2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2013, 03:49 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(06-12-2013 09:37 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 09:26 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I don't think alpha is trolling. In all honestly, back when I was still Christian yet believed in science, I didn't know where to place my belief when I would hear two different people fervently claiming contradictory things.

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.

Well, a young earth creationist might say that believing in the God of the Bible and accepting evolution by natural selection, among other things, is an intellectually dishonest position, too.

And she would not be completely wrong.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes viole's post
07-12-2013, 05:11 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(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.

I see so you can't name a single branch then oh and no the age of the universe is pretty much locked in at this point. So troll boy care to answer the question?

(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, 06:01 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 ?
Here's a chart showing various ages of moon rocks.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/ages.htm
Note the Sources tab at the bottom if you're interested. Also note the sample number in the first column. There is significant variance within samples using different methods.

As atheists say regarding gods: They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.

The moon rocks being somewhat unique were tested by a number of methods. That's typically not the case. One of the hallmarks of science is that it's supposed to methodically remove human bias. However, with radiometric dating, the researcher sends his expected findings to the lab along with the samples. It should be that samples come into the lab blind and are tested by number of methods with different half-lives - if you wanted to remove bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 06:07 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 05:11 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 12:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  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.

I see so you can't name a single branch then oh and no the age of the universe is pretty much locked in at this point. So troll boy care to answer the question?
Computer science and electrical engineering are obvious from my reply. I took your advice and used google to search "electrical engineering and the age of the universe" and here's the first hit:
http://marvel.com/universe/Iron_Man_(Anthony_Stark)
Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 06:15 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
@Revanant
This page shows how the age of the universe has changed over time. Note particularly the 1900s. Light bulbs continued to work despite the changes!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 09:29 AM
Wink RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 06:15 AM)alpha male Wrote:  @Revanant
This page shows how the age of the universe has changed over time. Note particularly the 1900s. Light bulbs continued to work despite the changes!

My age is changing over time, too. Unfortunately.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes viole's post
07-12-2013, 09:41 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:27 AM)natachan Wrote:  How do you manipulate the half life of an element? I have some nuclear engineers who would like to know.
There are other factors involved in radiometric dating besides the half-life of an element.

That said, it appears that neutrinos may affect decay rate.

Let there be light...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 09:52 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 06:07 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 05:11 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I see so you can't name a single branch then oh and no the age of the universe is pretty much locked in at this point. So troll boy care to answer the question?
Computer science and electrical engineering are obvious from my reply. I took your advice and used google to search "electrical engineering and the age of the universe" and here's the first hit:
http://marvel.com/universe/Iron_Man_(Anthony_Stark)
Smile

I love it when they take the bait. So you may not just be trolling, though the jury is still out on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotop..._generator

Oh look atomic decay is used to produce electricity... but atomic decay is how we determined the age of the universe so if it was wrong then this should not work... Roh-roh Shaggy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_...nductivity

Here is something that is nuts and blots for any electrical engineering, Electrical resistivity and conductivity. Can't make use of the juice unless you can control how it flows. Oh and would you look at that...

Quote:Band theory simplified

Quantum mechanics states that electrons in an atom cannot take on any arbitrary energy value. Rather, there are fixed energy levels which the electrons can occupy, and values in between these levels are impossible. When a large number of such allowed energy levels are spaced close together (in energy-space) i.e. have similar (minutely differing energies) then we can talk about these energy levels together as an "energy band". There can be many such energy bands in a material, depending on the atomic number (number of electrons) and their distribution (besides external factors like environment modifying the energy bands). Two such bands important in the discussion of conductivity of materials are: the valence band and the conduction band (the latter is generally above the former)[citation needed]. Electrons in the conduction band may move freely throughout the material in the presence of an electrical field.
In insulators and semiconductors, the atoms in the substance influence each other so that between the valence band and the conduction band there exists a forbidden band of energy levels, which the electrons cannot occupy. In order for a current to flow, a relatively large amount of energy must be furnished to an electron for it to leap across this forbidden gap and into the conduction band. Thus, even large voltages can yield relatively small currents.

I know what you are thinking but that has nothing to do with the age of the earth, haha silly creationist you don't get how deep the rabbit hole I tricked you into is. You see it is not just the age of the universe that we would have to be wrong about it is all of our constants and all of the derivatives from said constants. E=MC2 relies on C the constant of the speed of light and the basis for Quantum Mechanics relies on constants that would have to be so wrong as to be unusable, but Quantum is used all the time in the manufacture of computers. The disc drives use quantum mechanics in their readers (as do super market scanners) If the constants that QM were based on were so faulty to allow them to mistake a 6000 year old universe for one that is 13.798±0.037 billion years then they should never be able to give consistent results. But they do give consistent results, they are in fact the most consistent way of measuring. So your computer that you are using to make a fool of yourself would not function correctly if science was that wrong about the age of the universe.

Thank you and Goodnight.

(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
07-12-2013, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 10:33 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 06:01 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 12:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 ?
Here's a chart showing various ages of moon rocks.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/ages.htm
Note the Sources tab at the bottom if you're interested. Also note the sample number in the first column. There is significant variance within samples using different methods.

As atheists say regarding gods: They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.

The moon rocks being somewhat unique were tested by a number of methods. That's typically not the case. One of the hallmarks of science is that it's supposed to methodically remove human bias. However, with radiometric dating, the researcher sends his expected findings to the lab along with the samples. It should be that samples come into the lab blind and are tested by number of methods with different half-lives - if you wanted to remove bias.

And if you knew ANYTHING about astronomy, you would know that the moon was CONSTANTLY bombarded by asteroids, and "moon rock" could be ANYTHING from ANYWHERE. What has this to do AT ALL with EARTH dates. Now all ya gotta do is tell us EXACTLY what the composition of the rocks are.
You forgot to include the "source tab" and I hope you saw the bottom of the page, Ages in the range 4.3 to 4.56 billion years are shown in green.

I repeat. What is your science education ?




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, 10:38 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And if you knew ANYTHING about astronomy, you would know that the moon was CONSTANTLY bombarded by asteroids, and "moon rock" could be ANYTHING from ANYWHERE.
Yes, that's why I specifically pointed out that the samples are identified in the chart I gave, and ages vary for the same sample when dated by different methods.
Quote:What has this to do AT ALL with EARTH dates. Now all ya gotta do is tell us EXACTLY what the composition of the rocks are.
You forgot to include the "source tab"
It's there when I click on the link.
Quote:and I hope you saw the bottom of the page, Ages in the range 4.3 to 4.56 billion years are shown in green.
I sure did - the point is how few measurements fall near the accepted age of the moon. See all the figures in white?
Quote:I repeat. What is your science education ?
Not much - 3 semesters of physics and 1 of chemistry, not that I see that it matters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: