Michael Eco Tries to Debunk Mark Armitage bc He's Creationist, Gavron88 at least tries to argue dating methods

Under a video, for the moment less important which one, I made these comments, and they sparked some debate:

25:00 Death Valley is in CA. Mary Higby Schweitzer found the dino soft tissue in a bone from Montana.

26:12 That she made a discovery doesn't give her some kind of academic copyright so no one else can draw other conclusions from it without her permission.

And here is the debate:

Crispr CAS9

Also, the last time I talked to her she was still an Evangelical Christian, just not a creationist.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sure, but if you draw a really stupid conclusion, like it's a young sample, you'd still be wrong and stupid, even if you weren't violating any copyrights.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crispr CAS9 I did not dispute that.

While a Catholic and a Creationist, I think "The Kennedy Report" bungles the case.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "like it's a young sample,"

How young? How much older than in Young Earth?

Crispr CAS9

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "I did not dispute that." I... didn't say you did? I was just adding to what you said.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Crispr CAS9 Thank you, very kind of you!

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well Creationists say the earth is 6 thousand years old.

But Schweitzer's dinosaur sample is dated to about 70 million years old. So yes, older by several orders of magnitude.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco The thing is, after 70 million years, there should be no soft tissue left.

And even more clearly after 65 - even more million years, there should be no measurable Carbon 14 left.

The point of young earth creationism in a certain type of questions is precisely:

• we don't believe the datings that contradict Biblical chronology
• we believe there are other ways to explain results from used dating methods
• and sometimes reasons to reject them even on solely scientific grounds.

Telling me 70 million years old is obtained by "dating" is like telling an Atheist, the Resurrection of Jesus is true because the Bible tells me so - just because it's the word of God, without any reference to why it's historically reliable.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "The thing is, after 70 million years, there should be no soft tissue left."

Why do you think people were surprised by the find?

" there should be no measurable Carbon 14 left."

Carbon 14 has nothing to do with it.

"The point of young earth creationism in a certain type of questions is precisely...:'

The point is young earth creationists are liars, frauds, and scientifically illiterate.

"Telling me 70 million years old is obtained by "dating" is like telling an Atheist, the Resurrection of Jesus is true because the Bible tells me so - just because it's the word of God, without any reference to why it's historically reliable."

No, it's not. Because it's an established fact that the Bible is wrong. But we have actual physical evidence for dating of 70 million year old fossils.

There are not two sides of a coin here.

If you really wanted to know how dating 70 million year old fossils works, you wouldn't be a Creationist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "Why do you think people were surprised by the find?"

Indeed.

"Carbon 14 has nothing to do with it."

Did you miss I mentioned Mark Armitage's subsequent research?

"The point is young earth creationists are liars, frauds, and scientifically illiterate."

The point is you are a barbarian fanatic.

"No, it's not."

Let's see how you argue ...

"Because it's an established fact that the Bible is wrong."

Not really. You are at least not trying to establish it.

"But we have actual physical evidence for dating of 70 million year old fossils."

And you are not trying to evidence how physical observations in the present are supposed to show the 70 million years.

"If you really wanted to know how dating 70 million year old fossils works, you wouldn't be a Creationist."

If you really wanted to know it, you would have given the arguments instead of this flat commonplace.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Did you miss I mentioned Mark Armitage's subsequent research?"

Mark Armitage is a creationist. He doesn't do research. He just makes up lies.

"The point is you are a barbarian fanatic."

Case in point.

"Not really. You are at least not trying to establish it."

It's been established for thousands of years. I don't have to reestablish it every time you cry about it.

"And you are not trying to evidence how physical observations in the present are supposed to show the 70 million years.'

I'm not your special education teacher. It's not my job to wipe your butt for you and tell you what a big good boy you are. Like the other flat earthers, you'll just ignore all the help I try to give you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "Mark Armitage is a creationist."

Yes.

"He doesn't do research. He just makes up lies."

Non sequitur.

"Case in point."

You just gave one.

"It's been established for thousands of years."

Oh, let's say for 2800 years ... how did Assurbanipal establish the Bible was in error? Did he send and army and claim it was unsuccessful due to mice nibbling bowstrings?

"I don't have to reestablish it every time you cry about it."

You do need to reestablish it or tell me who established it before you and how every time YOU chose to contradict a Christian with those words. Your claim, your burden of evidence.

"I'm not your special education teacher."

I have known some special education teachers or at least one. Let's say a special education teacher for a few dyslectics. I don't think fairly advanced claims and how they are proven or supposedly so came into her scope.

"It's not my job to wipe your butt for you and tell you what a big good boy you are."

I'm not asking you to do that. Not even after the indigestion I got, I wiped myself well enough without you (less sure about the food background for indigestion, but some proof material have already been discarded) ... just in case you forgot it, you were trying to talk of 70 billion years. Some people indeed learned those at age 3 or 4 from pop culture books about dinos, so did I. Perhaps that's as far as you went into the question, I went further by becoming a Christian, a YEC, and a writer in the YEC debate (between ages 9 and 33). I assure you, there is more to it than just your childhood belief in dinos going away millions of years ago.

"Like the other flat earthers,"

Thanks for pretending I'm things which I'm not.

"you'll just ignore all the help I try to give you."

Ah no! Any help you give me to analyse your position will be used to refute it, not ignored!

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Non sequitur."

That's not what non sequitor means.

"You just gave one."

I didn't, no. You demonstrated creationists being liars. I've said nothing either barbaric or fanatical. That's just you projecting.

"Oh, let's say for 2800 years ... how did Assurbanipal establish the Bible was in error? Did he send and army and claim it was unsuccessful due to mice nibbling bowstrings?"

The Bible didn't exist 2800 years ago, Hans-Georg.

"You do need to reestablish it or tell me who established it before you and how every time YOU chose to contradict a Christian with those words. "

I don't, no.

"just in case you forgot it, you were trying to talk of 70 billion years"

Million. Don't you know the difference?

There is no debate. Maybe if you hadn't given up learning at an early age, you wouldn't be so scientifically illiterate now.

"Thanks for pretending I'm things which I'm not."

Flat earthers and Creationists are the same thing. Both ignore science and basic observations in their fanastical mistake of believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "That's not what non sequitor means."

I know Latin. It means "does not follow" - and "he does no research" indeed "does not follow" from "he's a creationist".

"I didn't, no. You demonstrated creationists being liars. I've said nothing either barbaric or fanatical. That's just you projecting."

It is barbaric of you to pretend to class someone as a liar according to the world view they defend. And it is over and above that another piece of barbarity to start psych talk with a stranger over the internet - if I'm indeed a stranger to you. If not it is an over civilised treason.

"The Bible didn't exist 2800 years ago, Hans-Georg."

Parts of it did, like Torah, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, first two books of Kings (the ones that in Hebrew are one book called Samuel) and Job, perhaps some more. Apart from that, it cannot have been established thousands of years ago if it wasn't around a thousands of years ago.

"I don't, no."

Ah ... you claim the very assymetric right to make claims without support and take everything I say as a claim needing support. Another piece of barbarity.

"Million. Don't you know the difference?"

My bad.

"There is no debate."

There is, and you pretend to have missed it, but your words on Armitage proves that dishonest.

"Maybe if you hadn't given up learning at an early age, you wouldn't be so scientifically illiterate now."

Again : Thanks for pretending I'm things which I'm not. And did things which I didn't.

"Flat earthers and Creationists are the same thing."

You are again showing secularist fanaticism.

"Both ignore science"

I don't think even flat earthers are quite in that position. When Rob Skiba takes "testing the globe" issues, he gets some things wrong, but not from complete ignorance of science.

"and basic observations"

Even for Rob Skiba, the observations not taken in are far from basic.

"in their fanastical mistake"

Mistakes constitute fanaticism? Or did you misspell fantastical?

"of believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible."

Flat Earthers include quite a few Hindoos. The Bible can easily be taken literally without flat earth, especially the four corners are very traceable on a globe, where land masses meet waters at edges that have angles right or even sharp. You know, places like Alaska for NW corner, Cape Horn for SW, Singapore or Sydney for SE and Kamtchatka for NE.

Believing the Bible literally is far from fanaticism, if that was what you meant, it is the basis for Medieval Scholasticism and all of the civilisation around Collegium Sorbonense in 1277.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "I know Latin. It means "does not follow" - and "he does no research" indeed "does not follow" from "he's a creationist"."

It does follow. Creationists don't do research. That's why they invent fraudulent fake research journals.

"It is barbaric of you to pretend to class someone as a liar according to the world view they defend. "

It's not, no. It would be dishonest to pretend they're not liars.

""Apart from that, it cannot have been established thousands of years ago if it wasn't around a thousands of years ago."

2,000 years is two thousand years. Plural. This is a good example of the profound inanity that creationists/flat earthers go through.

"There is, and you pretend to have missed it, but your words on Armitage proves that dishonest."

They don't prove that, no. If Armitage was somehow doing research, than there would be something for debate. But there isn't.

"I don't think even flat earthers are quite in that position. When Rob Skiba takes "testing the globe" issues, he gets some things wrong, but not from complete ignorance of science.'

Oh, so you were lying about not being a flat earth too. Quelle surprise. Rob Skiba didn't do research either. He didn't do testing. Yes, he completely ignored science. That's not up for debate either.

"Flat Earthers include quite a few Hindoos."

Odd then, that I've never met any.

"Flat Earthers include quite a few Hindoos. The Bible can easily be taken literally without flat earth, especially the four corners are very traceable on a globe, where land masses meet waters at edges that have angles right or even sharp. You know, places like Alaska for NW corner, Cape Horn for SW, Singapore or Sydney for SE and Kamtchatka for NE."

This isn't a literally interpretation of the Bible. It's you trying to weasel out of the Bible.

"Believing the Bible literally is far from fanaticism, "

It's basically a textbook example.

"Medieval Scholasticism and all of the civilisation around Collegium Sorbonense in 1277."

There's a reason they call it the Dark Ages. But no, Biblical scholars have always known the Bible should not be interpreted literally. They, unlike Creationists, have actually read the thing.

Gavron88

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sorry, but this soft tissue was a collagen and that can survive millions of years if certain conditions are met. You can read about it in the paper:
"Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein"
by Mary Higby Schweitzer , Zhiyong Suo, Recep Avci, John M. Asara, Mark A. Allen, Fernando Teran Arce and John R. Horner.

And one more thing - no one use carbon dating to determine age of dinosaur fossils.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "It does follow. Creationists don't do research. That's why they invent fraudulent fake research journals."

1) Fraudulent research differs from no research.
2) How are their research papers fraudulent (apart from being creationist)?
3) And if they are fraudulent for that exact reason and no other, how is that not a non sequitur alternatively flat out bullying?

"It's not, no. It would be dishonest to pretend they're not liars."

It would be dishonest to pretend you don't act like a bully when you write these things, it would be dishonest to pretend you probably have no routine, and it would be dishonest to pretend your routine of bullying instead of arguing is not barbarism.

"2,000 years is two thousand years. Plural. This is a good example of the profound inanity that creationists/flat earthers go through."

1) The Bible as a collection was not around 2000 years ago, and some important books were not around 2000 years either, though they were so 1900 years ago;
2) Removes the question from Assurbanipal to Trajan or to men in his time. Did Celsus give some good proof the Bible is invalid on your view?

"They don't prove that, no. If Armitage was somehow doing research, than there would be something for debate. But there isn't."

Yes, there is a good reason to debate why those he debunk prefer bullying tactics and pretending there is no debate over trying in a debate to defend their pov ...

"Oh, so you were lying about not being a flat earth too. Quelle surprise."

Not the least. I didn't say I had agreed with him on the point or do so now.

"Rob Skiba didn't do research either. He didn't do testing. Yes, he completely ignored science. That's not up for debate either."

I actually took the trouble to refute one of his arguments. How would you answer an argument like every mile the ground gets away from you it sinks (due to curvature of earth) so many feet or whatever, but it starts from another angle next mile so you soon get to aerth surface being further below you than the building is high? I know how I answered that one.

"Odd then, that I've never met any."

You met all of your Hindoo friends in Calcutta or Mumbai as they prefer to call Bom Bahía? Or you met them in polite Western Academic or health food circles, and many had grandparents who were still Christians or Socialists, since they are Western?

"This isn't a literally interpretation of the Bible. It's you trying to weasel out of the Bible."

Show why it's weaselling and not acceptable interpretation, then?

"It's basically a textbook example."

W a i t ... you are not using "fanaticism" as about violence or close minded dishonesty (of which you are verbally an example), but as "taking your religion seriously" - like Voltaire would call a Catholic "fanatic" for believing the Virgin Birth and the Four Last Things? In that case, "fanaticism" is not a bad thing, it's just a bad name, by bad people (like French Freemasons) for a sometimes good thing.

"There's a reason they call it the Dark Ages."

Dark Ages = Early Middle Ages = from fall of Rome in 476 to Charlemagne or end of Viking age ... yes, there is a military reason, Christendom was besieged by antichristian Barbarians and needed to spend more resources on defence than on learning. You know, the Viking age had ended 211 years before the year I mentioned? Charlemagne was even earlier than that.

"But no, Biblical scholars have always known the Bible should not be interpreted literally."

Would you consider St. Thomas Aquinas as one? Or Bishop Tempier? Would you like to refer me to any quotes in these that make your point (with reference to work, to parts of work, you know, the Summa Theologiae by the former is very minutely subdivided)?

"They, unlike Creationists, have actually read the thing."

And obviously you are equally welcome to give me exact Bible references that should tell me it is not to be taken literally .... just to get a red herring out of the way, taking a text literally does not mean taking an obvious figure of speech literally. If someone ends a narrative with "we stood there fallen off our feet" we don't have the alternative between trying to figure out how someone could be both standing and off their feet or to take the whole narrative as no real story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gavron88 I think there is a difference between "can if certain conditions are met" and "a learned person has said they can so".

Carbon dating examinations have been made, and the carbon 14 content measured is above that which would be left after 100 000 and usually even after 50 000 years, and by now, yes, that can be accurately detected.

Gavron88

@Hans-Georg Lundahl " I think there is a difference between "can if certain conditions are met" and "a learned person has said they can so"." - And? I literally gave you name of the study, not someone's opinion on that matter.

"Carbon dating examinations have been made" - I repeat, no one use carbon dating to determine age of dinosaur fossils. Non avian dinosaurs lived over 66 million years ago, carbon dating is useless in this situation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gavron88 Yeah, the name of the study means giving me a reference to someone's opinion on the matter. And if you would like me to go there for the arguments, you could be less dismissive about going to Mark Armitage and CMI about carbon 14 content.

"carbon dating is useless in this situation."

As it obviously wasn't useless to Mark Armitage, would you like to argue why the situation of million of years precludes that usefulness? Rather than being itself fairly refuted by it!

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"1) Fraudulent research differs from no research."

Yes, it does.

"2) How are their research papers fraudulent (apart from being creationist)?"

They don't do research. They make up claims. They're peer reviewed. I'm not sure what part of fake you're pretending to be confused by.

"It would be dishonest to pretend you don't act like a bully when you write these things"

I am not a bully. That is another lie. You are not a victim, again, pretending like you are is another lie. If you can't handle criticism, then you should stay in your safe space.

And if you're going to dish out insults, you ought to be able to take it.

"2) Removes the question from Assurbanipal to Trajan or to men in his time. Did Celsus give some good proof the Bible is invalid on your view?"

Every biblical scholar that has ever lived has been willing to admit that the Bible is wrong, and contradicts itself. This is not up for debate. This is why the earliest of the church leaders, like St. Augustine, warned about reading the bible literally, and there have never been any serious scholars since that did.

"fanaticism is not a bad thing."

Yes. It is.

"W a i t ... you are not using "fanaticism" as about violence or close minded dishonesty "

I have not been violent, I have not been close-minded, I have not been dishonest. These are more lies. Being close minded means you're unwilling to accept any evidence contrary to your presumptions. I haven't made any presumptions, and you haven't presented any evidence for creationism and flat earth. All you've done is lie and pretend to be a victim.

"And obviously you are equally welcome to give me exact Bible references that should tell me it is not to be taken literally ."

If you've read the Bible, then you don't need me to explain this to you. All of Genesis has been debunked by science. All the crap about the flat earth is also absurd. Then there are the hundreds of self-contradictions. But because you're a close-minded fanatic, you're not going to listen to reason. Just like the rest of the flat earthers.

Gavron88

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Yeah, the name of the study means giving me a reference to someone's opinion on the matter."

...Are you serious right now?

"As it obviously wasn't useless to Mark Armitage,"

He belong to a group (Creation Research Society) that requires of its members belief that the Bible is historically and scientifically true in the original autographs, belief that "original created kinds" of all living things were created during the Creation week described in Genesis, and belief in flood geology.

In other words, anything they say is made up. Nice try.

" would you like to argue why the situation of million of years precludes that usefulness? Rather than being itself fairly refuted by it!"

So you are claiming that carbon dating refute 4,54 billion years old Earth? So what do you have to say about radiometric dating using other thing than carbon? Like:
- "Samarium–neodymium dating method";
- "Potassium–argon dating method";
- "Uranium–thorium dating method"

and many more? Are you gonna ignore all of this because it's against your opinion about Earth's age? Really?

Can you tell me why should I treat you seriously after statement like that? Do you actually have anything useful to say?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "Yes, it does."

Shall I take it as "my bad"?

"They don't do research. They make up claims. They're peer reviewed. I'm not sure what part of fake you're pretending to be confused by."

Sarfati made a claim, the mixture of righthanded and lefthanded forms at a Miller Urey experiment is about equal of each molecule produced. Sarfati made a claim that life needs chirality - some molecules are always right handed, better known, some are always left handed. Which of these claims is fraudulent? Sarfati didn't make a claim, but drew a conclusion, that Miller Urey conditions don't explain chirality in life. When did that become a made up claim?

"I am not a bully. That is another lie."

I said acting like a bully in this context.

"You are not a victim, again, pretending like you are is another lie."

I didn't say your bullying tactics were successful.

"If you can't handle criticism, then you should stay in your safe space."

I've said that to some without bullying ... they could have hired someone with your manners and tactics in the hope I would withdraw and leave the internet to them. Not likely.

"And if you're going to dish out insults, you ought to be able to take it."

I didn't start dishing out any insults.

"Every biblical scholar that has ever lived has been willing to admit that the Bible is wrong, and contradicts itself."

Dom Augustin Calmet OSB said that? Or you reserve "Biblical scholar" for the school who are not "admitting" but pushing the claim you mentioned?

"This is not up for debate."

I suppose you will avoid one about Biblical scholars like Calmet, yes ....

"This is why the earliest of the church leaders, like St. Augustine, warned about reading the bible literally, and there have never been any serious scholars since that did."

Oh, he warned us about taking the bible literally, did he? What work, what book, chapter and paragraph?

// "fanaticism is not a bad thing."//

"Yes. It is."

Dishnoest trucnation of quote. I said "in that case" - namely your using "fanaticism" for "taking your religion seriously" - then "fanaticism is not a bad thing" - were you dishonest or too excited to wait and read what I had actually said?

"I have not been violent, I have not been close-minded, I have not been dishonest. These are more lies. Being close minded means you're unwilling to accept any evidence contrary to your presumptions. I haven't made any presumptions, and you haven't presented any evidence for creationism and flat earth. All you've done is lie and pretend to be a victim."

Thank you for showing how much YOU take YOURSELF for a victim ... I try to debate, but with your tactics that only falls flat on your pretending I lie. I asked you to provide examples for quotes specifically stating that Medievals didn't believe the Bible literally, you didn't provide any, you changed the challenge to St. Augustine, and as I just challenged you on providing an exact quote on that you'll skirt, and then resume my tactics as lying, I wouldn't be surprised, and now to the other challenge ...

// "And obviously you are equally welcome to give me exact Bible references that should tell me it is not to be taken literally ." //

"If you've read the Bible, then you don't need me to explain this to you."

1) Not an exact quote
2) I didn't ask you to explain things to me, but to prove your point in a debate.

"All of Genesis has been debunked by science."

1) Like the seven lean years after seven fat years could never be managed by storing grain?
2) Again, not an exact quote, it's not in your interest to provide any, since they don't support your case.

"All the crap about the flat earth is also absurd."

What crap? I never said I believed it? I definitely DID say I had taken the trouble to refute Rob Skiba on it, and that I took the trouble to show how it doesn't follow from the Bible?

"Then there are the hundreds of self-contradictions."

1) Stating there are hundreds of them doesn't amount to citing even one of them.
2) You have also not shown how NOT taking the Bible literally amends any of them.

"But because you're a close-minded fanatic, you're not going to listen to reason. Just like the rest of the flat earthers."

On record, you called me a flat earther again. Sorry, but this time I have to call you a liar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gavron88 "...Are you serious right now?"

As serious as you showed yourself about Mark Armitage.

"He belong to a group (Creation Research Society) that requires of its members belief that the Bible is historically and scientifically true in the original autographs, belief that "original created kinds" of all living things were created during the Creation week described in Genesis, and belief in flood geology."

If it were only those tenets, I would like to join them. Unofrtunately, I think that they may have some tenets excluding tradtion from holding its position with the Bible or Magisterium (derived from both and inferior to them) to be infallible.

"In other words, anything they say is made up. Nice try."

In other words refers to synonymity. You haven't documented the YEC stance is synonymous to making up every claim you make, you have just presumed it.

"So you are claiming that carbon dating refute 4,54 billion years old Earth? So what do you have to say about radiometric dating using other thing than carbon? Like:"

I'll take each.

- "Samarium–neodymium dating method";

Don't know it all that much.

- "Potassium–argon dating method";

Vulcanism during the Flood depending on radioactive reactions in the mantle or just below it sped up decay rates and flood waters made sure the argon emitted at eruption within the lava didn't all get out of the lava. Plus, no possibility of historic testing of half life.

- "Uranium–thorium dating method"

No possibility of historic testing of half life. No possibility to know how much of the daughter isotope comes from the parent isotope presumed for the method.

"and many more? Are you gonna ignore all of this because it's against your opinion about Earth's age? Really?"

I gave refutations for two of the three of them. Why don't they cover C14?

1) C14 halflife can be historically tested. 500 years is a significant fraction of 5730 years, and we can determine that fraction means 94.131 % pf original content should be left and so as original content was close to 100 pmC, we should be able to see close to 94.131 pmC.
2) We aren't counting the daughter isotope as such, just the parent isotope.

"Can you tell me why should I treat you seriously after statement like that?"

Like, it could have been smart to hear me out on that matter of other methods, before judging me on a presumed total eclipse on it.

"Do you actually have anything useful to say?"

Yes, go to the stove. Boil some water. Take a tea pot. Heat it with part of the water, rincing it, then pour that water out. Put in tealeaves, in a reasonable proportion to water quantity. Pour in the hot water you'll actually drink as tea. Let it perfuse (under lid of teapot) for 3 to 5 minutes. Pour into a mug. Add sugar, honey or milk or more than one of both to taste. And above all, do so before the next session you presume you could be up against me or some other YEC, so you spare yourself some ridicule!

Gavron88

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "As serious as you showed yourself about Mark Armitage"

I gave you study, you gave me a guy who haven't done any kind of study. I ask again: Are you serious right now?

"If it were only those tenets, I would like to join them" - So you acknowledge that believing in religious text is more important to you than proper scientific research.

Since you made it so obvious, I don't need to respond to the rest of your bs. Congratulations, you lost.

Good day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gavron88 "I gave you study, you gave me a guy who haven't done any kind of study."

I think that sums your attitude up very clearly ....

"So you acknowledge that believing in religious text is more important to you than proper scientific research."

Indeed, God is omniscient, man, including man as scientist, isn't.

"Since you made it so obvious, I don't need to respond to the rest of your bs."

You are making it abundantly clear, you got the equivalent of a Communist country education. Condoleances.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gavron88 Dobre herbata, enjoy, and in English one doesn't say "believing in religious text" but "believing in a religious text" - since definite and non-definite are the only alternatives, you can't be neutral between them.

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Sarfati didn't make a claim, but drew a conclusion, that Miller Urey conditions don't explain chirality in life"

That's a claim, Hans_George. Also, it's a logical fallacy called a strawman. Miller-Urey never claimed it was the origin of the chirality of life.

"Dishnoest trucnation of quote."

It's not dishonest, no. It's your premise.

"Thank you for showing how much YOU take YOURSELF for a victim ."

I'm not claiming I'm a victim. Just because you're losing badly and lying and making false accusations, it doesn't make me a victim. You're as impotent as you are dishonest.

"1) Stating there are hundreds of them doesn't amount to citing even one of them."

Nor do I have to. You're welcome to read the Bible yourself. I never met a Creationist who actually had.

"Sorry, but this time I have to call you a liar."

You're welcome to say that, but it's just another lie. There's no meaningful difference between Creatoinists and flat earthers. Two peas in a pod. Also, despite you trying to weasel back out of it, you were totally defending Rob Skiba. So I don't know why you expect anybody to take you seriously at this point. It's over.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco "That's a claim, Hans_George."

It's a conclusion following from the premisses.

"Also, it's a logical fallacy called a strawman. Miller-Urey never claimed it was the origin of the chirality of life."

Strawman all on your side, Sarfati didn't pretend Miller and Urey had made the claim. He just points out that's one of the mysteries so far left unexplained (I think his count was 100 of them or so.

"It's not dishonest, no. It's your premise."

Not as the word is usually used.

"I'm not claiming I'm a victim. Just because you're losing badly and lying and making false accusations, it doesn't make me a victim. You're as impotent as you are dishonest."

You look quite a bit like a victim of your own bad temper right now.

"Nor do I have to. You're welcome to read the Bible yourself. I never met a Creationist who actually had."

So, your test for having read the Bible is knowing what you mean and agreeing with you? Very tactic. And leaves you free to bluff on your having done so.

"You're welcome to say that, but it's just another lie."

I already gave a good recipe of tea to your collegue, use it. You need it.

"There's no meaningful difference between Creatoinists and flat earthers. Two peas in a pod."

"No meaningful difference" doesn't mean they are synonyms. Thanks for admitting you were misusing the word.

"Also, despite you trying to weasel back out of it, you were totally defending Rob Skiba."

Against your points, not mine.

Btw, did you learn arguing in a backstreet of St. Petersburg or of Manila? Are you some ethnic minority whereever you are from?

"So I don't know why you expect anybody to take you seriously at this point."

I was arguing seriously, I don't require each and everyone to take me seriously, but I prefer if those arguing back are civil, whether they take me seriously or not. It's one thing to say "I laugh at you" and another to repeat it over and over showing how angry you are.

"It's over."

You're finished? F i n e ! Go and make yourself a good tea, then!

Two months

later, this was resumed:

Guilherme Castro

@Hans-Georg Lundahl carbon 14 isnt used in dating fossils as old as 70 million years, you can use potassium-argon dating or uranium 235, also the tissue was preserved ny something called iron cross linking which humans have observed for centuries

@Hans-Georg Lundahl no if fossils that are millions of years old contain carbon then theres contamination theres isotopes that are much more accurate in millions of years

@Hans-Georg Lundahl my god dude carbon 14 is and mever was used for dino fossils, its heavier isotopes that are used like uraniam 235 or uranium 234, potassium-argon dating and many more, you know why? Couse uranium isotopes take millions of years to decay that why those are more accurate

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Guilherme Castro I wonder if I didn't already adress these things here ...

The point is, as a Creationist, I'm free to consider K-Ar and U-Pb and Th-Pb as so much pretentious baloney, but the carbon 14 level is linked to the atmosphere. It doesn't change C14 content all that quickly, not from day to day.

Obviously, we both think this is not the whole story. I think C14 rose in the atmosphere since when the dinos breathed c. 5000 years ago, which is why it was so low and carbon dates so old as 40 000 years and you think it rose in the samples after they were buried. I'd agree for samples that only date to 20 000 years.

But you conclude this makes even carbon dates of 40 000 for coal "contaminated" - as you prefer the unprovable U and K amounts before decay ...

Guilherme Castro

@Hans-Georg Lundahl what are you talking about? No one needs to date coal its a fuel source those sont need dating and coal is purely carbon

Carbon 14 isnt created in the atmosphere its to heavy to be floating int the atmosphere, carbon 14 has a really short half life thats why its only used on samples believed to ne less then 50k years old, no scientist uses carbon 14 to date dino remains becouse carbon 14 is already gone by the time the bones fossilize, uranium 235 how ever takes hundreds of millions of years to decay.

Also i dont need to use dinossours to tell you the earth is 4.5 billion uears old, the existence of lead minerals in the soil is enough sense lead is the result of a chain reaction of contenious decay of larger and more unstabble atoms, the decay of uranium 238 over millions of years will and did end up with lead

@Hans-Georg Lundahl also if you have a t rex bone that is obviously older then 50k years and it shows to have carbon 14 then it has been contaminated and also the preservation of soft tissue like what dr shwitser found was a rare but natural process involving iron cross liking a process humans have used for centuries with formeldahyde and when turning hide into leather

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Guilherme Castro I just need to note one thing:

"Carbon 14 isnt created in the atmosphere its to heavy to be floating int the atmosphere,"

Heard of carbon dioxide?

I think you disqualified yourself in science, right now!

Appendix

St. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th. I P, Q 1, A 10, corpus

I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.