54
Latest: abrogard
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16314
Total Topics: 267
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 3
Total: 3

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 13235 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33122
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« on: October 17, 2013, 09:51:00 pm »
I jumped you to the meat of the matter. As a Christian I can handle the prior stuff but you might not.  ;D
Also, if you get bored, jump to the 40 minute mark for Carbon 14 science facts.
The bottom line with Carbon 14 is that it is a short term dating method. According to modern science only living things ingest Carbon 14 as a percentage of the Carbon they ingest. When they die, they start losing Carbon 14 at an allegedly fixed rate. Why "allegedly"? Because an assumption is made that the percentage of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been exactly the same. Scientists admit that if it wasn't, the dating would be somewhat off. But even more importantly, ANY TIME you find ANYTHING that has carbon 14 in it, whatever that life form the matter came from, said life form CANNOT be more than about 30,000 years old. Why? Because, according to modern science, anything that dies TODAY will, if the matter is preserved in stone or sediment free from contamination, lose ALL the Carbon 14 in about 30,000 years. Said sample will contain only Carbon 12 (the common form of Carbon).

But it gets even better! They have found coal and ancient wood (both of these types of matter are from former living plants) inside a strata dated, by other methods, as being over 3.5 million years old that CONTAINED CARBON 14!  :o 

Now, unless the Carbon 14 dating is really wacky (and I think it may be hundreds but certainly NOT millions of years off),  the strata IS NOT 3.5 million years old but MUST BE less than 30,000 years old.

This drives evolutionists up a tree because they HAVE TO HAVE those millions of years to justify the so-called positive mutations involved in natural selection. But really, it is TOTALLY unscientific to reject a carbon 14 dated sample (which dates in a much narrower and more precise range than the multi million year methods). It represents scientific proof that coal can form in 30,000 years or less. But yet they refuse to accept it with NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER!

At present, science knows of no way for life forms to ingest Carbon 14 unless they are alive.

That said, towards the end of the above video they discuss a sample of dead plant tissue that dates 3,000 years INTO THE FUTURE! WTF?  ??? It seems that scientists need to go back to the drawing board with the radio-carbon clocks. This sample somehow accumulated too much carbon 14 while alive. Imagine what that means for so many hundreds of thousands of human, animal and plant remains that have been radio carbon 14 dated in the last 100 years or so?  ;D

For what it is worth I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old but I DO believe Homo sapiens hasn't existed on earth for more than 40 or 50 thousand years.

I admit I have no proof.  But the new Carbon 14 data supports my hypothesis, even if it is Faith based. There has NEVER, EVER been found ANY former living matter without some Carbon 14 in it. How does that grab you? Do you realize that is scientific, empirical, radio-carbon 14 test evidence that the biosphere is about 30,000 years old?  You don't? Why not?

The dinosaur bones are mostly totally petrified (no carbon 14 or carbon 12 to set up a date from the ratio). But I will bet you there IS a dinosaur bone out there with carbon 14 and SOMEBODY has made real sure that scientifically embarrassing fact doesn't get out because it will destroy the Darwinian edifice of natural history Atheists 'R' US bedtime stories.

Are you a scientist or are you a true blue believer of Darwinian mud puddle life evolution? You say it's not about faith? Where's your evidence? Why don't you admit we have been brain washed from the time we were knee high to a grasshopper? Can't you handle it if you have to face the fact that we were created as a package deal around 30,000 years ago as the radio Carbon 14 test data seems to PROVE scientifically?

Will you now go back to the church of evolutionary zealots and have all the credentialed worthies come up with an even more implausible 'short time frame rapid' co-evolution fairy tale? Probably.

People can be quite stubborn when faced with facts that don't fit their world view. The irony of all this is that the evolutionist true believers accuse those of us with REAL EVIDENCE against the Theory of Evolution as being stubborn, irrational and fairy tale believers. Pot, meet the kettle!

That honest admission of lack of proof is LACKING from evolutionists even though they have none. 

As a Christian, I CAN operate on faith. but professionals with the respect of the population BECAUSE they are scientists are not allowed to operate on faith. They are NOT allowed to reach any conclusion without empirical evidence gained by the use of the scientific method.

BUT, when you study the Theory of Evolution and its tenets, you find that it is an evidence free narrative purporting to explain how life originated and became complex on this planet. If they will admit they are practicing a form of religion, I'll accept their decision to operate on faith in Darwin's theory. Of course they refuse to do that because they would lose the aura of scientific credibility.

There is no way, despite their incessant claims to the contrary, that  they can claim they have reached their conclusions through the scientific method. I don't care if the just HAVE to have some pet theory to build an institution and a stack of libraries filled with books about this, that and the other with.

They are OBLIGATED as scientists to throw the Theory of Evolution out if because after 140 years of looking high and low for proof of it, they have NO empirical evidence to back the theory up! Their behavior is irrationally religious. They won't admit that what they are REALLY doing is defending the "GOD DID NOT DO IT" atheist turf, not the scientific method, period.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 12:19:30 am by AGelbert »
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
June 24, 2021, 12:07:21 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 23, 2021, 05:02:06 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
June 23, 2021, 02:12:56 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 22, 2021, 12:26:17 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
June 19, 2021, 02:14:43 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
June 17, 2021, 02:42:48 pm

Science by AGelbert
June 17, 2021, 02:31:35 pm

The American Dream by AGelbert
June 17, 2021, 02:04:44 pm

Genocide by AGelbert
June 17, 2021, 01:15:47 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
June 17, 2021, 12:59:14 pm