Weah96:

What do you mean? What assumptions?

Liveair:

You are not reading and researching enough bro, trying to make rubbish of processes that are almost error proof.
I asked you earlier, give another worldview that says Dinosaurs are not older than 6000 years.

Have you heard of ancient trees of over 9000 years?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

OLAADEGBU:

The Christian worldview. Read more on this thread ==> https://www.nairaland.com/1879266/what-does-bible-say-dinosaurs

OLAADEGBU:

Assumptions of an old earth or an young one. If your reasoning is based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old, your calculations would be based on such assumptions, which will be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

Weah96:


You're not making much sense brother. Maybe you should read this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with radiometric dating.

OLAADEGBU:

I reiterate that assumptions in the science is crucial. If your presupposition or starting assumption is false though all your calculation based on this false premise may be right but it will still give a wrong conclusion as it has done in the evolution worldview.

Weah96:

Don't just regurgitate an argument without being able to defend it. Exactly which assumptions are you referring to? Is it the number of parent and daughter nuclides present in the original sample?

OLAADEGBU:

Your assumption based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old.

Weah96:

LOL. Did I not just tell you that evolution and radiometric dating are distinct subjects?

One could assume that the earth is billions of years old, or only 6000 years old, and your beliefs still won't affect the number of parent and daughter nuclides present in a sample of rock. So forget this assumption business. We're now talking about physics and chemistry.

OLAADEGBU:

Don't even start what you can't finish. When a scientist's interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the holy Scriptures I don't have to reinterpret the scriptures because I know that God means what He says and says what He means. He is infallible. And since the Scriptures are the inspired, infallible word of God I scrutinise the standard interpretation of Carbon dating by asking the following question:

1. Is the interpretation of the data taken from observational science or an interpretation of past events?

2. Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?

3. Are the dates provided by ¹⁴C dating consistent with what we observe today?

4. Do all scientists accept the ¹⁴C dating method as reliable and accurate?

That is why I asserted that all radiometric dating methods use scientific procedures in the present to interpret what has happened in the past. Answering the above questions would enable good scientists to examine the validity of the standard explanation of ¹⁴C dating.

Weah96:

Carbon is not the only element that decays. They all do. What exactly is your contention with the procedures used to arrive at dates? This carbon business is rubbish. Other elements can be used to corroborate the readings obtained from carbon nuclides.

OLAADEGBU:

We are talking about ¹⁴C here. Radiocarbon is more often used to date organic materials, it can't be used directly to date inorganic materials. It can only give dates in the thousands of year range and not in millions or billions as your worldview would want us believe.

Weah96:

Radiocarbon dating uses the decay rate of carbon as a clock. It isn't the only radiometric dating technique available, but it is the oldest and most popular. Again, you spoke of assumptions earlier, and how they affect the dates obtained by radiometric dating. How do assumptions affect the date obtained for rocks and fossils?

OLAADEGBU:

Carbon-14 dating is mostly used in dating once living things and not for non-living things and they can only give dates in the thousands as opposed to the purported millions or billions according to the evolutionists worldview.

The assumption of the rate of decay which is the ratio of 1 to 1 trillion. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give wrong dates.

Weah96:

Carbon 14 is not used to date rocks and dinosaur fossils. What are you talking about?
When carbon 14 was used, the date of the bones came up to almost 40k years, more than the 6k suggested by creationists. That alone should have dispelled all doubt about the bible being a work of fiction.

OLAADEGBU:

I thought according to the evolutionary worldview, dinosaurs disappeared from the face of the earth about 65 million years ago. How then did your carbon dating come up with 40,000 years in dating their fossils? If the Bible says God created dinosaurs around 6,000 years ago which one is closer?

When the scientists calculation and interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible I will rather go with what God says in His record than reinterpret the bible to meet faulty man's assumption because I know that God's word is infallible.

OLAADEGBU:

I thought according to the evolutionary worldview, dinosaurs disappeared from the face of the earth about 65 million years ago. How then did your carbon dating come up with 40,000 years in dating their fossils? If the Bible says God created dinosaurs around 6,000 years ago which one is closer?

When the scientists calculation and interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible I will rather go with what God says in His record than reinterpret the bible to meet faulty man's assumption because I know that God's word is infallible.

Weah96:

Carbon dating dinosaur fossils was undertaken by creationists, not scientists. Their methods have yet to receive a favorable peer review, even from other scientists who happen to be Christians. The point I'm trying to emphasize is that the results of radiometric testing done by young earth creationists disagree with the chronological history of life presented in the bible. So I don't understand where you're going with this argument.

OLAADEGBU:

Tell me. How long ago do you believe dinosaurs last walked the face of the earth?

Weah96:

Longer then the biblical age of earth.

OLAADEGBU:

Is it in thousands or millions or even billions of years?

Weah96:

Why don't you also ask me whether vehicles run on water or gasoline? The age of dinosaur fossils have been confirmed by multiple testing methods to be in the tens of millions of years.

davien:

Olaadegbu please i'm confused on how you can look at yourself in the mirror knowing fully well that creationism is a fraud to pull back the fading whims of christianity...
I mean how desperate do you have to be to have predispositions about mythical humans and dinosaurs co-existence?..
How desperate do you have to be to believe a man could break newtonian laws of gravity with magic
How desperate do you have to be to try to demote centuries of research with which honest working men and women have devoted their entire lives for the study and understanding of natural phenomena to be represented by models,theorems and mathematical cause and effect representations
Marie currie if i'm not mistaken lost a loving husband and became irradiated due to radio-isotopic research...and just because of 2000 year old literature of violence and paradoxes you intend to scrutinize something multitudes diligently and patiently aimed to study at the expense of their lives for your future?..shame on you!

OLAADEGBU:

The fallacy of complex questions.

davien:

willfully point out my "fallacy"...i reckoned a noble question as to how you bold-headedly smear scientific data you have no understanding of just to bolster your version of religious propaganda a.k.a creationism... or do big words hurt your head?

OLAADEGBU: Fulfilled Prophecy
Seven Compelling Evidences
by Dan Hayden on March 9, 2011; last featured August 3, 2014

Among the many amazing evidences that confirm the Bible’s divine origin, surely the wealth of fulfilled prophecies is near the top. Just a few examples should suffice to dumbfound all but the most hardened critics.

Accurate predictions of future events that have virtually no probability of occurring by coincidence are spectacular precisely because they seem so suprahuman. Popular prognosticators like Nostradamus have entertained generations with their elaborate fortune-telling, despite their pitiful track records of inaccuracy.

WITH IMPECCABLE ACCURACY, THE BIBLE HAS CONSISTENTLY UNVEILED THE FUTURE FOR CENTURIES.

But biblical prophecy is different from all other predictions. With incredible detail, forthright clarity, and impeccable accuracy, the Bible has consistently unveiled the future for centuries.

Critics of the Bible, for instance, have squirmed over the prophetic insights of Daniel, the sixth-century BC Jewish prophet in Babylon. With eye-opening precision, Daniel interpreted two sets of dreams, one by a pagan ruler (chapter 2) and the other by the prophet himself (chapter 7), thereby forecasting the entire course of Middle East history over the next five centuries.

Daniel describes the exact ebb and flow of four empires from Babylon to Medo-Persia to Greece to Rome. He even foresaw the meteoric rise to power of the Greek conqueror Alexander the Great, as well as the final division of his Greek empire by four of his surviving generals (Daniel 7:6, 8:5–8, 11:2–4).

Desperate to counter the implications of this prophetic phenomenon, nineteenth-century skeptics concocted dating schemes that placed the time of Daniel’s writing after the events. Careful research by modern textual scholars, however, has validated the early origin of this prophecy, establishing Daniel as the authentic author.¹ Daniel’s prophecy is a genuine “Wow,” which clearly gives evidence of the Bible’s divine nature.

Historical Prophecies

Yet the Bible is filled with other amazing, supernatural predictions, just like Daniel’s, that can be verified by historical records. Historical prophecies that spoke about the future at the time of writing but later came true are particularly effective as an evidence of Scripture’s trustworthiness.

Your ability to point to Ezekiel’s prophecy of the destruction of the Phoenician city Tyre (Ezekiel 26) or Isaiah’s amazing prediction concerning the coming reign of the Persian King Cyrus—two hundred years before his birth (Isaiah 44:28)—will certainly give you an advantage in any discussion on the Bible’s authenticity as a divine book. Only the true God can so consistently predict such distant events, as God Himself asserts (Isaiah 41:21–23, 48:3–5).²

Messianic Prophecies

Just as effective are Messianic prophecies that were validated in the New Testament. Even though the fulfillment of these predictions hundreds of years later is documented within the Bible itself rather than secular history, the impact is still impressive.

Sharing details about any one example should suffice to make your point. Consider Micah, the seventh-century BC prophet who foretold that Christ would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). Christ’s parents, Mary and Joseph, lived in Nazareth, which was nowhere near Bethlehem. So God used a Roman census for taxation to send Jesus’s earthly parents south on an arduous journey to the little town of His birth.

Yet Micah accurately predicted this event over six hundred years before it occurred. Jesus could not have manipulated these events, nor could Luke, the historian who recorded its fulfillment. More than sixty fulfilled Messianic prophecies like this validate the Bible as the Word of God.

As you familiarise yourself with these categories of amazing biblical predictions, you will certainly be equipped to give amazing evidences that the Bible is God’s impeccable truth for mankind. Perhaps it will even add to your own excitement about your faith.

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/4-fulfilled-prophecy/

yazach:

Mr OLAADEGBU OR WHAT DO YOU CALL YOUR SELF, YOU HAVE THIS EVIDENCES AND YOU REFUSE TO PROVE YOUR SELF ON THIS THREAD EVEN WHEN YOUR NAME WAS MENTIONED. ARE YOU SCARE OR NOT COMPETENT ENOUGH? IF YOU ARE SURE OF YOUR SELF, JUST CLICK ON THIS

https://www.nairaland.com/1866203/people-hate-jesus-love-muhammad

OLAADEGBU:

Your sophistry knows no bound as pointed out below:

1. You ad that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist without showing us the historic or scientific facts.
3. You assumed that creation breaks newtonian laws of gravity with magic.
4. You assumed that evolution is a work of science when it is not.
5. You mistake science for evolution and say that we should take you serious.
6. You end up with the use of Ad hominem as the usual atheist co-out.

OLAADEGBU:

What has your thread got to do with this one?

davien:

lol,i "assumed" "creation" is a fraud?! ... please can you mention one peer-reviewed "creation" model that has with falsify-able evidence been used to understand any phenomenon?
Secondly i asked you to indicate my fallacy of complex question...and as usual olaadegbu you've jumped from that current accusation to accusing me of making assumptions here which i have not made atall...it goes to show how pathetic your position is.. the constant goal-post shifting needed to clear away answering any questions that you are unable to...
i advise you to keep concurrent the topics others have presented to you as seperate from mine...
And indeed creationism is a fraud because it relies on various con-man tenants i would outline for you here;
1. The equivocation of terms;
Creationism has employed childish equivocation of terms to deceive thed childish equivocation of terms to deceive thed childish equivocation of terms to deceive the ill-informed into presenting itself with a valid stance of authority on scientific terms...
An example of this is the common claim that "creation science" is valid...when it holds a presupposition of the bible mythology being factual...presuppositions do not exist in falsify-able science and childish methods such as:
"if creationism is a religion...evolution is a religion too"
"if creationism is a fairy tale...evolution is a fairy tale too"
"evolution is just a theory" etc
2. The absence of peer-reviewed research;
any "creation science" outline is never presented for general publicized peer-review but given out to men and women whom were indoctrinated into the same form of religious extremism and whom have taken "statements of faith" to denounce anything that goes against the presuppostion..that-is to say "creation scientists" self-approve their own research and have taken "oaths of faith" to denounce anything that goes against it....you olaadegbu should be familiar with your answers in genesis "statement of faith" which as your founder ken ham has said is " By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
with that said....a creationist can forever deny every piece of evidence that goes against the "scriptural record"..virtually forever,by an oath of dogma
3. Methods used;
Creationists employ many methods to confuse the issue...my number three point will have sub-categories
I. GOAL-POST SHIFTING
you olaadegbu as with all creationists are fond of this.... when you are presented a question as i have presented you so many times to define what a "kind" is... i am given "loose definitions"....loose in the aspect that the definition can be changed at any time to suit any purpose you wish it to be...from creatures that can breed successfully to examples like "cat kind,dog kind,human kind"...and when pointed out as to give a defining barrier between the arbituary definition you move away from the topic....
II. IMPROPER USE OF SCIENTIFIC DATA AND MISREPRESENTATIONS
This is what drives "creationism"....now your fond of making "carbon-14 is wrong" statements so i'll start there.....now before a divulge on this i would like to first explain what radio-metric dating is....it is somewhat the study of the age of objects using the known decay rates of radioactive elements/isotopes ...with that said certain materials require specialized methods for accurate dating...and this dating ranges...from estimated chronological years using known samples around the artifact to "radiocarbon-years" etc.... now a creationist would just have to date a tree layer fossil found in a rock using varying methods...get bogus readings and use such readings to bolster his rebuttals...
Also olaadegbu you are familiar with your favorite misrepresentation...the "evolution is not a science" claim using elementary definitions of science as being testable and observable...,when evolution has been observed through various speciation events i.e emergence of new species...like the croatian lizards that after being introduced to a new different environment displayed the exploitation of new environments as presented in darwins' "origin of species" to develop enhance favourable traits in the population necessary for survival...the lizards developed organs that were non-existant i.e the cecal valve..
to learn more examples of such...here is a link [url] http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html [/url]
III. NON-SEQUITUR
Creationists are fond of using unrelated terms to either assume positions,question positions or even avoid positions...your goto non sequitur is when discussing about evolution which is the study of bio-diversity you immediately jump to the origins of life as though evolution were meant to answer it...and then again jump to the origins of the universe ...this is also part of misrepresentation that creationists use....and the fact that this is done on purpose and willfully to fulfill all the listed con-man methods and deceive the masses' is morally wrong..
All this reasons makes me ask you how proud you are to lie for your mythology by employing such ill-methods just to bolster your version of religious extremism and are just few examples i can write-up at the moment as to why "creationism" is a fraud...

OLAADEGBU:

Evolution is refuted in this short videoclip. Check it out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWecPwrQv2c?list=PL1v9pqs4w1mxRVplL9I5Pq_qQH9jy8b1V