2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 03:00 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 02:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  the fundies really ARE a small minority.
hehehe that sounded dirty in my mind

BTW, I've been meaning to speak to you about stealing one of my nicknames.
How dare you use the name "Fluffy". Weeping
(except I am Japaneese Fruff) .. is pire of clap)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-12-2013, 03:10 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 02:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If radiometric dating really does not work, one would not expect different methods to return concordant ages.
And with the moon rocks and the KBS tuff, they didn't. Apparently radiometric dating "really does not work."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 03:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 03:00 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  hehehe that sounded dirty in my mind

BTW, I've been meaning to speak to you about stealing one of my nicknames.
How dare you use the name "Fluffy". Weeping
(except I am Japaneese Fruff) .. is pire of clap)
Drinking Beverage
[Image: h4A2FE524]

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
07-12-2013, 03:22 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 03:10 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 02:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If radiometric dating really does not work, one would not expect different methods to return concordant ages.
And with the moon rocks and the KBS tuff, they didn't. Apparently radiometric dating "really does not work."

Could you please link the articles to support your claim.

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 04:16 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
At least the last YEC we had here (Phil_GA) was intellectually honest in his debates. Dodgy

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 04:54 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 03:10 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 02:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If radiometric dating really does not work, one would not expect different methods to return concordant ages.
And with the moon rocks and the KBS tuff, they didn't. Apparently radiometric dating "really does not work."

Please tell us the uncertainty ranges for EACH, which would be acceptable to you,
how and where they are observed in other systems,
why you chose the numbers you did,
and what conclusion you would draw concerning your deity IF the were to be demonstrated to be true.
Take your time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:41 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 03:22 PM)Crulax Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 03:10 PM)alpha male Wrote:  And with the moon rocks and the KBS tuff, they didn't. Apparently radiometric dating "really does not work."

Could you please link the articles to support your claim.
I already provided a link on the moon rocks. Here's a very brief one on KNM-Er 1470 (i.e. the KBS tuff):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html
Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended.

The moral of the story: If the radiometric date disagrees with the presumed evolutionary relationships, keep testing until you get a date you like!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:44 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 04:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Please tell us the uncertainty ranges for EACH, which would be acceptable to you,
The uncertainty ranges given with the moon rock dates are fine.
Quote:how and where they are observed in other systems,
Relevance?
Quote:why you chose the numbers you did,
Because they disagree, silly.
Quote:and what conclusion you would draw concerning your deity IF the were to be demonstrated to be true.
Relevance of such conjecture?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:45 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 04:16 PM)Vosur Wrote:  At least the last YEC we had here (Phil_GA) was intellectually honest in his debates. Dodgy
Please quote what you see as intellectual dishonesty.

Personally I think it's intellectually dishonest to make such an ambiguous charge of intellectual dishonesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:47 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
Revanant, in a comment with a negative reputation for me: Ducking questions shows the weakness of your position.

Ignoring the demonstrable facts shows the weakness of yours. It's not my fault that you made a claim which is so easily proven wrong and won't back away from it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: