2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 03:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Robby, which is why I usually ask them to explain RMD but not carbon dating since it's not the most accurate.
How do you know which is the most accurate?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 03:52 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 03:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Robby, which is why I usually ask them to explain RMD but not carbon dating since it's not the most accurate.
How do you know which is the most accurate?

Thus proving my point.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 04:42 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 04:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 03:52 PM)alpha male Wrote:  How do you know which is the most accurate?

Thus proving my point.

They really walk right into it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
06-12-2013, 05:06 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 04:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 03:52 PM)alpha male Wrote:  How do you know which is the most accurate?

Thus proving my point.
If that's the best you can communicate your point, it's no surprise we YECs are still around. From here, it seems like you screwed up and are now avoiding it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 05:14 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 05:06 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 04:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Thus proving my point.
If that's the best you can communicate your point, it's no surprise we YECs are still around. From here, it seems like you screwed up and are now avoiding it.

Google is your friend bro. We are not responsible for your lack of education, if you don't know all the different radiometric dating techniques and how they can tell which are more accurate than others go to http://www.google.com go ahead and put that in your favorite menue you will find it is very helpful. The fact that you are trying to claim all of science is wrong and yet you just demonstrated that you lack even a laymans comprehension of dating techniques is why we are all laughing at you, atheists, other christians, buddhists, wiccans, anyone else with a brain. The fact that you value your ignorance as something more valuable than real testable and provable information is really your issue. BTW why in the fuck are you using a computer on the internet didn't you know this was invented by a gay atheist and now you caught it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Revenant77x's post
06-12-2013, 05:28 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 05:14 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Google is your friend bro. We are not responsible for your lack of education, if you don't know all the different radiometric dating techniques and how they can tell which are more accurate than others go to http://www.google.com go ahead and put that in your favorite menue you will find it is very helpful.
Copout, plain and simple.
Quote:The fact that you are trying to claim all of science is wrong
Exaggerate much?
Quote:and yet you just demonstrated that you lack even a laymans comprehension of dating techniques is why we are all laughing at you, atheists, other christians, buddhists, wiccans, anyone else with a brain.
I have a decent understanding of dating techniques. Radiocarbon dating differs from others in that C14 is continually produced in the upper atmosphere. It therefore can be affected by outside factors. OTOH, since it has a relatively short half-life, it can be calibrated against historical records to some extent. I've never heard anyone claim that it is categorically better or worse than other methods.
Quote:The fact that you value your ignorance as something more valuable than real testable and provable information is really your issue.
Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about you guys right now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 05:28 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 05:14 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Google is your friend bro. We are not responsible for your lack of education, if you don't know all the different radiometric dating techniques and how they can tell which are more accurate than others go to http://www.google.com go ahead and put that in your favorite menue you will find it is very helpful.
Copout, plain and simple.
Quote:The fact that you are trying to claim all of science is wrong
Exaggerate much?
Quote:and yet you just demonstrated that you lack even a laymans comprehension of dating techniques is why we are all laughing at you, atheists, other christians, buddhists, wiccans, anyone else with a brain.
I have a decent understanding of dating techniques. Radiocarbon dating differs from others in that C14 is continually produced in the upper atmosphere. It therefore can be affected by outside factors. OTOH, since it has a relatively short half-life, it can be calibrated against historical records to some extent. I've never heard anyone claim that it is categorically better or worse than other methods.
Quote:The fact that you value your ignorance as something more valuable than real testable and provable information is really your issue.
Funny, I'm thinking the same thing about you guys right now.

Sorry bro but for the Universe to be 6000 years old everything in modern science has to be wrong. Sticking your head in the sand is stupid and I'm not going to coddle someone too arrogant to admit that they could be wrong.

Lets take 1 example Dogs. Dogs are roughly 18,000 years old that is when they first appear as separate from European wolves (all dogs trace back to european wolves) so the Dog is three times the age that YEC's claim the universe is. This is not speculation this is just fact, whether or not you want it to be true does not change how it is. Young Earth is an untenable assumption, it does not work, it has never worked.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/wh...d862c.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...111313.php

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
06-12-2013, 06:52 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
The issue with YEC's will always be that they start with a theological assertion and will only listen to 'science' that supports it. Take away the theological assertion and you have ears and eyes opened to actual science.

“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
[+] 2 users Like djkamilo's post
06-12-2013, 06:54 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 06:11 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Sorry bro but for the Universe to be 6000 years old everything in modern science has to be wrong.
No, there are plenty of areas of science that do not depend on the age of the universe.
Quote:Sticking your head in the sand is stupid and I'm not going to coddle someone too arrogant to admit that they could be wrong.
I never refused to admit that I could be wrong. You're projecting your own arrogance, and it's unfounded. So far you're nothing but hot air and false bravado. That may play on an atheist forum where you're in the majority, but it's no wonder you're not good at convincing skeptics in other environments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 06:52 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  The issue with YEC's will always be that they start with a theological assertion and will only listen to 'science' that supports it. Take away the theological assertion and you have ears and eyes opened to actual science.
Read up on the dating of KNM-ER 1470 and the KBS tuff. Scientists started with an evolutionary assertion and only accepted the 'science' that supported it. That's not a theist or atheist trait, it's a human trait.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: