298 Million Yr Old Forest Found

[quote]anonym wrote:
Oh, and how fucking classic is it that the 6,000yo YEC is citing an article that references data points about shit 12.6 billion years ago as proof?

You’re gonna have to tryharder than that, man.[/quote]

I’m actually gonna go ahead and quote that so you don’t skip over it.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE try and explain how these dots connect in your ahead in a logical manner. I am very interested in watching you dislocate your shoulder pulling yet another hilariously divine doozie outta your ass.

I’m sure it will sound, like, totally legit, brah.

Ya know what? Between the fact that you CLEARLY don’t read the shit you are posting as proof PLUS the fact that you BLATANTLY and BLINDLY and SHAMELESSLY regurgitate criticisms of dating methods from Creationist web pages (which wouldn’t be so terrible if you weren’t ripping on everyone else for their inability to think for themselves), I’m about done with this thread.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
We live on a planet with a churning surface. It has moved drastically over time in waves. Some of you seem to be jumping to conclusions as if we actually have even our own history all figured out.[/quote]

Wouldn’t this just be at areas where the tectonic plates mash?

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This link from the University of North Carolina addresses some of your questions.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20inaccurate[/quote]

“This material does not necessarily represent any organization, including the University of North Carolina and the State of North Carolina.”

Correction: it is from some individual affiliated with the school in some way.

It is NOT an official page.

And don’t think I’m going to play along with this stupid game you play during these discussions – if you have something to say, say it. Don’t start spamming us with links saying it refutes what we’re saying.

Prove that you have both read what you are preaching AND that you understand it.[/quote]

Did you see where the link “Back to home page” at the bottom goes to?
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html

[quote]pushharder wrote:
From the story: “They believe that this frozen-in-time fossilized forest was covered under gigantic amounts of ash that fell from the sky for days.”

EXACTLY how the creation model would predict a find like this to have had occurred. EXACTLY.[/quote]

Not sure if pushharder is drunk or trolling.

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[/quote]
LOL, Oh Cheeky

You only think the earth is 10000 years old because that’s what chronology of the Bible finds. Maybe we should be talking about your ‘assumptions’ push?

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[/quote]

0_o

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

…Radioactive decay is measurable and quantifiable and verifiable. There is a vast body of evidence to support it…

[/quote]

It’s verifiable to the extent that it meets preconceived criteria.

It is NOT verifiable in the distant past.

Shucks, be honest and admit that this type of dating has only been going on for a few short decades - a small blip in the course of history.

Doesn’t mean it MUST be flawed but in the words of Dirty Harry:

[/quote]

Would you please share with me the preconceived criteria and assumptions you think are made involving radioactive decay? There are some, but probably not what you think and I will post a thorough list of them tomorrow, but right now I have work to do, plus I am looking over information about that link you posted with an excerpt by John Webb so I will probably be unable to address them until tomorrow. [/quote]

While I’m doing that please show us how we can prove that the decay rate has remained constant.[/quote]

Ah, we live in a universe where the very foundations change if that suits you.

And radioactive decay, no less, meaning the properties of of the building blocks of the universe, i.e. atoms.

Oh well, maybe the Bible was planted by space aliens?

Maybe we are all the dreams of butterflies?

Nah, I am actually looking forward to that paper, “Radioactive decay and why it has slowed down significantly in the last few thousand years”. And I would start soon if I were you, because the Nobel price is worth a fuckton of money and it seems that you are not the only one who knows whats up.

Matt, how much do you squat?

[quote]Cr Powerlinate wrote:
Matt, how much do you squat?[/quote]

Yeah? 0_o

Because if Push squats more than you he is the e-winner of the argument.

Sabretooth Pandas will still imaginary though.

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:

[/quote]

haha, love it ^^

Will have to do a woolly cockroach later tonight to compliment it. In fact, would you mind if I mount it on your sabertoothed Panda? I can totally imagine woolly roaches riding pandas into battle against prehistoric great white otters!

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
My concern is how little love, compassion, empathy, or willingness to understand there are differences between people by those who claim to be following his path.[/quote]

Interesting. Humans are flawed creatures…so you judge a religion by the faults of creatures who will no doubt have faults.

I personally don’t like many churches for many of the same reasons.

The difference?

I can separate the religion and the teachings from the faults of man.

You seem to blame the religion because those people exist.

[/quote]
Fair point, but if you look back at my post I was not making a blanket statement about all, but some. If that is not clear, I apologize to those you were offended.

All religions are the construction of man, even when the messages for the creator may be direct quotes. So if humans are flawed as you say, and I agree, then I hope you can see that those same flaws find themselves, at times, in the practice and understanding of religious texts.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
My concern is how little love, compassion, empathy, or willingness to understand there are differences between people by those who claim to be following his path.[/quote]

Interesting. Humans are flawed creatures…so you judge a religion by the faults of creatures who will no doubt have faults.

I personally don’t like many churches for many of the same reasons.

The difference?

I can separate the religion and the teachings from the faults of man.

You seem to blame the religion because those people exist.

[/quote]
Fair point, but if you look back at my post I was not making a blanket statement about all, but some. If that is not clear, I apologize to those you were offended.

All religions are the construction of man, even when the messages for the creator may be direct quotes. So if humans are flawed as you say, and I agree, then I hope you can see that those same flaws find themselves, at times, in the practice and understanding of religious texts.

My trusted Holy Bible has a bookmark inside. The bookmark has “Scientific American: EVOLVE!” on it.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Link: Extraordinary 298-Million-Year-Old Forest Discovered Under Chinese Coal Mine

Awesome discovery, this is a paleontologists wet dream. [/quote]

Indeedy.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
My concern is how little love, compassion, empathy, or willingness to understand there are differences between people by those who claim to be following his path.[/quote]

Interesting. Humans are flawed creatures…so you judge a religion by the faults of creatures who will no doubt have faults.

I personally don’t like many churches for many of the same reasons.

The difference?

I can separate the religion and the teachings from the faults of man.

You seem to blame the religion because those people exist.

[/quote]
Fair point, but if you look back at my post I was not making a blanket statement about all, but some. If that is not clear, I apologize to those you were offended.

All religions are the construction of man, even when the messages for the creator may be direct quotes. So if humans are flawed as you say, and I agree, then I hope you can see that those same flaws find themselves, at times, in the practice and understanding of religious texts. [/quote]

That goes for politics as well. That is why you are responsible for learning and doing some research. I am not a person who just follows others without question. I am not a person who ignores science. I am not a person who ignores the possibility of a creator.

I am one who tries to avoid getting into arguments often as if the goal is to change someone’s mind on religion. I don’t degrade atheists…but see degradation from them so often it gets boring to watch.

As far as what you just wrote, yes, there are no doubt faults that creep into the practices of some religions. As soon as you perfect yourself…then work on everyone else.

Until then, just accept that it is up to you to get what you need from the source you need it.

I personally would find living in a world with the assumption that chaos just accidentally threw it together to be pretty un-fulfilling. I am glad I didn’t make that choice.

I have faith in science because it is responsible for saving billions of lives and has no ego, dogma or tenets. When new information comes to light, it corrects itself. It is the most reliable method for discerning the truth that humans have.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have faith in science because it is responsible for saving billions of lives and has no ego, dogma or tenets. When new information comes to light, it corrects itself. It is the most reliable method for discerning the truth that humans have.

[/quote]

The truth is there is more to you than just physiology.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have faith in science because it is responsible for saving billions of lives and has no ego, dogma or tenets. When new information comes to light, it corrects itself. It is the most reliable method for discerning the truth that humans have.

[/quote]

The truth is there is more to you than just physiology.[/quote]

i don’t want to put words in your mouth so I’ll just ask: What do you mean exactly?