2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 09:51 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 09:43 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 09:37 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Maybe, but YEC is the most intellectually dishonest position in the world. It falls apart with any inspection, every field in science refutes it because they all depend on something that requires the universe to be older than 6000 years. I'm not even talking about evolution, I understand how someone who has been lied to about what evolution is can think it is faulty, I'm talking about Nuclear Physics, Electricity requires an old universe to function the way it does. The computer he is sitting at requires a 13.798±0.037 billion years year old universe to function correctly because of the base theories that were followed to make it work. It has no legs and in this day and age with google right there it is inexcusable to be spouting that level of hypocritical bullshit.

Oh, I agree, but there's a difference between trolling yourself (so to speak) and trolling others. Christianity has a lot of defense mechanisms built into it. If you fail to penetrate even one of them, you will not break free. I know. It took me years.

This is my one thing. Everybody has something that just drives them up the wall and this is mine. How can you live in the world today with cellphones and spaceships and a fucking robot on mars and say "Scientists, yeah, what do they know?" and I will call an idiot an idiot. However you might be right about him trolling himself, which is why I gave him the challenge if he is a reg YEC he will jump at the chance to link some disproven study by some creationist think tank, if however he is just a troll he will ignore that post as he did the part of my post earlier that shredded YEC.

(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
07-12-2013, 12:24 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 07:23 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Ok? I did, I fail to see your point.
The point is that radiometric dating gives inconsistent results and is manipulated to give answers consistent with the presumed ages of fossils.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
How do you manipulate the half life of an element? I have some nuclear engineers who would like to know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:27 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 07:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All the dating systems, (dendritic, ice cores, geological), all the forms of radiometric dating, and every other dating system produces generally the same dates. The probability they could all , independently, be wrong, and still produce the same wrong dates, is zero.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ght?page=9 (see post 83).
YECism is simply ignorant bullshit, which NO reputable scientist entertains for 2 seconds.
Check out dating of the moon rocks. The methods did not all produce generally the same dates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:37 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 08:35 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Oh for crying out loud...

Carbon dating is best and highly accurate for shorter time frames which is why YECs derp about it not being accurate for longer period of times... but then there's... ummm... some uranium one that's extremely accurate for up to 2M years for larger time frame, sec... let me look...
How do you know that the uranium one is extremely accurate?
Quote:Wait... no. YOU LOOK. You look it up. I'm not getting into a battle of ignorance over this again. There are globs and globs of evidence and actual scientific journals and studies on this. Everywhere. The fact that this is even still a "debate" is mind boggling. It's a real as gravity.
If you're tired of the debate and want to stay out of it, then you should actually stay out of it. Your posts come across as empty posturing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:38 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
[Image: 554e05dc9a89557462440582baa68a49_zps9a548479.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Smercury44's post
07-12-2013, 12:40 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 08:52 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Name 1 branch of science that would not have to be fundamentally wrong in things that for them to be wrong about would make consistent results impossible if science is off on the age of the universe by as much as it would have to be for the universe to be 6000 years old.. Just 1 branch and I will consider remove the fundie troll label.
Someone could publish a paper radically changing the age of the universe tomorrow and my computer would keep working. I'm pretty sure there's some science behind computers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:43 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 09:09 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  We're taught evolution teaches circular reasoning: how do you date dinosaur bones? By looking at the rocks. How do you date the rocks? By looking at the dinosaur bones.
Look at the history of KNM-ER 1470. That's exactly what happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:50 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:27 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 07:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All the dating systems, (dendritic, ice cores, geological), all the forms of radiometric dating, and every other dating system produces generally the same dates. The probability they could all , independently, be wrong, and still produce the same wrong dates, is zero.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ght?page=9 (see post 83).
YECism is simply ignorant bullshit, which NO reputable scientist entertains for 2 seconds.
Check out dating of the moon rocks. The methods did not all produce generally the same dates.

They were all billions of years old. Who knows where they were from. Moon "geology" is hardly precise. It sure as hell is not 6000 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
What EXACTLY is your science education, and where did you get it ?

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
07-12-2013, 03:02 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 03:07 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
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. 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.

Time is relative and right now the universe is 6000 years old in a particular frame of reference.

Sorry....couldn't resist the nit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: