Unintelligent Design

[Balloon guy 158]

See, BG doesn't argue about actual Carbon dating, the process or how it has been repeatedly verified as being a consistent form of measure just that in his alternate reality things are somehow different, like he is from a Balloon planet with different laws of nature or something where facts can be interpreted to mean something different. I can't argue that Balloons aren't square on his planet because i've never been there, but on earth they are round. On earth Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

Well, actually I did a few times.We have found traces of Carbon 14 in diamonds, which as we all know are millions of years old.The decay rate of carbon 14 says that after about 100,000 years we can basically say that any traces of it will be too small to discover.We also have dated live trees at over 1,000 years old through carbon dating.Carbon dating is a nice useful tool. But to claim it is infallible is to make a claim not backed up by facts.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I think RR is mostly correct, and I think BG is giving more weight to things that Darwin didn't quite understand.

I’m not going to argue against Darwin’s “central ideas.” I don’t have a problem saying that they are correct. I just think that when you’re having these kinds of discussions, making the statement that every single idea and claim he made has been proven to be true isn’t helping your case. That's probably because I'm generally more concerned with how the arguments are being made as opposed to what is being argued.

[speedz99 145]

Carbon dating is a nice useful tool. But to claim it is infallible is to make a claim not backed up by facts.

And to claim that it would confuse every single dinosaur bone as millions of years old instead of five thousand years old is...yeah.

[vbnautilus 48]

I understnad why you want to argue that Argon decays into lead at X rate. But to make the assumption that all argon has always decayed at these rates, and that all existing lead was previously argon makes assumptions quite unlike supposing that 2+2 might have equaled 5 at one point.

But.. we not only can observe the decay rate of Argon, we also understand why it decays at the rate that it does, which relates to physical constants. If you are suggesting that the laws of physics have changed throughout history, that is very much like supposing that 2 + 2 equaled 5 at some point.

[Balloon guy 158]

Is math a religon? Social Studies? But I am glad to see that you aree that over the last 100 years everything we have come to learn about Proteins, amino acids, RNA etc are building blocks. DNA is a building block, atoms are a building block etc...has verified the original theory of Natural Selection. It's amazing that all those years ago, Darwin was lambasted as a heretic and all these years later we have consistently proven he was right. He would crap his pants if he knew we found the fossils of our human ancestors like "Lucy", but I digress. We do have a better understanding of how life evolved and we are learning more all the time as with most things. It wouldn't be natural to know it all and then unlearn everything for the last 100 years now would it?

If I predict that the Steelers will win the 2112 Superbowl because Rothesberger will have a bionic arm, and then the Steelers win the Superbowl in 2112, with a team of completely different players, am I to be praised for being right? Or laughed at for using completely slanted and foolish data to arrive at my conclusion?Darwin used bad science to come to a conclusion that you guys have turned into a religion. Each and everything that you 'find' you fit into the mold of evolution no matter how much it needs to be forced.I am just one lone guy willing to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

[solderz 0]

Saying nuclear decay rates vary would require some variation in the nuclear energy within an atom, which would nullify E=mc2. Which has been verified by every test done. Including time effects and that little thing we like to call the atomic bomb.But understanding this requires a logical thought process and a basic understanding of physics, which apparently balloon knot doesn't have.

[speedz99 145]

But.. we not only can observe the decay rate of Argon, we also understand why it decays at the rate that it does, which relates to physical constants. If you are suggesting that the laws of physics have changed throughout history, that is very much like supposing that 2 + 2 equaled 5 at some point.

How do you know it didn't? Think about that...

[Balloon guy 158]

And to claim that it would confuse every single dinosaur bone as millions of years old instead of five thousand years old is...yeah.

I am willing to bet you a lot of money that not once has carbon dating 'aged' a dinosaur bone at a million years old

[speedz99 145]

Darwin used bad science to come to a conclusion that you guys have turned into a religion. Each and everything that you 'find' you fit into the mold of evolution no matter how much it needs to be forced.

Hi. Tell us how he used bad science. Making vague claims about what constitutes "building blocks" isn't an argument.

I am just one lone guy willing to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

No, you're the guy that still hasn't checked to make sure his hair isn't on fire.

[vbnautilus 48]

Well, actually I did a few times.We have found traces of Carbon 14 in diamonds, which as we all know are millions of years old.

No, we haven't. No good study has found C14 levels below background in diamonds.

[Randy Reed 0]

Then since you have arrived at the foundational belief that you have a better grasp of how things should be than God, you are now required to prove this in order to continue your assertions. What is the purpose for all life, and what things would you do to arrive at these results more efficiently? Oh, and explain why efficiency is the ideal outcome.Now you see why I am not allowing for the notion that 'errors' in life prove/disprove a Creator.

Nope just that as humans we can see the fallacies of many designs, if it was in fact "designed." Especially things likeSpider penisesThey don't have them. Now, internal fertilisation of egg by sperm seems to be a Good Idea: it is an effective way to ensure that the gametes meet. This can be accomplished by the female squatting over a sperm packet; that is how some mites do it. But more obviously and, one might think, sensibly, males often have a penis -- a structure to deliver the sperm.A male spider delivers his sperm with his pedipalps. These appendages are located on his head (and are considered by evolutionists to be modified mouthparts). But inconveniently for the spider, the pedipalps are not connected to the part of the body where the sperm is made (spider gonads are, unsurprisingly, located in the abdomen).So before copulating, the male deposits his sperm onto a small web he has spun especially for this purpose. He then siphons the sperm up into the pedipalps, like "drawing ink into a fountain pen" as Olivia Judson has described it. Only once his pedipalps are thus primed can he inseminate his mate.Surely having the gonads connected to the pedipalps... or a penis-type arrangement located, well, anywhere the designer felt like, really... would be a simpler and more economical design...? And BG, don't dare call me a dickhead!

[Balloon guy 158]

But.. we not only can observe the decay rate of Argon, we also understand why it decays at the rate that it does, which relates to physical constants. If you are suggesting that the laws of physics have changed throughout history, that is very much like supposing that 2 + 2 equaled 5 at some point.

What would happen to a chunk of argon if an atomic blaster was fired through it during an ionic storm after a planetary polar shift during a tachyon storm?Don't know?Didn't think so!SCORE!

[Jeepster80125 0]

And to claim that it would confuse every single dinosaur bone as millions of years old instead of five thousand years old is...yeah.

I am willing to bet you a lot of money that not once has carbon dating 'aged' a dinosaur bone at a million years old

ORLY?

[vbnautilus 48]

Darwin used bad science to come to a conclusion that you guys have turned into a religion. Each and everything that you 'find' you fit into the mold of evolution no matter how much it needs to be forced.

You have yet to show that Darwin used bad science. However, you have used bad science to make your claims about carbon dating.

[Balloon guy 158]

Hi. Tell us how he used bad science. Making vague claims about what constitutes "building blocks" isn't an argument.

Either you guys are purposefully dense to rile me, or you are accidentally dense in which case it is riling me up.But either way...I am getting riled!

No, you're the guy that still hasn't checked to make sure his hair isn't on fire.

Who set the emperor's hair on fire?

[speedz99 145]

I am willing to bet you a lot of money that not once has carbon dating 'aged' a dinosaur bone at a million years old

Ah, yeah, you're right. But you don't have a lot of money anymore, so it's yet another moo point.

[Balloon guy 158]

ORLY?

feel free to take half of speedz action here

[Balloon guy 158]

Ah, yeah, you're right. But you don't have a lot of money anymore, so it's yet another moo point.

Son of a ...

[Balloon guy 158]

No, we haven't. No good study has found C14 levels below background in diamonds.

So you are saying that you know all studies and can make this assertion with authority?

[speedz99 145]

Either you guys are purposefully dense to rile me, or you are accidentally dense in which case it is riling me up.

No, really, tell us. In what way did Darwin's understanding of the cell based on the knowledge of his day affect his research and make it invalid due to "bad science". You need to back up a claim like that.

[Balloon guy 158]

You have yet to show that Darwin used bad science. However, you have used bad science to make your claims about carbon dating.

Darwin, claimed cells were the smallest thing known to man and made up all life.Your turn

[Balloon guy 158]

No, really, tell us. In what way did Darwin's understanding of the cell based on the knowledge of his day affect his research and make it invalid due to "bad science". You need to back up a claim like that.

I don't get you 'knowledge of the day' qualifier.Are you saying that since he couldn't know any better, that therefore his science wasn't bad, even though it was based on things we now know are bad science?

[Randy Reed 0]

Darwin, claimed cells were the smallest thing known to man and made up all life.Your turn

Um, you just said it. Back at ya!

[Balloon guy 158]

Um, you just said it. Back at ya!

OHHHH...now I understand.You guys believe that as long as science doesn't know any better, then it must be true....I get it.Then the world USED to be flat.And Communism USED to be a viable form of government

[Randy Reed 0]

I don't get you 'knowledge of the day' qualifier.Are you saying that since he couldn't know any better, that therefore his science wasn't bad, even though it was based on things we now know are bad science?

Listen carefully. We are saying that his theory was correct despite his scientific limitations and have been repeatedly proven ever since. It wasn't "bad science".