40% of Americans-earth 10K years old

[Vanquish]

Aaaand scene.

 

[Truthmatters]

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Oh here it is.

Pissing on sceince is what you have to do to try and win over converts

 

[Gadawg73]

Note facts make them run away

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

No, not even close.
Religion is based on beliefs.
I believe in God. Now prove me wrong. No one can prove me wrong.
My neighbor, the most Christlike person I know, is an atheist.
No one can prove him wrong.
Theories are tested and can be proven wrong.
Ever heard of the scientific method?
How does that work?

 

[Truthmatters]

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[Common Sense]

Those polled must have gone to the Creation Muesusm in KY.
there is talk of making it into a theme park.

i think they were trying to get govt money to help build the park too.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

STONE AGE MAN

In order to know how old something is you need to have a known sample to make a comparison. Every dating system has it's flaws, therefore cannot be considered accurate.


When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain “bad” dates.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[1] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[2] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans “weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of “good” from “bad” results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being “that old.” A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies “confirmed” this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a “fact.” So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly “objective scientists” in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the “age” is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God's admonition to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.[3] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[4] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few “good” dates left after the “bad” dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.


1.G. WoldeGabriel et al., “Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,” Nature, 1994, 371:330-333.

2.M. Lubenow, “The Pigs Took It All,” Creation, 1995, 17(3):36-38.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 247-266.

3.A.R. Williams, “Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility,” CEN Technical Journal, 1992, 6(1):2-5.

4.Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.

Wheres your link????

Take your pick.

Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric dating methods. creation evolution young earth evidence old earth bible

DATING OF TIME IN EVOLUTION

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Oh here it is.

Pissing on sceince is what you have to do to try and win over converts

Not pissing on anything, just providing the facts.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Again you're relying on a flawed dating system.

 

[del]

Nope, religion has fought science all its exsistance

the druids laugh at you

 

[Vanquish]

while you are right that the Druids did partake in science (most notably astronomy, of course), TM hasn't been disproven until you show that there wasn't a religion BEFORE druidism that didn't fight science or that it wasn't happening concurrently with the Druids.

 

[uscitizen]

Didn't Capernicus have to recant or go to psison or die over his observation that the earth is not the center of the known universe?

 

[RDD_1210]

Note facts make them run away

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

Except one can be tested and the other is just taken as fact by the simple-minded.

 

[Full-Auto]

Note facts make them run away

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

Sort of but not really.

Science = theory that you can live to demonstrate over and over and over
Religion = you only get to find out if you're right after you die (perhaps)

LOL Please show one theory that can be demonstrated over and over.

My god If it can be proven, it is law not theory.

 

[del]

while you are right that the Druids did partake in science (most notably astronomy, of course), TM hasn't been disproven until you show that there wasn't a religion BEFORE druidism that didn't fight science or that it wasn't happening concurrently with the Druids.

um, no. she made a blanket statement, and i disproved it.

i have no real interest in what others believe or don't believe; i just enjoy the panoramic scope of TM's ignorance.

darwin was a unitarian, btw.

 

[del]

Didn't Capernicus have to recant or go to psison or die over his observation that the earth is not the center of the known universe?

galileo did as well.

 

[Sallow]

Note facts make them run away

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

Feel free to disprove the "theory" of gravity.

 

[Vanquish]

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

Sort of but not really.

Science = theory that you can live to demonstrate over and over and over
Religion = you only get to find out if you're right after you die (perhaps)

LOL Please show one theory that can be demonstrated over and over.

My god If it can be proven, it is law not theory.

A theory can be demonstrated. If it can be demonstrated once, often times it can be demonstrated again.

Even laws are based on belief though. Just because you repeat it, doesnt mean you have the underlying principles correct.

Religion is a lot more circumspect than science. Just admit that and we'll all be fine.
In fact, you shouldn't be fighting it...you should be embracing it. Faith and the love of faith is a Christian tenet.

 

[Full-Auto]

Note facts make them run away

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

Feel free to disprove the "theory" of gravity.

Its referred to as the law of gravity stupid.

 

[uscitizen]

science and religion are two peas in a pod. Both rely on theories.

Sort of but not really.

Science = theory that you can live to demonstrate over and over and over
Religion = you only get to find out if you're right after you die (perhaps)

LOL Please show one theory that can be demonstrated over and over.

My god If it can be proven, it is law not theory.

but your god cannot be proven.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just received a message from "Pale Rider" on this thread with his religous message of the day:

"Fuck off Shit Face"