2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2013, 12:40 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I do realize you need to deal in ONLY "simple" terms, but the fact is they generally agree, within their KNOWN ranges of KNOWN and stated uncertainty. In science there is always a +/_ range. They are consistent within those ranges. NONE of them agree with creationist crap, and the relatively stated ranges of uncertainty in no way devalues the methods. If YOU had cancer YOU would go have radiation therapy, which is built on rates of radiation decay. YOU are a hypocrite, (but probably too ignorant to even know it). The question is "what is the *same*". If you had an education, you might be able to address that. EXACTLY the same, is not how science works.
The chart shows conflicts beyond the uncertainty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
Since we're on topic I saw this today

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/04...?ir=Canada

But that's just the liberal, god hating, baby eating, welfare supporting, gay loving, anti christian media

“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
07-12-2013, 12:56 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:40 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 12:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I do realize you need to deal in ONLY "simple" terms, but the fact is they generally agree, within their KNOWN ranges of KNOWN and stated uncertainty. In science there is always a +/_ range. They are consistent within those ranges. NONE of them agree with creationist crap, and the relatively stated ranges of uncertainty in no way devalues the methods. If YOU had cancer YOU would go have radiation therapy, which is built on rates of radiation decay. YOU are a hypocrite, (but probably too ignorant to even know it). The question is "what is the *same*". If you had an education, you might be able to address that. EXACTLY the same, is not how science works.
The chart shows conflicts beyond the uncertainty.

It's irrelevant. Relatively small ones.
All dendrite and ice cores from EARTH rocks agree. It's a strawman you throw up as
1. you know nothing about how radiometrics work, and how to interpret it. Show me ONE peer reviewed article that says the methods are called into questin by your crap "differences'
2. Prove the "rocks" (which WAS your point) are of lunar origin.
3. Maybe Jebus can enlighten you.

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, 01:11 PM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 01:38 PM by Cathym112.)
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!

You understand what you just posted? You posted a link that correlates the estimates of our universe's age in proportion to the time in history in which those estimates were made.

What the graph does not depict, and should for a clearer picture, is the increase of science and technology that overlays the graph. Its not any wonder that the estimate for the age of the universe increased exponentially. It increased in proportion to technology and the invention of the high powered telescope.

You really think that bronze age scientists had a better grasp on the age of the universe than the scientists of today, with considerable more technology and advancement?

Are the doctors of the 19th and 18th century more accurate on how disease spreads, what causes cancer, than the doctors of today? No Doctors did not wash their hands until a published paper in 1843, suggesting that unclean hands were a contributor for "the Contagiousness of Perpetual Fever" for the New England Quarterly Journal for Medicine and Surgery. We learn more about DNA, genes, and cancer every day. What you are suggesting, that people back then knew more than the people of today is just ludicrous…...Huh

So really…what is your point here…To demonstrate the Perpetual cycle of Information? The cycle being the more information you know, the more technological advancement you have, which leads to gathering of even more information??Drinking Beverage


Edit: That paper written by Oliver Wendall Holmes, was considered - in 1843 - to be highly CONTROVERSIAL! Critics blasted him for suggesting, that a gentlemen's hands were unclean. So it would seem that you, like the critics of Holmes' time, are just having a little trouble admitting that you were wrong and resisting a change to once normally and acceptably held beliefs.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's irrelevant. Relatively small ones.
Keeping to those that include the uncertainty, 10017 has a low of 2.3 +/- .05 and a high of 3.8 +/- .3. That's over a billion years. That's not small.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 01:11 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(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!

You understand what you just posted? You posted a link that correlates the estimates of our universe's age in proportion to the time in history in which those estimates were made.

What the graph does not depict, and should for a clearer picture, is the increase of science and technology that overlays the graph. Its not any wonder that the estimate for the age of the universe increased exponentially. It increased in proportion to technology and the invention of the high powered telescope.

You really think that bronze age scientists had a better grasp on the age of the universe than the scientists of today, with considerable more technology and advancement?

Are the doctors of the 19th and 18th century more accurate on how disease spreads, what causes cancer, than the doctors of today? No Doctors did not wash their hands until a published paper in 1843, suggesting that unclean hands were a contributor for "the Contagiousness of Perpetual Fever" for the New England Quarterly Journal for Medicine and Surgery. We learn more about DNA, genes, and cancer every day. What you are suggesting, that people back then knew more than the people of today is just ludicrous…...Huh

So really…what is your point here…To demonstrate the Perpetual cycle of Information? The cycle being the more information you know, the more technological advancement you have, which leads to gathering of even more information??Drinking Beverage

What I found laughable in the graph is that the estimation of theologians of the age of the universe were plotted alongside the scientific ones and made to establish that time used to relatively fly as fast as a motherf***er!

“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
07-12-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 01:11 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So really…what is your point here…To demonstrate the Perpetual cycle of Information? The cycle being the more information you know, the more technological advancement you have, which leads to gathering of even more information??Drinking Beverage
My point has been quite clear - computers and other electrical things work regardless of the accepted age of the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
He's using the whole "science can't make up its mind" argument. Which is, of course, fallacious. Science is continually growing and seeking out errors or gaps in order to further our understanding. However YEC is content to throw diet on this while relying on its products. It would be more honest if they did so while squatting in caves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 01:22 PM)natachan Wrote:  He's using the whole "science can't make up its mind" argument. Which is, of course, fallacious.
It's not at all fallacious as a response to Revenant's claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 01:24 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 01:22 PM)natachan Wrote:  He's using the whole "science can't make up its mind" argument. Which is, of course, fallacious.
It's not at all fallacious as a response to Revenant's claim.

What was his claim again? (I must of missed it.)

Science isn't infallible alpha and I don't think anyone here is claiming that it is. Science is constantly changing as new information is brought forth from new methods and technology. To say that it is wrong because of this is however completely absurd.Drinking Beverage

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: