2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 09:52 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.
I don't recall disputing that radioactive material can produce heat.
Quote: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...
And as already noted, we were making use of the juice under different accepted ages, and if the accepted age changes tomorrow, the juice will still flow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 10:45 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 10:49 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 10:38 AM)alpha male Wrote:  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.

So no Physics, and no Evolutionary Biology, no Geology, no Volcanology, no oceanography. I see. But I bet you have a LOT of "Bible study". Right ?
There is no "link".
The POINT is the rocks are necessarily of MOON origin. If there are rocks laying around the moon, they CAME from somewhere. Considering the bombardment, take one guess where they MIGHT have come from. Weeping. It's an irrelavant point, UNLESS you can demonstrate they have lunar origin.
It's bullshit. What does it prove ? Nothing. Show me evidence that KNOWN things from EARTH origin show different dates.

"And as already noted, we were making use of the juice under different accepted ages, and if the accepted age changes tomorrow, the juice will still flow."
That's right. That's the way science works. It's not a "theology", where "ultimate truth" is claimed, by anal retentives who NEED to do that, as they NEED their Bible-vailum, or they can't sleep.

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, 10:59 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 10:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 09:52 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.
I don't recall disputing that radioactive material can produce heat.
Quote: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...
And as already noted, we were making use of the juice under different accepted ages, and if the accepted age changes tomorrow, the juice will still flow.

I see, so your response is "Nuh-uh" and that is all. Tell ya what why don't you go ahead and really look at all that and get back to me when you can make an actual argument. The interconnectivity of Science is indisputable when you reject whole sale the majority of it as false then none of it can work or you are wrong. Now which is more likely, please answer that on your computer (or tablet or cell phone) in your home with HVAC and electricity. Really think for a moment and maybe even give a chance that your assumptions are incorrect because I have entertained alternate explanations but they tend to fall apart under the weight of their own bullshit.

(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, 11:08 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 10:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So no Physics,
Three undergrad semesters. It's not much, but it's something.
Quote:and no Evolutionary Biology, no Geology, no Volcanology, no oceanography. I see. But I bet you have a LOT of "Bible study". Right ?
No, I never had a Bible Study class.
Quote:There is no "link".
The POINT is the rocks are necessarily of MOON origin. If there are rocks laying around the moon, they CAME from somewhere. Considering the bombardment, take one guess where they MIGHT have come from. Weeping. It's an irrelavant point, UNLESS you can demonstrate they have lunar origin.
It's bullshit. What does it prove ? Nothing. Show me evidence that KNOWN things from EARTH origin show different dates.
It shows that - let me say it slowly, as you've ignored it twice - different...methods...used...on...THE...SAME...SAMPLE...yield...different...resu​lts.
Quote:"And as already noted, we were making use of the juice under different accepted ages, and if the accepted age changes tomorrow, the juice will still flow."
That's right. That's the way science works. It's not a "theology", where "ultimate truth" is claimed, by anal retentives who NEED to do that, as they NEED their Bible-vailum, or they can't sleep.
Actually Revenant seems to be doing just that, somehow claiming that all science and technology are dependent on a certain age of the universe, despite the fact that that's demonstrably false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 10:59 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I see, so your response is "Nuh-uh" and that is all.
No, my response is that your claim is demonstrably false. Electricity and computers were here and functioning before the current accepted age of the universe was accepted.

Interestingly, the moon rock data I linked to is from an anti-evolution website run by an electrical engineer who's been published in journals. Somehow the stuff he makes still works!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
He's not saying that. He's saying that in order for your computer to work (and every other technology) certain fundamental things must be true that if true would prevent YEC from being true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 10:38 AM)alpha male Wrote:  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.

"Different results, BUT taking into account the stated uncertainty range, they are VERY VERY OLD. get it. There is NO comment on the ORIGINS of the rocks. "Falling near the accepted range of the moon" is irrelevant, unless you can prove ORIGIN.

I see you have no Biblical education. No wonder you buy into that shit. If you actually KNEW how HUMANS cooked it up, you probably wouldn't.

What Revenant seems to be doing, to you, is also irrelevant.
Maybe you should ask the mods to change your name to either "Alpha Red Herring", or "Alpha Strawman".

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, 11:24 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(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.

What debate? A question is asked, and then you ask another question instead of answering.

It's a dishonest tactic.

Instead of saying, "How do we know it's accurate?"

Why don't you provide evidence to your claim instead of using dishonest, fallacious tactics?

Go ahead, try and disprove some of the greatest scientific minds on the planet which also include Christians.

I would love to see your 3 undergraduate semesters go against Francis Collins, Robert Bakker, or Alister McGrath. You're parroting Hamsmammich who barely has more science education than you. But, you're using his dishonest tactics like a pro.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
07-12-2013, 11:42 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 11:11 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 10:59 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I see, so your response is "Nuh-uh" and that is all.
No, my response is that your claim is demonstrably false. Electricity and computers were here and functioning before the current accepted age of the universe was accepted.

Interestingly, the moon rock data I linked to is from an anti-evolution website run by an electrical engineer who's been published in journals. Somehow the stuff he makes still works!

Then demonstrate it. He utilizes theorems and mathematics that disprove his stupid creationist anti-evolutionary conspiracy theories yet still makes his living from them. Yeah that's my point man you can stick your head in the sand and cry but the truth is still the truth and all the facts say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years, all of science is based on the foundational principles of a consistent testable universe and all the test say that you are deluding yourself.

But if you want to go off an be stupid that is your problem, and yes you have crossed the line from ignorance to stupidity, just don't expect anyone to take anything you have to say seriously.

(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, 11:43 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
I don't know if debating with a YEC about dating is even productive. For all we know they might concede in the future that the methods used to date rocks, fossils, etc are accurate, but god just like he created adults in the garden can create an 'adult' planet with 'adult' fosils and rocks layered in it.
Even if you back a YEC into a corner, a magical door opens behind them and it's another argument all over again...

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: