Omniology

[SteinHerz]

Renegate the metaphysical religion of macroevolutionism!



This must be one of the funniest websites around. Filled with anecdotes and misconceptions of neodarwinism.

What is most surprising IMHO is how the hell Young Earth Creationists believe it's their right to teach fairy tales at public schools.

Near religious fundamentalists, I even think Michael Behe ( uerrgh ) deserves more credit...

[Taem]

I've heard this one from vaious sources:

http://www.omniology.com/PaluxyPrints.html

It is not disputed... it is simply not acknowledged; yet the prints are in the same period (from carbon dating and geological earth lairs) as dinosaurs. Is this some sort of conspiracy to keep this from mainstream? I've heard tons of counter arguments by hard core Darwin believers that just don't pan out. Personally, I could give a rat’s ass about Darwinism or creationism, I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE FACTS and I'll make my own damn decision. I don't like it when people try and hide, obscure, or cover up facts to support their own ideology. That, my friend, is the true enemy.

[Bun-Bun]

They're dinosour tracks. See TalkOrigins FAQ.

Conspiracy theories generally don't hold water.

[--Pete]

Hi,

In order to make a decision, you need two things: facts and the knowledge to use those facts.

Now, maybe you could get the facts. They are available. Look in scientific periodicals (Nature and Science being the most accessible for the non-specialist). The data is published, and conclusions are discussed (and argued over).

But, even if you did get the facts, you are obviously not in a position to analyze them. "the prints are in the same period (from carbon dating and geological earth lairs) as dinosaurs." Clearly you don't have a clue about these matters. Look up carbon dating, see what the useful range is for it, tell me how *carbon* can be used to date prints that are not in organic material (or in material of organic origin).

Thus, your ignorance of the underlying material makes you incompetent to hold a valid opinion that is not secondhand. You could no more judge the validity of a claim based on the presented facts than my cat could do algebra. And you are not alone. As fields become more specialized, they become harder to follow, harder to understand. Indeed, even trying to keep up with the literature in many subfields is literally impossible, it is being printed faster than a person could read it, much less assimilate the knowledge.

--Pete

[SteinHerz]

The half-life of the C-14 isotope is approximately 5730 years; as you can see, it is meant for the dating of the younger fossils ( up to 50,000 - 70,000 years old ).

Dinosaurs have been extinct for over 66 million years; for the fossil dating of such specimens, you generally compare the radioactive isotope decay of transuranic elements, such as Potassium-Argon.

[Taem]

Hi,

In order to make a decision, you need two things: facts and the knowledge to use those facts.

Now, maybe you could get the facts.  They are available.  Look in scientific periodicals (Nature and Science being the most accessible for the non-specialist).  The data is published, and conclusions are discussed (and argued over).

But, even if you did get the facts, you are obviously not in a position to analyze them.  "the prints are in the same period (from carbon dating and geological earth lairs) as dinosaurs."  Clearly you don't have a clue about these matters.  Look up carbon dating, see what the useful range is for it, tell me how *carbon* can be used to date prints that are not in organic material (or in material of organic origin).

Thus, your ignorance of the underlying material makes you incompetent to hold a valid opinion that is not secondhand.  You could no more judge the validity of a claim based on the presented facts than my cat could do algebra.  And you are not alone.  As fields become more specialized, they become harder to follow, harder to understand.  Indeed, even trying to keep up with the literature in many subfields is literally impossible, it is being printed faster than a person could read it, much less assimilate the knowledge.

--Pete

:P hey, I was told this by the pastor of my church who majored in geology before switching to pastor. Curious, I confronted him on the issue and he showed me a handbook that creationists pass around to churches and inside it looked very convincing. They had quotes from known geologists, anthropologists, "professional" carbon-daters (which was funny, because they also had an article debunking carbon dating in the same handbook), etc. The book was complete with charts and references. It basically said that here was the proof man walked with dinosaurs and that others (Darwinist’s) were lying or fabricating tales to debunk this "fact". While I have NO proof other than what I've heard or read, it seemed VERY CONVINCING. If it is indeed a falsehood that the churches are spreading, then they should be sued for misrepresentation, and vice versa on the Darwinists. While I do believe in a god, there is a lot in the belief of creation that is either too far fetched or just doesn’t make sense, which is why I take what I read and hear with a grain of salt and believe what makes the most sense to my mind. What else can we do on this crazy earth?

[Bun-Bun]

hey, I was told this by the pastor of my church who majored in geology before switching to pastor.

Not to put too fine a point on it, he's deluding himself, and misleading you. I suspect he didn't stick with geology because it's impossible to progress to advanced levels in a field where you don't believe the basic premises. You'd know better than I, of course.

While I have NO proof other than what I've heard or read, it seemed VERY CONVINCING.

Yep. As long as you don't look at other information sources, anything can be convincing. YECs tend to misrepresent and make up facts to support their positions.

If it is indeed a falsehood that the churches are spreading, then they should be sued for misrepresentation, and vice versa on the Darwinists.

Sorry, but the Constitution allows all of us to believe what we want, and say what we want, as long as it's not slanderous. On balance, that's a good thing. The YECs can put forth silliness and threaten Hellfire to sell their junk, and the Darwinists can rebut with reason and scientific evidence. At least the Darwinists have to submit to peer review; there's no such restraint on YECs.

It hardly seems fair, no? ;)

I suggest you stroll over to TalkOrigins and set down for a good read. I think you'll find that the "convincing" material you were handed isn't quite so convincing after all. You could even mosey onto Usenet at post questions at talk.origins if you need more information. For that matter, we could start an uberthread right here. :blink: I suspect there are enough opinions to go around ...

Edit: Ben Sargent's apparently sharing mental bandwidth with me: Ben Sargent - Textbooks