40% of Americans-earth 10K years old

[Full-Auto]

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.

umm no capitalization.

You might be on to something.

 

[del]

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.

nor disproven

 

[Sallow]

Then prove it.

I take it you're with the 10k crowd..

I take it you're an idiot.

That may be true..but I still got bucks.

Going to India..next year.

Have fun in your 10K year old world.

 

[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.

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.

no you didn't. you found one religion (and I'm sure there are others) that embraced science.

TM's statement was based on TIME. TM said "since" (a time descriptor) the beginning of religion science and religion have been at odds.

You showed one religion that embraced science. that didn't disprove that some religion at the beginning of religions or before the druids wasn't fighting science.

You've disproved nothing.

 

[uscitizen]

And "laws" are meant to be broken.
We were once certain that the earth was the center of the universe.
And that evil spirits and such caused illness and disease.
We will progress beyond where we are not and accepted fact will become fiction in the future.
Every generation seems to think they have it figured out.
Normal for the human species it seems.

 

[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.

no you didn't. you found one religion (and I'm sure there are others) that embraced science.

TM's statement was based on TIME. TM said "since" (a time descriptor) the beginning of religion science and religion have been at odds.

You showed one religion that embraced science. that didn't disprove that some religion at the beginning of religions or before the druids wasn't fighting science.

You've disproved nothing.

whatever, dude.

try the decaf

 

[Truthmatters]

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

Again you're relying on a flawed dating system.

Nope you are denying for reigious purposes the exisistance of the entire groupings of sceintific endevor which have proven the bibile is wrong.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

nor disproven

Neither can the great 3 toed goldfish of Beta Proxima 3.

 

[Vanquish]

Thanks for acknowledging. Back to your previously scheduled thread.

 

[Common Sense]

Radiocarbon dating is a reasonably reliable method for dating objects between 300 and 30,000 years old. However it is not 100% accurate, and there are many factors limiting its accuracy.
Samples can be contaminated by calcium carbonate (limestone) from groundwater, and humic acids from organic matter in soil. These must be removed by pre-treatment techniques before a sample is dated. Sometimes the level of 14C in a sample when it died, is not the same as the equilibrium level in the atmosphere. For example, marine samples show lower 14C levels, as some has decayed by the time it dissolves in the sea.
Also the level of 14C in the biosphere is not constant but has changed in the past, so it is necessary to calibrate radiocarbon dates to produce accurate results. This is done by comparing the dendrochronology (tree ring) and radiocarbon dates of wood samples from the bristlecone pine tree, which can live for more than 4000 years. As there is no carbon exchange between the rings, the 14C content of the centre of a tree will be less than the younger wood on the outside.
BBC - h2g2 - Radiocarbon Dating

much more reliable than a religious website.

also the premise of god will one day most likely be dis-proven with the discovery of the so called god particle.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/will-the-god-particle-rep_b_625751.html

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

You are dense, aren't you?
Gravity is a theory.
Now go test it to prove it wrong. Get on your roof and jump head first on to the concrete driveway.
Tell us if you believe in the theory of gravity.
Brother, that is how ALL science is tested by the scientific method.
You test, test, test, test, test to attempt to prove a theory WRONG.
Now tell us how you test religious beliefs. 'Splain that one.

 

[del]

but your god cannot be proven.

nor disproven

Neither can the great 3 toed goldfish of Beta Proxima 3.

of course it can.

goldfish don't have toes, silly.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Naw..it's still a theory..and still changing.

Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One becomes "stupid" when they close their mind and refuse to grow..

 

[Truthmatters]

Druid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is not enough information on the druids to make the claim that they embraced sceince and did not fight sceince

 

[goldcatt]

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

You do realize you're extrapolating predetermined conclusions from internet blogs whose business it is to push the young Earth theory on people and get them to donate, and the information they offer even in their own citations cherry picks sources between 15 and 18 years old?

Here's a little bit about how some of these things actually work, in case you're actually interested.

Carbon dating:
Carbon Dating

A Christian source on MODERN Carbon dating:
Radiocarbon Dating

And the difference between C-14 dating and other methods used, such as K-Ar, electron spin resonance and other forms of dating:

The Record of Time:* Chronometric Techniques: Part II

And to give you some idea of the kind of time frames these dating formulas work within, a basic rendition of the geologic time scale:

Geological Society of America - Geologic Time Scale

I understand there are still people who don't want to believe Earth is approximately 4.4 ba old and humans have been around for somewhere around 2.5 - 3 ma. But a lot of very rational people who believe can understand the 6,000 year figure supposedly from the Bible is based on a flawed and subjective cherry-picking method that relies on multiple outdated assumptions without it shaking their faith one iota.

 

[uscitizen]

nor disproven

Neither can the great 3 toed goldfish of Beta Proxima 3.

of course it can.

goldfish don't have toes, silly.

You obviously do not get out of your solar system much do you?

 

[del]

Druid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is not enough information on the druids to make the claim that they embraced sceince and did not fight sceince

keep telling yourself that; it seems to be very important to you to demonize those different from yourself.

sad

 

[Full-Auto]

Feel free to disprove the "theory" of gravity.

Its referred to as the law of gravity stupid.

You are dense, aren't you?
Gravity is a theory.
Now go test it to prove it wrong. Get on your roof and jump head first on to the concrete driveway.
Tell us if you believe in the theory of gravity.
Brother, that is how ALL science is tested by the scientific method.
You test, test, test, test, test to attempt to prove a theory WRONG.
Now tell us how you test religious beliefs. 'Splain that one.

There is a difference between theory and law.

Go back to your hole, that is taught in grade school, you should not have skipped class.

 

[Vanquish]

TM if that's all you're basing your opinion on ... you need to go do more research. The druids did embrace science...astronomy in particular...and learned a lot from the Pythagoreans.

 

[Truthmatters]

and christianity embraces airplane travel but are more than willing to piss on the sceince if it gets in the way of their holey scripture